The post you are reporting:
Je m'appelle Miel Stuart mais je ne peux pas acceder ce forum comme ca!
I tend to keep away from this subject because it gets some people so steamed up they even become violent as well as irrational. I'll give you an indication of what my friends and former colleagues in Calais say when the subject comes up.
There is a worldwide refugee problem incurred to a large extent by either climate change or aggressive intervention and hence forceable displacement by other countries (e.g Eritrea, Afghanistan, Iraq etc). Many have sought Europe as refuge but the UK is only a small destination of choice. Recent figures are approx. 38,000 UK, 162,000 Germany, 110,000 France. Greece has also been a major ingress country due to the much more frequently used routes across the Med. I checked this out further on a Cabinet Office briefing paper dated March 17th this year and it transpires that in 2019 we received 5 asylum applications per 10,000 residents as opposed to 14 per 10,000 across the EU.
France, like the UK, is a signatory to the 1951 UN convention. No country has ever abandoned its commitment to that convention (which is estimated to have saved millions of lives) but, of course, we are free to do so if we so wish. Miss Patel has that option. Perhaps we should petition her instead of moaning about the French. We are therefore obliged to consider every case presented to us. Under the convention there is no such thing as an illegal or bogus asylum seeker. Under international law, anyone has the right to apply for asylum in any country that has signed the 1951 Convention and to remain there until the authorities have assessed their claim. It is recognised in the 1951 Convention that people fleeing persecution may have to use irregular means in order to escape and claim asylum in another country – there is no legal way to travel to the UK for the specific purpose of seeking asylum. Finally, the 1951 Refugee Convention guarantees everybody the right to apply for asylum. There are no national restrictions.
As to crime prevention, they say that they are equally committed to ending the scourge of people trafficking as the UK is. However they point out that, like us, resources are limited. Every asylum seeker has the right to apply for refuge in France but if they chose not to, then what are they expected to do? They also reinforce the Cap'n's point that the only domestic law they are breaking is an ancient one involving taking to French territorial waters in an unsafe craft!
For intervention at sea, the convention means that once in UK waters they are our responsibility. There is no legal means by which we could send them back. Political asylum applies to those with a genuine fear of persecution which, once claimed, we are obliged to consider. Non-refoulement is a different matter. It is well known that some asylum seekers have refused to be returned to France when intercepted and have threatened to throw themselves into the 'oggin. Here, they will say that all countries have a separate legal obligation to save lives at sea as an absolute maritime priority. Whilst the majority do return to France when instructed to do so, there are occasions when the French costguards feel they have to escort them to a place of greater safety.
Coverage in the French press tends to reflect the above. They regard our government as misleading its population in terms of what is practical and achievable in the face of a worldwide refugee crisis.
Largely I tend to agree with most of the above in factual terms. That's why I found the sainted Natalie's pandering to the local populace on this matter rather nauseous. On a very personal note, the orthopeadic surgeon who fixed my smashed up left leg last autumn was an Iranian asylum seeker a long time ago so I tend not to be too judgmental.