English Channel - A political/migration question

[redneckrob]

Originally Posted by RaymondR

That's a nonsensical example. If that was the case thousands of professional seamen on commercial vessels would be considered law breakers. The vessels are not considered to be national territory by the receiving country until importation processes have been completed.

States have numerous other reasons for border control than just immigration control and people attempting to bypass the normal "gateways" for entry put all their precautions at risk.

Professional seamen on commercial vessels all haver crewmember visas for any country their vessel enters, not tourist visas. I know that delivery captains/crews being paid for conducting deliveries by and large do not. How is that "nonsensical", exactly?

[redneckrob]

Originally Posted by boatman61

So.. are you saying these guys in the dinghies are under contract to the people smugglers as skipper and crew to deliver dinghies to Dover from Calais.???
That puts a whole different light on things..

If what we (Delivery Skippers) are doing is illegal, seeing as we are required to only clear in at named ports and follow all the C & I proceedures, produce all the ships papers etc.. and are permitted to return to said countries time and again without being arrested/deported shows we are following the correct proceedure.. furthermore we are transients and not looking to settle, makes a big difference.

When you clear in, do you tell the customs agent that you're a commercial captain being paid to do the work of captaining the vessel in the country's waters? Do most delivery captains? Generally the fact that you get away with breaking a rule does not make the rule go away, if that was the case then speeding laws ceased to exist for me 20 years ago

It is interesting, however, that you've shifted the goalposts from calling anyone who has broken an immigration/customs law an "illegal" to now as long as you're contracted by a rich guy to deliver a boat you're not an "illegal" even if you're breaking the same laws as the poor African in the rubber dinghy? Or as long as you're just breaking the law as a transient? For someone who insisted that the term is not pejorative and only descriptive, you sure don't seem to like it when it's applied to you?

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by redneckrob

Why is it not considered working in the country if you are in the country doing a job for which you're being paid? And do you honestly obtain a business visa for every country you deliver to, or stop at on your delivery? If so, you're an exception in the delivery industry.

Never heard the expression 'In Transit'..?
Now if I stayed in say Nuku Hiva for a month and got a job tending bar then I'm working illegally, but going ashore to restock on food and water while at anchor and not getting paid by a native all is cool.
Do you honestly think I could go in and out of one of the most paranoid countries in the world repeatedly without getting busted for working in by stating 'Here to collect a boat for delivery to Spain'..
I don't make the rules, I just stay within them.
Google Countries a UK Passport may enter without a Visa..

British Passport Visa Free Countries ���� (June 2021)
https://visafreecountries.com/british-passport
01/04/2021 · The citizens of United Kingdom can visit 136 countries without a visa ✅. British passport holders also have access to get 32 e-visas or 21 visas on arrival

[Montanan]

Geez, a delivery captain is very much like a commercial truck driver crossing the border for transport of commerce. The good they are importing is the vessel. How is this not a straight forward concept. They arrive with visa in hand, report and clear customs and immigration. It is not illegal to be a truck driver or a boat delivery captain.

How Do I Enter the United States as a Commercial Truck Driver?

Temporary Visitors for Business
Immigration regulations and policies have long held that alien truck drivers may qualify for admission as B-1 visitors for business to pick up or deliver cargo traveling in the stream of international commerce.

Truck drivers must meet the general entry requirements as a visitor for business (B-1 classification) set forth in section 101(a)(15)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (INA) and the Department of State regulations. To qualify as a bona fide visitor for business, the driver must:

Have a residence in a foreign country which he or she has no intention of abandoning
Intend to depart the United States at the end of the authorized period of temporary admission
Have adequate financial means to carry out the purpose of the visit to and departure from the United States
Establish that he or she is not inadmissible to the United States under the provisions of section 212(a) of the INA, which includes such grounds of inadmissibility as health related, criminal, subversive, public charge, improper manner of arrival or improper documents, other immigration violations and several other categories of ineligibility.

Documentary Requirements
Canadian citizens entering the United States as visitors for business do not require either a passport or a visa. However, each applicant for admission is required to satisfy the inspecting officer of his or her citizenship. An oral declaration may be accepted or the inspecting officer may require supporting documentation, for example, a birth certificate, certificate of citizenship or a passport (valid or expired). In addition, all travelers should carry some form of photo-identification.

Mexican citizens entering the United States as visitors for business are required to present a valid passport and non-immigrant visa. These requirements may be satisfied in one of two ways:

A valid Mexican passport containing a valid B-1/B-2 non-immigrant visa obtained at a United States Consulate. Consulates in Mexico also issue a combination B-1/B-2 visa and Mexican Border Crossing Card that serves the same purpose.

Form DSP-150, "Laser Visa", a credit-card style document that is both a Border Crossing Card and a B1/B2 visitor's visa obtained by applying at a United States Consular post in Mexico. The Laser Visa may be obtained by applying at one of the following U.S. Consular posts in Mexico: Mexico City, Ciudad Juarez, Guadalajara, Hermosillo, Merida, Matamoros, Monterrey, Nogales, Nuevo Laredo, Tijuana, and at the Tijuana and Mexicali Temporary Processing Facilities. In Mexico, visa information is available by calling 01-900-849-3737 or on the U.S. Embassy Internet home page.

What Does the Law Say? Immigration Regulations

Immigration regulations at 8 CFR 214.2(b)(4) codify the provisions of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) with respect to the admission of Canadian and Mexican citizens as B-1 business visitors. The intent of the Transportation Operator provision of the NAFTA Business Visitor category is to allow the free movement of goods across the border, an activity that is international in scope; it is not to facilitate access to the domestic labor market. 8 CFR 214.2(b)(4)(i)(E) defines the distribution activity as:

Transportation operators transporting goods or passengers
to the United States from the territory of another Party
or loading and transporting goods or passengers from the
United States to the territory of another Party, with no
unloading in the United States. (These operators may make
deliveries in the United States if all goods or passengers
to be delivered were loaded in the territory of another
Party. Furthermore, they may load from locations in the
United States if all goods or passengers to be loaded will
be delivered in the territory of another Party. Purely
domestic service or solicitation, in competition with
United States operators, is not permitted.)

General Principles

The goods must be entering or leaving the United States, and remain in the stream of international commerce. As BoatCaptain has stated the foreign national delivery captain must not engage in domestic commerce.
Cargo that has its origin and final destination within the United States generally moves in the stream of domestic, rather that international commerce. The mere fact that goods originate from a foreign source does not make such goods "foreign" for purposes of immigration laws. The goods must remain in the international stream of commerce - once they have come to rest they assume a domestic character.
A driver bringing goods from Canada or Mexico may transport those goods to one or several locations in the United States, and may pick up goods from one or several U.S. locations for delivery to Canada or Mexico, but the driver may not load, haul, or deliver a cargo that is both picked up and dropped off at a destination within the United States.

The entry of the driver must be for the purpose of an international movement of goods.
Drivers may not engage in any activity that qualifies as local labor for hire.
The burden of proof remains with the driver to establish eligibility for entry.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by redneckrob

When you clear in, do you tell the customs agent that you're a commercial captain being paid to do the work of captaining the vessel in the country's waters? Do most delivery captains? Generally the fact that you get away with breaking a rule does not make the rule go away, if that was the case then speeding laws ceased to exist for me 20 years ago

It is interesting, however, that you've shifted the goalposts from calling anyone who has broken an immigration/customs law an "illegal" to now as long as you're contracted by a rich guy to deliver a boat you're not an "illegal" even if you're breaking the same laws as the poor African in the rubber dinghy? Or as long as you're just breaking the law as a transient? For someone who insisted that the term is not pejorative and only descriptive, you sure don't seem to like it when it's applied to you?

Getting kinda desperate here are we not..
Amongst the Ships Papers I present at each 'Official Port' I clear into I present a Copy of the Bill of Sale, Registration, Insurance and a signed letter from the owner authorising me as skipper and acting on his behalf along with my Contract of Employment, also signed by the owner of the vessel. That prevents me getting busted for stealing the boat.
I am not looking to settle and I have not destroyed all my documents..
I Repeat..

[redneckrob]

Originally Posted by boatman61

Getting kinda desperate here are we not..
Amongst the Ships Papers I present at each 'Official Port' I clear into I present a Copy of the Bill of Sale, Registration, Insurance and a signed letter from the owner authorising me as skipper and acting on his behalf along with my Contract of Employment, also signed by the owner of the vessel. That prevents me getting busted for stealing the boat.
I am not looking to settle and I have not destroyed all my documents..
I Repeat..

And you couldn't have made my actual point better with your responses. Clearly the simply descriptive, non pejorative term "illegals" touches quite the nerve when applied to oneself instead of an anonymous African guy in a dinghy, doesn't it? Maybe it is pejorative after all?

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by redneckrob

And you couldn't have made my actual point better with your responses. Clearly the simply descriptive, non pejorative term "illegals" touches quite the nerve when applied to oneself instead of an anonymous African guy in a dinghy, doesn't it? Maybe it is pejorative after all?

Now your just being stupid.. all I have done is state what is legally required to enter a country..
The anonymous guy in the dinghy does the opposite..
Your either for the rules or your not.. if not lobby your government to let all the kids outa their cages.
At least most of our illegals get housed in hotels after they've landed.

Basically all you are saying is those people sitting in their home countries and applying for residency and work permits should be cast in the bin and all the 'Boat People' should be allowed to queue jump into their place in the annual immigration quotas.
In other words a repeat of Merkel's Open Borders a few years back.
So why does Biden and Kamala not open the Mexican border to all the Central Americans sitting in Mexico wanting to get into the States.. I mean.. you lot have 49 states, other than Oregon, a UK size state, to fit them in..

[redneckrob]

Originally Posted by boatman61

Now your just being stupid.. all I have done is state what is legally required to enter a country..
The anonymous guy in the dinghy does the opposite..
Your either for the rules or your not.. if not lobby your government to let all the kids outa their cages.
At least most of our illegals get housed in hotels after they've landed.

Basically all you are saying is those people sitting in their home countries and applying for residency and work permits should be cast in the bin and all the 'Boat People' should be allowed to queue jump into their place in the annual immigration quotas.
In other words a repeat of Merkel's Open Borders a few years back.
So why does Biden and Kamala not open the Mexican border to all the Central Americans sitting in Mexico wanting to get into the States.. I mean.. you lot have 49 states, other than Oregon, a UK size state, to fit them in..

I actually neither said nor even suggested any of the things you just stated. You can be against immigrants who don't follow the rules without dehumanizing and demeaning them by referring to them as "illegals". Perhaps you could read my comments in this thread to find my thoughts on working in a country where you don't have a work visa (https://www.cruisersforum.com/forums...a+buck+bahamas). As you'll see folks here on CF willingly admit to doing it, and yet I don't see you referring to them as "illegals"?

As you've amply demonstrated, despite your protestations that that is a neutral term your responses show that you actually feel otherwise when it's applied to you. So maybe, just maybe, you might consider using a term like "undocumented migrants" instead of "illegals" going forward. Or if not, then at least embrace the fact that you acknowledge the term "illegals" is in fact pejorative and dehumanizing and you're using it anyway to make a political statement.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by redneckrob

I actually neither said nor even suggested any of the things you just stated. You can be against immigrants who don't follow the rules without dehumanizing and demeaning them by referring to them as "illegals". Perhaps you could read my comments in this thread to find my thoughts on working in a country where you don't have a work visa (https://www.cruisersforum.com/forums...a+buck+bahamas). As you'll see folks here on CF willingly admit to doing it, and yet I don't see you referring to them as "illegals"?

As you've amply demonstrated, despite your protestations that that is a neutral term your responses show that you actually feel otherwise when it's applied to you. So maybe, just maybe, you might consider using a term like "undocumented migrants" instead of "illegals" going forward. Or if not, then at least embrace the fact that you acknowledge the term "illegals" is in fact pejorative and dehumanizing and you're using it anyway to make a political statement.

And you have clearly stated your political bent from your first post..
You've concentrated on trying to prove I act illegally in any and every form you could dredge up and failed miserably.. whereas I don't have to prove anything regarding them, their actions tell all.
They are breaking immigration laws, simple as that and if you're suffering from 'The Great White Guilt Trip' call them what you like.. it does not change facts.
I fortunately, do not suffer from your psychological affliction.

[redneckrob]

Originally Posted by boatman61

And you have clearly stated your political bent from your first post..
You've concentrated on trying to prove I act illegally in any and every form you could dredge up and failed miserably.. whereas I don't have to prove anything regarding them, their actions tell all.
They are breaking immigration laws, simple as that and if you're suffering from 'The Great White Guilt Trip' call them what you like.. it does not change facts.
I fortunately, do not suffer from your psychological affliction.

I spent more than 20 years as a U.S. Coast Guard pilot and did a number of deployments focused on migrant interdiction. So not only did I never say anything about supporting illegal migration, I've actually actively spent a decent chunk of my life actively stopping illegal migration. How about you? So yeah, you missed the mark by quite a bit on that one, nice try though.

One thing I learned from spending quite a bit of time on ships with the people we had interdicted is that they're humans. They have hopes, dreams, aspirations, families.....just like you and I. They just lost the lottery you and I won and were born is a crappy place. The fact that you continue to ignore my one and only point, that use of the term "illegals" is demeaning and dehumanizing, shows that you're really a decent human as well. As a result, you are finding it hard to face up to your practice of referring to people as "illegals" while claiming it's innocuous. That actually is a "psychological affliction" we all suffer from, it's called cognitive dissonance. Easy to solve in this case, you're a decent guy so be a decent guy, have a little empathy and ditch the term "illegals" from your vocabulary. That's all.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by redneckrob

I spent more than 20 years as a U.S. Coast Guard pilot and did a number of deployments focused on migrant interdiction. So not only did I never say anything about supporting illegal migration, I've actually actively spent a decent chunk of my life actively stopping illegal migration. How about you? So yeah, you missed the mark by quite a bit on that one, nice try though.

One thing I learned from spending quite a bit of time on ships with the people we had interdicted is that they're humans. They have hopes, dreams, aspirations, families.....just like you and I. They just lost the lottery you and I won and were born is a crappy place. The fact that you continue to ignore my one and only point, that use of the term "illegals" is demeaning and dehumanizing, shows that you're really a decent human as well. As a result, you are finding it hard to face up to your practice of referring to people as "illegals" while claiming it's innocuous. That actually is a "psychological affliction" we all suffer from, it's called cognitive dissonance. Easy to solve in this case, you're a decent guy so be a decent guy, have a little empathy and ditch the term "illegals" from your vocabulary. That's all.

No can do.. as I said.. "You go your way and I'll go mine".. if you do not accept they are illegally entering a country then the only logical answer is you condone them breaking the law.
Never claimed it was innocuous, nothing innocuous about calling a spade a spade..
I have had to jump through hoops to make my way in the world and expect others to do likewise... no sympathy for folk who try dodging them be they European, Asian or African.. they have all tried the same thing as economic migrants..
They only complicate things for the legitimate migrants who are aspiring to move and also for those already settled.
Spin that..

[redneckrob]

Originally Posted by boatman61

No can do.. as I said.. "You go your way and I'll go mine".. if you do not accept they are illegally entering a country then the only logical answer is you condone them breaking the law.
Never claimed it was innocuous, nothing innocuous about calling a spade a spade..
I have had to jump through hoops to make my way in the world and expect others to do likewise... no sympathy for folk who try dodging them be they European, Asian or African.. they have all tried the same thing as economic migrants..
They only complicate things for the legitimate migrants who are aspiring to move and also for those already settled.
Spin that..

I have now told you 3 times, including an example that encompassed 20 years of my life that I spent actively interdicting undocumented migrants, that I don't think it is legal for undocumented migrants to enter a country. It baffles me why you continue to insist that I hold a position I never stated and have clearly indicated I don't hold?

I am actually encouraged by the fact that you are doing everything you can to avoid facing the concept that it is gratuitously dehumanizing and demeaning to label a group of people "illegals" rather than using the equally accurate "spade a spade" term "undocumented migrant" or if you insist on the word "illegal", "illegal migrant". That shows you realize that fact. To the point you feel compelled to label me as something I'm clearly not in order to avoid facing that point.

When you start referring to people who break speeding laws, those with a DUI, folks who smoke marijuana is places it isn't legal, and anyone else who has ever broken a law in their life "an illegal" then the whole "calling a spade a spade" idea holds water. When you decide to reserve that term for, at this point apparently only people from third world countries who violate immigration law but only to permanently settle in a first world country, well that's just being dehumanizing and demeaning. I don't think that's really a great look, I'm not sure why one would be so insistent on holding it.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by redneckrob

I have now told you 3 times, including an example that encompassed 20 years of my life that I spent actively interdicting undocumented migrants, that I don't think it is legal for undocumented migrants to enter a country. It baffles me why you continue to insist that I hold a position I never stated and have clearly indicated I don't hold?

I am actually encouraged by the fact that you are doing everything you can to avoid facing the concept that it is gratuitously dehumanizing and demeaning to label a group of people "illegals" rather than using the equally accurate "spade a spade" term "undocumented migrant" or if you insist on the word "illegal", "illegal migrant". That shows you realize that fact. To the point you feel compelled to label me as something I'm clearly not in order to avoid facing that point.

When you start referring to people who break speeding laws, those with a DUI, folks who smoke marijuana is places it isn't legal, and anyone else who has ever broken a law in their life "an illegal" then the whole "calling a spade a spade" idea holds water. When you decide to reserve that term for, at this point apparently only people from third world countries who violate immigration law but only to permanently settle in a first world country, well that's just being dehumanizing and demeaning. I don't think that's really a great look, I'm not sure why one would be so insistent on holding it.

You have repeatedly tried to label me as an illegal when I am not, yet you expect me to conform to your picky humanity..
No can do.. if I have to conform to a Countries legalities to enter, live and work there so can everyone else.
You have no idea of my background yet you feel free to make assumptions, as for your time in the service interdicting.. well bully for you, give yourself a Hershey..

[CatNewBee]

Originally Posted by redneckrob

I actually neither said nor even suggested any of the things you just stated. You can be against immigrants who don't follow the rules without dehumanizing and demeaning them by referring to them as "illegals". Perhaps you could read my comments in this thread to find my thoughts on working in a country where you don't have a work visa (https://www.cruisersforum.com/forums...a+buck+bahamas). As you'll see folks here on CF willingly admit to doing it, and yet I don't see you referring to them as "illegals"?

As you've amply demonstrated, despite your protestations that that is a neutral term your responses show that you actually feel otherwise when it's applied to you. So maybe, just maybe, you might consider using a term like "undocumented migrants" instead of "illegals" going forward. Or if not, then at least embrace the fact that you acknowledge the term "illegals" is in fact pejorative and dehumanizing and you're using it anyway to make a political statement.

No, they are illegal, because they enter illegally and not with documents / permission through a legal entry point. If you legally enter a country (as a sailor, tourist or guest) and work without a work permit / work visa you work illegally, but you are legally in that country (you have a visa, a temporary permisson to be there) as long as it has not expired. When overstay your visa you are illegally there, even if you entered legally and you may not get a new visa in the future when get caught (depending on the local laws).

To call them undocumented is simply framing and does not make the act of ignoring a border and entry procedures legal in any way. And yes, they are migrants and not protected refugees, they are humans like me and you, they do have dreams and aspirations, but contrary to me (cannot comment on you), they develop criminal energy and intentionally break the law of the country they enter, by sneaking through the border and disappearing instead of going to the entrance and showing their case / asking for permission or asking for asylum. This makes them illegal and not undocumented.

[goboatingnow]

Simply arriving with or without documentation ( torn up or not ) does not make you an “ illegal immigrant”. All developed countries have policies around claiming asylum or in fact processes to determine if you should be allowed to stay.

Clearly when that legal process is applied and determining ones arrival status has concluded and you are denied residency, if you remain you are then an “ illegal immigrant “

Have boatie is wrong to use the common term “ illegal immigrant “ as most of those people have not had a legal definition of their acces to the U.K. determined

After all the presumption of innocence is a cornerstone of U.K. justice !!!!