|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Feb 17, 2023 8:40:09 GMT
link
"Denmark, a relatively homogeneous country, has implemented strict migration policies that are centred around two main goals: one area focuses on making it less attractive for migrants to come to Denmark. The other focuses on creating incentives for migrants that are already in Denmark to work". I think our govt needs to take a good look at Denmark. They are making the country less attractive to migrants by various policies like cutting benefits for immigrants, making it more difficult for them to bring in relatives etc etc. And they're doing it despite rulings against them by the ECHR. This is the kind of approach I've been recommending for years. The first thing we should do is remove the exemption that allows Halal slaughter to be practised - and any other forms of religious slaughter that don't obey our laws - and ban import of any meat that doesn't conform to our laws. That would make a good start.
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Feb 17, 2023 9:07:36 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Feb 17, 2023 12:47:55 GMT
The EU themselves are paying Turkey to detain Syrian refugees in camps to prevent them from flooding Europe. But the the EU does what it likes being a dictatorship. Unfortunately we have a Left leaning Parliament and Lefty judiciary who will do ANYTHING to stop us getting rid of immigrants.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Feb 17, 2023 12:59:27 GMT
link
"Denmark, a relatively homogeneous country, has implemented strict migration policies that are centred around two main goals: one area focuses on making it less attractive for migrants to come to Denmark. The other focuses on creating incentives for migrants that are already in Denmark to work". I think our govt needs to take a good look at Denmark. They are making the country less attractive to migrants by various policies like cutting benefits for immigrants, making it more difficult for them to bring in relatives etc etc. And they're doing it despite rulings against them by the ECHR. This is the kind of approach I've been recommending for years. The first thing we should do is remove the exemption that allows Halal slaughter to be practised - and any other forms of religious slaughter that don't obey our laws - and ban import of any meat that doesn't conform to our laws. That would make a good start. Ok but if we are going there can you tell me what the difference is between halal slaughter and kosher slaughter I ask because back in the eighties i was sitting in this room in the uni with others considering the damage done to your circulation after a heart attack and what to do about it and i had an idea. Next thing i know i’m standing in a Herefordshire abbatoir holding a big plastic dustbin while a bloke cuts the bulls balls off as the carcasses come through and throwimg them in my bucket. While i was there this bloke wearing a sash like Charlton Heston wore to hold his robe in place in ‘the ten commandments’ came in, wandered off, came back dressed in the staff gown and set about a slaughtering session i found bloody impressive as a licensed animal experimenter. Im not sure i would have stayed licensed if i had done what he did. And then i remembered the chap who sometimes gave me a lift to school if he was taking his son mentioning his pal Isiah who went and did the kosher slaughter off Dumballs Rd and who came out like hed bathed in blood. That would be 1971 I think we allowed jews to donwhat islamics do for centuries |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Feb 17, 2023 13:27:12 GMT
From what I can gather from the link, Denmark is considering transferring refugees to Rwanda for consideration of their applications for asylum in Denmark. Should the application succeed, the refugees will be returned to Denmark. This is an altogether different thing from what Patel was proposing. She was proposing to transfer refugees to Rwanda for consideration of whether they qualify for asylum in Rwanda. A determination that they were refugees in fact, would not have the effect that they would be transferred back to the UK. This is a complete abdication of a signatory's responsibilities under the Refugee Convention. Apparently, Article 44 of the Refugee Convention allows signatories to leave the Convention and its responsibilities with one year's notice. Rather than undermine the Convention by breaking it, it would be better to simply leave. |
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Feb 17, 2023 13:28:19 GMT
Fat chance of it doing that when Denmark still has to have free movement.
|
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Feb 17, 2023 13:29:38 GMT
The Refugee Convention confers an amnesty on refugees who illegally enter a signatory state. To qualify for the amnesty, the claimant must be a genuine refugee and must have reported to the authorities at the first opportunity. The question is not: are they illegals (that is a given if they don't enter the UK by legal means)?; the question is: are they illegals who qualify for an amnesty under international law? |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Feb 17, 2023 13:39:25 GMT
From what I can gather from the link, Denmark is considering transferring refugees to Rwanda for consideration of their applications for asylum in Denmark. Should the application succeed, the refugees will be returned to Denmark. This is an altogether different thing from what Patel was proposing. She was proposing to transfer refugees to Rwanda for consideration of whether they qualify for asylum in Rwanda. A determination that they were refugees in fact, would not have the effect that they would be transferred back to the UK. This is a complete abdication of a signatory's responsibilities under the Refugee Convention. Apparently, Article 44 of the Refugee Convention allows signatories to leave the convention and its responsibilities with one year's notice. Rather than undermine the Convention by breaking it, the better thing to do would be to simply leave the Convention. You are of course referring to 'refugees', of which there are very few in Europe. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Feb 17, 2023 13:40:06 GMT
The Refugee Convention confers an amnesty on refugees who illegally enter a signatory state. To qualify for the amnesty, the claimant must be a genuine refugee and must have reported to the authorities at the first opportunity. The question is not: are they illegals (that is a given if they don't enter the UK by legal means); the question is: are they illegals who qualify for an amnesty under international law? I refer you to my previous response. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Feb 17, 2023 13:41:03 GMT
From what I can gather from the link, Denmark is considering transferring refugees to Rwanda for consideration of their applications for asylum in Denmark. Should the application succeed, the refugees will be returned to Denmark. This is an altogether different thing from what Patel was proposing. She was proposing to transfer refugees to Rwanda for consideration of whether they qualify for asylum in Rwanda. A determination that they were refugees in fact, would not have the effect that they would be transferred back to the UK. This is a complete abdication of a signatory's responsibilities under the Refugee Convention. Apparently, Article 44 of the Refugee Convention allows signatories to leave the convention and its responsibilities with one year's notice. Rather than undermine the Convention by breaking it, the better thing to do would be to simply leave the Convention. You are of course referring to 'refugees', of which there are very few in Europe. Unfortunately, what you think the word refugee should mean in international law is not the same as what it actually means in international law. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Feb 17, 2023 13:42:12 GMT
The Refugee Convention confers an amnesty on refugees who illegally enter a signatory state. To qualify for the amnesty, the claimant must be a genuine refugee and must have reported to the authorities at the first opportunity. The question is not: are they illegals (that is a given if they don't enter the UK by legal means); the question is: are they illegals who qualify for an amnesty under international law? I refer you to my previous response. And I remind you that being an illegal is not the issue. Anyone who enters the UK by illegal means is an illegal. The question is: are they illegals who qualify for an amnesty under international law? |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Feb 17, 2023 13:57:52 GMT
I refer you to my previous response. And I remind you that being an illegal is not the issue. Anyone who enters the UK by illegal means is an illegal. The question is: are they illegals who qualify for an amnesty under international law? Einy, my dear deluded left wing friend, according to the United Nations High Commission for Refugees, and lets face it, if they don't know what a refugee is, who does? A refugee is someone who has, and I quote: " Someone who has fled war, violence, conflict or persecution and has crossed an international border to find safety in another country".Every single person who steps onto an English beach is a criminal. They have paid people traffickers to get them from safe country A to safe country B and destroyed their passports and any ID in the process. They are quite litterally criminals. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Feb 17, 2023 14:03:19 GMT
And I remind you that being an illegal is not the issue. Anyone who enters the UK by illegal means is an illegal. The question is: are they illegals who qualify for an amnesty under international law? Einy, my dear deluded left wing friend, according to the United Nations High Commission for Refugees, and lets face it, if they don't know what a refugee is, who does? A refugee is someone who has, and I quote: " Someone who has fled war, violence, conflict or persecution and has crossed an international border to find safety in another country".Every single person who steps onto an English beach is a criminal. They have paid people traffickers to get them from safe country A to safe country B and destroyed their passports and any ID in the process. They are quite litterally criminals. Indeed. To qualify for refugee status, one must have fled war, violence, conflict or persecution. Unfortunately for you, the definition of refugee does not found refugee status on one's having fled war, violence, conflict or persecution in the last country in which one was situated. Refugee status is retained if one has passed through a safe country (provided there has been no unnecessary delay in that country). That is the law. You don't like the fact that that is the law. That's fine. But it doesn't change the fact that it is the law. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Feb 17, 2023 14:14:07 GMT
Einy, my dear deluded left wing friend, according to the United Nations High Commission for Refugees, and lets face it, if they don't know what a refugee is, who does? A refugee is someone who has, and I quote: " Someone who has fled war, violence, conflict or persecution and has crossed an international border to find safety in another country".Every single person who steps onto an English beach is a criminal. They have paid people traffickers to get them from safe country A to safe country B and destroyed their passports and any ID in the process. They are quite litterally criminals. Indeed. To qualify for refugee status, one must have fled war, violence, conflict or persecution. Unfortunately for you, the definition of refugee does not found refugee status on one's having fled war, violence, conflict or persecution in the last country in which one was situated. Refugee status is retained if one has passed through a safe country (provided there has been no unnecessary delay in that country). That is the law. You don't like the fact that that is the law. That's fine. But it doesn't change the fact that it is the law. Why do you suppose these poor traumatised refugees who are so desperate to flee the horrors of war torn France dispose of their passports after paying people smugglers to get them to England? Go on Einy, have a guess... |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Feb 17, 2023 14:32:49 GMT
Indeed. To qualify for refugee status, one must have fled war, violence, conflict or persecution. Unfortunately for you, the definition of refugee does not found refugee status on one's having fled war, violence, conflict or persecution in the last country in which one was situated. Refugee status is retained if one has passed through a safe country (provided there has been no unnecessary delay in that country). That is the law. You don't like the fact that that is the law. That's fine. But it doesn't change the fact that it is the law. Why do you suppose these poor traumatised refugees who are so desperate to flee the horrors of war torn France dispose of their passports after paying people smugglers to get them to England? Go on Einy, have a guess... All persons arriving from France by dinghy are illegals. These illegals can be separated into two groups: illegals entitled to an amnesty for illegally entering the UK, and illegals who are not entitled to amnesty and, therefore, subject to prosecution or deportation. In order to be among the first group, one must be a refugee (have fled war, violence, conflict, or persecution (though not necessarily in the last country in which one was situated)) and report to the authorities as soon as is practicable after illegally entering the UK. A real refugee, a person falling into the first group, will not intentionally destroy his passport or documents. If his claim is founded on his fleeing the war in Syria, a Syrian passport will be of assistance to him in establishing his provenance. On the other hand, if he is from Morocco and he wishes to base his claim on the false premise that he is fleeing Syria, he will, of course, destroy his passport. In short, it is only the people in the second group (fake refugees) who will benefit from destroying their passport or other documents. This second group have no rights under international law. They do not qualify for refugee status and, as such, they do not qualify for amnesty on entering the UK illegally. The UK legal system is perfectly entitled to prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law. Your problem is that you appear to believe that people in the first category are destroying their documents. They're not. They have no reason to do so, as documents establishing provenance are of assistance in making an asylum claim. However, many of these people simply won't have any documents. Those who have travelled through Libya (a substantial number) will have had their documents confiscated by the Libyan authorities. Many of those who haven't passed through Libya will not have documents, but for different reasons. For instance: a political protester in Iran may not apply to the Iranian authorities for a passport because the authorities are seeking to arrest him (and an application for a passport is a red flag that he intends to flee the country); documents have been destroyed in a war zone or the administrative mechanism for issuing travel documents is no longer operating; etc. It is only fake refugees who benefit from discarding their documents, Red. But not everyone who does not possess documents is a fake refugee. |
|
