Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2023 10:28:30 GMT
Surely the point of processing centres abroad is we can say 'no, you're already in a safe country, look out of the window' An issue here is France denies asylum if they've come through Germany (or Spain or Italy) and Germany denies asylum if they don't apply in 30 days of their first presence in Germany which the 'refugees' out of their own free will often don't do because they want to get to the UK for their personal benefit. Frankly Germany, France etc should be told to get their house in order before they dare criticize the UK. If the British government were as welcoming to immigrants as the EU are, they wouldn't cross the channel. The EU is protectionist, which is most likely why a lot of the old school fascists were very pro-EU. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Mar 15, 2023 12:00:02 GMT
fleeing France...
|
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Mar 15, 2023 13:17:01 GMT
Even French nationals aren’t automatically allowed to settle in the UK — but those who want to can apply and get clearance before travelling to the UK. That’s not a facility available to refugee asylum seekers… |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Mar 15, 2023 13:33:26 GMT
Even French nationals aren’t automatically allowed to settle in the UK — but those who want to can apply and get clearance before travelling to the UK. That’s not a facility available to refugee asylum seekers… There is no facility because we don't want just anyone wandering in. That's why it's illegal to do this Let me put it another way - why do you feel it is necessary to find a way to get these people into the UK? |
|
|
|
Post by Paulus de B on Mar 15, 2023 13:39:19 GMT
I'm glad Lineker is staying at the BBC. Given the vagueness of the rules and the apparent inconsistency in enforcing them, it should only ever have been a yellow card offence. They need to clarify those rules and then apply them consistently.
Lineker should certainly have been warned and called to heel for his extremely offensive implication of Nazi sympathy to the government. As a favour to himself, though, he should also have been advised of how ineffective it would be. Once you're comparing people to Hitler, you've lost any chance of convincing other people. Such accusations don't contribute to a discussion, they only fire up your existing supporters and disgust your opponents. You have to think that the debate is already over before you do that, and it isn't.
On grounds of taste, I wish he'd also been advised on his manner of expressing himself. His "language that is not dissimilar to that used by Germany in the 30s" is a creepily genteel, china-teacup-with-your-little-finger-sticking-out way of saying Nazi.
|
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Mar 15, 2023 15:17:14 GMT
Even French nationals aren’t automatically allowed to settle in the UK — but those who want to can apply and get clearance before travelling to the UK. That’s not a facility available to refugee asylum seekers… There is no facility because we don't want just anyone wandering in. That's why it's illegal to do this Let me put it another way - why do you feel it is necessary to find a way to get these people into the UK? Who do you mean by "these people"?
The UK is a signatory to the UN Convention & Protocol on the status of refugees. If the UK could weed out those not entitled to refugee status before they travelled here, there'd be no need for extensive and expensive clearance and verification procedures on the people arriving without permits.
Perhaps the one problem is the inability of the current UK administration to honour its commitment and take back control of its borders — which has turned into another broken Brexit boast...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2023 15:24:24 GMT
Even French nationals aren’t automatically allowed to settle in the UK — but those who want to can apply and get clearance before travelling to the UK. That’s not a facility available to refugee asylum seekers… There is no facility because we don't want just anyone wandering in. That's why it's illegal to do this Let me put it another way - why do you feel it is necessary to find a way to get these people into the UK? An interesting question. Perhaps it will be answered someday. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Mar 15, 2023 15:48:50 GMT
There is no facility because we don't want just anyone wandering in. That's why it's illegal to do this Let me put it another way - why do you feel it is necessary to find a way to get these people into the UK? Perhaps the one problem is the inability of the current UK administration to honour its commitment and take back control of its borders — which has turned into another broken Brexit boast...
There is a commitment to allow people to flee from danger. You appear to want this extended (i would say distorted) into a commitment to facilitate the entry into the UK of as many people as possible. These aims have nothing to do with asylum - you have just tacked your aims on the back of the notion so it sounds legitimate |
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Mar 15, 2023 17:09:05 GMT
Perhaps the one problem is the inability of the current UK administration to honour its commitment and take back control of its borders — which has turned into another broken Brexit boast...
There is a commitment to allow people to flee from danger. You appear to want this extended (i would say distorted) into a commitment to facilitate the entry into the UK of as many people as possible. These aims have nothing to do with asylum - you have just tacked your aims on the back of the notion so it sounds legitimate I don’t accept that I’m either wanting to extend any asylum facility to anyone who does not have a legitimate claim, or that I am advocating free entry to everyone who turns up on the UK’s shores. I particularly do not want people traffickers or other criminals to thrive or be imported into the UK — why you should interpret anything I’ve posted to mean anything different must take a lot of mental juggling… |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Mar 15, 2023 17:32:22 GMT
There is a commitment to allow people to flee from danger. You appear to want this extended (i would say distorted) into a commitment to facilitate the entry into the UK of as many people as possible. These aims have nothing to do with asylum - you have just tacked your aims on the back of the notion so it sounds legitimate I don’t accept that I’m either wanting to extend any asylum facility to anyone who does not have a legitimate claim, or that I am advocating free entry to everyone who turns up on the UK’s shores. I particularly do not want people traffickers or other criminals to thrive or be imported into the UK — why you should interpret anything I’ve posted to mean anything different must take a lot of mental juggling… By a process of elimination. Nobody safely in France has a legitimate claim to asylum in the UK. So by 'legitimate' you must have some notion about bringing people into the country for reasons other than actually giving them any kind of asylum (protection from danger). It didn't take that much juggling |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2023 18:58:03 GMT
No, an invasion force is 10s of thousands of well armed soldiers supported by ancillary staff and lines of supply arriving at a predetermined point with the intention of killing the defenders to gain access like the Russians are doing now 45,00 people arriving on dinghies, wet, cold, hungry, in fear of their lives and having lost everything over a period of one year does not qualify for the term invasion force. The Tories know exactly what they are doing using this language, it is designed to spread fear and hatred amongst the indigenous population and by all accounts the suckers are falling for it. These are the tactics of the Nazis prior to them gaining full power in Germany which enabled them to commit the most horrendous atrocities. Concentration camps came about after the rhetoric had done its job. Now tell us how much they paid for the trip and mobile phones. Everything they have much like the Jews escaping Germany. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2023 19:00:09 GMT
No, an invasion force is 10s of thousands of well armed soldiers supported by ancillary staff and lines of supply arriving at a predetermined point with the intention of killing the defenders to gain access like the Russians are doing now 45,00 people arriving on dinghies, wet, cold, hungry, in fear of their lives and having lost everything over a period of one year does not qualify for the term invasion force. The Tories know exactly what they are doing using this language, it is designed to spread fear and hatred amongst the indigenous population and by all accounts the suckers are falling for it. These are the tactics of the Nazis prior to them gaining full power in Germany which enabled them to commit the most horrendous atrocities. Concentration camps came about after the rhetoric had done its job. Post any official statement from 1940s Germany that alludes to invasions of migrants into Germany . You won’t because there is none , you clown. We are talking about the language of hate and fear. The Nazi's demonised the Jews and others just like the Tories are with asylum seekers, Richard Cranium. |
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Mar 15, 2023 19:00:15 GMT
I don’t accept that I’m either wanting to extend any asylum facility to anyone who does not have a legitimate claim, or that I am advocating free entry to everyone who turns up on the UK’s shores. I particularly do not want people traffickers or other criminals to thrive or be imported into the UK — why you should interpret anything I’ve posted to mean anything different must take a lot of mental juggling… By a process of elimination. Nobody safely in France has a legitimate claim to asylum in the UK. So by 'legitimate' you must have some notion about bringing people into the country for reasons other than actually giving them any kind of asylum (protection from danger). It didn't take that much juggling There still appears to be juggling between fact and dogma. Nobody having claimed asylum in France would normally be eligible to apply for asylum in the UK. But there’s no demand from the UN that asylum seekers must uapply for asylum in any country along their route to wherever they want to go. Arriving without papers and/or travelling across one or several safe countries does not invalidate their rights to claim… The Convention further stipulates that, subject to specific exceptions, refugees should not be penalized for their illegal entry or stay. This recognizes that the seeking of asylum can require refugees to breach immigration rules.www.unhcr.org/uk/3b66c2aa10It should be noted that Member States are not required to apply the concept of first country of asylum, as Article 26 is a permissive provision.
Destination countries may have interests in reducing irregular movements. As such, the concept of first country of asylum may be seen as a potential deterrent to irregular movements by refugees. www.refworld.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/rwmain/opendocpdf.pdf?docid=4bab55da2&reldoc=y |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Mar 15, 2023 19:11:51 GMT
By a process of elimination. Nobody safely in France has a legitimate claim to asylum in the UK. So by 'legitimate' you must have some notion about bringing people into the country for reasons other than actually giving them any kind of asylum (protection from danger). It didn't take that much juggling There still appears to be juggling between fact and dogma. Nobody having claimed asylum in France would normally be eligible to apply for asylum in the UK. But there’s no demand from the UN that asylum seekers must uapply for asylum in any country along their route to wherever they want to go. Arriving without papers and/or travelling across one or several safe countries does not invalidate their rights to claim… The Convention further stipulates that, subject to specific exceptions, refugees should not be penalized for their illegal entry or stay. This recognizes that the seeking of asylum can require refugees to breach immigration rules.www.unhcr.org/uk/3b66c2aa10It should be noted that Member States are not required to apply the concept of first country of asylum, as Article 26 is a permissive provision.
Destination countries may have interests in reducing irregular movements. As such, the concept of first country of asylum may be seen as a potential deterrent to irregular movements by refugees. www.refworld.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/rwmain/opendocpdf.pdf?docid=4bab55da2&reldoc=yHow does that sit with article 2 Article 2. - General obligations Every refugee has duties to the country in which he finds himself, which require in particular that he conform to its laws and regulations as well as to measures taken for the maintenance of public order. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Mar 15, 2023 19:57:13 GMT
Nobody having claimed asylum in France would normally be eligible to apply for asylum in the UK. No. - nobody in France is eligible for asylum in the UK because nobody in France is in a internationally recognised dangerous place that they need to use the asylum arrangement to flee. The asylum system is designed to allow people to flee from danger, not to get people into the UK. So, whatever you are arguing for has nothing to do with providing actual asylum (protection from danger) - or to put it another way, all you are trying to do here is get people into the UK. |
|
