|
|
Post by Toreador on Mar 21, 2023 19:48:19 GMT
There's far more migrants arriving now than Normans arrived in 1066.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2023 20:09:35 GMT
There's far more migrants arriving now than Normans arrived in 1066. The BBC people appear to base their opinion on what their messiah Gary Lineker claims. The worship of celebrities and partisan propaganda at the BBC looks to be a form of Churchism. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Mar 21, 2023 20:32:44 GMT
Right - It doesn't compel signatories to invite in, or collect in, anyone who can't, or won't, identify themselves and wants to enter. You keep repeating ''invite in'' as if it were true. Nobody is inviting refugees to come to Britain. That's just hysteria. I don't even know what you mean by ''collect in''. As a for instance - the refugee convention doesn't compel us to allow, invite or collect everyone in France, who can't - or wont - identify themselves , into the UK |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Mar 21, 2023 21:09:35 GMT
You keep repeating ''invite in'' as if it were true. Nobody is inviting refugees to come to Britain. That's just hysteria. I don't even know what you mean by ''collect in''. As a for instance - the refugee convention doesn't compel us to allow, invite or collect everyone in France, who can't - or wont - identify themselves , into the UK And what about people who have already entered the UK or the UK's territorial waters? What does the Convention say about those? |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Mar 21, 2023 22:01:24 GMT
As a for instance - the refugee convention doesn't compel us to allow, invite or collect everyone in France, who can't - or wont - identify themselves , into the UK And what about people who have already entered the UK or the UK's territorial waters? What does the Convention say about those? You are ignoring the problem. Everyone knows what the Conventions says and everyone knows how the Convention is being usurped and manipulated by people traffickers and economic migrants to allow a migratory route into the UK. Unless something is done to counter this blatant misuse of the convention then the channel crossings will continue, the risk of deaths by that route will increase, the dangers to UK citizens will increase and the costs will rise to unsustainable levels. Making safe routes, and Hong Kong, Afghanistan and Ukraine people take advantage of that, into the UK will not change the channel crossings as getting in is the primary aim of all who use this route. Being a tolerant caring society is now being used against us as a means to take advantage of all we offer. In the long run, and even in the immediate short run, we cannot cope as there is no end to the numbers as UK is better than most countries from whence they come. Throwing money at processing will not reduce channel movements and the more people that arrive, and it is increasing, will only increase those we try to remove and the increased costs of legal challenges to those removals. The future potential costs, in money and society, are easy to forecast. So stating the Convention says you must do x is not helpful as x is following a route to potential destruction and bankruptcy. Since polls are meant to mean something should we consider the polls on the channel crossings where just short of 70% think those arriving by small boat should not have their applications entertained at all. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Mar 21, 2023 22:22:01 GMT
And what about people who have already entered the UK or the UK's territorial waters? What does the Convention say about those? You are ignoring the problem. Everyone knows what the Conventions says and everyone knows how the Convention is being usurped and manipulated by people traffickers and economic migrants to allow a migratory route into the UK. Unless something is done to counter this blatant misuse of the convention then the channel crossings will continue, the risk of deaths by that route will increase, the dangers to UK citizens will increase and the costs will rise to unsustainable levels. Making safe routes, and Hong Kong, Afghanistan and Ukraine people take advantage of that, into the UK will not change the channel crossings as getting in is the primary aim of all who use this route. Being a tolerant caring society is now being used against us as a means to take advantage of all we offer. In the long run, and even in the immediate short run, we cannot cope as there is no end to the numbers as UK is better than most countries from whence they come. Throwing money at processing will not reduce channel movements and the more people that arrive, and it is increasing, will only increase those we try to remove and the increased costs of legal challenges to those removals. The future potential costs, in money and society, are easy to forecast. So stating the Convention says you must do x is not helpful as x is following a route to potential destruction and bankruptcy. Since polls are meant to mean something should we consider the polls on the channel crossings where just short of 70% think those arriving by small boat should not have their applications entertained at all. Right, so the conversation has moved from what international law actually requires to what international law should require. I'm glad we're all agreed that those who originated their journey in a country where their life or liberty was in danger have a right to come to the UK under international law. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Mar 21, 2023 22:37:41 GMT
You are ignoring the problem. Everyone knows what the Conventions says and everyone knows how the Convention is being usurped and manipulated by people traffickers and economic migrants to allow a migratory route into the UK. Unless something is done to counter this blatant misuse of the convention then the channel crossings will continue, the risk of deaths by that route will increase, the dangers to UK citizens will increase and the costs will rise to unsustainable levels. Making safe routes, and Hong Kong, Afghanistan and Ukraine people take advantage of that, into the UK will not change the channel crossings as getting in is the primary aim of all who use this route. Being a tolerant caring society is now being used against us as a means to take advantage of all we offer. In the long run, and even in the immediate short run, we cannot cope as there is no end to the numbers as UK is better than most countries from whence they come. Throwing money at processing will not reduce channel movements and the more people that arrive, and it is increasing, will only increase those we try to remove and the increased costs of legal challenges to those removals. The future potential costs, in money and society, are easy to forecast. So stating the Convention says you must do x is not helpful as x is following a route to potential destruction and bankruptcy. Since polls are meant to mean something should we consider the polls on the channel crossings where just short of 70% think those arriving by small boat should not have their applications entertained at all. Right, so the conversation has moved from what international law actually requires to what international law should require. I'm glad we're all agreed that those who originated their journey in a country where their life or liberty was in danger have a right to come to the UK under international law.No that is not correct - they have no right to go anywhere. They can apply to the host country for asylum but it's totally up to the host country whether they wish to accept them. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Mar 21, 2023 22:54:01 GMT
Right, so the conversation has moved from what international law actually requires to what international law should require. I'm glad we're all agreed that those who originated their journey in a country where their life or liberty was in danger have a right to come to the UK under international law.No that is not correct - they have no right to go anywhere. They can apply to the host country for asylum but it's totally up to the host country whether they wish to accept them. And what about when they've already arrived in the UK or the UK's territorial waters? What does the Convention require in those circumstances? |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Mar 21, 2023 23:16:06 GMT
No that is not correct - they have no right to go anywhere. They can apply to the host country for asylum but it's totally up to the host country whether they wish to accept them. And what about when they've already arrived in the UK or the UK's territorial waters? What does the Convention require in those circumstances?A fucking navy with some balls. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Mar 21, 2023 23:33:20 GMT
You are ignoring the problem. Everyone knows what the Conventions says and everyone knows how the Convention is being usurped and manipulated by people traffickers and economic migrants to allow a migratory route into the UK. Unless something is done to counter this blatant misuse of the convention then the channel crossings will continue, the risk of deaths by that route will increase, the dangers to UK citizens will increase and the costs will rise to unsustainable levels. Making safe routes, and Hong Kong, Afghanistan and Ukraine people take advantage of that, into the UK will not change the channel crossings as getting in is the primary aim of all who use this route. Being a tolerant caring society is now being used against us as a means to take advantage of all we offer. In the long run, and even in the immediate short run, we cannot cope as there is no end to the numbers as UK is better than most countries from whence they come. Throwing money at processing will not reduce channel movements and the more people that arrive, and it is increasing, will only increase those we try to remove and the increased costs of legal challenges to those removals. The future potential costs, in money and society, are easy to forecast. So stating the Convention says you must do x is not helpful as x is following a route to potential destruction and bankruptcy. Since polls are meant to mean something should we consider the polls on the channel crossings where just short of 70% think those arriving by small boat should not have their applications entertained at all. Right, so the conversation has moved from what international law actually requires to what international law should require. I'm glad we're all agreed that those who originated their journey in a country where their life or liberty was in danger have a right to come to the UK under international law. My conversation has always been in this direction. The problem is a bit like Mr Bumble and the law is an ass and the law should have its eye opened by experience. If the law is being usurped and manipulated to such an extent, and even the most idiotic of people would not say that it is being so manipulated, then we need to address that problem. Carrying on the same is not an option, that way lies madness. It seems that the supposed righteous ones are hell bent on applying the law in all its idiosyncratic principles in the way that Lemmings follow the wanderlust to destruction. If one believes that what we have now is what the refugee convention was designed to do and expected to do by those who put their signatures to it then the more fool them. Once that point is accepted then we can progress. If they cannot then the injustices felt by ordinary citizens is what makes even greater injustices occur and that day will come and it will be the fault of the righteous ones. I may be well out of it but my children will not and it is their future that is at stake. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Mar 21, 2023 23:39:24 GMT
Right, so the conversation has moved from what international law actually requires to what international law should require. I'm glad we're all agreed that those who originated their journey in a country where their life or liberty was in danger have a right to come to the UK under international law. My conversation has always been in this direction. The problem is a bit like Mr Bumble and the law is an ass and the law should have its eye opened by experience. If the law is being usurped and manipulated to such an extent, and even the most idiotic of people would not say that it is being so manipulated, then we need to address that problem. Carrying on the same is not an option, that way lies madness. It seems that the supposed righteous ones are hell bent on applying the law in all its idiosyncratic principles in the way that Lemmings follow the wanderlust to destruction. If one believes that what we have now is what the refugee convention was designed to do and expected to do by those who put their signatures to it then the more fool them. Once that point is accepted then we can progress. If they cannot then the injustices felt by ordinary citizens is what makes even greater injustices occur and that day will come and it will be the fault of the righteous ones. I may be well out of it but my children will not and it is their future that is at stake. Okay, Sandy. Just so long as we're clear that you're discussing what you would like the law to be, as opposed to what it is. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Mar 22, 2023 0:00:56 GMT
My conversation has always been in this direction. The problem is a bit like Mr Bumble and the law is an ass and the law should have its eye opened by experience. If the law is being usurped and manipulated to such an extent, and even the most idiotic of people would not say that it is being so manipulated, then we need to address that problem. Carrying on the same is not an option, that way lies madness. It seems that the supposed righteous ones are hell bent on applying the law in all its idiosyncratic principles in the way that Lemmings follow the wanderlust to destruction. If one believes that what we have now is what the refugee convention was designed to do and expected to do by those who put their signatures to it then the more fool them. Once that point is accepted then we can progress. If they cannot then the injustices felt by ordinary citizens is what makes even greater injustices occur and that day will come and it will be the fault of the righteous ones. I may be well out of it but my children will not and it is their future that is at stake. Okay, Sandy. Just so long as we're clear that you're discussing what you would like the law to be, as opposed to what it is. WE are not clear on that as the convention in Article 2 says quite clearly that refugees have to obey all the laws of the country in which they find themselves including public order regs and it is very clear that many have not obeyed the laws of France and many countries before yet those countries ignore their own laws and allow free egress to let the flow pass over them. The legal challenges existing when they arrive here are all on many rather obscure grounds and often technical challenges. I am discussing the sensible applications of the Convention laws as opposed to the rather ridiculous and overtly strict adherence to some aspects. Once an asylum seeker breaks the law in any country he finds himself in his status as an asylum seeker is null and void as per the convention. The direct crossing of some borders may be ignored but the convention is clear on when those conditions apply. Those conditions do not exist in any EU country yet passage through EU countries is in many cases enabled by the authorities. If we are to obey international law then it is only right and proper that those around us should also obey those laws and they are not. There is the cooperative way through this and there is the stubborn we are are on our own way out of this and at the moment the latter option seems to be the only possible one. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Mar 22, 2023 0:06:25 GMT
Okay, Sandy. Just so long as we're clear that you're discussing what you would like the law to be, as opposed to what it is. WE are not clear on that as the convention in Article 2 says quite clearly that refugees have to obey all the laws of the country in which they find themselves including public order regs and it is very clear that many have not obeyed the laws of France and many countries before yet those countries ignore their own laws and allow free egress to let the flow pass over them. The legal challenges existing when they arrive here are all on many rather obscure grounds and often technical challenges. I am discussing the sensible applications of the Convention laws as opposed to the rather ridiculous and overtly strict adherence to some aspects. Once an asylum seeker breaks the law in any country he finds himself in his status as an asylum seeker is null and void as per the convention. The direct crossing of some borders may be ignored but the convention is clear on when those conditions apply. Those conditions do not exist in any EU country yet passage through EU countries is in many cases enabled by the authorities. If we are to obey international law then it is only right and proper that those around us should also obey those laws and they are not. There is the cooperative way through this and there is the stubborn we are are on our own way out of this and at the moment the latter option seems to be the only possible one. This is just boring, now. The Convention allows refugees to enter a country illegally. So, they are breaking the law right from the get-go. And they cannot be deported for that. |
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on Mar 22, 2023 4:57:17 GMT
There's far more migrants arriving now than Normans arrived in 1066. The Normans had better boats though. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2023 7:47:49 GMT
Yes it's simple. It would cost less to 'process' the immigrants than it does to put them up in hotels, give them phones.... Not quite, the number of processors, and consequent investigations, will have to be increased ten fold, the hotels will still be needed as the numbers keep increasing, it costs £13,000 to deport one person. If 100,000 come and 50,000 fail that is, I think, £650 million, plus hotels, plus legal costs, plus phones, plus pocket money, plus crime etc etc. The influx has to be stopped, not processed so we have to be cruel to be kind. Better than being kind and being cruel to British Citizens. You forgot to mention part of the costs will be offset by the successful applicants, which presently stands at about 70% would pay taxes on earnings and spend money supporting our economy. Also if 'turn around' is faster not 18 months+ the initial outlay will be much smaller. |
|
