Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2023 7:49:06 GMT
So you are against this new policy of returning immigrants without processing? Not sure how you work that one out. I am for any policy that deals with the situation effectively and stops the channel crossings ASAP notwithstanding my criticism of the current government and HM Opposition. If the policy being proposed works, and I have my doubts, then I am for it. If it does not, and I suspect it will not, then it will just kick the can further down the road to the disadvantage of British Citizens generally and specifically those of the same who will die or be raped as a result of illegal arrivals. Also to the disadvantage of those destined to die in the channel during the continuation of this farce. As well as the exorbitant cost that will ensue from the inability of the government to deal effectively with the situation. As a sensible person can you not extrapolate the figures and the costs one two and three years down the line irrespective of which process is followed. The costs of what you wish are astronomical in the short term and high in the long term. Even if it costs the lives of 'innocents'? |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Mar 22, 2023 8:04:07 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? It requires that they are allowed to ask for asylum if they wish. It doesn't give them a right to be in the UK or for that Asylum to be granted. Some countries flat out refuse to entertain asylum requests from countries they consider safe - the Convention allows for that. |
|
|
|
Post by wapentake on Mar 22, 2023 8:29:54 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? Though I usually think it a term designed to close down debate is that not pure whataboutery?  |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Mar 22, 2023 8:46:22 GMT
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. They do not have this right - or to put it another way, the UK would / could be within its rights to prevent them entering. The Schrodinger's refugee thing doesn't get you there. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Mar 22, 2023 8:57:16 GMT
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. They do not have this right - or to put it another way, the UK would / could be within its rights to prevent them entering. The Schrodinger's refugee thing doesn't get you there. Are you seriously saying that a refugee can be deported without consideration of his asylum application? |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Mar 22, 2023 8:59:23 GMT
And what about people who have already entered the UK or the UK's territorial waters? What does the Convention say about those? Though I usually think it a term designed to close down debate is that not pure whataboutery? The debate is centred on those who arrive in the UK by dinghy. Discussion of these is directly on point. It's the opposite of whataboutery. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Mar 22, 2023 9:02:32 GMT
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? It requires that they are allowed to ask for asylum if they wish. It doesn't give them a right to be in the UK or for that Asylum to be granted. Some countries flat out refuse to entertain asylum requests from countries they consider safe - the Convention allows for that. Can you point to a case that decided that? I should think the issue has never been discussed in a court because it is so obvious that a signatory state has to consider all applications made by those in their territory. The Refugee Convention is a binding agreement. If its signatories need only consider applications at their discretion, there is no obligation whatsoever, and the Convention becomes redundant. |
|
|
|
Post by wapentake on Mar 22, 2023 9:05:13 GMT
Though I usually think it a term designed to close down debate is that not pure whataboutery? The debate is centred on those who arrive in the UK by dinghy. Discussion of these is directly on point. It's the opposite of whataboutery. I see my humour passed you by |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Mar 22, 2023 9:07:51 GMT
Not sure how you work that one out. I am for any policy that deals with the situation effectively and stops the channel crossings ASAP notwithstanding my criticism of the current government and HM Opposition. If the policy being proposed works, and I have my doubts, then I am for it. If it does not, and I suspect it will not, then it will just kick the can further down the road to the disadvantage of British Citizens generally and specifically those of the same who will die or be raped as a result of illegal arrivals. Also to the disadvantage of those destined to die in the channel during the continuation of this farce. As well as the exorbitant cost that will ensue from the inability of the government to deal effectively with the situation. As a sensible person can you not extrapolate the figures and the costs one two and three years down the line irrespective of which process is followed. The costs of what you wish are astronomical in the short term and high in the long term. Even if it costs the lives of 'innocents' There are innocent British Citizens who have died as a result of the let them all in policy. Which innocents do you wish to protect the most as whichever policy is chosen someone will die? |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Mar 22, 2023 9:15:41 GMT
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 thiey cannot be deported for that. It is boring becasue you are not addressing the point. They are breaking the law in safe countries that are not averse to irregular migration in an excessive way The Convention allows the crossing of safe countries as there may be an antipathy in the first safe country to irregular migration. That does not apply to the first safe countries in the EU and migrants are duty bound to observe the laws of the countries within which they find themselves. Those principles are as much part of the Convention as any other. It seems to be that if a migrant kills a border guard in a safe country to progress to the UK we should ignore that law breaking. This is a nonsense. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Mar 22, 2023 9:18:08 GMT
The debate is centred on those who arrive in the UK by dinghy. Discussion of these is directly on point. It's the opposite of whataboutery. I see my humour passed you by See that it doesn't happen again. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Mar 22, 2023 9:25:52 GMT
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 thiey cannot be deported for that. It is boring becasue you are not addressing the point. They are breaking the law in safe countries that are not averse to irregular migration in an excessive way The Convention allows the crossing of safe countries as there may be an antipathy in the first safe country to irregular migration. That does not apply to the first safe countries in the EU and migrants are duty bound to observe the laws of the countries within which they find themselves. Those principles are as much part of the Convention as any other. It seems to be that if a migrant kills a border guard in a safe country to progress to the UK we should ignore that law breaking. This is a nonsense. Article 1 (not Article 2) is the relevant provision. This applies only to serious crimes. Article 1 says that a person may be denied refugee status by a signatory state if 'He has committed a serious non-political crime outside the country of refuge prior to his admission to that country as a refugee'. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Mar 22, 2023 9:27:22 GMT
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. That assumes they all are willing to work and enter the system. If 70% are successful that means on the numbers already arrived that 60,000 more houses are needed and 60,000 families can be reunited and a new town the size of Portsmouth needed every year and a half. You seem unable to view the future with anything other than through the rose coloured spectacles clamped in front of your eyes. Currently we are progressing into high levels of debt because most people are not positive contributors overall to the economy. I doubt very much that most arriving will doctors and rocket scientists most will have complex needs that are currently being denied to people who have actually paid in and contributed for most of their lives. Turn around will have to be faster to accommodate the hundreds of thousands who are and will come. If we adopt your wishes what is the end game, you really have to throw your mind forward as to the consequences of what you wish to do as saving the life of one woman in the long run will cost an awful lot more. What will actually stop the channel boats? |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Mar 22, 2023 9:33:22 GMT
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. That assumes they all are willing to work and enter the system. If 70% are successful that means on the numbers already arrived that 60,000 more houses are needed and 60,000 families can be reunited and a new town the size of Portsmouth needed every year and a half. You seem unable to view the future with anything other than through the rose coloured spectacles clamped in front of your eyes. Currently we are progressing into high levels of debt because most people are not positive contributors overall to the economy. I doubt very much that most arriving will doctors and rocket scientists most will have complex needs that are currently being denied to people who have actually paid in and contributed for most of their lives. Turn around will have to be faster to accommodate the hundreds of thousands who are and will come. If we adopt your wishes what is the end game, you really have to throw your mind forward as to the consequences of what you wish to do as saving the life of one woman in the long run will cost an awful lot more. What will actually stop the channel boats? '''' |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Mar 22, 2023 9:35:23 GMT
It is boring becasue you are not addressing the point. They are breaking the law in safe countries that are not averse to irregular migration in an excessive way The Convention allows the crossing of safe countries as there may be an antipathy in the first safe country to irregular migration. That does not apply to the first safe countries in the EU and migrants are duty bound to observe the laws of the countries within which they find themselves. Those principles are as much part of the Convention as any other. It seems to be that if a migrant kills a border guard in a safe country to progress to the UK we should ignore that law breaking. This is a nonsense. Article 1 (not Article 2) is the relevant provision. This applies only to serious crimes. Article 1 says that a person may be denied refugee status by a signatory state if 'He has committed a serious non-political crime outside the country of refuge prior to his admission to that country as a refugee'. Which of course is the point that knowing about a serious crime requires knowing who they are in reality and not who they say they are or how old they say they are or which country they come from. Arriving without documentation is as much part of the game being played to pull the wool over the eyes of teh British authorities and to claim to be the poor refugee fleeing danger the very danger that they have left their 'loved ones' at home to face without them. No point in being reasonable anymore. All that is seemingly wished for is the destruction of the UK by any means possible and the law has been coopted to that end. |
|
