Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2023 15:20:05 GMT
Wrong arriving by an illegal route does not make you an illegal immigrant, if it did they could be returned whence they came legally and there would be no need to concoct laws to deport them. You support the use of language that incites fear and hatred? They wish to arrive in the UK and use asylum laws to enable them to live permanently or for the duration of their enforced exile. They illegally entered the country that makes them illegal immigrants. They have another status as an asylum seeker but they are always illegal immigrants until granted refugee status. It does not read the convention. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Mar 24, 2023 15:21:42 GMT
It wasn’t . It was a cheap and cynical way to link the a Tories to Nazi Germany by falsely claiming the rhetoric was the same . I get it alright . It was linking the language used by the Tories to those used in pre war Germany. Nope.He was falsely linking the language used by the Tories to those used in pre war Germany. He was doing it to falsely link the Tories to Nazi Germany. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Mar 24, 2023 16:19:51 GMT
Several questions of a factual basis. Are they arriving illegally? Is it an invasion? Is there a problem with criminality arriving. Who has blamed immigrants for the ills of the country? Are the small boat arrivals indeed a problem not just for teh British people but for the people trying to make the journey as well? None of what you have indicated 'dehumanises'. The problem with the left is that facts get in the way of narrative and controlling the language, irrespective of how accurate it may be is part of that process. How does the fragrant Ms Abbott describe such. We should not play their game. No I object to them being called 'illegal immigrants', I have never argued the fact that they have arrived by an 'illegal or irregular' route. 'Ille4gal immigrants are those that have outstayed their visas or are living in this country without applying for asylum. The people in the boats claim asylum when they arrive. Well you can object all you like but asking for asylum does not turn an illegal migrant into a legal migrant.  |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Mar 24, 2023 16:26:46 GMT
They wish to arrive in the UK and use asylum laws to enable them to live permanently or for the duration of their enforced exile. They illegally entered the country that makes them illegal immigrants. They have another status as an asylum seeker but they are always illegal immigrants until granted refugee status. It does not read the convention. Where does it say they shall not be called illegal migrants. Article 31 refers to no sanctions but not to how one must reference such people. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Mar 24, 2023 16:28:24 GMT
It wasn’t . It was a cheap and cynical way to link the a Tories to Nazi Germany by falsely claiming the rhetoric was the same . I get it alright . It was linking the language used by the Tories to those used in pre war Germany. Well what language used in pre war Germany is clearly linked to the language used by the government. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2023 17:07:28 GMT
No I object to them being called 'illegal immigrants', I have never argued the fact that they have arrived by an 'illegal or irregular' route. 'Ille4gal immigrants are those that have outstayed their visas or are living in this country without applying for asylum. The people in the boats claim asylum when they arrive. Well you can object all you like but asking for asylum does not turn an illegal migrant into a legal migrant. For once I agree with you 😁You cannot call an asylum seeker an illegal just because the came by what is deemed an illegal route. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2023 17:08:15 GMT
It does not read the convention. Where does it say they shall not be called illegal migrants. Article 31 refers to no sanctions but not to how one must reference such people. I think "they should suffer no penalty for there route they take" should cover it. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Mar 24, 2023 17:18:16 GMT
Where does it say they shall not be called illegal migrants. Article 31 refers to no sanctions but not to how one must reference such people. I think "they should suffer no penalty for there route they take" should cover it. I disagree that clearly indicates some form of sanction, fine, expulsion or imprisonment and the government guidance under review thinks the same. 5. Article 31(1) does not give a definition of penalties, but the drafters of the Convention appear to have had in mind measures such as prosecution, fine and imprisonment. Article 31(2) allows for administrative detention where it is necessary to investigate the circumstances of entry or to obtain further information in respect of their right to remain in the United Kingdom. Section 31 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/257378/article31.pdf#:~:text=Article%2031%20of%20the%20Refugee%20Convention%203.%20Article,illegally%20in%20order%20to%20seek%20sanctuary%2C%20provided%20that%3A |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Mar 24, 2023 18:03:30 GMT
Well you can object all you like but asking for asylum does not turn an illegal migrant into a legal migrant. For once I agree with you 😁You cannot call an asylum seeker an illegal just because the came by what is deemed an illegal route. No - they are illegal because they entered the country without the correct documentation, which is a crime under UK Law. The route they took to get here has no bearing on the case. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2023 19:03:30 GMT
Where does it say they shall not be called illegal migrants. Article 31 refers to no sanctions but not to how one must reference such people. I think "they should suffer no penalty for there route they take" should cover it. Illegal immigrant is much less cumbersome, and at the time likely to be accurate, even if they are exempt from prosecution if they claim asylum. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2023 7:57:07 GMT
For once I agree with you 😁You cannot call an asylum seeker an illegal just because the came by what is deemed an illegal route. No - they are illegal because they entered the country without the correct documentation, which is a crime under UK Law. The route they took to get here has no bearing on the case. So the route is not illegal? |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Mar 25, 2023 8:03:49 GMT
No - they are illegal because they entered the country without the correct documentation, which is a crime under UK Law. The route they took to get here has no bearing on the case. So the route is not illegal? Any route is illegal if you do not have the correct documentation |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2023 8:52:08 GMT
I think "they should suffer no penalty for there route they take" should cover it. I disagree that clearly indicates some form of sanction, fine, expulsion or imprisonment and the government guidance under review thinks the same. 5. Article 31(1) does not give a definition of penalties, but the drafters of the Convention appear to have had in mind measures such as prosecution, fine and imprisonment. Article 31(2) allows for administrative detention where it is necessary to investigate the circumstances of entry or to obtain further information in respect of their right to remain in the United Kingdom. Section 31 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/257378/article31.pdf#:~:text=Article%2031%20of%20the%20Refugee%20Convention%203.%20Article,illegally%20in%20order%20to%20seek%20sanctuary%2C%20provided%20that%3A You are seriously saying that 'deportation' without processing was not specifically mentioned that it is allowed? Our government is refusing to uphold it's obligation to process asylum seekers and we all know why. Now they are looking at moving them out of hotels and putting them in disused barracks, more red meat. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2023 8:53:20 GMT
So the route is not illegal? Any route is illegal if you do not have the correct documentation A lot of these people have their documents confiscated. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Mar 25, 2023 9:24:08 GMT
You are seriously saying that 'deportation' without processing was not specifically mentioned that it is allowed? Our government is refusing to uphold it's obligation to process asylum seekers and we all know why. Now they are looking at moving them out of hotels and putting them in disused barracks, more red meat. I am not saying that nor have I ever said that. The whole point is we are in a situation now that the Convention was not designed for and strict adherence to its current interpretation will in the end lead to an influx into the UK way beyond any control and methods of processing. It will also lead to deaths in the channel and criminal actions on British Citizens. Do we all know 'why'? Asylum seekers and their criminal gang enablers are using the asylum system to get as many people into the UK as possible as it is an excellent business model. France continually tells us that the business model is in part due to our very tolerant view and treatment of asylum seekers. If we continue then the UK will always be the beacon at the end of a long journey for the disparate groups that we already see arriving. It is clearly unsustainable and in the end, and not too far away, if we do not control it it will overwhelm us. Perhaps that is what you want I do not know but the price of your feel good is too high for all of us to bear and realistically it is an imposition on the British public who have been imposed on far too much of late. |
|
