|
|
Post by sheepy on May 3, 2023 21:33:30 GMT
Actually seems extremely rare as this is the only case I've heard of. Is the a UK case of this? Personally I don't think there's any need to demonise these migrants in order to want them stopped from coming here. No probably not, but then it has been made a lot easier to demonise the people whose lives are being adversely affected by said illegal immigrants. |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on May 3, 2023 21:41:36 GMT
My remarks shouldn't be construed as criticism of the Convention, which is of its time and place, but rather of the over-liberal interpretation of its requirements and the subsequent mission-creep. As I understand it in the UK, for example, refugee status is granted for an initial period of five years after which an assessment is made of the situation in the country of origin. At that stage the refugee is given the option of returning home or applying for Indefinite Leave to Remain. There is no option to extend refugee status for a further period. Guess how many refugees choose the former. I have already said that I think the convention is out of date. My question is what replaces it. How do we offer sanctuary to those fleeing persecution and death while preventing the tidal wave of economic migrants. Forcing someone who was given refugee status to leave their new home after five years, for no better reason than 'that's what we're allowed o do' Is not what I am looking for as a Brit. No you are looking to steer it away from the actual root of the problem Zany and into the realm of Asylum seeking refugees. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on May 3, 2023 22:01:05 GMT
Actually seems extremely rare as this is the only case I've heard of. Is the a UK case of this? Personally I don't think there's any need to demonise these migrants in order to want them stopped from coming here. Well if you read the article this is the third year in a row it has happened and becoming worse every year. The MSM tend to ignore most of it, obviously so as not to demonise but then that in itself is a false narrative as events like this are normally news, not reporting it because one is concerned about 'demonising' is effectively manipulation. I am pointing out that being a country that does the 'right thing' has costs and it will normally be innocent parties that have asylum seekers thrust upon them that will suffer. Yet no one seems to care about them. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on May 4, 2023 5:40:52 GMT
Actually seems extremely rare as this is the only case I've heard of. Is the a UK case of this? Personally I don't think there's any need to demonise these migrants in order to want them stopped from coming here. No probably not, but then it has been made a lot easier to demonise the people whose lives are being adversely affected by said illegal immigrants. I think most people can understand the worries of those who are told the government are shipping a load of illegal migrants to their town. Where the condemnation might come is when they brand the whole group (All asylum seekers) as bad because of the actions of a tiny minority. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on May 4, 2023 5:45:08 GMT
I have already said that I think the convention is out of date. My question is what replaces it. How do we offer sanctuary to those fleeing persecution and death while preventing the tidal wave of economic migrants. Forcing someone who was given refugee status to leave their new home after five years, for no better reason than 'that's what we're allowed o do' Is not what I am looking for as a Brit. No you are looking to steer it away from the actual root of the problem Zany and into the realm of Asylum seeking refugees. I'm not steering this conversation. My post was a direct response to another posters claim. I can only guess what the rest of your sentence refers to. |
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on May 4, 2023 5:48:26 GMT
No you are looking to steer it away from the actual root of the problem Zany and into the realm of Asylum seeking refugees. I'm not steering this conversation. My post was a direct response to another posters claim. I can only guess what the rest of your sentence refers to. No, Zany, you have found another cause on which to exert your nonsense. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on May 4, 2023 5:51:53 GMT
Actually seems extremely rare as this is the only case I've heard of. Is the a UK case of this? Personally I don't think there's any need to demonise these migrants in order to want them stopped from coming here. Well if you read the article this is the third year in a row it has happened and becoming worse every year. The MSM tend to ignore most of it, obviously so as not to demonise but then that in itself is a false narrative as events like this are normally news, not reporting it because one is concerned about 'demonising' is effectively manipulation. I am pointing out that being a country that does the 'right thing' has costs and it will normally be innocent parties that have asylum seekers thrust upon them that will suffer. Yet no one seems to care about them. Yobs are yobs. Why is it necessary to point out the colour of their skin or their continent of origin as if this is a significant factor in being a yob. |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on May 4, 2023 5:58:52 GMT
"I think most people can understand the worries of those who are told the government are shipping a load of illegal migrants to their town".
What they can't make up their own minds they need to be told? absolute rubbish. So, no, I guess you cannot understand.
|
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on May 4, 2023 6:20:43 GMT
"I think most people can understand the worries of those who are told the government are shipping a load of illegal migrants to their town". What they can't make up their own minds they need to be told? absolute rubbish. So, no, I guess you cannot understand. Its you who fails to understand. your sentence bares no relation to my words. Stop listening to the voices in your head and read the words on the page. |
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on May 4, 2023 6:21:47 GMT
Well if you read the article this is the third year in a row it has happened and becoming worse every year. The MSM tend to ignore most of it, obviously so as not to demonise but then that in itself is a false narrative as events like this are normally news, not reporting it because one is concerned about 'demonising' is effectively manipulation. I am pointing out that being a country that does the 'right thing' has costs and it will normally be innocent parties that have asylum seekers thrust upon them that will suffer. Yet no one seems to care about them. Yobs are yobs. Why is it necessary to point out the colour of their skin or their continent of origin as if this is a significant factor in being a yob.By repute. |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on May 4, 2023 6:23:18 GMT
"I think most people can understand the worries of those who are told the government are shipping a load of illegal migrants to their town". What they can't make up their own minds they need to be told? absolute rubbish. So, no, I guess you cannot understand. Its you who fails to understand. your sentence bares no relation to my words. Stop listening to the voices in your head and read the words on the page. Answer the question Zany, but then once again you probably have. |
|
|
|
Post by Dogburger on May 4, 2023 6:45:51 GMT
My remarks shouldn't be construed as criticism of the Convention, which is of its time and place, but rather of the over-liberal interpretation of its requirements and the subsequent mission-creep. As I understand it in the UK, for example, refugee status is granted for an initial period of five years after which an assessment is made of the situation in the country of origin. At that stage the refugee is given the option of returning home or applying for Indefinite Leave to Remain. There is no option to extend refugee status for a further period. Guess how many refugees choose the former. I have already said that I think the convention is out of date. My question is what replaces it. How do we offer sanctuary to those fleeing persecution and death while preventing the tidal wave of economic migrants. Forcing someone who was given refugee status to leave their new home after five years, for no better reason than 'that's what we're allowed o do' Is not what I am looking for as a Brit. I would put them to work . Provide accomodation , food of their choice , education ect in fact everything they could wish for ,a type of modern workhouse where they can feel safe and productive in the knowlege they were paying their way . I wouldn't give them any wages though , maybe a bit of pocket money for personal bits but thats it . The genuine refugee would be delighted , the economic migrant would go to Germany ,the criminal element would stay at home . |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on May 4, 2023 8:28:31 GMT
Well if you read the article this is the third year in a row it has happened and becoming worse every year. The MSM tend to ignore most of it, obviously so as not to demonise but then that in itself is a false narrative as events like this are normally news, not reporting it because one is concerned about 'demonising' is effectively manipulation. I am pointing out that being a country that does the 'right thing' has costs and it will normally be innocent parties that have asylum seekers thrust upon them that will suffer. Yet no one seems to care about them. Yobs are yobs. Why is it necessary to point out the colour of their skin or their continent of origin as if this is a significant factor in being a yob. Because of what they were shouting. It was clear it was racially motivated and if it had been a group of white yobs attacking and intimidating black holiday makers then there would be no end of reporting and criticising in opinion pieces. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on May 4, 2023 9:43:42 GMT
@zany: you wrote: The convention could still be made serviceable if some of its ambiguities were resolved (it doesn't recognise the status of 'asylum seeker' for example). It's not the convention per se that is the problem but rather the over-generous interpretations that liberal states have chosen to place on many of its provisions, starting with the definition of 'who is a refugee'. Returning to the letter and spirit of the convention could result in a dramatic fall in the number of claimants. And then:
Given that refugee status is by definition intended to be temporary it seems a great folly to allow those granted that status to develop an expectation, an sense of entitlement even, that it will automatically lead to a grant of permanent settlement.
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on May 4, 2023 12:29:52 GMT
As someone once said 'we must be mad, literally mad'. So if a Rwandan refugee arrives here escaping the genocide and is stuck here for 6 years of the war. He settles down and meets someone should he be forcibly repatriated when the war ends? There's civil war in Rwanda? |
|
