|
|
Post by zanygame on May 10, 2023 19:51:17 GMT
We agree the legislation needs updating, I would disagree that any re-writing should be used to force our responsibilities for humanity onto France by slight of hand and geographic positioning. ZG, it is not the responsibility of the UK to look after humanity. France are pro EU and pro open borders, their immigration problems are their own fault and nothing to do with the UK. Besides, since 2007 thanks to Labour and the EU, England has been the most densely populated country in Europe, we are full. France is twice the size of the UK with roughly the same population. Macron likes the EU and open borders, let the EU/France deal with illegals. Sometimes I find it really hard to answer you Red. Weren't you a squaddie? Spending years in other countries helping people with good old British fairness. France does not have an open border policy. They are just like us, signatories to the Geneva convention. And then once again you confuse immigration and asylum. Coming to the sensible bits. Yes I agree Britain is getting overcrowded, but that was due to immigration (In which we ask people to come here) All the refugees arriving here have very little effect of the 75million population we already have. That said, as stated I do think the ideals of the Geneva convention need overhauling as the world has changed. When it was conceived communication around the third world was almost not existent and rubber dinghies were a twinkle in the Navy's eye  Now communication is easy and the traffickers are selling the Uk to economic migrants. So we no longer see asylum seekers as a rare event fleeing wars So it needs to change, but are you really sure you want the UK to abandon the Geneva convention totally? |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on May 10, 2023 19:54:32 GMT
The Rwandan genocide was 29 years ago. By now, things are safe. Second safest country in Africa after Botswana |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on May 10, 2023 20:43:29 GMT
ZG, it is not the responsibility of the UK to look after humanity. France are pro EU and pro open borders, their immigration problems are their own fault and nothing to do with the UK. Besides, since 2007 thanks to Labour and the EU, England has been the most densely populated country in Europe, we are full. France is twice the size of the UK with roughly the same population. Macron likes the EU and open borders, let the EU/France deal with illegals. Sometimes I find it really hard to answer you Red. Weren't you a squaddie? Spending years in other countries helping people with good old British fairness. France does not have an open border policy. They are just like us, signatories to the Geneva convention. And then once again you confuse immigration and asylum. Coming to the sensible bits. Yes I agree Britain is getting overcrowded, but that was due to immigration (In which we ask people to come here) All the refugees arriving here have very little effect of the 75million population we already have. That said, as stated I do think the ideals of the Geneva convention need overhauling as the world has changed. When it was conceived communication around the third world was almost not existent and rubber dinghies were a twinkle in the Navy's eye Now communication is easy and the traffickers are selling the Uk to economic migrants. So we no longer see asylum seekers as a rare event fleeing wars So it needs to change, but are you really sure you want the UK to abandon the Geneva convention totally? The Geneva Convention has got diddly to do with it. You mention British fairness! Are you serious? FFS ZG since 2007 England has been the most densely populated country in Europe, never in this countries long history have we ever experienced this level of immigration and no one was asked, no one voted for it. It was imposed and that's why immigration will never be popular. Of course France has an open border immigration policy, France is an EU state. The unelected presidents and commissioners who Macron supports removed all borders in order for the EU to become some wonderful multicultural utopia, yes indeed. That dream didn't last long did it. ZG why do you keep banging on about the Geneva Convention? The reason millions of illegals find it so easy to get to an English beach from the safe EU state of France, and once here are almost impossible to deport, has nothing to do with the Geneva Convention. It's because left wing lawyers are very adept at using the 1951 UN Refugee Convention which was penned in the shadow of WW2 when there were millions of displaced people in Europe. It was never intended to prevent governments, 70 years later, from deporting foreign criminals and illegal immigrants which is why the government should withdraw from it, with a sense of urgency. Unless France is in a state of war, it is impossible for a genuine 'refugee' to land on an English beach, unless perhaps they have rowed a boat from the Bay of Bengal. Refugees do not pay people traffickers to get them from safe country A, to safe country B. But illegal immigrants, do. ZG, regarding illegals and refugees, you appear to be confused. Let me explain, the young men who step of RNLI lifeboats on the south coast smiling and giving the thumbs up while talking to their mates in France on smartphones, are not refugees. They are criminals, scroungers who are taking us for a ride. However, refugees do exist, sadly. Google Kutupulong refugee camp, those poor bastards are genuine refugees yet oh so virtuous lefties in this country don't know it exists. The slags crossing the channel, are criminals.  |
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on May 10, 2023 21:27:52 GMT
The Geneva conventions are to do with wars, and prisoners of war, not refugees.
|
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on May 11, 2023 5:53:05 GMT
The Geneva conventions are to do with wars, and prisoners of war, not refugees. The Geneva convention part 4 deals with those effected by war who do not participate in it. But my point is that Britain once thought things like that were important. Same with the human rights act, we once thought it was our duty to fight for those beyond our borders and help those displaced. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on May 11, 2023 6:15:09 GMT
Sometimes I find it really hard to answer you Red. Weren't you a squaddie? Spending years in other countries helping people with good old British fairness. France does not have an open border policy. They are just like us, signatories to the Geneva convention. And then once again you confuse immigration and asylum. Coming to the sensible bits. Yes I agree Britain is getting overcrowded, but that was due to immigration (In which we ask people to come here) All the refugees arriving here have very little effect of the 75million population we already have. That said, as stated I do think the ideals of the Geneva convention need overhauling as the world has changed. When it was conceived communication around the third world was almost not existent and rubber dinghies were a twinkle in the Navy's eye Now communication is easy and the traffickers are selling the Uk to economic migrants. So we no longer see asylum seekers as a rare event fleeing wars So it needs to change, but are you really sure you want the UK to abandon the Geneva convention totally? FFS. Immigration and how full our country is has NOTHING to do with this. WE as in our elected representatives INVITED all those people to come here and work and pay tax. WE did it so WE could keep our own tax lower while maintaining a standard of living WE couldn't afford. It was not some act of kindness, nor did it replace our responsibility to refugees and asylum seekers. The EU does not have an open border policy. That refugees can travel through the EU to be processed by their country of choice is to do with the human rights act. ITS NOTHING TO DO WITH FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT. You mistake my intention. My point in highlighting the Geneva convention was to point out to you the morals we once were proud of. The human rights act is the one that allows refugees to choose their country to appeal. Its the human rights act I want modernised. I already agreed with you on this. No it isn't as you have been told more times than I can remember. That you keep repeating it simply demonstrates your inability to listen. In modern times refugees to pay traffickers to get them to places of safety. Its a sad reflection of how the West tries to avoid helping people in need directly. Hence my idea of offering refugees a safe place on the borders of war zones. I'm not confused Red. I recognise that those arriving are in the majority economic migrants. What I find unacceptable is your solution of simply closing the door on anyone arriving at our shores asking for sanctuary. And even more so your idea that we should force other countries to carry our share of the load. I want a solution, just not your one. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on May 11, 2023 9:23:07 GMT
What is the problem for which you seek a solution, Zany?
Is it the inability of our system to distinguish between genuine asylum seekers and economic migrants? Or is it that we permit economic migrants to access the system on arrival. Or is it that economic migrants are motivated to leave the EU for the UK in the first place?
And given that the total number of small boat arrivals is less than 5% of other, legal migrants is it a problem worth worrying about?
|
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on May 11, 2023 10:44:40 GMT
Zany, refugees are welcome and have always been.
Illegal economic migrants from Albania and so on, are not refugees and are not welcome.
We're a small island. We can't cope with the number of illegal immigrants posing as refugees, who aren't refugees.
Deport illegal economic migrants.
Put them on a plane, and deport them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2023 15:03:57 GMT
The Geneva conventions are to do with wars, and prisoners of war, not refugees. The Geneva convention part 4 deals with those effected by war who do not participate in it. But my point is that Britain once thought things like that were important. Same with the human rights act, we once thought it was our duty to fight for those beyond our borders and help those displaced. Sure, but displacing the people in our own country to help with your feelies isn't reasonable. You've already made this one of the most densely populated nations in the world and we can see you won't stop. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on May 11, 2023 19:16:29 GMT
What is the problem for which you seek a solution, Zany? Is it the 1: inability of our system to distinguish between genuine asylum seekers and economic migrants? Or is it that 2:we permit economic migrants to access the system on arrival. Or is it 3:that economic migrants are motivated to leave the EU for the UK in the first place? And given that the total number of small boat arrivals is less than 5% of other, legal migrants is it a problem worth worrying about? 1, I don't think there is inability, I think there is unwillingness. I think our government so relies on an annually growing population that it will stoop to any level to achieve it. No other answer explains why so many "Asylum seekers" remain unprocessed or just pass through almost unquestioned into our work force. 2, No, that doesn't bother me as I think we should look after asylum seekers. 3, No, there are just as many migrants claiming asylum in each EU country as there are in the UK. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on May 11, 2023 19:26:22 GMT
Zany, refugees are welcome and have always been. Illegal economic migrants from Albania and so on, are not refugees and are not welcome. We're a small island. We can't cope with the number of illegal immigrants posing as refugees, who aren't refugees. Deport illegal economic migrants. Put them on a plane, and deport them. Well we agree on that. Of course deporting them without an asylum claim examined would be difficult. So how about we keep them in camps while they are processed, then if they are found to have made a fraudulent claim slap them in prison. I know, its more cost, but it sure sends a message to those thinking of coming here. And its not that much more expensive than keeping them on barges and in hotels. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on May 11, 2023 20:16:44 GMT
What is the problem for which you seek a solution, Zany? Is it the 1: inability of our system to distinguish between genuine asylum seekers and economic migrants? Or is it that 2:we permit economic migrants to access the system on arrival. Or is it 3:that economic migrants are motivated to leave the EU for the UK in the first place? And given that the total number of small boat arrivals is less than 5% of other, legal migrants is it a problem worth worrying about? 1, I don't think there is inability, I think there is unwillingness. I think our government so relies on an annually growing population that it will stoop to any level to achieve it. No other answer explains why so many "Asylum seekers" remain unprocessed or just pass through almost unquestioned into our work force. 2, No, that doesn't bother me as I think we should look after asylum seekers. 3, No, there are just as many migrants claiming asylum in each EU country as there are in the UK. That still leaves me somewhat baffled as to the actual problem that you believe needs to be solved. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on May 11, 2023 20:29:14 GMT
1, I don't think there is inability, I think there is unwillingness. I think our government so relies on an annually growing population that it will stoop to any level to achieve it. No other answer explains why so many "Asylum seekers" remain unprocessed or just pass through almost unquestioned into our work force. 2, No, that doesn't bother me as I think we should look after asylum seekers. 3, No, there are just as many migrants claiming asylum in each EU country as there are in the UK. That still leaves me somewhat baffled as to the actual problem that you believe needs to be solved. Indeed, but you asked me very targeted questions which I endeavoured to answer. The actual problem is very obvious. There are many very unpleasant places to live in this world, there always were, but modern communication has increased the ability of those that live in them to see a glimpse of what life should be like/ could be like. As this happened many wealthy countries took steps to deliberately make it difficult to claim asylum. The net result of this combination is the traffickers who are not the cause but the result. That is the problem as I see it. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on May 11, 2023 20:50:19 GMT
So the 'actual problem' in your view are the obstacles that countries like the UK have put in place to deter asylum seeking which has resulted in the entrepreneurial opportunity this presented to criminal elements to facilitate the arrival of asylum seekers who would not otherwise have any means of getting here.
If said obstacles were not in place and as many asylum seekers as wished could avail themselves of the opportuity to claim asylum in the UK were able to do so without having to rely upon the services of traffickers would that mean the problem has gone away, in your view?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2023 21:19:27 GMT
If you want something but the law stands in your way, you remove the law. Problem solved. It could be applied to bank robbery.
|
|
