Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 29, 2023 22:44:17 GMT
To Ned
I will repeat what I stated previously ... that a person who enters the UK illegally is an illegal immigrant, but if that person then claims Asylum, then that person is no longer an illegal immigrant in the eyes of the law.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
sandypine >> "Sorry what is this 'chosen country of asylum'. Asylum seeking is not a supermarket shopping trip, it is a deadly serious situation whereby one is in desperate need of a place of safety and one moves heaven and earth to leave the country one is in to any place of safety. Once that place of safety is reached, asylum is claimed and refugee status granted then one can go about 'choosing' and the country of 'choice' can go about accepting or refusing.
We are talking here about THE LAW, including international law, and regardless of your personal opinion, a person who flee's a country in order to claim asylum, can (in law) claim asylum in whatever country that person chooses, a Syrian who chooses Germany, France, Sweden or the United Kingdom is not breaking any rule or any law. There is no rule or law which stipulates that an asylum seeker must claim asylum in the first safe country they arrive in.
Turkey has more refugees and asylum seekers than any country in Europe, and is struggling to cope with the numbers
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Post by bancroft on Apr 29, 2023 23:18:17 GMT
I think us and the Dutch have the highest population per kilometer in Europe so we should have the right to say no we cannot take anymore.
We have let in so many since WWII so think we have a good reason to pull out of this international law when it comes to taking in alleged asylum seekers.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Apr 30, 2023 6:56:37 GMT
I think us and the Dutch have the highest population per kilometer in Europe so we should have the right to say no we cannot take anymore. We have let in so many since WWII so think we have a good reason to pull out of this international law when it comes to taking in alleged asylum seekers. You are not wrong but to be fair asylum numbers are dwarfed by legal immigration - so if you want to make a dent that is the area where you should concentrate. The only Net Zero we should have is Net Zero immigration. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Apr 30, 2023 7:27:46 GMT
"Our economy used to be productive and actually make things. It has been hollowed out and is now dependent on importing cheap migrant labour to fuel consumption.
That's what Britain's economy has become."
|
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Apr 30, 2023 7:47:00 GMT
Not tedious sheer stupidity and ignorance of the facts Like you know any facts.🤣 There is one fact that I do know, you are talking out of your arse, |
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Apr 30, 2023 7:47:40 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Apr 30, 2023 8:45:19 GMT
To NedI will repeat what I stated previously ... that a person who enters the UK illegally is an illegal immigrant, but if that person then claims Asylum, then that person is no longer an illegal immigrant in the eyes of the law. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ sandypine >> "Sorry what is this 'chosen country of asylum'. Asylum seeking is not a supermarket shopping trip, it is a deadly serious situation whereby one is in desperate need of a place of safety and one moves heaven and earth to leave the country one is in to any place of safety. Once that place of safety is reached, asylum is claimed and refugee status granted then one can go about 'choosing' and the country of 'choice' can go about accepting or refusing.
We are talking here about THE LAW, including international law, and regardless of your personal opinion, a person who flee's a country in order to claim asylum, can (in law) claim asylum in whatever country that person chooses, a Syrian who chooses Germany, France, Sweden or the United Kingdom is not breaking any rule or any law. There is no rule or law which stipulates that an asylum seeker must claim asylum in the first safe country they arrive in. Turkey has more refugees and asylum seekers than any country in Europe, and is struggling to cope with the numbers --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I did not say they have to claim asylum in the first safe country but they are not entitled to break laws to reach that country. If they have the convention agreed that no sanction should be taken against them although that refers only to illegal presence, there is no other consideration of laws that may have been broken. They also have to travel directly to that country without breaking any laws and we all know that once in the EU and travel beyond the first country they have no legal right to travel within Schengen without a visa. A Syrian who chooses any European country is in fact breaking many rules of law to get to his 'chosen' destination but the Convention expects no sanctions should be taken but does not demand it. Once in a safe country an illegal migrant has the responsibility to obey all the laws of that country. The problem is not that there is no law being broken it is that the EU is allowing safe passage of people breaking their laws to visit some of the problem on the UK. Wars have started for less. In 1940 we took millions of refugees from Poland, Belgium, Netherlands, France and Jews from all over. If I recall history correctly Turkey took very few and did not provide us with any cash to help with the problem. That was because we were neighbours in Europe to those seeking Asylum. Turkey is less than an inch from Syria, we are about 2500 miles. |
|
|
|
Post by bancroft on Apr 30, 2023 9:37:58 GMT
I think us and the Dutch have the highest population per kilometer in Europe so we should have the right to say no we cannot take anymore. We have let in so many since WWII so think we have a good reason to pull out of this international law when it comes to taking in alleged asylum seekers. You are not wrong but to be fair asylum numbers are dwarfed by legal immigration - so if you want to make a dent that is the area where you should concentrate. The only Net Zero we should have is Net Zero immigration. I have to agree the number is small compared to legal migration yet legal immigrants are not supported by the government, at least we re told this. On the aspect of legal immigration I would like much more detail, I can understand letting those in with certain skill sets we need yet suspect this a few thousand rather than tens or hundreds of thousands. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Apr 30, 2023 10:33:44 GMT
With respect to the numbers of legal migrants and their qualifications/abilities it's important to note that, with the shiny new post-Brexit 'Australian style' system, it's not the government that decides who gets to come, but rather the organisations that it has anointed as 'sponsors'. I believe there's around 30,000 such sponsors currently on the books.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Apr 30, 2023 10:34:38 GMT
You are not wrong but to be fair asylum numbers are dwarfed by legal immigration - so if you want to make a dent that is the area where you should concentrate. The only Net Zero we should have is Net Zero immigration. I have to agree the number is small compared to legal migration yet legal immigrants are not supported by the government, at least we re told this. On the aspect of legal immigration I would like much more detail, I can understand letting those in with certain skill sets we need yet suspect this a few thousand rather than tens or hundreds of thousands. Hardly. Once you become a legal immigrant you become eligible the entire panoply of welfare handouts - and as you have to be on over £50k to be a net contributor its extremely unlikely that vast numbers of migrants are not being supported by the taxpayer. |
|
|
|
Post by bancroft on Apr 30, 2023 20:57:37 GMT
We had immigration last year of over 500,000, are they trying to turn into the 4th Reich?  ?? |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on May 4, 2023 17:00:56 GMT
We had immigration last year of over 500,000, are they trying to turn into the 4th Reich? ?? Latest estimate out today for this year is 700,000 - there seems to be a concerted attempt to destroy British culture. |
|
|
|
Post by thescotsman on May 4, 2023 17:22:58 GMT
We had immigration last year of over 500,000, are they trying to turn into the 4th Reich? ?? Latest estimate out today for this year is 700,000 - there seems to be a concerted attempt to destroy British culture.....which bits of "British culture" would that be then....on that basis that "British culture" its a mishmash of world culture one assumes that its only being enhanced...getting all maudlin about something that encompasses such a wide concept is rather odd. Jeez we banned the Sex Pistols from the radio singing God Save the Queen...fuck... surely that was the nadir of anti-British culture!!!! |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on May 4, 2023 17:35:38 GMT
Latest estimate out today for this year is 700,000 - there seems to be a concerted attempt to destroy British culture.....which bits of "British culture" would that be then....on that basis that "British culture" its a mishmash of world culture one assumes that its only being enhanced...getting all maudlin about something that encompasses such a wide concept is rather odd. Jeez we banned the Sex Pistols from the radio singing God Save the Queen...fuck... surely that was the nadir of anti-British culture!!!! I have never come across a single place in the country where mass immigration has improved it. A cohesive population united by shared experience certainly had its problems in the past but injecting millions of outsiders who have no knowledge or interest the cultural heritage of the country certainly has not led to any improvements. Just the opposite. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on May 4, 2023 17:36:38 GMT
Latest estimate out today for this year is 700,000 - there seems to be a concerted attempt to destroy British culture.....which bits of "British culture" would that be then....on that basis that "British culture" its a mishmash of world culture one assumes that its only being enhanced...getting all maudlin about something that encompasses such a wide concept is rather odd. Jeez we banned the Sex Pistols from the radio singing God Save the Queen...fuck... surely that was the nadir of anti-British culture!!!! I would think it is quite easy to spot something that is a British Culture just as it is easy to spot something that is an Indian Culture or a Chinese Culture. All have many influences but each is quite distinct. What is at odds is bringing in other cultures to large levels so that any British Culture is overwhelmed within its own confines. I lived in South Hampshire for twenty years and there were several Scottish pipe bands in the town but they did not overwhelm the local culture where Morris dancing, Maypoles, Church fetes and carnivals were still in abundance. |
|
