|
|
Post by Orac on Jul 10, 2023 8:31:43 GMT
There is no way to properly 'process' the claims of people who have taken the simple and inexpensive precaution of ditching their documentation. There is also no way to remove these people even if by some miracle you conclude their claim must be bogus. Put all the facts together and it's clear that your position is to 'let them all in' and create a strong incentive for more to arrive. Another cop out. No - it's a reality you are relying on. You know perfectly well there is no process that could reliably and cheaply sort thousands of applicants and find the handful of 'genuine' and deport the frauds - and so the only option will be to (more or less) admit all. It's one of the necessary features of your position. Why do you have to be dishonest about your position? Because you know perfectly well your position isn't supported in popular opinion - that you are trying to do something to the uk public that they don't want done to them |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Jul 10, 2023 8:42:48 GMT
The UK is a signatory to the Refugee Convention. This provides that people seeking asylum are not penalised or prosecuted for entering a country illegally to seek asylum, provided they travel directly to the country in which they seek asylum, present themselves to authorities, and show good cause for their illegal entry. This acknowledges that some people may need to break laws in order to travel to a safe country and seek asylum.
Case law in the UK has established that these protections extend to people who claim asylum in good faith, even if their application is rejected, and those who travelled through other safe countries en route to the UK. The Refugee Convention is a peice of outdated legislation drawn up in 1951 in the shadow of WW2 when there were millions of displaced people in Europe. It was not designed to help criminals, 70 years later, move from safe country 'A' to safe country 'B', but that is exactly what it is being used for. The government should quite obviously withdraw from the convention and any other 70 year old legislation that is no longer fit for purpose. This would not stop illegals crossing the channel, but it would make it more difficult for left wing politicians, left wing lawyers and left wing charities to defend the invasion from the safe EU state of France. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2023 8:48:44 GMT
My apologies on that one. If you look at the last 2 lines of that post you will quite clearly see they are at odds with the rest of my post. The quote "Your position is abusive and likely motivated by racism" is an accusation made to me by another poster and I am unsure how it ended up 'tagged' to my reply to you. But I do apologise. Thanks RR . I accept that . Thanks. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2023 8:54:14 GMT
No - it's a reality you are relying on. You know perfectly well there is no process that could reliably and cheaply sort thousands of applicants and find the handful of 'genuine' and deport the frauds - and so the only option will be to (more or less) admit all. It's one of the necessary features of your position. Why do you have to be dishonest about your position? Because you know perfectly well your position isn't supported in popular opinion - that you are trying to do something to the uk public that they don't want done to them You are implying that the majority of asylum seekers are frauds but the statistics do not correlate with that view. 765 to 80% are successful in their claims. You do not know, neither do I, what the 'popular' opinion is on asylum seekers but in a poll the majority of those asked did not support the Rwanda scheme. Talking about being honest, it is a quite 'reasonable' opinion to want to deny the asylum seekers crossing the channel asylum but you may want to look at why you hold that opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jul 10, 2023 9:11:33 GMT
No - it's a reality you are relying on. You know perfectly well there is no process that could reliably and cheaply sort thousands of applicants and find the handful of 'genuine' and deport the frauds - and so the only option will be to (more or less) admit all. It's one of the necessary features of your position. Why do you have to be dishonest about your position? Because you know perfectly well your position isn't supported in popular opinion - that you are trying to do something to the uk public that they don't want done to them You are implying that the majority of asylum seekers are frauds but the statistics do not correlate with that view. 765 to 80% are successful in their claims. You seem to be unable to hold more than one piece of information at a time for examination. There is no cheap way to sort the frauds from genuine and so processing has been minimum (something you highlighted yourself). It can't be done reliably and so the problem is as big as you are willing to encourage it (for example, encourage illegal crossings of the English Channel). You are prepared to quite a long way to do this regardless of how the uk people feel about it. As an example of the mealy mouthiness of your response, anyone crossing the English channel illegally on the pretext that they are escaping to England for safety, is clearly a fraud (ie doing no such thing). |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Jul 10, 2023 9:33:15 GMT
Orac, It is quite staggering that after all the reams of posts on this forum, people still seem to struggle with the simple legal fact that people forced to flee from their homes due to persecution are not obliged to seek asylum in the first safe country they reach.
Hence people travelling through say Italy and France to claim asylum in the UK continue to have the potential to be judged to have a legitimate claim for asylum.
Until you understand and accept that simple point, you simply don't understand the reality of the real world asylum issue.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2023 9:40:46 GMT
You are implying that the majority of asylum seekers are frauds but the statistics do not correlate with that view. 765 to 80% are successful in their claims. You seem to be unable to hold more than one piece of information at a time for examination. There is no cheap way to sort the frauds from genuine and so processing has been minimum (something you highlighted yourself). It can't be done reliably and so the problem is as big as you are willing to encourage it (for example, encourage illegal crossings of the English Channel). You are prepared to quite a long way to do this regardless of how the uk people feel about it. As an example of the mealy mouthiness of your response, anyone crossing the English channel illegally on the pretext that they are escaping to England for safety, is clearly a fraud (ie doing no such thing). I have not encouraged asylum seekers to cross the channel. It would be cheaper to set up asylum processing stations in France, something the French are willing to let us do but we have refused, and process the asylum seekers there. We would not be paying £6+ million a day to house them in the UK, they would not have the opportunity to lose their ID's and we would not have to pay Rwanda for nothing. There are many ways of determining an asylum seekers identity with recourse to their passports. How are they clearly a 'fraud', as you put it, when up to 80% of asylum claims are successful? It is the government that is 'encouraging asylum seekers to pay the smugglers by having closed the 'safe' routes across. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jul 10, 2023 10:05:51 GMT
You seem to be unable to hold more than one piece of information at a time for examination. There is no cheap way to sort the frauds from genuine and so processing has been minimum (something you highlighted yourself). It can't be done reliably and so the problem is as big as you are willing to encourage it (for example, encourage illegal crossings of the English Channel). You are prepared to quite a long way to do this regardless of how the uk people feel about it. As an example of the mealy mouthiness of your response, anyone crossing the English channel illegally on the pretext that they are escaping to England for safety, is clearly a fraud (ie doing no such thing). I have not encouraged asylum seekers to cross the channel. It would be cheaper to set up asylum processing stations in France, something the French are willing to let us do but we have refused, and process the asylum seekers there. All such asylum claims would be logically invalid (fail) because all the people applying would be (by necessity) already in a safe country (France). Obviously, you are not looking for that outcome at all, so you must have in mind processing them in some other way that allows you get you want and you know that British public don't want ie for you to be able to assault the British public with large unstoppable flows of homeless people. All your economic sums are nonsense - they rely on ignoring incentive entirely and what you mean to do is massively increase the incentives for applicants and thereby massively increase the numbers of applicants. You mean to break the system and control and force something on the British public you know that they don't want. This is what you are doing - along with being dishonest about your intentions |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2023 10:12:15 GMT
I have not encouraged asylum seekers to cross the channel. It would be cheaper to set up asylum processing stations in France, something the French are willing to let us do but we have refused, and process the asylum seekers there. All such asylum claims would be logically invalid (fail) because all the people applying would be (by necessity) already in a safe country (France). Obviously, you are not looking for that outcome at all, so you must have in mind processing them in some other way that allows you get you want and you know that British public don't want ie for you to be able to assault the British public with large unstoppable flows of homeless people. All your economic sums are nonsense - they rely on ignoring incentive entirely and what you mean to do is massively increase the incentives for applicants and thereby massively increase the numbers of applicants. You mean to break the system and control and force something on the British public you know that they don't want. This is what you are doing - along with being dishonest about your intentionsIt appears to be pointless telling you that international law says that asylum seekers do not have to stay in the first safe country they come to and that they can only claim asylum in the UK when they are in the UK. You are talking from a point of deliberate ignorance. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jul 10, 2023 10:26:50 GMT
All such asylum claims would be logically invalid (fail) because all the people applying would be (by necessity) already in a safe country (France). Obviously, you are not looking for that outcome at all, so you must have in mind processing them in some other way that allows you get you want and you know that British public don't want ie for you to be able to assault the British public with large unstoppable flows of homeless people. All your economic sums are nonsense - they rely on ignoring incentive entirely and what you mean to do is massively increase the incentives for applicants and thereby massively increase the numbers of applicants. You mean to break the system and control and force something on the British public you know that they don't want. This is what you are doing - along with being dishonest about your intentionsIt appears to be pointless telling you that international law says that asylum seekers do not have to stay in the first safe country they come to and that they can only claim asylum in the UK when they are in the UK. Whether they can move or not is not the issue - under what circumstances they can breach a border without consent is. Refugees, once they arrive in safe country, can legally go anywhere they are allowed to go - just like everyone else. Just another reminder because you seem to be losing focus again. The objective of the asylum system is to allow people to flee danger, not to get them into the UK. There is no danger in France and so no need to flee France. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2023 13:04:12 GMT
The UK is a signatory to the Refugee Convention. This provides that people seeking asylum are not penalised or prosecuted for entering a country illegally to seek asylum, provided they travel directly to the country in which they seek asylum, present themselves to authorities, and show good cause for their illegal entry. This acknowledges that some people may need to break laws in order to travel to a safe country and seek asylum.
Case law in the UK has established that these protections extend to people who claim asylum in good faith, even if their application is rejected, and those who travelled through other safe countries en route to the UK. The Refugee Convention is a peice of outdated legislation drawn up in 1951 in the shadow of WW2 when there were millions of displaced people in Europe. It was not designed to help criminals, 70 years later, move from safe country 'A' to safe country 'B', but that is exactly what it is being used for. The government should quite obviously withdraw from the convention and any other 70 year old legislation that is no longer fit for purpose. This would not stop illegals crossing the channel, but it would make it more difficult for left wing politicians, left wing lawyers and left wing charities to defend the invasion from the safe EU state of France. That is your opinion and you are perfectly entitled to it but it's not a good look for the UK is it? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2023 13:05:04 GMT
It appears to be pointless telling you that international law says that asylum seekers do not have to stay in the first safe country they come to and that they can only claim asylum in the UK when they are in the UK. Whether they can move or not is not the issue - under what circumstances they can breach a border without consent is. Refugees, once they arrive in safe country, can legally go anywhere they are allowed to go - just like everyone else. Just another reminder because you seem to be losing focus again. The objective of the asylum system is to allow people to flee danger, not to get them into the UK. There is no danger in France and so no need to flee France. As I said pointless. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2023 13:06:13 GMT
All such asylum claims would be logically invalid (fail) because all the people applying would be (by necessity) already in a safe country (France). Obviously, you are not looking for that outcome at all, so you must have in mind processing them in some other way that allows you get you want and you know that British public don't want ie for you to be able to assault the British public with large unstoppable flows of homeless people. All your economic sums are nonsense - they rely on ignoring incentive entirely and what you mean to do is massively increase the incentives for applicants and thereby massively increase the numbers of applicants. You mean to break the system and control and force something on the British public you know that they don't want. This is what you are doing - along with being dishonest about your intentionsIt appears to be pointless telling you that international law says that asylum seekers do not have to stay in the first safe country they come to and that they can only claim asylum in the UK when they are in the UK. You are talking from a point of deliberate ignorance. How so, it's all you repeat on this forum over several threads everyday. You have nothing else. You use this line to encourage and support criminals and sit there watching people drown, and all because you feel you're getting one over on the Tories. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2023 13:06:48 GMT
The Refugee Convention is a peice of outdated legislation drawn up in 1951 in the shadow of WW2 when there were millions of displaced people in Europe. It was not designed to help criminals, 70 years later, move from safe country 'A' to safe country 'B', but that is exactly what it is being used for. The government should quite obviously withdraw from the convention and any other 70 year old legislation that is no longer fit for purpose. This would not stop illegals crossing the channel, but it would make it more difficult for left wing politicians, left wing lawyers and left wing charities to defend the invasion from the safe EU state of France. That is your opinion and you are perfectly entitled to it but it's not a good look for the UK is it? Who are you trying to impress? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2023 13:14:51 GMT
Whether they can move or not is not the issue - under what circumstances they can breach a border without consent is. Refugees, once they arrive in safe country, can legally go anywhere they are allowed to go - just like everyone else. Just another reminder because you seem to be losing focus again. The objective of the asylum system is to allow people to flee danger, not to get them into the UK. There is no danger in France and so no need to flee France. As I said pointless. Why? It's a conversation. If you're so restricted mentally that you have to limit yourself to what some outdated document says, because you hate this country and will support everything to hurt it by those who encourage and support criminals, then it would be pointless engaging with you. You're clearly only here to shout down the peoples' concerns (abuse them, too) and encourage criminal gangs who put people at risk when they were in no danger. That's what you do, and I think you do it for fun.
|
|
