|
Post by zanygame on Jul 11, 2023 6:51:45 GMT
Asylum seekers are using whatever method they can to flee for their lives, as would you. France isn't that dangerous - OK I know its pretty shit at the moment but over the next few weeks millions of people will be going there for their Holidays. France takes more asylum seekers than we do. I guess that makes France less dangerous.
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jul 11, 2023 6:53:01 GMT
So why does the government take so long to decide these cases then? Ask the government…then… They are not suffering persecution. They are in France . And if France closes its borders?
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jul 11, 2023 6:54:31 GMT
For fuck sake! Redders, France is not at war, the UN consider it to be a safe state. Christ almighty don't take my word for it, check it out. By a process of elimination you can see his position must be that everyone should be allowed to enter the UK from anywhere and by any means. This is not a 'real position', - in that it isn't a thought out advocacy with pluses and negatives considered - it is rather an implicit position drawn from a relentless attempt to attack / abuse one community by leaving them with no rights to their own territory. It's exactly how someone might attempt to genocide a group with a creeping legalism The issue is not whether we would want to accept asylum seekers. The issue is who is an asylum seeker.
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jul 11, 2023 6:56:28 GMT
I have not said they are being persecuted in France but you keep bring it up, I have said they are allowed to pass through France to reach a destination of their choice by law. You keep saying this but have not declared if you would do the same thing in their situation as I have. Show me my claims are false then. You falsely claimed that they were persecuted. What I would do is irrelevant ,a crime is till a crime . You are posting rhetorical questions to use as a strawman fallacy. Ive already shown that your claims are false . The migrants are in France . France isn’t persecuting them . Round and around we go… So if I speed to escape a gun man I'm still breaking the law? I don't think you'll find the law is that blunt.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2023 7:10:52 GMT
Of course no one is obliged to claim asylum. No one has claimed any such thing. It’s a really weird suggestion. People who do wish to claim asylum are under no obligation to claim that asylum in the first safe country. It’s the law. Like i said several times - nobody is obliged to apply for asylum Let me explain it again. As far as i know there is no obligation to claim, or apply for, asylum in any country. This is your notion, not mine. However, if you are in a safe country (i.e. you have moved away from the danger) nobody else is then obliged to take you in. The point of asylum system is to allow people to flee from danger, not to flee from safety. Here you are arguing against your own point, very well I might add. If asylum seekers are not 'obliged' to seek asylum in any country the can pass through a safe country to get to the country that the choose. We do have the right to refuse an asylum seekers claim to asylum but we have an international duty to hear that claim and judge it on it's merit.
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jul 11, 2023 7:12:48 GMT
First kick out people here illegally who are working, haven't sought asylum and haven't been here long. If they suddenly apply having been caught, simple, reject. And then send them to Rwanda. Agreed. We don't even record when visitors leave this island.
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jul 11, 2023 7:13:52 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 out line the problem, its just your solution that's unpalatable.
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jul 11, 2023 7:17:48 GMT
That is your opinion and you are perfectly entitled to it but it's not a good look for the UK is it? Read it again. It's fact not opinion. Agreed. It needs re-writing. The main thing I would change is where you can apply for asylum. Instead of having to rock up on our shores to apply, let people apply at UN centres across the globe. If they are accepted then they could apply to the country they would wish to live in citing their reasons. That would stop the economic migrants who arrive, apply for asylum and then disappear into the black and drugs market. (I.E those from Albania)
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jul 11, 2023 7:18:55 GMT
Do you consider Ukrainians fleeing the war to be refugees if they have travelled via Poland (which will be the case most of the time)? What about Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany who travelled to the US via Liverpool? Of course Ukrainians fleeing war from their country are refugees, why on earth would you ask if they are refugees? They are fleeing war and hopefully you will never know what that's like. However, there's a massive difference between a refugee and the criminal scum who this poxy government continue to allow into this country from France. So, are Sudanese fleeing war?
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Jul 11, 2023 7:19:06 GMT
Ask the government…then… They are not suffering persecution. They are in France . And if France closes its borders? Come back when they do.
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Jul 11, 2023 7:20:48 GMT
You falsely claimed that they were persecuted. What I would do is irrelevant ,a crime is till a crime . You are posting rhetorical questions to use as a strawman fallacy. Ive already shown that your claims are false . The migrants are in France . France isn’t persecuting them . Round and around we go… So if I speed to escape a gun man I'm still breaking the law? I don't think you'll find the law is that blunt. You would be speeding if the gun man was in another country . Try to keep up .
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jul 11, 2023 7:32:11 GMT
Like i said several times - nobody is obliged to apply for asylum Let me explain it again. As far as i know there is no obligation to claim, or apply for, asylum in any country. This is your notion, not mine. However, if you are in a safe country (i.e. you have moved away from the danger) nobody else is then obliged to take you in. The point of asylum system is to allow people to flee from danger, not to flee from safety. If asylum seekers are not 'obliged' to seek asylum in any country the can pass through a safe country to get to the country that the choose. No that doesn't follow. An asylum seeker has a right to flee the dangerous country, he doesn't have an infinitely extendable right to enter any country from any other.
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jul 11, 2023 7:43:26 GMT
Read it again. It's fact not opinion. Agreed. It needs re-writing. The main thing I would change is where you can apply for asylum. Instead of having to rock up on our shores to apply, let people apply at UN centres across the globe. If they are accepted then they could apply to the country they would wish to live in citing their reasons. That would stop the economic migrants who arrive, apply for asylum and then disappear into the black and drugs market. (I.E those from Albania) This would be unworkable. There are about a billion people
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Jul 11, 2023 7:53:50 GMT
So lets try and take stock of where we are.
It seems the majority now understand that the law says that people wishing to claim asylum are NOT obliged to claim that asylum in the first safe country they enter. That's progress.
Some are still banging on about France although there seems, given they understand the law above, there is no logic to their position.
Red seems to think that wars are only real if they feature in the headlines of GB News. Hence the hundreds of thousands (sic) of muslims fleeing here from Ukraine are welcome but those fleeing here from wars in Sudan and Syrian Kurdistan are not. His lack of awareness is touching. Lets pass over such ignorance.
Red sees fit to describe desperate fellow human beings as "scum" demonstrating the depths the easily manipulated can reach from excessive exposure to the hate preachers on GB News. What to do about such media outlets is though perhaps a subject for another thread.
So we know what the law is - people seeking asylum are entitled to claim that asylum in any country they reach (not necessarily the first safe country) and that country is then obliged to consider their claim unless they can identify another safe country willing to do so.
So lets move on to consider how , if at all, the law should be changed.
Zany suggests that central asylum claim points should be established and their claims assessed there before onward travel to their end destination country if their claim is deemed valid. That seems a reasonable proposal as long as claims processing is relatively quick.
Any other proposed change to the law or are we simply going to go back to pretending that the law is not as it is.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2023 8:05:42 GMT
If asylum seekers are not 'obliged' to seek asylum in any country the can pass through a safe country to get to the country that the choose. No that doesn't follow. An asylum seeker has a right to flee the dangerous country, he doesn't have an infinitely extendable right to enter any country from any other. How many countries does the convention stipulate that an asylum seeker is allowed to cross before they must claim asylum then.
|
|