|
|
Post by Orac on Jul 11, 2023 16:05:04 GMT
The reason the convention makes it clear that the claimant shall not be punished is because the convention recognises that their action in crossing the border was a reasonable action to take in their circumstance. We seem to be back to rather convolutedly giving desperate people an unpleasant label. Whatever turns you on..... I think it is more a nod to the tension between granting an asylum and punishing the receiver of that asylum. The writers of the document likely didn't anticipate the entire third world attempting bogus entry into Hampshire/ Kent Regardless of interpretation, someone claiming that they had to travel to the UK from France in order to flee danger, is unambiguously engaging in a form of fraud. I said several posts back, it is legal loophole. A loophole in legislation designed to help the needy is exploited by the unsavory. This is hardly a new , or even uncommon, thing. |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Jul 11, 2023 16:10:43 GMT
Not a legal loophole at all. It was recognised that people would not have to claim asylum in first safe country they reached. by definition that means that they would then cross from a "safe" country to another "safe" country to do so. No evidence at all to suggest that the law was not written as it was intended to operate.
The law of course can be changed. But despite many promptings you refuse to say how you would wish it to be so changed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jul 11, 2023 16:21:19 GMT
Not a legal loophole at all. It was recognised that people would not have to claim asylum in first safe country they reached. by definition that means that they would then cross from a "safe" country to another "safe" country to do so.. nope. This sort of thing might happen, but there is no obligation on signatory's to allow it. The convention is a specific adaption of border policy, to allow the special case of free entry to those crossing the border of signatory from a dangerous country. Signatories are not (for example) obliged to allow free entry across any of their borders because somebody crossing might have originated in a dangerous country. I have made this comment before in other threads, but what you seem to be implying is a complete dissolution of all signatory's national borders. This is not the case. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2023 16:23:35 GMT
If you are going to quote someone's words you should quote the whole thing to specify the context in which it was said. The only relevant part was what I took from it, whilst knowing you will continue to repeat yourself like a robot.
Show me I am wrong? |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jul 11, 2023 16:25:53 GMT
Once again you wish to throw insults at people. I don't agree. Whatever. I don't see how you can disagree on the moral side. Someone travelling from France to the UK is unambiguously not doing so because they are unsafe in France. Consequently, the substantial claim they are making - ie 'I need to do this for safety' - is fraudulent. They are also criminals. The only motive i can ascribe to someone supporting such actions is some interest or other in these people being in the UK rather than France - a motive that has nothing at all to do with these people's safety. Such a motive would make such a person dishonest unless they declared it. If I thought you were concerned about the crime I might be sympathetic, but the truth is you're just looking for an excuse to shove the problem onto someone elses shoulders. Funnily enough France isn't going to respond well to being told they must take all the refugees because the UK can't be arsed to do its share. So they can just let them pass through, seeing your attitude if I was French I'd be giving them boats as well. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jul 11, 2023 16:35:00 GMT
I don't see how you can disagree on the moral side. Someone travelling from France to the UK is unambiguously not doing so because they are unsafe in France. Consequently, the substantial claim they are making - ie 'I need to do this for safety' - is fraudulent. They are also criminals. The only motive i can ascribe to someone supporting such actions is some interest or other in these people being in the UK rather than France - a motive that has nothing at all to do with these people's safety. Such a motive would make such a person dishonest unless they declared it. If I thought you were concerned about the crime I might be sympathetic, but the truth is you're just looking for an excuse to shove the problem onto someone elses shoulders. Funnily enough France isn't going to respond well to being told they must take all the refugees because the UK can't be arsed to do its share. So they can just let them pass through, seeing your attitude if I was French I'd be giving them boats as well. For someone who is notionally against this, you seem to coming up with numerous reasons to support, extend and expand it. You are correct about the beggar thy neighbor nature of the problem, but you have, as you typically do, got it upside-down. The problem will inflate to any capacity provided for it. So those providing for it are increasing the burden on all players including themselves and making the problem, and the commercial forces exploiting it, more and more intractable. Doing the right thing here would be taking action to reduce the incentives creating the flow. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jul 11, 2023 16:57:58 GMT
If I thought you were concerned about the crime I might be sympathetic, but the truth is you're just looking for an excuse to shove the problem onto someone elses shoulders. Funnily enough France isn't going to respond well to being told they must take all the refugees because the UK can't be arsed to do its share. So they can just let them pass through, seeing your attitude if I was French I'd be giving them boats as well. For someone who is notionally against this, you seem to coming up with numerous reasons to support, extend and expand it. You are correct about the beggar thy neighbor nature of the problem, but you have, as you typically do, got it upside-down. The problem will inflate to any capacity provided for it. So those providing for it are increasing the burden on all players including themselves and making the problem, and the commercial forces exploiting it, more and more intractable. Doing the right thing here would be taking action to reduce the incentives creating the flow. I have proffered my solutions so there's no need for you to make them up for me. |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Jul 11, 2023 17:16:58 GMT
Not a legal loophole at all. It was recognised that people would not have to claim asylum in first safe country they reached. by definition that means that they would then cross from a "safe" country to another "safe" country to do so.. nope. This sort of thing might happen, but there is no obligation on signatory's to allow it. The convention is a specific adaption of border policy, to allow the special case of free entry to those crossing the border of signatory from a dangerous country. Signatories are not (for example) obliged to allow free entry across any of their borders because somebody crossing might have originated in a dangerous country. I have made this comment before in other threads, but what you seem to be implying is a complete dissolution of all signatory's national borders. This is not the case. Eventually we agreed the law. You then floated the idea that the law as it affects people claiming asylum was a loophole but provided no evidence and seem to have backed off that claim now. Goodness only knows what you are dribbling about now. It seems with respect that you are unravelling. Ho hum…. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jul 11, 2023 17:43:02 GMT
no the convention applies to people travelling to claim asylum. Domestic law also covers the matter. The convention makes clear that claimants cannot be penalised for crossing a border if they are coming directly from a place where their life or freedom is threatened.How many asylum seekers washing up on the shores of the UK come directly from a place where their life is threatened? - I doubt you would get into double figures. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2023 17:54:58 GMT
no the convention applies to people travelling to claim asylum. Domestic law also covers the matter. The convention makes clear that claimants cannot be penalised for crossing a border if they are coming directly from a place where their life or freedom is threatened.How many asylum seekers washing up on the shores of the UK come directly from a place where their life is threatened? - I doubt you would get into double figures. The threat is the channel journey, which, for some reason, is being encouraged by the same faces on here. I have been informed that these organised criminal gangs are quite well organised, and you do have to wonder why some are so determined to get them here. In 2022 the government stated that harsher penalties would be added and more laws are coming to make any unlawful entry met with immediate return or prosecution. Asylum seekers who are currently in Ukraine can apply without leaving Ukraine, and if approved will no doubt have their journey paid for.
Of course, one has to wonder if the gov are just urinating on us whilst telling us it's raining.
|
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jul 11, 2023 18:13:35 GMT
no the convention applies to people travelling to claim asylum. Domestic law also covers the matter. The convention makes clear that claimants cannot be penalised for crossing a border if they are coming directly from a place where their life or freedom is threatened.How many asylum seekers washing up on the shores of the UK come directly from a place where their life is threatened? - I doubt you would get into double figures. That is certainly the issue. And why having application centres offshore would cure much of this? |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jul 11, 2023 18:18:39 GMT
Zany comes up with another bright idea to increase the numbers massively.
|
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jul 11, 2023 18:20:24 GMT
Zany comes up with another bright idea to increase the numbers massively. Orac comes up with another lie about Zany. Nothing changes. |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Jul 11, 2023 18:35:40 GMT
no the convention applies to people travelling to claim asylum. Domestic law also covers the matter. The convention makes clear that claimants cannot be penalised for crossing a border if they are coming directly from a place where their life or freedom is threatened.How many asylum seekers washing up on the shores of the UK come directly from a place where their life is threatened? - I doubt you would get into double figures. They nearly all come directly from where their life or freedom is threatened. If they didn’t, they wouldn’t be eligible for asylum. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2023 19:32:40 GMT
Zany comes up with another bright idea to increase the numbers massively. Orac comes up with another lie about Zany. Nothing changes. What lie? |
|
