|
|
Post by Montegriffo on Jul 15, 2023 17:05:05 GMT
Only countries with a border to a warring or failed state have a responsibility to accept asylum seekers? Unless the asylum seeker travels by boat or airplane directly to their chosen destination? So a Somalian wishing to seek asylum in the UK has to sail up the Red Sea, through the Suez canal, along the length of the Mediterranean Sea, into the Atlantic and up the coast of Spain, Portugal and France into the Channel without stepping foot in any of the countries they have passed before they can be accepted for asylum here? They can be accepted - there is no obligation. The refugee convention was designed to allow people to flee danger - not to get them into the UK Are you supporting Red's assertion that ''The only way anyone could legally claim asylum or refugee status having stepped off a boat onto an English beach is if France was in a state of war.''? Because that is not what our treaty obligations say and my example is to illustrate why that is not the case. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Jul 15, 2023 17:16:53 GMT
As far as the law is concerned the points you raise are irrelevant. The only way anyone could legally claim asylum or refugee status having stepped off a boat onto an English beach is if France was in a state of war. You cannot simply decide that you are a refugee or asylum seeker because you want to move from one safe country to another safe country. Only countries with a border to a warring or failed state have a responsibility to accept asylum seekers? Unless the asylum seeker travels by boat or airplane directly to their chosen destination? So a Somalian wishing to seek asylum in the UK has to sail up the Red Sea, through the Suez canal, along the length of the Mediterranean Sea, into the Atlantic and up the coast of Spain, Portugal and France into the Channel without stepping foot in any of the countries they have passed before they can be accepted for asylum here? Correct. Having said that, I would argue that Somalis, among others, have absolutely no right whatsoever to come to the UK. Not only is the UK thousands of miles away from Somalia but we have no cultural, religious or economic relations with Somalia and Somalis do not share our language, culture, beliefs or way of life. Many of the 250,000 Somalis who are already in this country are heavily involved in gang violence and crime because they live by the laws they grew up with. People in law abiding countries are easy pickings for violent feral savages who have absolutely no fear of the law. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Jul 15, 2023 17:20:04 GMT
They can be accepted - there is no obligation. The refugee convention was designed to allow people to flee danger - not to get them into the UK Are you supporting Red's assertion that ''The only way anyone could legally claim asylum or refugee status having stepped off a boat onto an English beach is if France was in a state of war.''? Because that is not what our treaty obligations say and my example is to illustrate why that is not the case. When you say 'treaty obligations' I assume you refer to legislation penned in the shadow of WW2 when there were millions of displaced people in Europe and the world was a very different place. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jul 15, 2023 17:20:15 GMT
They can be accepted - there is no obligation. The refugee convention was designed to allow people to flee danger - not to get them into the UK Are you supporting Red's assertion that ''The only way anyone could legally claim asylum or refugee status having stepped off a boat onto an English beach is if France was in a state of war.''? Because that is not what our treaty obligations say and my example is to illustrate why that is not the case. Typically you would request asylum, not demand it. However, if France were a recognized dangerous country in this scenario, refusing to grant asylum might well be illegal - ie it can be thought of as a demand |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2023 17:33:35 GMT
Is it just that they are paying people to come to the UK that you see as the problem. If the people traffickers did not charge them would you welcome the asylum seekers? As far as the law is concerned the points you raise are irrelevant. The only way anyone could legally claim asylum or refugee status having stepped off a boat onto an English beach is if France was in a state of war. You cannot simply decide that you are a refugee or asylum seeker because you want to move from one safe country to another safe country. You know that's not true. It does not matter if France is a safe country if the asylum seekers want to come to the UK they can but we can refuse them entry if we are not satisfied with their asylum claim. From you answer we can assume that you would not 'welcome' them if they did not pay the people smugglers. |
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on Jul 15, 2023 17:35:01 GMT
Are you supporting Red's assertion that ''The only way anyone could legally claim asylum or refugee status having stepped off a boat onto an English beach is if France was in a state of war.''? Because that is not what our treaty obligations say and my example is to illustrate why that is not the case. When you say 'treaty obligations' I assume you refer to legislation penned in the shadow of WW2 when there were millions of displaced people in Europe and the world was a very different place. Irrelevant. Until we withdraw from the convention we are obliged to assess all asylum claims from anyone who arrives on our shores no matter whether they came through France or arrived on a flying carpet. What we cannot do is treat them as criminals and deport them to a third country without assessing their claim. |
|
|
|
Post by wapentake on Jul 15, 2023 17:36:55 GMT
They can be accepted - there is no obligation. The refugee convention was designed to allow people to flee danger - not to get them into the UK Are you supporting Red's assertion that ''The only way anyone could legally claim asylum or refugee status having stepped off a boat onto an English beach is if France was in a state of war.''? Because that is not what our treaty obligations say and my example is to illustrate why that is not the case. None of it really matters other than we need the international convention and laws to change. we have neither the means nor the infrastructure for this to continue,if you think it’s just us you are mistaken,the liberal Scandinavia countries are seeing the rise of the far right and there’s unrest and that rise across the eu. That is not a good thing imo for people seeking answers from the extreme,this country is usually peaceful and tolerant if this continues that will change and not for the better for any of us. Greater mass movement is on the cards and conflict to go with it. However harsh it may seem hard decisions need to be taken to preserve our country. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Jul 15, 2023 17:40:59 GMT
As far as the law is concerned the points you raise are irrelevant. The only way anyone could legally claim asylum or refugee status having stepped off a boat onto an English beach is if France was in a state of war. You cannot simply decide that you are a refugee or asylum seeker because you want to move from one safe country to another safe country. You know that's not true. It does not matter if France is a safe country if the asylum seekers want to come to the UK they can but we can refuse them entry if we are not satisfied with their asylum claim. From you answer we can assume that you would not 'welcome' them if they did not pay the people smugglers. It should not be their choice, common sense 'should' suggest that it should be the choice of the country they want to move to. England has been the most densely populated country in Europe since 2007. What's the cut off point? What's the limit on the number of people in this country? 80 million, 100 million? |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Jul 15, 2023 17:47:11 GMT
When you say 'treaty obligations' I assume you refer to legislation penned in the shadow of WW2 when there were millions of displaced people in Europe and the world was a very different place. Irrelevant. Until we withdraw from the convention we are obliged to assess all asylum claims from anyone who arrives on our shores no matter whether they came through France or arrived on a flying carpet. What we cannot do is treat them as criminals and deport them to a third country without assessing their claim. This is why the convention is not fit for purpose, it was written in a different time and does not reflect the problems of the 21st century. It's absolutely ridiculous that a criminal with no documents or proof of ID can land on an English beach from the safe country of France and immediately be regarded as a refugee. It's an absolute nonsense, it's too stupid for words. |
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on Jul 15, 2023 18:07:49 GMT
Irrelevant. Until we withdraw from the convention we are obliged to assess all asylum claims from anyone who arrives on our shores no matter whether they came through France or arrived on a flying carpet. What we cannot do is treat them as criminals and deport them to a third country without assessing their claim. This is why the convention is not fit for purpose, it was written in a different time and does not reflect the problems of the 21st century. It's absolutely ridiculous that a criminal with no documents or proof of ID can land on an English beach from the safe country of France and immediately be regarded as a refugee. It's an absolute nonsense, it's too stupid for words. No one is granted asylum without assessment. Your claim is nonsense. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Jul 15, 2023 18:12:38 GMT
This is why the convention is not fit for purpose, it was written in a different time and does not reflect the problems of the 21st century. It's absolutely ridiculous that a criminal with no documents or proof of ID can land on an English beach from the safe country of France and immediately be regarded as a refugee. It's an absolute nonsense, it's too stupid for words. No one is granted asylum without assessment. Your claim is nonsense. Assessment by who, left wing civil servants and the Home Office lol, don't make me laugh. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jul 15, 2023 19:17:52 GMT
IMO Pacifico and Mags seem alright. I get a sense of respect for them, which encourages respectful reciprocation. The other one just abuses his position to favour his politics and favourites (EUphile lefties), which in turn, encourages an echo chamber of leftist abusers who rely on this moderator for trolling. It only takes one.
You may now report me to him.
Sure, things would be much fairer if all the mods were right wing Brexiteers with no sense of humour. Its funny how B4 singles out you. I have watched Mags join in ridicule of a site member, but that's OK because B$ joined in. So as long as you pick the right people as a mod you are OK. Curiously does B4 remind you of rebirth. Just asking for a friend  |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jul 15, 2023 19:22:02 GMT
As far as the law is concerned the points you raise are irrelevant. The only way anyone could legally claim asylum or refugee status having stepped off a boat onto an English beach is if France was in a state of war. You cannot simply decide that you are a refugee or asylum seeker because you want to move from one safe country to another safe country. Only countries with a border to a warring or failed state have a responsibility to accept asylum seekers? Unless the asylum seeker travels by boat or airplane directly to their chosen destination? So a Somalian wishing to seek asylum in the UK has to sail up the Red Sea, through the Suez canal, along the length of the Mediterranean Sea, into the Atlantic and up the coast of Spain, Portugal and France into the Channel without stepping foot in any of the countries they have passed before they can be accepted for asylum here? Unless they come from the Ukraine. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Jul 15, 2023 19:42:33 GMT
Only countries with a border to a warring or failed state have a responsibility to accept asylum seekers? Unless the asylum seeker travels by boat or airplane directly to their chosen destination? So a Somalian wishing to seek asylum in the UK has to sail up the Red Sea, through the Suez canal, along the length of the Mediterranean Sea, into the Atlantic and up the coast of Spain, Portugal and France into the Channel without stepping foot in any of the countries they have passed before they can be accepted for asylum here? Unless they come from the Ukraine. Is that the Ukraine that's currently at war with Russia? |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Jul 15, 2023 19:46:18 GMT
Sure, things would be much fairer if all the mods were right wing Brexiteers with no sense of humour. Its funny how B4 singles out you. I have watched Mags join in ridicule of a site member, but that's OK because B$ joined in. So as long as you pick the right people as a mod you are OK. Curiously does B4 remind you of rebirth. Just asking for a friend I think you may find it may have more to do with Monte's predilection for all things woke and left wing, I accept he is not the only offender. |
|
