Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2023 13:57:32 GMT
It actually isn't. Asylum seekers only have a right to cross a national border in order to flee a recognized danger. They don't have a generalized right to cross any national border Anyway - it's clear you can't provide an answer to my question because you feel everyone has the (should have) right to enter the UK - as a i said. Your position is abusive and likely motivated by racism. It's about time people called it out for what it is. You are calling it out for what you think it is, fed by the right-wing press. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2023 13:59:07 GMT
Are you really this dim or are dumb arguments all you're left with? Laws can be broken. As for the rest of your post I see no point in repeating myself, even if this is all you do. You started that little episode by making the claim that asylum seekers are 'breaking in' to this country. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jul 9, 2023 14:09:57 GMT
It actually isn't. Asylum seekers only have a right to cross a national border in order to flee a recognized danger. They don't have a generalized right to cross any national border Anyway - it's clear you can't provide an answer to my question because you feel everyone has the (should have) right to enter the UK - as a i said. Your position is abusive and likely motivated by racism. Q. Under the Geneva Convention refugees should seek refuge in the first safe country they come to. OUR VERDICT A. Incorrect. The UN Refugee Convention does not make this requirement of refugees, and UK case law supports this interpretation. Refugees can legitimately make a claim for asylum in the UK after passing through other “safe” countries. Full fact. They do. So someone is arguing for the legal rights of asylum seekers, thereby people foreign to this country is a racist, how do you work that little mind melt out? Could you sort out the attribution in this response? There is a material attributed to me that i didn't write. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Jul 9, 2023 14:11:35 GMT
You are the one contradicting yourself . You claim that they are being persecuted but they are in France . Are you claiming that they are being persecuted in France ? Migrants who illegally enter the UK by paying criminal gangs are criminals. You keep repeating your false claims . They are still false . 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… |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jul 9, 2023 14:14:12 GMT
Incorrect. The UN Refugee Convention does not make this requirement of refugees That's because it's not an extra requirement on refugees. Normal laws (national borders etc) apply to refugees just as they apply to everyone else - with one limited exception that only applies under certain circumstances |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2023 14:19:11 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… They are not leaving their countries because they are not being persecuted what you are claiming, to support your stance, is that the are not being persecuted if France and I agreed but you do not believe they have the right to pass through as many safe countries to reach a desired destination allow it is an international law of which we are signatories. Full Fact. "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. It actually isn't. Asylum seekers only have a right to cross a national border in order to flee a recognized danger. They don't have a generalized right to cross any national border Anyway - it's clear you can't provide an answer to my question because you feel everyone has the (should have) right to enter the UK - as a i said. Your position is abusive and likely motivated by racism. It actually isn't. Asylum seekers only have a right to cross a national border in order to flee a recognized danger. They don't have a generalized right to cross any national border". |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2023 14:20:00 GMT
Incorrect. The UN Refugee Convention does not make this requirement of refugees That's because it's not an extra requirement on refugees. Normal laws (national borders etc) apply to refugees just as they apply to everyone else - with one limited exception that only applies under certain circumstances The only way to find this out is to process them. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2023 14:24:32 GMT
Are you really this dim or are dumb arguments all you're left with? Laws can be broken. As for the rest of your post I see no point in repeating myself, even if this is all you do. You started that little episode by making the claim that asylum seekers are 'breaking in' to this country. Which is a fact. It's you who is labelling them as such, but since they're coming from a safe country, and the process is organised by criminal gangs, then I say they're breaking the law. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Jul 9, 2023 14:24:43 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… They are not leaving their countries because they are not being persecuted what you are claiming, to support your stance, is that the are not being persecuted if France and I agreed but you do not believe they have the right to pass through as many safe countries to reach a desired destination allow it is an international law of which we are signatories. Full Fact. "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. It actually isn't. Asylum seekers only have a right to cross a national border in order to flee a recognized danger. They don't have a generalized right to cross any national border Anyway - it's clear you can't provide an answer to my question because you feel everyone has the (should have) right to enter the UK - as a i said. Your position is abusive and likely motivated by racism. It actually isn't. Asylum seekers only have a right to cross a national border in order to flee a recognized danger. They don't have a generalized right to cross any national border". They are in a France . France is not persecuting them . They are not in danger . I can’t make it any simpler . They are paying criminal gangs to transport them into the UK . Therefore they are colluding with criminals to transport them from a country that is not persecuting them . What part of that don’t you understand ? |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Jul 9, 2023 14:27:33 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… They are not leaving their countries because they are not being persecuted what you are claiming, to support your stance, is that the are not being persecuted if France and I agreed but you do not believe they have the right to pass through as many safe countries to reach a desired destination allow it is an international law of which we are signatories. Full Fact. "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. It actually isn't. Asylum seekers only have a right to cross a national border in order to flee a recognized danger. They don't have a generalized right to cross any national border Anyway - it's clear you can't provide an answer to my question because you feel everyone has the (should have) right to enter the UK - as a i said. Your position is abusive and likely motivated by racism.It actually isn't. Asylum seekers only have a right to cross a national border in order to flee a recognized danger. They don't have a generalized right to cross any national border". Note the bold. You are now resorting to insults . You have nothing left I suppose… |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2023 14:28:09 GMT
It's about time people called it out for what it is. You are calling it out for what you think it is, fed by the right-wing press. Odd, I haven't seen the right wing press call it that, so once again you prove yourself a liar. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jul 9, 2023 14:29:25 GMT
That's because it's not an extra requirement on refugees. Normal laws (national borders etc) apply to refugees just as they apply to everyone else - with one limited exception that only applies under certain circumstances The only way to find this out is to process them. Of course it isn't. If they are travelling from France to the UK, it's clear they aren't doing so to flee a danger. Your foaming race hatred is blunting your cognition. So do you have an answer? - if you don't feel everyone has a right to enter the UK, can you outline circumstances under which entry can be blocked or would be illegal? Btw i don't appreciate you inserting your straw-man arguments into my text. Don't do it again. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2023 14:30:18 GMT
It actually isn't. Asylum seekers only have a right to cross a national border in order to flee a recognized danger. They don't have a generalized right to cross any national border Anyway - it's clear you can't provide an answer to my question because you feel everyone has the (should have) right to enter the UK - as a i said. Your position is abusive and likely motivated by racism. Q. Under the Geneva Convention refugees should seek refuge in the first safe country they come to. OUR VERDICT A. Incorrect. The UN Refugee Convention does not make this requirement of refugees, and UK case law supports this interpretation. Refugees can legitimately make a claim for asylum in the UK after passing through other “safe” countries. Full fact. They do. So someone is arguing for the legal rights of asylum seekers, thereby people foreign to this country is a racist, how do you work that little mind melt out? Asylum seekers have legal rights. What you're constantly arguing for is invasion and people traffickers to move them from a safe country. You are a racist in that you are motivated out of hate toward the people. The same hate that motivated you to support the intentional process of replacing the ethnic make up of towns and cities through acts that can only be described as genocide. Of course, you called it mass immigration and your party admitted that it was done out of a malicious and vindictive hate to the benefit of the party. Obviously what's done is done, and I cannot and wouldn't attempt to undo it, but we can stop you from further acts of evil. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2023 15:26:48 GMT
The only way to find this out is to process them. Of course it isn't. If they are travelling from France to the UK, it's clear they aren't doing so to flee a danger. Your foaming race hatred is blunting your cognition. So do you have an answer? - if you don't feel everyone has a right to enter the UK, can you outline circumstances under which entry can be blocked or would be illegal? I often agree with your posts, but not sure about this. Is your argument that RedRum is racist against white people, therefore wants more brown and black ones to compensate? I suppose that might be a conclusion, but I would suggest it is a mistake or misconception by the left that open borders is actually an achievable policy in the 21st Century. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2023 15:49:26 GMT
Racism isn't just about colour. Ethnic cleansing could be done to neighbouring countries to destroy the unique cultural and ethnic group.
|
|
