Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2023 16:21:08 GMT
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. 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. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2023 16:22:49 GMT
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… How does the 'bold' mean I am insulting you. 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. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2023 16:23:21 GMT
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. Called it what? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2023 16:24:06 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? Btw i don't appreciate you inserting your straw-man arguments into my text. Don't do it again. What race hatred? You have lost the plot. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2023 16:28:45 GMT
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. Oh, I think I see what you are saying but cloudily disguising it in this thread. I am a 'racist' against the British people, more pointedly the English people because you keep making the claim that I want them all over here and Englishness will be wiped out, you really are deluded. I am in effect more British that you in respect that I want our country to abide by the laws it helped create and obviously you do not. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2023 16:30:48 GMT
Racism isn't just about colour. Ethnic cleansing could be done to neighbouring countries to destroy the unique cultural and ethnic group. You have just destroyed your whole point. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2023 16:42:17 GMT
I understand that Labour strongly believe that it's a legal requirement to break the law. We can see that by those who sponsor them. However, it is not in good faith, because they're already in a safe country. It's just a case of your superiors twisting something, which obviously didn't account for this, to fulfill their evil ambitions. Sorry, but the people say no, and it's up to a democratic government to address those who seek to abuse the system to benefit organised criminal gangs and other sinister people.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2023 16:43:06 GMT
Racism isn't just about colour. Ethnic cleansing could be done to neighbouring countries to destroy the unique cultural and ethnic group. You have just destroyed your whole point. I won't bother to address the rest of your back to back responses, but unless you can offer an explanation I will just dismiss this response as pathetic. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Jul 9, 2023 16:48:03 GMT
Note the bold. You are now resorting to insults . You have nothing left I suppose… How does the 'bold' mean I am insulting you. 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. You…”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.” Ive made it clear that your ‘ question ‘ was merely an opportunity for you to use a strawman fallacy. You make a false claim that facts equal abusive . You insinuate that I am racist because I post facts . You have nothing but false claims, fallacies and insults to support your non point . Migrants in France are not persecuted. Migrants that use criminal gangs to enter the UK illegally are colluding with criminal gangs. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jul 9, 2023 17:53:39 GMT
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. He is attempting to tear down a community by refusing to allow it to exist in separation to anything else. ie It must have its territory claimed by outsiders. It's actually genocidal (imho). If you are dealing with people who are already safe, it's hard to see what other motivations are likely. It's a matter of judgment of course. |
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Jul 9, 2023 21:17:49 GMT
Kicking out illegal immigrants is sensible.
Treating illegal immigrants and genuine asylum seekers as being different, is sensible.
Genuine asylum seekers deserve asylum.
Illegal economic migrants deserve a seat on the next flight to Rwanda.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Jul 9, 2023 21:27:45 GMT
Well said Vinny. I'm not sure why people struggle with this simplicity.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Jul 9, 2023 21:32:45 GMT
Thank you.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2023 22:32:49 GMT
We know that it will cost near £150-200k a pop to send them to Rwanda and that there's more chance of Putin winning the Nobel Peace prize than this happening. It'll just be do nothing, and keep pushing people into the system and leave it to the next generation to sort out.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2023 23:04:09 GMT
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. He is attempting to tear down a community by refusing to allow it to exist in separation to anything else. ie It must have its territory claimed by outsiders. It's actually genocidal (imho). If you are dealing with people who are already safe, it's hard to see what other motivations are likely. It's a matter of judgment of course. A long term solution is required, but nobody wants to tackle it. The objective is to stop the illegal border crossings instead of supporting a lottery system where criminals thrive. It seems to me that the main objective currently at work is to just get them all here, because it becomes the responsibility of the UK government, who are useless. |
|
