|
|
Post by Pacifico on Aug 10, 2023 21:15:29 GMT
Do you believe that countries not covered by the ECHR do not take in asylum seekers? Of course I don’t, which was why I was asking Jonksy. For some strange reason he can't answer the question, so I've drawn my own conclusion. But you are asking the wrong question. The problem with ECHR membership is not that we cannot stop asylum seekers but that we cannot remove them. If we were not in the ECHR that would not prevent a single person from seeking asylum - it would allow failed asylum seekers to be removed however. |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Aug 11, 2023 0:18:48 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2023 5:32:02 GMT
Anti slavery rules are antiquated and not fit for purpose? Pillock. But you agree that anti slavery rules are not antiquated, does that make you a pillock too? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2023 5:36:18 GMT
No, my reasoning is based on the fact that legislation made 70 years ago in the shadow of WW2, is 'obviously' not fit for purpose today. A bit like the second ammendment Red. It doesn't keep up with the present timeframe Is the right to a fair trial not belonging to the present? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2023 5:37:58 GMT
Yourside are reknowned for it.
Do you beleive the second ammendment is now valid when it was written when only muzzle loading muskets were in existence?
The reason the UK still has medieval laws, especially those concerning slavery, which a lot of these asylum seekers are being told to abuse by the blood sucking human rights lawyers, is because the EU stifled our laws.
We had to abide and obey EU laws for over 46 years, unable to update the laws to modern day, so now because we were shackled and bound by the EU for so long we now having to unravel our own mess caused by the EU.
CUT TIES WITH EU laws and start updating our own, and you do know if Starmer and Labour win the next General Election our UK laws will be further bound and gagged and ruled by the EU.
TAKE YOUR CHOICE.
That is not true as well you know. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2023 5:40:57 GMT
You are right that we are not a specific target. Comparative to Germany and France we take fewer. I'm not sure on your point about the "democratic will of the people" though - are you saying that the majority of the electorate wish the UK to no longer accept asylum seekers? No longer take in economic migrants posing as asylum seekers. We all agree with that. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2023 5:43:19 GMT
Of course I don’t, which was why I was asking Jonksy. For some strange reason he can't answer the question, so I've drawn my own conclusion. But you are asking the wrong question. The problem with ECHR membership is not that we cannot stop asylum seekers but that we cannot remove them. If we were not in the ECHR that would not prevent a single person from seeking asylum - it would allow failed asylum seekers to be removed however. We have that ability already and we do remove failed asylum seekers but the government has all but stopped processing claims and is intent on removing true asylum seekers with economic migrants. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2023 5:44:17 GMT
When did you count them, oh you didn't another lie then. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Aug 11, 2023 6:17:35 GMT
Of course I don’t, which was why I was asking Jonksy. For some strange reason he can't answer the question, so I've drawn my own conclusion. But you are asking the wrong question. The problem with ECHR membership is not that we cannot stop asylum seekers but that we cannot remove them. If we were not in the ECHR that would not prevent a single person from seeking asylum - it would allow failed asylum seekers to be removed however. Yes, this appears to be the problem and where the law needs re-writing. How can it be that someone can destroy their documents and refuse to tell the authorities where they are from and still be here. What can we do. You can't deport someone if you don't know where to deport them to. Other countries wont accept them. So what? Prison? Holding camps? How long for? |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Aug 11, 2023 6:20:57 GMT
The only workable system is offshore processing but the asylum industry and those on the Left are adamantly against anything that works - so we carry on as we are.
|
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Aug 11, 2023 6:35:52 GMT
The only workable system is offshore processing but the asylum industry and those on the Left are adamantly against anything that works - so we carry on as we are. Yep, that's my solution. Anyone not able to provide reasonable evidence of where they are from and why they need asylum should be moved to a third party country until they do. Next question is, who pays for there keep/education/healthcare? |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Aug 11, 2023 6:40:11 GMT
Britain has always had a problem with illegal migration from the Continent - it's hardly going to stop now.  |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Aug 11, 2023 6:42:03 GMT
The only workable system is offshore processing but the asylum industry and those on the Left are adamantly against anything that works - so we carry on as we are. Yep, that's my solution. Anyone not able to provide reasonable evidence of where they are from and why they need asylum should be moved to a third party country until they do. Next question is, who pays for there keep/education/healthcare? I would suggest that everyone claiming asylum is moved offshore until their claim is assessed. With regards to who pays - the long suffering taxpayer of course. |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Aug 11, 2023 6:56:12 GMT
But you are asking the wrong question. The problem with ECHR membership is not that we cannot stop asylum seekers but that we cannot remove them. If we were not in the ECHR that would not prevent a single person from seeking asylum - it would allow failed asylum seekers to be removed however. We have that ability already and we do remove failed asylum seekers but the government has all but stopped processing claims and is intent on removing true asylum seekers with economic migrants. Well maybe an odd one or two, so the plebs think they are actually doing something, but in the end they are overwhelmed and just do a block amnesty. Several times at the last count. |
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Aug 11, 2023 6:56:21 GMT
The only workable system is offshore processing but the asylum industry and those on the Left are adamantly against anything that works - so we carry on as we are. I agree they need to be processed off shore, they will be processed in the same manner as if they were in the UK under UK Legislation, however the Human Rights Lawyers and others don't want that to happen |
|
