|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Aug 14, 2023 15:19:14 GMT
dappy : As I understand it (I think the actual figures are quoted in the HoC briefing) around 20,000 asylum claimants have received a Notice of Potential Inadmissibility since the Act came into effect. Of those around 100 have gone onto the next stage, a Declaration of Inadmissibility. As far as I'm none of these claims are being processed and all are currently still parked in the backlog. You are correct that nothing is going to happen until the Supreme Court rules on Rwanda. So what will happen now. France will not take them back. Rwanda couldn't accommodate anything like that many. meanwhile we have to accommodate them with seemingly no effort being made to establish whether or not they entitled to asylum and hence begin to get them off the backlog. Fucking ridiculous. You know full well why there is a backlog, you and the rest of the lefties, if they didn't chuck their IDs overboard they could be processed much quicker, but when they arrive with no ID then the process will take much longer, we also know if they were genuine asylum seekers they would be waving their IDs like a flag.
The fact they don't have IDs tells you they aren't genuine asylum seekers, ....... I mean do we really have to spell it out to you?
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Aug 14, 2023 15:30:52 GMT
I think once people are here and have claimed asylum and hence we now have to accommodate them until either their claim has been determined or they have left the country and given there is no realistic prospect of forcing that number of people to leave the country, it makes quite a lot of sense to start determining their claim They're not starving or being used for slave labour so what's so awful about being in limbo for a few years. Perhaps after a while they'll realise things aren't going to get any better and they'll go off somewhere else on their own accord and latch onto a new host. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Aug 14, 2023 16:36:09 GMT
I think once people are here and have claimed asylum and hence we now have to accommodate them until either their claim has been determined or they have left the country and given there is no realistic prospect of forcing that number of people to leave the country, it makes quite a lot of sense to start determining their claim I see it differently. As there is no realistic prospect of deporting any of these frauds regardless of their claim (any attempt at deportation would prompt half the civil service to start gluing their knobs to the deportation planes), I see no point in going through any pantomime 'claims process'. In fact, engaging any such pantomime procedure would massively increase the incentives to join the queue. |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Aug 14, 2023 17:21:47 GMT
If they have crossed a border from an unsafe country to a safe signatory, they can't be refused asylum in that it would be illegal to send them back or refuse them stay and they have a watertight case (while the country is unsafe). These people do not have an extended and permanent right to breach any national border they feel like breaching. This idiotic and unworkable notion does not appear at all in the contention and seems to be entirely a fabrication of open borders activists. The law is quire clear. There is no legal duty or obligation on the asylum seeker to claim and remain in the first safe country and an asylum seeker who moves on is not breaking the law by doing so or disqualifying themselves from refugee status. No it isn't read what care4calais or the refugee council say. it is a minefield which has been preyed upon by false asylum claims in the hundreds of thousands. Probably millions. Because the water is muddied by idiots not knowing the difference between a migrant and an asylum seeker. |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Aug 14, 2023 17:30:40 GMT
Stop crying in your hankies you have been conned again!
|
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Aug 14, 2023 17:37:17 GMT
The law is quire clear. There is no legal duty or obligation on the asylum seeker to claim and remain in the first safe country You chopped the second part. There is no legal duty or obligation on the asylum seeker to claim and remain in the first safe country and an asylum seeker who moves on is not breaking the law by doing so or disqualifying themselves from refugee status.Yes. But I bet you wont agree that morally the UK should step up and say, "No no guys we must take or share" My guess is morals are only for others. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Aug 14, 2023 17:38:56 GMT
The law is quire clear. There is no legal duty or obligation on the asylum seeker to claim and remain in the first safe country and an asylum seeker who moves on is not breaking the law by doing so or disqualifying themselves from refugee status. The law is quite clear: It is against the law for someone to pay a criminal to get them from safe country 'A' to safe country 'B'. The law is also quite clear that any country with sea border can stop any person or vessel entering their territorial waters if they so choose. The only reason this weak government aren't stopping the illegal invasion from the EU is because Sunak is a centrist and a globalist who is more concerned about not upsetting the EU than he is about the UK electorate. But with an election around the corner his EU appeasing may soon change. We'll see. Blah blah. If only we were meaner and nastier all would be well FFS. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Aug 14, 2023 17:47:31 GMT
I think once people are here and have claimed asylum and hence we now have to accommodate them until either their claim has been determined or they have left the country and given there is no realistic prospect of forcing that number of people to leave the country, it makes quite a lot of sense to start determining their claim They're not starving or being used for slave labour so what's so awful about being in limbo for a few years. Perhaps after a while they'll realise things aren't going to get any better and they'll go off somewhere else on their own accord and latch onto a new host. Assuming of course they are economic migrants. Not quite so nice if they were driven off their land by warlords and left a family unable to feed all its children to try and make it alone. Worked for drugs dealers to raise the money for the boats to get to the Uk where they believed the old stories about non corrupt police and authorities and a caring population. They saw images of the police in riot gear and water cannon in France and thought it looked too much like home, so they chose us. Those ones would suffer, but not to worry because Sheepy can tell the real asylum seekers form the economic migrants simply by looking at them. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Aug 14, 2023 17:49:52 GMT
Can I just remind folks how few of those funny foreigners coming here are illegal immigrants. Its about 3% So you can stop wetting yourselves.
|
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Aug 14, 2023 17:52:29 GMT
Can I just remind folks how few of those funny foreigners coming here are illegal immigrants. Its about 3% So you can stop wetting yourselves. How would you know? nobody else does. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Aug 14, 2023 17:58:43 GMT
The law is quite clear: It is against the law for someone to pay a criminal to get them from safe country 'A' to safe country 'B'. The law is also quite clear that any country with sea border can stop any person or vessel entering their territorial waters if they so choose. The only reason this weak government aren't stopping the illegal invasion from the EU is because Sunak is a centrist and a globalist who is more concerned about not upsetting the EU than he is about the UK electorate. But with an election around the corner his EU appeasing may soon change. We'll see. Blah blah. If only we were meaner and nastier all would be well FFS. ZG, my poor deluded left wing friend. If we were as mean and nasty towards illegals as the EU and France are, they wouldn't be crossing the channel. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Aug 14, 2023 18:01:29 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Aug 14, 2023 18:02:41 GMT
Blah blah. If only we were meaner and nastier all would be well FFS. ZG, my poor deluded left wing friend. If we were as mean and nasty towards illegals as the EU and France are, they wouldn't be crossing the channel. Red my poor DM fed right wing buddy. More stay in France than come here. |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Aug 14, 2023 18:03:44 GMT
Stop crying and repeating yourself, they are migrants not refugees. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Aug 14, 2023 18:15:03 GMT
ZG, my poor deluded left wing friend. If we were as mean and nasty towards illegals as the EU and France are, they wouldn't be crossing the channel. Red my poor DM fed right wing buddy. More stay in France than come here. You're moving the goalposts, to be expected I suppose. Back to thread. If the British government offered the same welcome as the French government, a hostile environment towards illegals, container and tent accommodation, then quite obviously it would reduce the cross channel pull factor. Dont you agree? |
|
