|
|
Post by totheleft3 on Nov 5, 2022 15:21:19 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by dodgydave on Nov 5, 2022 15:27:03 GMT
It's not irrelevant. An unwanted ingress of people is correctly described as an invasion. Can you tell us why you have such an aversion to the situation being described accurately? Whatever the government tries is just going to run into the brick wall of the Refugee Convention. If the refuge convention compels us to allow ourselves to be invaded, then clearly we should leave the refugee convention. In fact, it should be illegal for the government to do anything else if this is the conclusion. However, there is evidence that much of this is technically in the purview of government - it would just need a fight rather than laying down like a mat and our political class aren't into that kind of thing. That won't be easy though, because you might just end up encouraging more people. There are no easy answers. There is no 'might' about it. Virtually nobody wants to live in the third world and there are billions doing so. It is irreverent, because there is nothing we can do about it. You can keep talking rubbish about invasions or safe countries, but it won't change the realities. You want to pull out of the Refugee Convention? Yeah ok, that won't hurt our world standing will it lol. The Tories have been pursuing a policy of ultra slow decision making in the hope it puts people off. It hasn't worked, it has instead left us with massive hotel bills. If they are here, we might as well get them processed as soon as possible, that way they might actually be allowed to contribute, rather than sitting in hotels. It has nothing to do with Third World Countries. These people are mostly fleeing war-torn countries, hence 85% of their claims are accepted. The situation is only to get worse as the US, UK, EU, Russia, China are no longer interested in being the "world police". |
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Nov 5, 2022 15:28:28 GMT
But the rules that you have quoted don't say anything about how they arrive here, so I'm unsure as to why you think coming via France nullifies their claim? I don't understand what it is you don't understand?
It doesn't matter if they arrive by trains, boats or planes, they have to demonstrate and prove that where they have arrived from let's say France, Ukraine, Albania or wherever, that they can't go back there for fear of persecution, and when they are blatantly arrived via a dinghy from France how can they say they are fleeing persecution?
What difference does it make by what mode of transport they arrive in the UK, it's not how they got here, it's where they have come from.
If France was their origin, you'd have a point, but let's be honest, it's somewhere that they are passing through, so there's no obligation for them to claim there. Most do, but some wish to travel to the UK too. |
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Nov 5, 2022 15:34:02 GMT
Exactly, and if they have no ID they should be instantly denied Asylum, because they can not prove what country they come from, so therefore they can't demonstrate they would face persecution if they went back. It's a loophole the government aren't using. Don't ask me why?It's a mystery to any normal thinking person. Not really, because it's a rule that FS just invented. I think that you misunderstand my motivations here. I don't want people being here who shouldn't. Where people who arrive and claim asylum to have their case looked at fairly and quickly. Those that fail I want to see deported back from whence they came. I do want the government to abide by the law though. Is that such a loony position? |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Nov 5, 2022 15:35:03 GMT
If France was their origin, you'd have a point, I'd have a point regardless of their origin (unless they were UK citizens). The objective of the refugee convention is to allow people to escape danger. If they are no longer in danger, then they no longer need to escape it. |
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Nov 5, 2022 15:38:21 GMT
If France was their origin, you'd have a point, I'd have a point regardless of their origin (unless they were UK citizens). The objective of the refugee convention is to allow people to escape danger. If they are no longer in danger, then they no longer need to escape it. So you are of the belief that they must claim in the first safe country? |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Nov 5, 2022 15:39:40 GMT
It's a mystery to any normal thinking person. Not really, because it's a rule that FS just invented. I think that you misunderstand my motivations here. I don't want people being here who shouldn't. Where people who arrive and claim asylum to have their case looked at fairly and quickly. Those that fail I want to see deported back from whence they came. I do want the government to abide by the law though. Is that such a loony position? Don't talk crap, I've invented the rules, have you even read the rules?
What is meant by well-founded fear of persecution?
To establish a well-founded fear of persecution within the meaning of the refugee. definition, an applicant must show that he or she has: 1) a subjective fear of persecution; and, 2) that the fear has an objective basis.5.
How are illegal migrants going to claim under these rules ^^^?
|
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Nov 5, 2022 15:43:51 GMT
The rule I said you invented was the one about not being able to claim if they had no id.
|
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Nov 5, 2022 15:45:41 GMT
It's a mystery to any normal thinking person. I think that you misunderstand my motivations here. I don't want people being here who shouldn't. Where people who arrive and claim asylum to have their case looked at fairly and quickly. Those that fail I want to see deported back from whence they came. I do want the government to abide by the law though. Is that such a loony position? He didn't have to invent it its well documented if you took the time to do a bit of research.
They cannot if they arrive here illegaly and with no ID. You are mixing two issues here Migrants and Asylum seekers.
|
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Nov 5, 2022 16:01:37 GMT
It is irreverent, because there is nothing we can do about it. All i'm doing is un-lidding your glib portrayal, by highlighting the actual stakes - i.e. if we provide your gilded third world escalator, we can expect to be faced with something more substantial sounding than 'an increase' You can keep talking rubbish about invasions or safe countries, but it won't change the realities. You repeatedly attemp to highlight the inappropriateness of the word 'invasion', but as I've explained the word is entirely appropriate - an unwanted ,unwelcome ingress of people is an invasion. I think i know why. The reason you find this word objectionable is because it highlights the moral failing in your position - ie despite obviously not wanting the ingress, you feel the British people have no reason to complain and should probably be (if necessary) forced to accept it. This position is far harder to float morally if the word 'invasion' is used to describe the process. You want to pull out of the Refugee Convention? Yeah ok, that won't hurt our world standing will it lol. I didn't say that - i said, if you are correct and the refugee convention compels us to allow ourselves to be invaded, then we probably should leave - and, further, it should probably be illegal (treasonous) for the government to sign treaties with those implications. There are countries outside this treaty The Tories have been pursuing a policy of ultra slow decision making in the hope it puts people off. It hasn't worked, it has instead left us with massive hotel bills. If they are here, we might as well get them processed as soon as possible, that way they might actually be allowed to contribute, rather than sitting in hotels. They have been pursuing several policies, but the heart of the problem is legislative reform - and that notion hasn't been touched. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Nov 5, 2022 16:04:24 GMT
So you are of the belief that they must claim in the first safe country? No. they can do what they want and, to a degree, so can we. We are only compelled to provide refuge to those actually escaping a danger. |
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Nov 5, 2022 16:09:21 GMT
So, you acknowledge that they can travel through other countries on the way here, but you favour a rule that would disqualify them on that basis?
|
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Nov 5, 2022 16:23:01 GMT
So, you acknowledge that they can travel through other countries on the way here, but you favour a rule that would disqualify them on that basis? acknowledging that the immigration system doesn't know it's arse from its elbow, if they were implementing the correct rules we wouldn't be in the mess, there is no actual rule that clarifies what to do with perfectly fit and healthy young men arriving illegally in dinghys from a EU country, where this is no war or conflict, and there is no danger to their life or fear of persecution if we sent them back, this grey area needs closing once and for all. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2022 16:46:21 GMT
Magrathea >> I'd have a point regardless of their origin (unless they were UK citizens). The objective of the refugee convention is to allow people to escape danger. If they are no longer in danger, then they no longer need to escape it.
-------------------------------------------------------
What I suggest you do is look up the difference between Refugee and Asylum Seeker
An Asylum Seeker does not have to seek asylum in the first country of safety, and they do not have to seek asylum in France if that is the country from which they come from to seek asylum in the UK.
Many asylum seekers choose the UK because of specific reasons - they can speak English, or have some ability of the English language, or they may have friends or family who are already here.
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 5, 2022 16:47:57 GMT
So, you acknowledge that they can travel through other countries on the way here, but you favour a rule that would disqualify them on that basis? The rule as regards a safe country was to acknowledge that sometimes the means of escape of those in peril would result in travel through a safe country to complete their escape. Stowaway on a ship, hiding on a train or in a lorry that entailed only being able to leave the hiding place on reaching a destination. I do not think, and I am sure most sane people do not think, that it was designed to accommodate what is occurring now whereby those leaving for fear of life can travel illegally half way round the world, often with the knowledeg of the country within which they are travelling, becasue they wish to claim asylum in a country they prefer. Everyone knows it is a nonsense and a legal nicety kept in place so that the UK can become the dumping ground of the EU's inability to effectively police its own borders. |
|
