|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 5, 2022 16:56:25 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. So seeking asylum is like going to the supermarket and choosing your ready meal and bottle of pop. The idea of 'being in danger' does not apply it is having been in danger that applies and any country you can get to by fair means or foul is fair game for you becasue that is the one you fancy. I cannot go to any country of my choice, they lay down rules I have to meet before consideration and if they refuse me there is no court of appeal. An asylum seeker is given more rights than I am in his ability to bypass many laws, his ability to choose a country of settlement and his right to take my money to pay for his 'escape'. There is indeed a tether and it is pretty taut. |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Nov 5, 2022 16:57:13 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. Exactly, lots of people are making lots of money especially human right lawyers, out of the vague rules for migrants/illegal migrants/Asylum seekers/refugees, they are mix and matching the rules up so that illegal migrants can somehow abuse the system.
The EU especially France are more than happy to flout the rules and let them continue to FLOOD the UK, it takes the financial pressure off the EU and it's obligations, and I also blame the UK for not standing up for its own UK citizens who's lives are being put at risk because we have no idea who is among these illegal migrants, and it looks like they have no intentions of sorting it out.
|
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Nov 5, 2022 17:05:05 GMT
An Asylum Seeker does not have to seek asylum in the first country of safety, I specifically said that he didn't. However, we are also not obliged to accept / allow people crossing our border from France as refugees - because France is not a dangerous place that people have any real need to escape from. This is a lot easier to understand if you don't start from the mistaken notion that the objective of asylum is to get people into the UK. |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Nov 5, 2022 17:53:06 GMT
Nail hit on the head..By Suella .. MAIL ON SUNDAY EXCLUSIVE: 'This abuse of our system has to stop': Suella Braverman accuses many Albanians of making 'spurious' claims to be 'modern slaves' - as Britain is set to agree deal with France to tackle illegal immigration Rishi Sunak has asked his Home Secretary to sign the biggest ever deal with the French to tackle illegal migrants on the coast The Prime Minister will meet the French President Emmanuel Macron on Monday at the Cop climate summit in Egypt to thrash out the details The agreement, which the UK hopes to sign in the coming weeks, would mean an increase in French officers patrolling beaches www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11393793/Suella-Braverman-says-Albanians-making-spurious-claims-modern-slaves.html |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Nov 5, 2022 18:12:18 GMT
Nail hit on the head..By Suella .. MAIL ON SUNDAY EXCLUSIVE: 'This abuse of our system has to stop': Suella Braverman accuses many Albanians of making 'spurious' claims to be 'modern slaves' - as Britain is set to agree deal with France to tackle illegal immigration Rishi Sunak has asked his Home Secretary to sign the biggest ever deal with the French to tackle illegal migrants on the coast The Prime Minister will meet the French President Emmanuel Macron on Monday at the Cop climate summit in Egypt to thrash out the details The agreement, which the UK hopes to sign in the coming weeks, would mean an increase in French officers patrolling beaches www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11393793/Suella-Braverman-says-Albanians-making-spurious-claims-modern-slaves.html"Rishi Sunak has asked his Home Secretary to sign the biggest ever deal with the French to tackle illegal migrants" This is rather concerning. Does this mean we are about to give Macron more £millions to patrol his own coast? If so, then fuck any new deal. In July 2021 it was announced that the UK had paid the French government €62.7 million to 'curb' channel migration. Since then 40,000 illegals have crossed the channel from France. The government should be taking the fuckin French to court and withdrawing fishing licences, not signing new deals. |
|
|
|
Post by totheleft3 on Nov 5, 2022 18:21:58 GMT
With UK support last year, France doubled the number of officers deployed daily on French beaches, improved intelligence sharing and purchased more cutting-edge technology. This resulted in France preventing twice as many crossings so far this year than in the same period in 2020.20 Jul 2021UK-France agreement strengthens efforts to tackle illegal immigration - GOV.UK
So sunak is trying nothing new
|
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Nov 5, 2022 19:13:31 GMT
Nail hit on the head..By Suella .. MAIL ON SUNDAY EXCLUSIVE: 'This abuse of our system has to stop': Suella Braverman accuses many Albanians of making 'spurious' claims to be 'modern slaves' - as Britain is set to agree deal with France to tackle illegal immigration Rishi Sunak has asked his Home Secretary to sign the biggest ever deal with the French to tackle illegal migrants on the coast The Prime Minister will meet the French President Emmanuel Macron on Monday at the Cop climate summit in Egypt to thrash out the details The agreement, which the UK hopes to sign in the coming weeks, would mean an increase in French officers patrolling beaches www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11393793/Suella-Braverman-says-Albanians-making-spurious-claims-modern-slaves.html"Rishi Sunak has asked his Home Secretary to sign the biggest ever deal with the French to tackle illegal migrants" This is rather concerning. Does this mean we are about to give Macron more £millions to patrol his own coast? If so, then fuck any new deal. In July 2021 it was announced that the UK had paid the French government €62.7 million to 'curb' channel migration. Since then 40,000 illegals have crossed the channel from France. The government should be taking the fuckin French to court and withdrawing fishing licences, not signing new deals.With friends like the french who need enemies. And sink the fuckers in our water that are fishing illegaly. Half the french arseholes who were bleating on about not having a fishing licence garnted couldn't prove that they had fished out waters legally because the crafty fuckers had turned their transponders off in the vain attempt to hide their crimes. The Uk issued licenses to those who could prove they had not broke the rules in record time. |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Nov 5, 2022 19:15:46 GMT
With UK support last year, France doubled the number of officers deployed daily on French beaches, improved intelligence sharing and purchased more cutting-edge technology. This resulted in France preventing twice as many crossings so far this year than in the same period in 2020.20 Jul 2021UK-France agreement strengthens efforts to tackle illegal immigration - GOV.UK So sunak is trying nothing new So what do you suggest then? Apart from whisling dixie? |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Nov 5, 2022 19:17:44 GMT
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. Exactly, lots of people are making lots of money especially human right lawyers, out of the vague rules for migrants/illegal migrants/Asylum seekers/refugees, they are mix and matching the rules up so that illegal migrants can somehow abuse the system.
The EU especially France are more than happy to flout the rules and let them continue to FLOOD the UK, it takes the financial pressure off the EU and it's obligations, and I also blame the UK for not standing up for its own UK citizens who's lives are being put at risk because we have no idea who is among these illegal migrants, and it looks like they have no intentions of sorting it out.
I wonder how much cruella made?
Edit and still the lefties support these blood sucking aresholes..
Cherie's rank hypocrisy (part two): First, a lucrative offer to help a jailed politician. Next, Amal Clooney said she'd do it FREE. Then Mrs Blair's law firm took a fat fee from the corrupt despot who'd put the man in jail
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Nov 5, 2022 19:27:32 GMT
"Rishi Sunak has asked his Home Secretary to sign the biggest ever deal with the French to tackle illegal migrants" This is rather concerning. Does this mean we are about to give Macron more £millions to patrol his own coast? If so, then fuck any new deal. In July 2021 it was announced that the UK had paid the French government €62.7 million to 'curb' channel migration. Since then 40,000 illegals have crossed the channel from France. The government should be taking the fuckin French to court and withdrawing fishing licences, not signing new deals.With friends like the french who need enemies. And sink the fuckers in our water that are fishing illegaly. Half the french arseholes who were bleating on about not having a fishing licence garnted couldn't prove that they had fished out waters legally because the crafty fuckers had turned their transponders off in the vain attempt to hide their crimes. The Uk issued licenses to those who could prove they had not broke the rules in record time. The French government have said their navy wont pick up cross channel migrants because it's 'unsafe' to do so. The incompetent British government apparently just accepted it without question. This level of British political incompetence seems par for the course these days. It's mind boggling. |
|
|
|
Post by totheleft3 on Nov 5, 2022 19:39:39 GMT
Once we'd cleared up the confusion over the 8,500 figure (which applies to Home Office staff more generally), the source of Mr Serwotka's claim is straightforward: at the beginning of the Spending Review period in 2010 there were approximately 24,474 FTE staff working on the border, which is due to be cut by 5,200 - or almost 22% - by 2015.
8Jonsk/Grasshopper
I suggest we start to make up some of our own boarder Guards we lost in 2015 what was a astonishing 22%.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2022 19:43:32 GMT
With friends like the french who need enemies. And sink the fuckers in our water that are fishing illegaly. Half the french arseholes who were bleating on about not having a fishing licence garnted couldn't prove that they had fished out waters legally because the crafty fuckers had turned their transponders off in the vain attempt to hide their crimes. The Uk issued licenses to those who could prove they had not broke the rules in record time. The French government have said their navy wont pick up cross channel migrants because it's 'unsafe' to do so. The incompetent British government apparently just accepted it without question. This level of British political incompetence seems par for the course these days. It's mind boggling. I guess it's coincidence that this level of incompetence seems to coincide with all those intense diversity cult training sessions that goes on. Trained to lead! Scary stuff. We should go back to the oldie days, where people with real careers in relevant professions are elected to step into parliament a couple of times a week. |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Nov 5, 2022 19:52:14 GMT
Once we'd cleared up the confusion over the 8,500 figure (which applies to Home Office staff more generally), the source of Mr Serwotka's claim is straightforward: at the beginning of the Spending Review period in 2010 there were approximately 24,474 FTE staff working on the border, which is due to be cut by 5,200 - or almost 22% - by 2015. 8Jonsk/Grasshopper I suggest we start to make up some of our own boarder Guards we lost in 2015 what was a astonishing 22%. And the usual loony left would only allow limp wristed snowflakes to act as guards, |
|
|
|
Post by totheleft3 on Nov 5, 2022 20:04:37 GMT
Urm jonksy/Grasshopper
You got any proof to back up your silly claim
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Nov 5, 2022 20:15:03 GMT
I suggest we start to make up some of our own boarder Guards we lost in 2015 what was a astonishing 22%. Bearing in mind that it is the Border Guards union which is financing the judicial review that aims to prevent the deportations to Rwanda, and which also opposed every proposal to intercept and deter migrants in the Channel, does it make sense to increase its membership?
It seems fairly obvious that the UK Border Force is not fit for purpose and needs to be replaced by something more effective. Perhaps the job should be sub-contacted to the Poles or the Hungarians.
|
|
