|
|
Post by Toreador on Nov 4, 2022 17:34:50 GMT
The UK and Rwanda agreed a Migration and Economic Development Partnership in April 2022. It includes a five-year 'asylum partnership arrangement' as detailed in a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) signed by the Home Secretary and Rwanda's Minister for Foreign Affairs. So explain this wonderful agreement and how will asylum seekers apply for asylum in the UK in Rwanda . It really is like talking to a brick wall. So let me ask you again. And include Rwanda.. Everyone has the human right to seek asylum where they choose, no matter how they arrive. Unfortunately, asylum seekers are unable to apply for protection outside of the UK, meaning that they can only lodge an asylum application on arrival in the UK. This means people are forced to make dangerous journeys to claim asylum, including crossing the English Channel in small and unsafe boats. Translates to you they can claim asylum elsewhere.
Translates to you they can claim asylum elsewhere. They cannot even deport those who are already here illegally. Having been dealt with. That is in in the tens of thousands, as has been explained and you still go into denial.. They could claim asylum in the country they set sail from. |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Nov 4, 2022 17:45:13 GMT
So explain this wonderful agreement and how will asylum seekers apply for asylum in the UK in Rwanda . It really is like talking to a brick wall. So let me ask you again. And include Rwanda.. Everyone has the human right to seek asylum where they choose, no matter how they arrive. Unfortunately, asylum seekers are unable to apply for protection outside of the UK, meaning that they can only lodge an asylum application on arrival in the UK. This means people are forced to make dangerous journeys to claim asylum, including crossing the English Channel in small and unsafe boats. Translates to you they can claim asylum elsewhere.
Translates to you they can claim asylum elsewhere. They cannot even deport those who are already here illegally. Having been dealt with. That is in in the tens of thousands, as has been explained and you still go into denial.. They could claim asylum in the country they set sail from. I've tried unsuccesfully to explain that nitwit jaydee, the downside to having jaydee on ignore I still haven't blocked fully, so I can still read the fool in quotes. |
|
|
|
Post by jaydee on Nov 4, 2022 17:48:54 GMT
Which again begs many questions. If they are in danger etc then escape to a safe country is their only goal. They are not forced to make a dangerous journey by small boat they choose to make a dangerous journey by small boat as they wish not to claim asylum but claim asylum in the country of their choice. They have no right to travel through the EU without a visa, they have no right to reside in France pending an opportunity to reach the UK. The laws and treaties were signed with a view to protecting bona fida refugees. If these are the rules we are bound by why does there exist the special category of Palestinian refugees within the treaties we have to adhere to? Said he as he waffles off on another tangent. Let me remind you of what you said. They don't physically have to be in the UK to claim Asylum, there is a 'legal' process that EVERY one has to go through to apply for legal status in the UK, coming over illegally by a dingy from France doesn't give you the advantage over those who are applying via the legal route to claim legal status in the UK.. Why are you commenting on something that is clearly out of your depth of knowledge?You have been asked at least six times to explain your drivel and point out safe routes. As you waffle of on another tangent, and spectacularly failed to do so. Rather than admit you have been taken for a mug, by your own government . What was that about commenting on something that is clearly out of the depth of your knowledge. You matey are 100% wrong on everything you spew. . So let me ask you one more time to answer a question your havering slastering nonsense you posted. . " Everyone has the human right to seek asylum where they choose, no matter how they arrive. Unfortunately, asylum seekers are unable to apply for protection outside of the UK, meaning that they can only lodge an asylum application on arrival in the UK. This means people are forced to make dangerous journeys to claim asylum, including crossing the English Channel in small and unsafe boats. Translates to you they can claim asylum elsewhere."In terms of your garbage about Rwanda. Which part of.. The recently announced plan to forcibly export asylum seekers from the UK to Rwanda is, according to UNHCR, likely also to be illegal under international law. States which are party to the 1951 UN Refugee Convention cannot legally derogate from their fundamental responsibilities. Sending refugees who have a well-founded fear of persecution back to their country of origin, or another state where they might be unsafe, violates the principle of non-refoulement. Whether the refugees have used legal means to arrive at the border should not be held against them. Translate to you it is legal And why the wanker's in power, as in the NI protocol are totally ignorant of what they can and cannot do. Then invent imaginary enemies to feed those who are incapable of thinking for themselves on something that is clearly out of their depth of knowledge. And I am still waiting on a sensible reply to who is to blame for those failed asylum seekers who are still here. And that since the wankers took power in 2010. Why are they still here. As you blame everybody else but those responsible. |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Nov 4, 2022 17:54:17 GMT
Which again begs many questions. If they are in danger etc then escape to a safe country is their only goal. They are not forced to make a dangerous journey by small boat they choose to make a dangerous journey by small boat as they wish not to claim asylum but claim asylum in the country of their choice. They have no right to travel through the EU without a visa, they have no right to reside in France pending an opportunity to reach the UK. The laws and treaties were signed with a view to protecting bona fida refugees. If these are the rules we are bound by why does there exist the special category of Palestinian refugees within the treaties we have to adhere to? Said he as he waffles off on another tangent. Let me remind you of what you said. They don't physically have to be in the UK to claim Asylum, there is a 'legal' process that EVERY one has to go through to apply for legal status in the UK, coming over illegally by a dingy from France doesn't give you the advantage over those who are applying via the legal route to claim legal status in the UK.. Why are you commenting on something that is clearly out of your depth of knowledge?You have been asked at least six times to explain your drivel and point out safe routes. As you waffle of on another tangent, and spectacularly failed to do so. Rather than admit you have been taken for a mug, by your own government . What was that about commenting on something that is clearly out of the depth of your knowledge. You matey are 100% wrong on everything you spew. . So let me ask you one more time to answer a question your havering slastering nonsense you posted. . " Everyone has the human right to seek asylum where they choose, no matter how they arrive. Unfortunately, asylum seekers are unable to apply for protection outside of the UK, meaning that they can only lodge an asylum application on arrival in the UK. This means people are forced to make dangerous journeys to claim asylum, including crossing the English Channel in small and unsafe boats. Translates to you they can claim asylum elsewhere."In terms of your garbage about Rwanda. Which part of.. The recently announced plan to forcibly export asylum seekers from the UK to Rwanda is, according to UNHCR, likely also to be illegal under international law. States which are party to the 1951 UN Refugee Convention cannot legally derogate from their fundamental responsibilities. Sending refugees who have a well-founded fear of persecution back to their country of origin, or another state where they might be unsafe, violates the principle of non-refoulement. Whether the refugees have used legal means to arrive at the border should not be held against them. Translate to you it is legal And why the wanker's in power, as in the NI protocol are totally ignorant of what they can and cannot do. Then invent imaginary enemies to feed those who are incapable of thinking for themselves on something that is clearly out of their depth of knowledge. And I am still waiting on a sensible reply to who is to blame for those failed asylum seekers who are still here. And that since the wankers took power in 2010. Why are they still here. As you blame everybody else but those responsible. I could say I told you so, the government are up against a global corporate entity, although they have always known that now they are running out of voters their choices are more limited. |
|
|
|
Post by jaydee on Nov 4, 2022 18:09:20 GMT
I've tried unsuccesfully to explain that nitwit jaydee, the downside to having jaydee on ignore I still haven't blocked fully, so I can still read the fool in quotes. No you have not explained anything. As you ranted about safe routes, and safe countries. . You cannot claim asylum out with the UK. . If the Government was serious about preventing refugees from having to risk dangerous journeys to reach sanctuary, they would instead open safe routes to the UK for refugees . Safe routes save lives, reunite families and support refugees to rebuild their lives welcomed by our communities. The Government claims to recognise how vital saferoutes are to refugee protection but has failed to propose new safe routes with their New Plan for Immigration or this Bill. The very few existing safe routes for refugees to reach the UK are inadequate. In fact, in the last year, the Government closed routes to sanctuary: ending the Dubs scheme for unaccompanied refugee children in Europe, and refusing to replace the EU’s Dublin III Regulation, However, Clause 11 of the Nationality and Borders Bill will remove family reunion rights for thousands of people recognised as refugees each year, leaving their family members with no safe way to get to the UK. This Anti-Refugee Bill contains no provision for protecting existing, or increasing, safe routes. A person must be physically in the UK to claim asylum. Without safe options such as resettlement, family reunion and humanitarian visas, those fleeing conflict and persecution may take the desperate measure of crossing the Channel, putting their life at risk. How many links do you need. What was that about nitwits and fools. Number 10 has done a bang up job on you. FFS sake. If it was pissing of rain you would argue it was sunny. www.refugee-action.org.uk/facts-about-asylum/?gclid=CjwKCAjw8JKbBhBYEiwAs3sxN5-uYRNOvVu7SscTHRtEH7kitniDjkNAihUzhK5omZQS6dz9IBKB6xoCAbcQAvD_BwEwww.refugeecouncil.org.uk/get-involved/campaign-with-us/safe-routes-save-futures/ |
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Nov 4, 2022 18:13:35 GMT
Can't believe so many people don't understand things that they want to comment on.
Facts:
1. To claim asylum in the UK, you have to be on UK soil. Thus to enter the UK and claim asylum means that you are not an illegal immigrant.
2. You can pass through any safe country to another before claiming asylum, as long as you do not unnecessarily delay your journey.
|
|
|
|
Post by jaydee on Nov 4, 2022 18:15:35 GMT
I could say I told you so, the government are up against a global corporate entity, although they have always known that now they are running out of voters their choices are more limited. Yep as they invent enemies to hate to distract and swallowed hook line and sinker by the racists. Like the lefty lawyers, left teachers and lefty solicitors. As the mini budget, Covid and the war in Ukraine is no longer swallowed by the great unwashed. |
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Nov 4, 2022 18:17:06 GMT
It is not possible (except in extraordinarily rare circumstances) to claim asylum in Britain from outside of Britain. FFS if you are going to comment on asylum, at least take the trouble to understand what asylum is and what the rules are. What are you on about, they have been told when they go to Rwanda their Asylum applications will be treated the same way as if they were making them in the UK.
They don't physically have to be in the UK to claim Asylum, there is a 'legal' process that EVERY one has to go through to apply for legal status in the UK, coming over illegally by a dingy from France doesn't give you the advantage over those who are applying via the legal route to claim legal status in the UK.
Why are you commenting on something that is clearly out of your depth of knowledge?
Exactly you don't have to be in the country you wish to apply for Asylum in, in person |
|
|
|
Post by jaydee on Nov 4, 2022 18:19:13 GMT
Can't believe so many people don't understand things that they want to comment on. Facts: 1. To claim asylum in the UK, you have to be on UK soil. Thus to enter the UK and claim asylum means that you are not an illegal immigrant. 2. You can pass through any safe country to another before claiming asylum, as long as you do not unnecessarily delay your journey. Oh they do understand. They are just to thick to admit they have been taken for mugs by their own government. And know it. Its like trying to explain to a brick wall. It is not a Ferrari. |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Nov 4, 2022 18:24:03 GMT
Can't believe so many people don't understand things that they want to comment on. Facts: 1. To claim asylum in the UK, you have to be on UK soil. Thus to enter the UK and claim asylum means that you are not an illegal immigrant. 2. You can pass through any safe country to another before claiming asylum, as long as you do not unnecessarily delay your journey. **UPDATE**
The UK and Rwanda agreed a Migration and Economic Development Partnership in April 2022. It includes a five-year 'asylum partnership arrangement' as detailed in a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) signed by the Home Secretary and Rwanda's Minister for Foreign Affairs.
**They can claim Asylum from the place they have set sail from, the UK** so when they get to Rwanda they will be dealt with on Asylum Seekers claim**
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Nov 4, 2022 18:24:41 GMT
Can't believe so many people don't understand things that they want to comment on. Facts: 1. To claim asylum in the UK, you have to be on UK soil. Thus to enter the UK and claim asylum means that you are not an illegal immigrant.
2. You can pass through any safe country to another before claiming asylum, as long as you do not unnecessarily delay your journey. No thats wrong. Entering the UK without the correct authorization is an illegal act - claiming asylum simply means that for the duration of the time it takes for that claim to be processed you cannot be prosecuted. It does not mean that you are suddenly a legal migrant. |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Nov 4, 2022 18:56:10 GMT
What's the difference in a homeless UK person walking in to a 5* hotel booking themselves in and telling them the UK tax payers will foot the bill?
What more legality and legitimacy has a homeless illegal migrant got over a homeless UK citizen, why can't the homeless people in the UK play the same card as illegal migrants?
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Nov 4, 2022 19:19:59 GMT
No thats wrong. Entering the UK without the correct authorization is an illegal act - claiming asylum simply means that for the duration of the time it takes for that claim to be processed you cannot be prosecuted. It does not mean that you are suddenly a legal migrant. Yes it is the case that for the period of time between the moment an alien without permission to land arrives in the UK and the time he says to an authorised immigration officer 'I wish to claim asylum' that individual is technically an illegal entrant. But I've never heard of anyone being prosecuted for it. The actual immigration status of an asylum claimant is rather fuzzy. The document that he is issued with does not define that status, but merely notes that his application has been registered. I don't believe he has any official status within the immigration system until he either achieves refugee status or runs out of appeal options, at which point he reverts to the status of illegal entrant, which he held fleetingly on arrival. |
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Nov 4, 2022 19:33:47 GMT
Can't believe so many people don't understand things that they want to comment on. Facts: 1. To claim asylum in the UK, you have to be on UK soil. Thus to enter the UK and claim asylum means that you are not an illegal immigrant. 2. You can pass through any safe country to another before claiming asylum, as long as you do not unnecessarily delay your journey. What does that mean, many migrants have been on French soil for months and even longer? Oh and what's the case if an embassy has extraterritorial status? |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Nov 4, 2022 20:23:54 GMT
Can't believe so many people don't understand things that they want to comment on. Facts: 1. To claim asylum in the UK, you have to be on UK soil. Thus to enter the UK and claim asylum means that you are not an illegal immigrant. 2. You can pass through any safe country to another before claiming asylum, as long as you do not unnecessarily delay your journey. What does that mean, many migrants have been on French soil for months and even longer? Oh and what's the case if an embassy has extraterritorial status? Wrt to the first question, the answer is that if they arrived after the Nationality and Borders Act came into effect, the authorities have the option of declaring any subsequent asylum claim in the UK as 'inadmissible'. That doesn't appear to have happened yet though, I suspect officials are waiting the outcome of the Rwanda judicial review before proceeding. In the meantime they're being accommodated and provisioned at taxpayer expense.
|
|
