|
|
Asylum
Nov 18, 2022 14:42:37 GMT
via mobile
Post by andrewbrown on Nov 18, 2022 14:42:37 GMT
No not at all Fairsociety, the confusion is purely in your head. If you arrive here say by boat, if you claim asylum you are then here legally while you case is heard, and you are an " asylum seeker"If you do not claim asylum, you are here illegally and are an illegal immigrant.Only after an asylum application has been determined and found to be justified does an asylum seeker change status and become a refugeeThey are not asylum seekers when the are being picked up in the Channel in a dinghy, coming from a 'safe haven' known as France, you clot.
They come with no ID hoping they can claim asylum to stay because they will be in fear of their lives returning back to where they came from ... France.
They are chancers, chancing their arm, you can call them what the fuck you like, I'm calling them illegal migrants with no legitimacy to claim asylum in the UK
Do we understand each other now?
My point is about correct terminology. It's very important in technicalities like this. Whatever your opinion is here is irrelevant. |
|
|
|
Asylum
Nov 18, 2022 15:08:32 GMT
Post by Fairsociety on Nov 18, 2022 15:08:32 GMT
They are not asylum seekers when the are being picked up in the Channel in a dinghy, coming from a 'safe haven' known as France, you clot.
They come with no ID hoping they can claim asylum to stay because they will be in fear of their lives returning back to where they came from ... France.
They are chancers, chancing their arm, you can call them what the fuck you like, I'm calling them illegal migrants with no legitimacy to claim asylum in the UK
Do we understand each other now?
My point is about correct terminology. It's very important in technicalities like this. Whatever your opinion is here is irrelevant. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.
Illegal migrants crossing from France not genuine asylum seekers.  |
|
|
|
Asylum
Nov 18, 2022 16:39:51 GMT
Post by Orac on Nov 18, 2022 16:39:51 GMT
Fairsociety was arguing about correct terminology, Mags. To me he just seems to be arguing about the reality. A reality I Illustrate - someone moving from A to B is not doing so to avoid being in C (because they are not in C). On the different question as to whether people wishing to claim asylum must do so in the first safe country, they are not. This silly strawman again. This is easy enough to understand. You are not compelled to buy a cinema ticket. However, you are compelled to buy a cinema ticket if you want to enter the cinema. |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Nov 18, 2022 16:52:29 GMT
Fairsociety was arguing about correct terminology, Mags. He was confused about what different labels for people meant and suggested that Border Control were similarly confused. He was (and perhaps still is ) they are not. On the different question as to whether people wishing to claim asylum must do so in the first safe country, they are not. Again that is simply a fact. Yu may wish it were not and argue it should be changed but as of now that is the reality. I am not 'confused' about any labels, it's a fact any illegal migrant crossing the channel in a dinghy from France is NOT the definition of a asylum seeker.
Definition: An asylum seeker is someone who claims to be a refugee but whose claim hasn't been evaluated. This person would have applied for asylum on the grounds that returning to his or her country would lead to persecution on account of race, religion, nationality or political beliefs.
Explain how they can claim 'asylum in the UK' when they have just come from a safe haven .... France?
Who is going to ' persecution on account of race, religion, nationality or political beliefs if they return back to France?
The only one confused is YOU, the definition of a illegal migrant crossing the channel from France in a dinghy is ' a illegal migrant.
|
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Nov 18, 2022 16:58:09 GMT
Fairsociety was arguing about correct terminology, Mags. He was confused about what different labels for people meant and suggested that Border Control were similarly confused. He was (and perhaps still is ) they are not. On the different question as to whether people wishing to claim asylum must do so in the first safe country, they are not. Again that is simply a fact. Yu may wish it were not and argue it should be changed but as of now that is the reality. I am not 'confused' about any labels, it's a fact any illegal migrant crossing the channel in a dinghy from France is NOT the definition of a asylum seeker.
Definition: An asylum seeker is someone who claims to be a refugee but whose claim hasn't been evaluated. This person would have applied for asylum on the grounds that returning to his or her country would lead to persecution on account of race, religion, nationality or political beliefs.
Explain how they can claim 'asylum in the UK' when they have just come from a safe haven .... France?
Who is going to ' persecution on account of race, religion, nationality or political beliefs if they return back to France?
The only one confused is YOU, the definition of a illegal migrant crossing the channel from France in a dinghy is ' a illegal migrant.
Which is fair enough, although to cut you off in your prime they just change the rhetoric. That is why their wording is so important to those who follow it. Generally, it is a cover for goalpost moving. |
|
|
|
Asylum
Nov 18, 2022 17:03:03 GMT
Post by Fairsociety on Nov 18, 2022 17:03:03 GMT
I am not 'confused' about any labels, it's a fact any illegal migrant crossing the channel in a dinghy from France is NOT the definition of a asylum seeker.
Definition: An asylum seeker is someone who claims to be a refugee but whose claim hasn't been evaluated. This person would have applied for asylum on the grounds that returning to his or her country would lead to persecution on account of race, religion, nationality or political beliefs.
Explain how they can claim 'asylum in the UK' when they have just come from a safe haven .... France?
Who is going to ' persecution on account of race, religion, nationality or political beliefs if they return back to France?
The only one confused is YOU, the definition of a illegal migrant crossing the channel from France in a dinghy is ' a illegal migrant.
Which is fair enough, although to cut you off in your prime they just change the rhetoric. That is why their wording is so important to those who follow it. Generally, it is a cover for goalpost moving. I am in no doubt that the human rights lawyers are defining the term 'asylum' seekers to fit in with illegal migrants coming from safe havens, they just use legal jargon to try to justify them being asylum seekers, and the most laughable part about it the UK tax payers are footing the bill for these lawyers to find loopholes in our very lax asylum rules. |
|
|
|
Asylum
Nov 18, 2022 19:02:35 GMT
Post by zanygame on Nov 18, 2022 19:02:35 GMT
No not at all Fairsociety, the confusion is purely in your head. If you arrive here say by boat, if you claim asylum you are then here legally while you case is heard, and you are an " asylum seeker"If you do not claim asylum, you are here illegally and are an illegal immigrant.Only after an asylum application has been determined and found to be justified does an asylum seeker change status and become a refugeeThey are not asylum seekers when the are being picked up in the Channel in a dinghy, coming from a 'safe haven' known as France, you clot.
They come with no ID hoping they can claim asylum to stay because they will be in fear of their lives returning back to where they came from ... France.
They are chancers, chancing their arm, you can call them what the fuck you like, I'm calling them illegal migrants with no legitimacy to claim asylum in the UK
Do we understand each other now?
How many times do people need to be told. You can apply for asylum in any country you wish You do NOT have to have arrived from an unsafe country. |
|
|
|
Asylum
Nov 18, 2022 19:07:25 GMT
Post by Steve on Nov 18, 2022 19:07:25 GMT
My point is about correct terminology. It's very important in technicalities like this. Whatever your opinion is here is irrelevant. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.
Illegal migrants crossing from France not genuine asylum seekers. I believe the correct term on landing is 'irregular migrants'. IMHO we could in hours determine that they had a 'connection to a safe country' so then reclassify them as illegals but seems our government doesn't want to use its own laws  |
|
|
|
Asylum
Nov 18, 2022 19:27:36 GMT
Post by Orac on Nov 18, 2022 19:27:36 GMT
How many times do people need to be told. You can apply for asylum in any country you wish You do NOT have to have arrived from an unsafe country. This is true but .. Unless you are entering from unsafe country, the government of a nation can refuse entry. A claim for asylum made from a safe country is unlikely to go far. If you put this all together you have a legal situation which presents an implicit requirement for someone claiming to seek asylum to apply for it when it is available to him. This actually makes a lot of sense. It's no good just repeating the same incomplete argument again and again - ie there is no compulsion. Sure there is no compulsion and there doesn't have to be. |
|
|
|
Asylum
Nov 18, 2022 19:46:04 GMT
Post by Fairsociety on Nov 18, 2022 19:46:04 GMT
The fact there are different terminologies to define the difference between Asylum seekers, refugees, illegal migrants, economic migrants, so obviously they have different criteria for consideration, the definition of seeking asylum is not the definition of a illegal migrant who has entered the UK illegally via a safe country, namely France.
Definition: An asylum seeker is someone who claims to be a refugee but whose claim hasn't been evaluated. This person would have applied for asylum on the grounds that returning to his or her country would lead to persecution on account of race, religion, nationality or political beliefs.
Illegal migrants from France do not fit this criteria definition as a asylum seeker.
|
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Nov 18, 2022 19:58:50 GMT
The fact there are different terminologies to define the difference between Asylum seekers, refugees, illegal migrants, economic migrants, so obviously they have different criteria for consideration, the definition of seeking asylum is not the definition of a illegal migrant who has entered the UK illegally via a safe country, namely France.
Definition: An asylum seeker is someone who claims to be a refugee but whose claim hasn't been evaluated. This person would have applied for asylum on the grounds that returning to his or her country would lead to persecution on account of race, religion, nationality or political beliefs.
Illegal migrants from France do not fit this criteria definition.
Not sure your words are correct but can we agree that anyone who voluntarily departs a safe country has shown they do not have a 'well founded fear of persecution' |
|
|
|
Asylum
Nov 18, 2022 20:03:01 GMT
Post by sandypine on Nov 18, 2022 20:03:01 GMT
They are not asylum seekers when the are being picked up in the Channel in a dinghy, coming from a 'safe haven' known as France, you clot.
They come with no ID hoping they can claim asylum to stay because they will be in fear of their lives returning back to where they came from ... France.
They are chancers, chancing their arm, you can call them what the fuck you like, I'm calling them illegal migrants with no legitimacy to claim asylum in the UK
Do we understand each other now?
How many times do people need to be told. You can apply for asylum in any country you wish You do NOT have to have arrived from an unsafe country. Why do you think that is in terms of the refugee convention? |
|
|
|
Asylum
Nov 18, 2022 20:24:17 GMT
Post by zanygame on Nov 18, 2022 20:24:17 GMT
How many times do people need to be told. You can apply for asylum in any country you wish You do NOT have to have arrived from an unsafe country. This is true but .. Unless you are entering from unsafe country, the government of a nation can refuse entry. A claim for asylum made from a safe country is unlikely to go far. If you put this all together you have a legal situation which presents an implicit requirement for someone claiming to seek asylum to apply for it when it is available to him. This actually makes a lot of sense. It's no good just repeating the same incomplete argument again and again - ie there is no compulsion. Sure there is no compulsion and there doesn't have to be. But they don't arrive on a cross channel ferry asking for permission to come aboard. They arrive illegally and ask for asylum. So the idea that the government could refuse entry is daft. That you want the UK to avoid its share of responsibility by this simple ruse is shabby. |
|
|
|
Asylum
Nov 18, 2022 20:31:52 GMT
Post by Fairsociety on Nov 18, 2022 20:31:52 GMT
This is true but .. Unless you are entering from unsafe country, the government of a nation can refuse entry. A claim for asylum made from a safe country is unlikely to go far. If you put this all together you have a legal situation which presents an implicit requirement for someone claiming to seek asylum to apply for it when it is available to him. This actually makes a lot of sense. It's no good just repeating the same incomplete argument again and again - ie there is no compulsion. Sure there is no compulsion and there doesn't have to be. But they don't arrive on a cross channel ferry asking for permission to come aboard. They arrive illegally and ask for asylum. So the idea that the government could refuse entry is daft. That you want the UK to avoid its share of responsibility by this simple ruse is shabby. The only thing that is shabby is illegal migrants trying to get a leg up the system by 'jumping the queue' process, and it's a injustice to those who want to enter the UK through the legal process, how do you think these people feel when they are following the legal process while 40,000 illegals don't want to go through this process, they want to come here illegally to gain advantage of those who use the legal UK application process, what message is that sending out to those who want to be here legally, and for this reason this queue jumping illegal entry they should automatically be refused asylum status. That is fair to those who do the right thing. |
|
|
|
Asylum
Nov 18, 2022 21:43:30 GMT
Post by zanygame on Nov 18, 2022 21:43:30 GMT
But they don't arrive on a cross channel ferry asking for permission to come aboard. They arrive illegally and ask for asylum. So the idea that the government could refuse entry is daft. That you want the UK to avoid its share of responsibility by this simple ruse is shabby. The only thing that is shabby is illegal migrants trying to get a leg up the system by 'jumping the queue' process, and it's a injustice to those who want to enter the UK through the legal process, how do you think these people feel when they are following the legal process while 40,000 illegals don't want to go through this process, they want to come here illegally to gain advantage of those who use the legal UK application process, what message is that sending out to those who want to be here legally, and for this reason this queue jumping illegal entry they should automatically be refused asylum status. That is fair to those who do the right thing. You are once again confusing legal immigrants, asylum seekers and illegal immigrants. Legal migrants are invited here because of their skills. Asylum seekers are escaping from fear, famine or execution. Both only get entry if they qualify. Again. Legal migrants are invited here because of their skills. Asylum seekers are escaping from fear, famine or execution. Both only get entry if they qualify. |
|
