|
|
Post by Orac on Nov 23, 2024 9:15:05 GMT
They are still in the country. Remember, you wont accept any limits at all to our liability to allow these people in. So you solution is? I have outlined it multiple times. Make the option very unattractive. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 23, 2024 9:17:01 GMT
Can you not see the error here? How do America bar people who enter the country Unlawfully? Is there a sign on the fence or a leaflet distributed to the smuggling gangs saying no criminals please? Yes the UK has no idea what kind of people that enter the UK Unlawfully are. If people like myself had their way, nobody at all would dare cross the border unlawfully. However, this is not your stance. Nor the stance of the international law. So we go round again. Do we break international law and take the consequences of that. |
|
|
|
Post by Totheleft on Nov 23, 2024 9:18:15 GMT
I agree with Rebirth the Americans have for years barred people from entering the US even for a holiday that have Criminal Convictions especially Drugs and Violence classed as undesirables. The UK has no idea what kind of people that enter the UK Unlawfully are, some may well have serious Criminal Convictions in their own country or on the run to avoid arrest in their own country, or members of Organised International Crime Syndicated or Terrorists, the EU countries have the same problem. yea that all worked out well for America didnt it |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 23, 2024 9:21:57 GMT
My solution. Move our asylum application off shore. Make it clear that anyone arriving here directly and illegally will never be given asylum.
Have an exception for clear cases.
Place all illegal migrants into camps with basic services with the right to return home or to a British asylum application centre at any time (Thus making them not criminals)
I am adding this to every post from now to stop the stupid claims that I want Africa to move in.
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 23, 2024 9:24:31 GMT
Perhaps not but you are being disingenuous here. The democratic process applies to laws that act upon the electorate and restrict their government within their own borders. If law is made at some location other than parliament and restricts the actions of the British electorate then that is law without representation. Your suggestion indicates eventually the possibility that if International Law decides that the Ukraine should be annexed by Russia then that should go ahead. No use saying international law will never do that as currently we have all sorts of iniquities being considered in the name of International law. you keep banging on about what the electorate want i told you before that people have the power to vote in lates say a lesser immigration government they would for instance vote reform to head up the government Yes they have that power and have done exactly that for over 60 years and been roundly ignored by successive governments sometimes due to international law sometimes due to forces and reasons unknown that seem to act within to stymie certain policies. The electorate have made their wishes clear on many many occasions. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 23, 2024 9:25:27 GMT
I agree with Rebirth the Americans have for years barred people from entering the US even for a holiday that have Criminal Convictions especially Drugs and Violence classed as undesirables. The UK has no idea what kind of people that enter the UK Unlawfully are, some may well have serious Criminal Convictions in their own country or on the run to avoid arrest in their own country, or members of Organised International Crime Syndicated or Terrorists, the EU countries have the same problem. yea that all worked out well for America didnt it They voted for Trump to stop it, but in 5 years he barely affected the flow. They are giving him another go.
My solution. Move our asylum application off shore. Make it clear that anyone arriving here directly and illegally will never be given asylum.
Have an exception for clear cases.
Place all illegal migrants into camps with basic services with the right to return home or to a British asylum application centre at any time (Thus making them not criminals)
I am adding this to every post from now to stop the stupid claims that I want Africa to move in. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 23, 2024 9:28:25 GMT
you keep banging on about what the electorate want i told you before that people have the power to vote in lates say a lesser immigration government they would for instance vote reform to head up the government Yes they have that power and have done exactly that for over 60 years and been roundly ignored by successive governments sometimes due to international law sometimes due to forces and reasons unknown that seem to act within to stymie certain policies. The electorate have made their wishes clear on many many occasions. I'm not aware of significant calls to stop asylum seekers coming here altogether, just better sorting of economic migrants and refugees. I am aware of many petitions and calls for LEGAL immigration to be curbed. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Nov 23, 2024 9:34:37 GMT
If people like myself had their way, nobody at all would dare cross the border unlawfully. However, this is not your stance. Nor the stance of the international law. So we go round again. Do we break international law and take the consequences of that. We aren't go around again - you keep nudging the goalposts back. The conventions only applies if you stay in them, so there is no need to break international law. If you wanted to make illegal entry unattractive, you can do this without even leaving the convention. The reason nothing like this happens is because the whole criminal operation extends into government. |
|
|
|
Post by Rebirth on Nov 23, 2024 9:36:53 GMT
If it were true. No known hardened criminal lives freely in this country. Q:Can criminals be denied refugee status? A: Yes, criminals can be denied refugee status We have courts overriding the deportation of convicted violent criminals who are here illegally. It's a problem throughout the western world made possible in the UK by the two-tier justice system and lefty human rights lawyers. Elsewhere it's EU nonsense. There was a madman who threatened to come to the UK to murder Farage. A human right's lawyer was literally and confidently arguing for this madman's entry into the UK, like it was an everyday occurrence.
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 23, 2024 9:40:09 GMT
Yes they have that power and have done exactly that for over 60 years and been roundly ignored by successive governments sometimes due to international law sometimes due to forces and reasons unknown that seem to act within to stymie certain policies. The electorate have made their wishes clear on many many occasions. I'm not aware of significant calls to stop asylum seekers coming here altogether, just better sorting of economic migrants and refugees. I am aware of many petitions and calls for LEGAL immigration to be curbed. Most party manifestos over the last 60 years have contained forcible comments on strictly controlling immigration. That is both winning and losing parties. Stop the boats, smash the gangs. Both contain a desire to stop illegal arrivals one could argue in total. Both received widespread support by the electorate. The boats remain unstopped, the gangs unsmashed and smashing the gangs was also a policy being followed by the Tories and international crime agencies so Labour were not starting afresh. Bear in mind I did not refer to petitions I referred to manifesto commitments and what the electorate actually voted for. |
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Nov 23, 2024 9:49:47 GMT
I agree with Rebirth the Americans have for years barred people from entering the US even for a holiday that have Criminal Convictions especially Drugs and Violence classed as undesirables. The UK has no idea what kind of people that enter the UK Unlawfully are, some may well have serious Criminal Convictions in their own country or on the run to avoid arrest in their own country, or members of Organised International Crime Syndicated or Terrorists, the EU countries have the same problem. Can you not see the error here? How do America bar people who enter the country Unlawfully? Is there a sign on the fence or a leaflet distributed to the smuggling gangs saying no criminals please? Yes the UK has no idea what kind of people that enter the UK Unlawfully are. Can't you see the view for the trees, which bit of the sheer numbers crossing the very long border from Mexico are very difficult to stop, as fast as they catch them and bus them out more get over or under the fence, again they have no idea who or what they are |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Nov 23, 2024 9:54:49 GMT
I have outlined it multiple times. Make the option very unattractive. The above is typical Rightist deviation, it sounds / looks good but says nothing in terms of actually dealing with the issue. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Nov 23, 2024 10:00:21 GMT
Can you not see the error here? How do America bar people who enter the country Unlawfully? Is there a sign on the fence or a leaflet distributed to the smuggling gangs saying no criminals please? Yes the UK has no idea what kind of people that enter the UK Unlawfully are. Can't you see the view for the trees, which bit of the sheer numbers crossing the very long border from Mexico are very difficult to stop, as fast as they catch them and bus them out more get over or under the fence, again they have no idea who or what they are Yes, you may be exaggerating the problem, but it is a problem of our times. Do you have a legal workable answer to the problem? |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Nov 23, 2024 10:12:03 GMT
I'm not aware of significant calls to stop asylum seekers coming here altogether, just better sorting of economic migrants and refugees. I am aware of many petitions and calls for LEGAL immigration to be curbed. That is both winning and losing parties. Stop the boats, smash the gangs. Both contain a desire to stop illegal arrivals one could argue in total. Both received widespread support by the electorate. The boats remain unstopped, the gangs unsmashed and smashing the gangs was also a policy being followed by the Tories and international crime agencies so Labour were not starting afresh. Bear in mind I did not refer to petitions I referred to manifesto commitments and what the electorate actually voted for. Manifestos are only an indication of the direction that a party wants to go in. They are not a promise nor can they be for very obvious reasons, such as laws that have not been overcome and or complete changes in circumstances after being elected. Including the present government in your condemnations, is to put it mildly, seriously premature. It says so much about yourself. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Nov 23, 2024 10:31:25 GMT
Nor the stance of the international law. So we go round again. Do we break international law and take the consequences of that. We aren't go around again - you keep nudging the goalposts back. The conventions only applies if you stay in them, so there is no need to break international law. If you wanted to make illegal entry unattractive, you can do this without even leaving the convention. The reason nothing like this happens is because the whole criminal operation extends into government. There are many blockages when it comes to dealing with asylum seekers who are not considered to be illegal when entering the UK (or other European countries). For instance they have human rights, that have to be taken into account. The mass migration of asylum seekers over the last two decades, starting with the mass entry into Italy, has overwhelmed any hope of dealing with the problem. The rulings from the ECHR needs to be modified in order to bring requirements up to date and recognising the damage being done to Europe as a whole. Just dumping the ECHR could have serious knock-on affects world wide. Not least in allowing more freedom to already extremist parties and governments. How does one deal with asylum seekers or any other migrant who has no passport identifying who they are and from which country they are from? |
|
