|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Nov 23, 2024 10:53:36 GMT
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? Christ, what is it with you bleeding heart lefties. There are legal channels in which anyone can apply for asylum. Paying a smuggler to get you across the channel is not one of them. Anyone who crosses the channel in a dingy is 'literally' a criminal. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 23, 2024 11:04:45 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. I guess so, though the convention is deliberately vague to stop this happening. To stop countries saying anyone can claim refugee status here, but we keep them in camps and have decided that 300 calories a day is sustenance (Can't understand why they've stopped coming, look over there a squirrel) 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 11:09:19 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.
There is a difference between deporting and freedom. You cannot deport someone who faces torture or death on their return because civilised countries don't allow torture or death without conviction. We can lock up known criminals who arrive here. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 23, 2024 11:10:57 GMT
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? Christ, what is it with you bleeding heart lefties. There are legal channels in which anyone can apply for asylum. Paying a smuggler to get you across the channel is not one of them. Anyone who crosses the channel in a dingy is 'literally' a criminal. I would tell you this is wrong, but I believe you have been told 11,347 times already. |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Nov 23, 2024 11:15:47 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. Austratlia also practice the same over underables entering their country... |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Nov 23, 2024 11:26:35 GMT
Christ, what is it with you bleeding heart lefties. There are legal channels in which anyone can apply for asylum. Paying a smuggler to get you across the channel is not one of them. Anyone who crosses the channel in a dingy is 'literally' a criminal. I would tell you this is wrong, but I believe you have been told 11,347 times already. As I said - what is it with you bleeding heart lefties. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 23, 2024 11:37:48 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. Austratlia also practice the same over underables entering their country... The UK checks for criminal records when people apply to enter the country: Criminal convictions Applicants with a criminal conviction that's punishable by at least 12 months in prison are usually refused entry. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 23, 2024 11:38:22 GMT
I would tell you this is wrong, but I believe you have been told 11,347 times already. As I said - what is it with you bleeding heart lefties. 11,348 times |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Nov 23, 2024 11:42:01 GMT
Austratlia also practice the same over underables entering their country... The UK checks for criminal records when people apply to enter the country: Criminal convictions Applicants with a criminal conviction that's punishable by at least 12 months in prison are usually refused entry. Yet they can rock up in boats and assisted with no questions asked even when they have no form of id. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Nov 23, 2024 11:45:23 GMT
'International Law' is only the agreements that the UK Government agree to sign up to. If for example they decided to withdraw from the 1951 Refugee Convention there would be no International Law applicable in the UK on the rights of refugees, Absolutely, that's what I said, but you don't get to make your own rules and still stay in the club. So would we be happy to leave the UN, so we can cherry pick which bits we want? Would we be happy for much of the Western world to consider us a pariah state, or an unsafe investment because we defy international laws at a whim. As I said, consequences. Well there are numerous countries who are not party to the Convention and yet are not considered pariah states - including India, UAE and Malaysia. They set their own rules and yet still have no shortage of outside investment. I feel the 'consequences' are somewhat overblown. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Nov 23, 2024 11:54:56 GMT
Indeed. “ A government should be able to enact the wishes of the electorate.” Leftie “so if the electorate wants to eat babies the government should allow it ?” jeez 😁 And if the people want to break international law the government should comply? Fact is a sovereign government can decide to not comply with an internationally agreed law, but they have to be aware that there are consequences. There are consequences of complying too. There are consequences of using hyperbole too. Which was my point . Which went over your head … |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Nov 23, 2024 11:55:04 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. Not at all.. The reason you would object to such a plan is that it would work. It's going to be fun watching you hop around trying to construct artificial reasons why we should not do the obvious |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Nov 23, 2024 11:58:14 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. I’ve made that point( in bold) many times . Never seen you post it . |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Nov 23, 2024 11:58:50 GMT
As I said - what is it with you bleeding heart lefties. 11,348 times Pillock. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Nov 23, 2024 12:01:55 GMT
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? There are legal channels in which anyone can apply for asylum. Paying a smuggler to get you across the channel is not one of them. Anyone who crosses the channel in a dingy is 'literally' a criminal. Quit it with the Rightist lies, grow up and try to debate in an adult manner. Yes there are legal channels in which one can apply for for asylum, but what better way for the asylum seeker to apply than from within the UK? There are also natural ways for people to escape death, starvation and serious abuse by becoming asylum seekers and getting out of their country as quickly as possible. |
|
