|
|
Post by Bentley on Nov 23, 2024 12:04:48 GMT
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. You realise that this creates loop holes for criminals to stay ? ”We can lock up known criminals who arrive here.” ..how long for? You live in a dream world. Unfortunately there are millions of lefties who live there too. Very few in third world countries though . I wonder why? |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Nov 23, 2024 12:05:38 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. . 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. Oh the irony 😁 |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Nov 23, 2024 12:07:25 GMT
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 You are wrong again, try being more descriptive on "the obvious" why do you always hide your reality behind such words? Just how do you think Asylum seekers should be actively dealt with, inside of the law of course.? |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Nov 23, 2024 12:08:25 GMT
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. Oh the irony 😁 The cupid stunt strikes again. His excuse for debate is comical to say the least.. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Nov 23, 2024 12:13:41 GMT
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. I have to assume you agree with criminals entering this country then applying for asylum. The population of this country is nearly 70 million and has increased by nearly ten million in two decades. Never in the history of this country have we experienced immigration on this scale. It is completely unprecedented, indeed in 2007 England overtook the Netherlands to become the most populated country in Europe. Immigration increases poverty: it increases labour market competition which lowers wages, and immigrants themselves are more often than not poor and a drain on the welfare state. So tell me; when in your opinion will enough be enough? 80 million, 100 million? Give me a number... |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 23, 2024 12:15:47 GMT
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. 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. You missed it again, manifestos are a measure of what the electorate want, which was the point. We know what the electorate want because they have been aske to vote and have indicated time and again. If manifestos are an indication of intended direction it seems churlish to point out that the direction as regards immigration has consistently been in the opposite direction than that intended. It is akin to saying we will build an extra 100,000 houses and then the government decreasing the numbers from the existing building number. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Nov 23, 2024 12:16:59 GMT
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 You are wrong again, try being more descriptive on "the obvious" why do you always hide your reality behind such words? Just how do you think Asylum seekers should be actively dealt with, inside of the law of course.? 100% of cross channel criminals enter this country from the safe EU state of France. It is absolutely absurd that a criminal can claim asylum having entered this country from France. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 23, 2024 12:19:16 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. It is a criminal act to enter the UK without leave to do so. The convention agreement means no sanctions will be taken against them, that does not remove the criminality of the act. That has been pointed out many times before and ignored. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Nov 23, 2024 12:26:54 GMT
ZG... ZG!
It would appear that ZG has run off to his safe space. Probably to get advice from Steve or Monte, lol.
|
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Nov 23, 2024 12:29:02 GMT
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 You are wrong again, try being more descriptive on "the obvious" why do you always hide your reality behind such words? Just how do you think Asylum seekers should be actively dealt with, inside of the law of course.? I keep on having to outline this but it is very simple. Basic barracks (or tent) accommodation and rations, all performed offshore. They can leave whenever they want , ideally when they remember where they came from. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Nov 23, 2024 13:00:13 GMT
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. ...So tell me; as far as the population of the UK is concerned, when in your opinion will enough be enough? 80 million, 100 million? Give me a number... I wonder why lefties always ignore this question?.. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 23, 2024 13:04:43 GMT
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. Legal, Illegal. Look up the words. America does not prevent Illegal migrants with criminal records entering the country because they don't apply to come in. So comparing LEGAL arrivals in America with ILLEGAL arrivals in the UK is duplicitous. Indeed its worse for them with a huge land border making capturing far more difficult than for us with the English Channel. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 23, 2024 13:11:22 GMT
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. You realise that this creates loop holes for criminals to stay ? ”We can lock up known criminals who arrive here.” ..how long for? You live in a dream world. Unfortunately there are millions of lefties who live there too. Very few in third world countries though . I wonder why? Yes of course. There is no simple solution. We can lock up known criminals until they agree to return home. Sometimes if we can get the evidence we can put them on trial here and give them appropriate sentences, though they have no right to remain after that. You can continue to insult lefties while we wait patiently for your proffered workable solutions. FYI. We have rejected, build a wall around the UK and Drown them in the Channel. Sorry. 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 13:13:33 GMT
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. Oh the irony 😁 Oh the irony of inconvenient truth  |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 23, 2024 13:17:56 GMT
I would tell you this is wrong, but I believe you have been told 11,347 times already. It is a criminal act to enter the UK without leave to do so. The convention agreement means no sanctions will be taken against them, that does not remove the criminality of the act. That has been pointed out many times before and ignored. Perhaps if you re-addressed my point back to Reds it might make sense to you. The criminality of the act has nothing to do with them arriving from a safe country. Red has been told the rules on where you must seek asylum so many times. |
|
