|
|
Post by Bentley on Nov 23, 2024 13:18:42 GMT
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.
You are not creating a solution at all . You creating a loop hole. That’s why I said it . So you would lock a criminal up for life if they refused to return home ? Really? Once again you posted “ Make it clear that anyone arriving here directly and illegally will never be given asylum.“ I repeat, I’ve posted that many times but have never seen you post it before today. Who are ‘ we’? You and TTL? Who wanted to build a wall around the UK and drown them in the channel? Looks like you have made up lies again . |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 23, 2024 13:19:51 GMT
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. It might be ridiculous but its not illegal. Heading for 12,000 times Red. You must get it eventually. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Nov 23, 2024 13:20:17 GMT
Oh the irony of inconvenient truth  The inconvenient truth was See2 telling others to debate in an adult manner . Looks like another point that went over your head …again . |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Nov 23, 2024 13:26:40 GMT
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. It might be ridiculous but its not illegal. Heading for 12,000 times Red. You must get it eventually. But Red was right.
For about 90 days between the Conservatives making arrivals by small boat from safe countries illegal and Labour making it legal again.
|
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 23, 2024 13:31:07 GMT
Oh the irony of inconvenient truth The inconvenient truth was See2 telling others to debate in an adult manner . Looks like another point that went over your head …again . Apologies, Yes I missed it. I thought it referred to the actual words. Sorry. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 23, 2024 13:38:18 GMT
It might be ridiculous but its not illegal. Heading for 12,000 times Red. You must get it eventually. But Red was right.
For about 90 days between the Conservatives making arrivals by small boat from safe countries illegal and Labour making it legal again.
Yeah that certainly wasn't contentious. And I'm sure Red was only referring to those 90 days 😂 |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Nov 23, 2024 13:38:34 GMT
The key word is 'may' as in 'may exercise the control necessary to...'
Successive British governments have chosen not to do so.
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Nov 23, 2024 13:39:33 GMT
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. It might be ridiculous but its not illegal. Heading for 12,000 times Red. You must get it eventually. It is illegal ffs. United Nations Convention on the Laws of the Sea. [UNCLOS] Section 4 - Contiguous zone Article 33 1. In a zone contiguous to its territorial sea, described as the contiguous zone, the coastal State [In this case the UK] may exercise the control necessary to (a) prevent infringement of its customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and regulations within its territory or territorial sea; (b) punish infringement of the above laws and regulations committed within its territory or territorial sea. www.jus.uio.no/english/services/library/treaties/08/8-01/unclos.htmlUnder international law the government are perfectly entitled to stop immigrants entering UK territorial waters. Clearly international law is ignored because this government, and the previous government, did not want to anger the French or the EU. But make no mistake, if we are at some point blessed with a government who put the UK first and illegals are stopped from entering UK waters, then international law would be on the governments side. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Nov 23, 2024 13:41:55 GMT
The key word is 'may' as in 'may exercise the control necessary to...' Successive British governments have chosen not to do so. Correct, but that does not mean a future government may choose not to, and people are pissed off enough to vote for Reform UK. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 23, 2024 13:42:50 GMT
It might be ridiculous but its not illegal. Heading for 12,000 times Red. You must get it eventually. It is illegal ffs. United Nations Convention on the Laws of the Sea. [UNCLOS] Section 4 - Contiguous zone Article 33 1. In a zone contiguous to its territorial sea, described as the contiguous zone, the coastal State [In this case the UK] may exercise the control necessary to (a) prevent infringement of its customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and regulations within its territory or territorial sea; (b) punish infringement of the above laws and regulations committed within its territory or territorial sea. www.jus.uio.no/english/services/library/treaties/08/8-01/unclos.htmlUnder international law the government are perfectly entitled to stop immigrants entering UK territorial waters. Clearly international law is ignored because this government, and the previous government, did not want to anger the French or the EU. But make no mistake, if we are at some point blessed with a government who put the UK first and illegals are stopped from entering UK waters, then international law would be on the governments side. Red, that doesn't apply to asylum seekers. But you must know that. Surely you must know that. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Nov 23, 2024 13:43:57 GMT
It did, but only for 90 days or so.
'It' being the applicable section of the Illegal Migration Act 2023.
They were removed with the The Illegal Migration Act 2023 (Amendment) Regulations 2024, within days of Labour entering office.
|
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 23, 2024 13:45:22 GMT
The key word is 'may' as in 'may exercise the control necessary to...' Successive British governments have chosen not to do so. Correct, but that does not mean a future government may choose not to, and people are pissed off enough to vote for Reform UK. Yeap 14% were pissed off enough. 86% were not. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Nov 23, 2024 13:46:29 GMT
It is illegal ffs. United Nations Convention on the Laws of the Sea. [UNCLOS] Section 4 - Contiguous zone Article 33 1. In a zone contiguous to its territorial sea, described as the contiguous zone, the coastal State [In this case the UK] may exercise the control necessary to (a) prevent infringement of its customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and regulations within its territory or territorial sea; (b) punish infringement of the above laws and regulations committed within its territory or territorial sea. www.jus.uio.no/english/services/library/treaties/08/8-01/unclos.htmlUnder international law the government are perfectly entitled to stop immigrants entering UK territorial waters. Clearly international law is ignored because this government, and the previous government, did not want to anger the French or the EU. But make no mistake, if we are at some point blessed with a government who put the UK first and illegals are stopped from entering UK waters, then international law would be on the governments side. Red, that doesn't apply to asylum seekers. But you must know that. Surely you must know that. There are approved channels for asylum seekers, entering the UK illegally by crossing the channel in a dingy is not one of them. I sense we're going around in circles. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Nov 23, 2024 13:47:53 GMT
Correct, but that does not mean a future government may choose not to, and people are pissed off enough to vote for Reform UK. Yeap 14% were pissed off enough. 86% were not. In 2029?.. That's a rather optimistic guess. |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Nov 23, 2024 13:50:03 GMT
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. Bollocks zany. Now you are moving the goalposts..... |
|
