Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Back to forum list |
Back to The Lounge |
Jump to newest |
| |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" My point is.. after seeing loads of comments on line.. and the hate these people get.. people suggesting don’t accept the boats and just turn them back.. is it really that easy.. " Nope. It certainly isn't. The main issue is that much of 'Joe Public' can't recognise the difference between an economic migrant and an asylum seeker. And because the access points to the UK are pretty much the same for both these days they're all thrown into the same bucket as 'illegals'. It's not, and never has been illegal to seek asylum. Economic migration isn't illegal either but there is a due process that many are now trying to avoid by claiming to be asylum seekers. If you look at other countries many have put in place much better processes for applying for asylum and identifying those that are trying to sneak in when there's no genuine reason for them to need protection and safe haven. Look at the claimed numbers of Albanians attempting to seek asylum, when there's no just cause. The UK has its obligations to meet, just like other nations. Claims that we take more are pure bullshit. Claims that we throw money at them and make it too attractive to head to the UK are equally false. If someone has made it as far to the UK from places such as Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq and many African countries that are all war zones then they need to be viewed differently to someone attempting to enter from Eastern Europe. We helped cause much of the devastation in those countries. We should help those made homeless, jobless and who have lost family members. As for shipping them to Rwanda? A cruel diversionary tactic by the government to appease a vocal minority, rather than any form of sensible solution and another huge money making scheme for someone linked to the Tories. A | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" My point is.. after seeing loads of comments on line.. and the hate these people get.. people suggesting don’t accept the boats and just turn them back.. is it really that easy.. Nope. It certainly isn't. The main issue is that much of 'Joe Public' can't recognise the difference between an economic migrant and an asylum seeker. And because the access points to the UK are pretty much the same for both these days they're all thrown into the same bucket as 'illegals'. It's not, and never has been illegal to seek asylum. Economic migration isn't illegal either but there is a due process that many are now trying to avoid by claiming to be asylum seekers. If you look at other countries many have put in place much better processes for applying for asylum and identifying those that are trying to sneak in when there's no genuine reason for them to need protection and safe haven. Look at the claimed numbers of Albanians attempting to seek asylum, when there's no just cause. The UK has its obligations to meet, just like other nations. Claims that we take more are pure bullshit. Claims that we throw money at them and make it too attractive to head to the UK are equally false. If someone has made it as far to the UK from places such as Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq and many African countries that are all war zones then they need to be viewed differently to someone attempting to enter from Eastern Europe. We helped cause much of the devastation in those countries. We should help those made homeless, jobless and who have lost family members. As for shipping them to Rwanda? A cruel diversionary tactic by the government to appease a vocal minority, rather than any form of sensible solution and another huge money making scheme for someone linked to the Tories. A" spot on | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just seen on the news about people dying in the sea.. trying to cross the channel in boats and not making it across… I saw a film which was based on a true story in regards to two sisters who were professional swimmers from Syria… who were actually training to swim for the olympics… it’s on Netflix, it really does tell a different side to this the story how people leave their countries who face extreme hardship and want to settle else where.. what they pay these con artists who tell them they will get them a boat.. and they will get them safe passage to where they want to go.. they pay thousands.. but then they are all put on a boat.. which is more of a raft.. and can only hold a few people and they send them across.. probably knowing they have no chance of making it.. The same thing happened to these two sisters.. and the boat they were put on was sinking.. and they swam across the sea.. quiet amazing actually.. My point is.. after seeing loads of comments on line.. and the hate these people get.. people suggesting don’t accept the boats and just turn them back.. is it really that easy.. yep we should not let either in yes there should be somewhere abroad that asylum seekers go get checked out then if accepted pay for them to come here but once there here they disappear I believe if you are court here and not been through the correct system no matter you should be sent back enjoy " Sent back where? to drown in the sea???? | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just seen on the news about people dying in the sea.. trying to cross the channel in boats and not making it across… I saw a film which was based on a true story in regards to two sisters who were professional swimmers from Syria… who were actually training to swim for the olympics… it’s on Netflix, it really does tell a different side to this the story how people leave their countries who face extreme hardship and want to settle else where.. what they pay these con artists who tell them they will get them a boat.. and they will get them safe passage to where they want to go.. they pay thousands.. but then they are all put on a boat.. which is more of a raft.. and can only hold a few people and they send them across.. probably knowing they have no chance of making it.. The same thing happened to these two sisters.. and the boat they were put on was sinking.. and they swam across the sea.. quiet amazing actually.. My point is.. after seeing loads of comments on line.. and the hate these people get.. people suggesting don’t accept the boats and just turn them back.. is it really that easy.. yep we should not let either in yes there should be somewhere abroad that asylum seekers go get checked out then if accepted pay for them to come here but once there here they disappear I believe if you are court here and not been through the correct system no matter you should be sent back enjoy Sent back where? to drown in the sea????" that's there choice but personally I'd be happy to send them back to there country of birth by plane war and civil unrest shouldn't be a reason to get asylum in my opinion | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just seen on the news about people dying in the sea.. trying to cross the channel in boats and not making it across… I saw a film which was based on a true story in regards to two sisters who were professional swimmers from Syria… who were actually training to swim for the olympics… it’s on Netflix, it really does tell a different side to this the story how people leave their countries who face extreme hardship and want to settle else where.. what they pay these con artists who tell them they will get them a boat.. and they will get them safe passage to where they want to go.. they pay thousands.. but then they are all put on a boat.. which is more of a raft.. and can only hold a few people and they send them across.. probably knowing they have no chance of making it.. The same thing happened to these two sisters.. and the boat they were put on was sinking.. and they swam across the sea.. quiet amazing actually.. My point is.. after seeing loads of comments on line.. and the hate these people get.. people suggesting don’t accept the boats and just turn them back.. is it really that easy.. yep we should not let either in yes there should be somewhere abroad that asylum seekers go get checked out then if accepted pay for them to come here but once there here they disappear I believe if you are court here and not been through the correct system no matter you should be sent back enjoy Sent back where? to drown in the sea???? that's there choice but personally I'd be happy to send them back to there country of birth by plane war and civil unrest shouldn't be a reason to get asylum in my opinion " How very compassionate. So if as a country we've chosen to bomb the fuck out of somebody's country because we don't like the government running it for whatever reason, then we have no obligation to the citizens of that country despite them not asking us to destroy their homes and kill their relatives? OK........... A | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just seen on the news about people dying in the sea.. trying to cross the channel in boats and not making it across… I saw a film which was based on a true story in regards to two sisters who were professional swimmers from Syria… who were actually training to swim for the olympics… it’s on Netflix, it really does tell a different side to this the story how people leave their countries who face extreme hardship and want to settle else where.. what they pay these con artists who tell them they will get them a boat.. and they will get them safe passage to where they want to go.. they pay thousands.. but then they are all put on a boat.. which is more of a raft.. and can only hold a few people and they send them across.. probably knowing they have no chance of making it.. The same thing happened to these two sisters.. and the boat they were put on was sinking.. and they swam across the sea.. quiet amazing actually.. My point is.. after seeing loads of comments on line.. and the hate these people get.. people suggesting don’t accept the boats and just turn them back.. is it really that easy.. yep we should not let either in yes there should be somewhere abroad that asylum seekers go get checked out then if accepted pay for them to come here but once there here they disappear I believe if you are court here and not been through the correct system no matter you should be sent back enjoy Sent back where? to drown in the sea???? that's there choice but personally I'd be happy to send them back to there country of birth by plane war and civil unrest shouldn't be a reason to get asylum in my opinion How very compassionate. So if as a country we've chosen to bomb the fuck out of somebody's country because we don't like the government running it for whatever reason, then we have no obligation to the citizens of that country despite them not asking us to destroy their homes and kill their relatives? OK........... A" compassion doesn't come into it and yes no obligation but again I wouldn't want are country to help out about time we kept are nose out let the kill each other. | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just seen on the news about people dying in the sea.. trying to cross the channel in boats and not making it across… I saw a film which was based on a true story in regards to two sisters who were professional swimmers from Syria… who were actually training to swim for the olympics… it’s on Netflix, it really does tell a different side to this the story how people leave their countries who face extreme hardship and want to settle else where.. what they pay these con artists who tell them they will get them a boat.. and they will get them safe passage to where they want to go.. they pay thousands.. but then they are all put on a boat.. which is more of a raft.. and can only hold a few people and they send them across.. probably knowing they have no chance of making it.. The same thing happened to these two sisters.. and the boat they were put on was sinking.. and they swam across the sea.. quiet amazing actually.. My point is.. after seeing loads of comments on line.. and the hate these people get.. people suggesting don’t accept the boats and just turn them back.. is it really that easy.. yep we should not let either in yes there should be somewhere abroad that asylum seekers go get checked out then if accepted pay for them to come here but once there here they disappear I believe if you are court here and not been through the correct system no matter you should be sent back enjoy Sent back where? to drown in the sea???? that's there choice but personally I'd be happy to send them back to there country of birth by plane war and civil unrest shouldn't be a reason to get asylum in my opinion How very compassionate. So if as a country we've chosen to bomb the fuck out of somebody's country because we don't like the government running it for whatever reason, then we have no obligation to the citizens of that country despite them not asking us to destroy their homes and kill their relatives? OK........... A compassion doesn't come into it and yes no obligation but again I wouldn't want are country to help out about time we kept are nose out let the kill each other." So you'd have advocated leaving all the refugees fleeing the nazis in WW2 to stay at home then? Just for clarification....... A | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just seen on the news about people dying in the sea.. trying to cross the channel in boats and not making it across… I saw a film which was based on a true story in regards to two sisters who were professional swimmers from Syria… who were actually training to swim for the olympics… it’s on Netflix, it really does tell a different side to this the story how people leave their countries who face extreme hardship and want to settle else where.. what they pay these con artists who tell them they will get them a boat.. and they will get them safe passage to where they want to go.. they pay thousands.. but then they are all put on a boat.. which is more of a raft.. and can only hold a few people and they send them across.. probably knowing they have no chance of making it.. The same thing happened to these two sisters.. and the boat they were put on was sinking.. and they swam across the sea.. quiet amazing actually.. My point is.. after seeing loads of comments on line.. and the hate these people get.. people suggesting don’t accept the boats and just turn them back.. is it really that easy.. " Physically yes it's that easy. They aren't super invisible boats and could easily be stopped by the French or British navies. Politically... Not sure there's the will to address it. But it can't keep going ad infinitum..not least for the poor souls who lost their lives attempting to gain entry illegally. what is it? Something like half a million a year for the last 4 years? Another 10 years of that is another 5m in our population. | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"My issue is I have no problem with people fleeing war torn countries. But the people on boats are fleeing France. I didn't know there was a war in France?" So all the refugees in every war should just stop at the first neighbouring country? 1. Isn't that a bit unfair on those countries bordering war zone? 2. Most of the time they're not the big players dropping the bombs. Why should they bear the financial burden for the actions of other nations? 3. By your logic they should never have reached France. Why blame them? A | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"My issue is I have no problem with people fleeing war torn countries. But the people on boats are fleeing France. I didn't know there was a war in France?" Or any of the many other countries they have managed to travel through to get to our shores. Most of them are just chancers wanting the easy life at our tax paying publics expense. | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just seen on the news about people dying in the sea.. trying to cross the channel in boats and not making it across… I saw a film which was based on a true story in regards to two sisters who were professional swimmers from Syria… who were actually training to swim for the olympics… it’s on Netflix, it really does tell a different side to this the story how people leave their countries who face extreme hardship and want to settle else where.. what they pay these con artists who tell them they will get them a boat.. and they will get them safe passage to where they want to go.. they pay thousands.. but then they are all put on a boat.. which is more of a raft.. and can only hold a few people and they send them across.. probably knowing they have no chance of making it.. The same thing happened to these two sisters.. and the boat they were put on was sinking.. and they swam across the sea.. quiet amazing actually.. My point is.. after seeing loads of comments on line.. and the hate these people get.. people suggesting don’t accept the boats and just turn them back.. is it really that easy.. yep we should not let either in yes there should be somewhere abroad that asylum seekers go get checked out then if accepted pay for them to come here but once there here they disappear I believe if you are court here and not been through the correct system no matter you should be sent back enjoy Sent back where? to drown in the sea???? that's there choice but personally I'd be happy to send them back to there country of birth by plane war and civil unrest shouldn't be a reason to get asylum in my opinion How very compassionate. So if as a country we've chosen to bomb the fuck out of somebody's country because we don't like the government running it for whatever reason, then we have no obligation to the citizens of that country despite them not asking us to destroy their homes and kill their relatives? OK........... A compassion doesn't come into it and yes no obligation but again I wouldn't want are country to help out about time we kept are nose out let the kill each other. So you'd have advocated leaving all the refugees fleeing the nazis in WW2 to stay at home then? Just for clarification....... A" Taking that as an example, the UK welcomed Ukrainian refugees in a crisis - but in an organised and controlled manner. Migrants smuggled by gangs is just abuse of our borders and asylum processes. Illegal people smuggling actually disadvantages genuine asylum seekers by clogging up the system with bogus applications. | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If they're illegal immigrants, then by definition they are committing an illegal act, so I don't get why, if they are breakers of our law, then the asylum process is passed. It's over simplifying it as the current system we have is not fit for purpose and I understand that some are fleeing wars and persecution, but if you're wanting to move to a country to better your family life, it's not great to start by doing so illegally " The problem is that the U.K. currently does not have a legal system of applying for asylum without first entering the country unless you’re Ukrainian. | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just seen on the news about people dying in the sea.. trying to cross the channel in boats and not making it across… I saw a film which was based on a true story in regards to two sisters who were professional swimmers from Syria… who were actually training to swim for the olympics… it’s on Netflix, it really does tell a different side to this the story how people leave their countries who face extreme hardship and want to settle else where.. what they pay these con artists who tell them they will get them a boat.. and they will get them safe passage to where they want to go.. they pay thousands.. but then they are all put on a boat.. which is more of a raft.. and can only hold a few people and they send them across.. probably knowing they have no chance of making it.. The same thing happened to these two sisters.. and the boat they were put on was sinking.. and they swam across the sea.. quiet amazing actually.. My point is.. after seeing loads of comments on line.. and the hate these people get.. people suggesting don’t accept the boats and just turn them back.. is it really that easy.. yep we should not let either in yes there should be somewhere abroad that asylum seekers go get checked out then if accepted pay for them to come here but once there here they disappear I believe if you are court here and not been through the correct system no matter you should be sent back enjoy Sent back where? to drown in the sea???? that's there choice but personally I'd be happy to send them back to there country of birth by plane war and civil unrest shouldn't be a reason to get asylum in my opinion How very compassionate. So if as a country we've chosen to bomb the fuck out of somebody's country because we don't like the government running it for whatever reason, then we have no obligation to the citizens of that country despite them not asking us to destroy their homes and kill their relatives? OK........... A compassion doesn't come into it and yes no obligation but again I wouldn't want are country to help out about time we kept are nose out let the kill each other. So you'd have advocated leaving all the refugees fleeing the nazis in WW2 to stay at home then? Just for clarification....... A Taking that as an example, the UK welcomed Ukrainian refugees in a crisis - but in an organised and controlled manner. Migrants smuggled by gangs is just abuse of our borders and asylum processes. Illegal people smuggling actually disadvantages genuine asylum seekers by clogging up the system with bogus applications. " I'm glad you mentioned that. It's amazing job quickly and easily the UK government was able to put a smooth process in place for Ukrainians at such short notice......yet has been unable to put anything in place for victims of wars needing asylum and safe haven for the last two decades. The two words you used are key. Organised and controlled. Didn't somebody say that was going to be a benefit of brexit? The ability to control our borders? That seems to be going so well............. A | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If they're illegal immigrants, then by definition they are committing an illegal act, so I don't get why, if they are breakers of our law, then the asylum process is passed. It's over simplifying it as the current system we have is not fit for purpose and I understand that some are fleeing wars and persecution, but if you're wanting to move to a country to better your family life, it's not great to start by doing so illegally The problem is that the U.K. currently does not have a legal system of applying for asylum without first entering the country unless you’re Ukrainian. " How do you mean? There process is described in detail on GOV.UK and gives a legal route to asylem seekers. | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If they're illegal immigrants, then by definition they are committing an illegal act, so I don't get why, if they are breakers of our law, then the asylum process is passed. It's over simplifying it as the current system we have is not fit for purpose and I understand that some are fleeing wars and persecution, but if you're wanting to move to a country to better your family life, it's not great to start by doing so illegally The problem is that the U.K. currently does not have a legal system of applying for asylum without first entering the country unless you’re Ukrainian. How do you mean? There process is described in detail on GOV.UK and gives a legal route to asylem seekers." You know you can't seek asylum in a country until you're within its borders? You knew that.....right? A | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just seen on the news about people dying in the sea.. trying to cross the channel in boats and not making it across… I saw a film which was based on a true story in regards to two sisters who were professional swimmers from Syria… who were actually training to swim for the olympics… it’s on Netflix, it really does tell a different side to this the story how people leave their countries who face extreme hardship and want to settle else where.. what they pay these con artists who tell them they will get them a boat.. and they will get them safe passage to where they want to go.. they pay thousands.. but then they are all put on a boat.. which is more of a raft.. and can only hold a few people and they send them across.. probably knowing they have no chance of making it.. The same thing happened to these two sisters.. and the boat they were put on was sinking.. and they swam across the sea.. quiet amazing actually.. My point is.. after seeing loads of comments on line.. and the hate these people get.. people suggesting don’t accept the boats and just turn them back.. is it really that easy.. yep we should not let either in yes there should be somewhere abroad that asylum seekers go get checked out then if accepted pay for them to come here but once there here they disappear I believe if you are court here and not been through the correct system no matter you should be sent back enjoy Sent back where? to drown in the sea???? that's there choice but personally I'd be happy to send them back to there country of birth by plane war and civil unrest shouldn't be a reason to get asylum in my opinion How very compassionate. So if as a country we've chosen to bomb the fuck out of somebody's country because we don't like the government running it for whatever reason, then we have no obligation to the citizens of that country despite them not asking us to destroy their homes and kill their relatives? OK........... A compassion doesn't come into it and yes no obligation but again I wouldn't want are country to help out about time we kept are nose out let the kill each other. So you'd have advocated leaving all the refugees fleeing the nazis in WW2 to stay at home then? Just for clarification....... A" bit different that was a world war and most wanted to go back once it was over | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If they're illegal immigrants, then by definition they are committing an illegal act, so I don't get why, if they are breakers of our law, then the asylum process is passed. It's over simplifying it as the current system we have is not fit for purpose and I understand that some are fleeing wars and persecution, but if you're wanting to move to a country to better your family life, it's not great to start by doing so illegally The problem is that the U.K. currently does not have a legal system of applying for asylum without first entering the country unless you’re Ukrainian. How do you mean? There process is described in detail on GOV.UK and gives a legal route to asylem seekers." Once you are in the country…. You cannot apply for asylum until you are here | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If they're illegal immigrants, then by definition they are committing an illegal act, so I don't get why, if they are breakers of our law, then the asylum process is passed. It's over simplifying it as the current system we have is not fit for purpose and I understand that some are fleeing wars and persecution, but if you're wanting to move to a country to better your family life, it's not great to start by doing so illegally The problem is that the U.K. currently does not have a legal system of applying for asylum without first entering the country unless you’re Ukrainian. How do you mean? There process is described in detail on GOV.UK and gives a legal route to asylem seekers. Once you are in the country…. You cannot apply for asylum until you are here" Yes, and asylum seekers are encouraged to seek asylum in the first safe country they enter. Seems reasonable, no? | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just seen on the news about people dying in the sea.. trying to cross the channel in boats and not making it across… I saw a film which was based on a true story in regards to two sisters who were professional swimmers from Syria… who were actually training to swim for the olympics… it’s on Netflix, it really does tell a different side to this the story how people leave their countries who face extreme hardship and want to settle else where.. what they pay these con artists who tell them they will get them a boat.. and they will get them safe passage to where they want to go.. they pay thousands.. but then they are all put on a boat.. which is more of a raft.. and can only hold a few people and they send them across.. probably knowing they have no chance of making it.. The same thing happened to these two sisters.. and the boat they were put on was sinking.. and they swam across the sea.. quiet amazing actually.. My point is.. after seeing loads of comments on line.. and the hate these people get.. people suggesting don’t accept the boats and just turn them back.. is it really that easy.. yep we should not let either in yes there should be somewhere abroad that asylum seekers go get checked out then if accepted pay for them to come here but once there here they disappear I believe if you are court here and not been through the correct system no matter you should be sent back enjoy Sent back where? to drown in the sea???? that's there choice but personally I'd be happy to send them back to there country of birth by plane war and civil unrest shouldn't be a reason to get asylum in my opinion How very compassionate. So if as a country we've chosen to bomb the fuck out of somebody's country because we don't like the government running it for whatever reason, then we have no obligation to the citizens of that country despite them not asking us to destroy their homes and kill their relatives? OK........... A compassion doesn't come into it and yes no obligation but again I wouldn't want are country to help out about time we kept are nose out let the kill each other. So you'd have advocated leaving all the refugees fleeing the nazis in WW2 to stay at home then? Just for clarification....... Abit different that was a world war and most wanted to go back once it was over " You may want to brush up on your history. There were still displaced refugees from WW2 in 1959. Add to those the huge number that couldn't return home because their home country was now occupied by the Russians, the hundreds of thousands of Jews who had no desire to return to countries that had tried to exterminate them and those that actively sought better lives abroad in countries such as the UK, the USA and elsewhere. War is war so the 'that was a world war' argument is irrelevant. Just because it's not on our doorstep doesn't mean we're not involved and have responsibilities for our actions. A | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If they're illegal immigrants, then by definition they are committing an illegal act, so I don't get why, if they are breakers of our law, then the asylum process is passed. It's over simplifying it as the current system we have is not fit for purpose and I understand that some are fleeing wars and persecution, but if you're wanting to move to a country to better your family life, it's not great to start by doing so illegally The problem is that the U.K. currently does not have a legal system of applying for asylum without first entering the country unless you’re Ukrainian. How do you mean? There process is described in detail on GOV.UK and gives a legal route to asylem seekers. Once you are in the country…. You cannot apply for asylum until you are here Yes, and asylum seekers are encouraged to seek asylum in the first safe country they enter. Seems reasonable, no?" Not required to by international law though. Imagine if there was a disaster in Cornwall making it ilumsafe to live there and everyone was told they were only permitted to move to Devon...... A | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"My issue is I have no problem with people fleeing war torn countries. But the people on boats are fleeing France. I didn't know there was a war in France? So all the refugees in every war should just stop at the first neighbouring country? 1. Isn't that a bit unfair on those countries bordering war zone? 2. Most of the time they're not the big players dropping the bombs. Why should they bear the financial burden for the actions of other nations? 3. By your logic they should never have reached France. Why blame them? A" There is some UK domestic law which allows the government to refuse to consider an asylum application if it is judged that the person could have claimed asylum elsewhere. Refugees who arrive in the UK after passing through another EU country can, under certain circumstances, also be returned to the first EU country they entered, under an EU law known as the Dublin Regulation. I don't blame the refugees. I do blame the French and the illegal gangs | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"My issue is I have no problem with people fleeing war torn countries. But the people on boats are fleeing France. I didn't know there was a war in France? So all the refugees in every war should just stop at the first neighbouring country? 1. Isn't that a bit unfair on those countries bordering war zone? 2. Most of the time they're not the big players dropping the bombs. Why should they bear the financial burden for the actions of other nations? 3. By your logic they should never have reached France. Why blame them? A There is some UK domestic law which allows the government to refuse to consider an asylum application if it is judged that the person could have claimed asylum elsewhere. Refugees who arrive in the UK after passing through another EU country can, under certain circumstances, also be returned to the first EU country they entered, under an EU law known as the Dublin Regulation. I don't blame the refugees. I do blame the French and the illegal gangs" The Dublin Regulations ceased to be law in the UK in January 2021. And asylum has always been sought via the Geneva Convention rules rather than any national policy. And brexit has negatively impacted the UK's ability to act on asylum and access funding for initiatives. Copied from the House of Commons Library. "Leaving the EU does not change the UK’s obligation to offer protection to refugees as a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention. The Government reaffirmed its commitment to the Refugee Convention in October. It has also said that the UK’s status as a ‘world leader’ in the field of asylum will not change once it is no longer subject to EU laws specifying minimum asylum standards. It appears unlikely that the UK will be able to continue to rely on readmission agreements negotiated between the EU and third countries as a non-member state. The UK is losing access to EU funding for asylum and immigration initiatives. This has been used, for example, to support Home Office activities related to asylum, refugee resettlement, immigration enforcement, and to provide funding for some NGO-led projects focusing on integration." A | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If they're illegal immigrants, then by definition they are committing an illegal act, so I don't get why, if they are breakers of our law, then the asylum process is passed. It's over simplifying it as the current system we have is not fit for purpose and I understand that some are fleeing wars and persecution, but if you're wanting to move to a country to better your family life, it's not great to start by doing so illegally The problem is that the U.K. currently does not have a legal system of applying for asylum without first entering the country unless you’re Ukrainian. How do you mean? There process is described in detail on GOV.UK and gives a legal route to asylem seekers. Once you are in the country…. You cannot apply for asylum until you are here Yes, and asylum seekers are encouraged to seek asylum in the first safe country they enter. Seems reasonable, no? Not required to by international law though. Imagine if there was a disaster in Cornwall making it ilumsafe to live there and everyone was told they were only permitted to move to Devon...... A" as we know some laws aren't fit for purpose | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just seen on the news about people dying in the sea.. trying to cross the channel in boats and not making it across… I saw a film which was based on a true story in regards to two sisters who were professional swimmers from Syria… who were actually training to swim for the olympics… it’s on Netflix, it really does tell a different side to this the story how people leave their countries who face extreme hardship and want to settle else where.. what they pay these con artists who tell them they will get them a boat.. and they will get them safe passage to where they want to go.. they pay thousands.. but then they are all put on a boat.. which is more of a raft.. and can only hold a few people and they send them across.. probably knowing they have no chance of making it.. The same thing happened to these two sisters.. and the boat they were put on was sinking.. and they swam across the sea.. quiet amazing actually.. My point is.. after seeing loads of comments on line.. and the hate these people get.. people suggesting don’t accept the boats and just turn them back.. is it really that easy.. " I actually watched that film last weekend, it’s heartbreaking to watch and shows the reality of what they go through | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just seen on the news about people dying in the sea.. trying to cross the channel in boats and not making it across… I saw a film which was based on a true story in regards to two sisters who were professional swimmers from Syria… who were actually training to swim for the olympics… it’s on Netflix, it really does tell a different side to this the story how people leave their countries who face extreme hardship and want to settle else where.. what they pay these con artists who tell them they will get them a boat.. and they will get them safe passage to where they want to go.. they pay thousands.. but then they are all put on a boat.. which is more of a raft.. and can only hold a few people and they send them across.. probably knowing they have no chance of making it.. The same thing happened to these two sisters.. and the boat they were put on was sinking.. and they swam across the sea.. quiet amazing actually.. My point is.. after seeing loads of comments on line.. and the hate these people get.. people suggesting don’t accept the boats and just turn them back.. is it really that easy.. yep we should not let either in yes there should be somewhere abroad that asylum seekers go get checked out then if accepted pay for them to come here but once there here they disappear I believe if you are court here and not been through the correct system no matter you should be sent back enjoy Sent back where? to drown in the sea???? that's there choice but personally I'd be happy to send them back to there country of birth by plane war and civil unrest shouldn't be a reason to get asylum in my opinion How very compassionate. So if as a country we've chosen to bomb the fuck out of somebody's country because we don't like the government running it for whatever reason, then we have no obligation to the citizens of that country despite them not asking us to destroy their homes and kill their relatives? OK........... A compassion doesn't come into it and yes no obligation but again I wouldn't want are country to help out about time we kept are nose out let the kill each other. So you'd have advocated leaving all the refugees fleeing the nazis in WW2 to stay at home then? Just for clarification....... Abit different that was a world war and most wanted to go back once it was over " No they sodding well did not. Most of the countries people left under Nazi rule did not want them back. Their property and assets had been seized and sold to other people or disposed of. Many of the impoverished non-Jewish citizens did not wish to hand back property and goods they'd been "resettled" in etc. Many Jews faced active persecution when returning to countries then behind the Iron Curtain or even in Western Europe. Many went to Israel, the USA, Australia or stayed in the UK. Source: my own family history. It would have been nice if the UK had accepted refugees from the Netherlands. My family might be bigger than single digit figures now | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Ffs, the UK mostly picks them up, half way across the channel and drops them on-shore. If that is not encouraging them. Then I don't know what is. Try being an illegal yourself and rucking up at a countries border. See what happens. Most people have to apply and have skills the country they are trying to enter may require....that's if your not an illegal and using your own set of rules." So what would u prefer? Leave them to drown like those poor souls yesterday? And no they not illegal if they are seeking asylum! X | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just seen on the news about people dying in the sea.. trying to cross the channel in boats and not making it across… I saw a film which was based on a true story in regards to two sisters who were professional swimmers from Syria… who were actually training to swim for the olympics… it’s on Netflix, it really does tell a different side to this the story how people leave their countries who face extreme hardship and want to settle else where.. what they pay these con artists who tell them they will get them a boat.. and they will get them safe passage to where they want to go.. they pay thousands.. but then they are all put on a boat.. which is more of a raft.. and can only hold a few people and they send them across.. probably knowing they have no chance of making it.. The same thing happened to these two sisters.. and the boat they were put on was sinking.. and they swam across the sea.. quiet amazing actually.. My point is.. after seeing loads of comments on line.. and the hate these people get.. people suggesting don’t accept the boats and just turn them back.. is it really that easy.. yep we should not let either in yes there should be somewhere abroad that asylum seekers go get checked out then if accepted pay for them to come here but once there here they disappear I believe if you are court here and not been through the correct system no matter you should be sent back enjoy Sent back where? to drown in the sea???? that's there choice but personally I'd be happy to send them back to there country of birth by plane war and civil unrest shouldn't be a reason to get asylum in my opinion How very compassionate. So if as a country we've chosen to bomb the fuck out of somebody's country because we don't like the government running it for whatever reason, then we have no obligation to the citizens of that country despite them not asking us to destroy their homes and kill their relatives? OK........... A compassion doesn't come into it and yes no obligation but again I wouldn't want are country to help out about time we kept are nose out let the kill each other. So you'd have advocated leaving all the refugees fleeing the nazis in WW2 to stay at home then? Just for clarification....... A Taking that as an example, the UK welcomed Ukrainian refugees in a crisis - but in an organised and controlled manner. Migrants smuggled by gangs is just abuse of our borders and asylum processes. Illegal people smuggling actually disadvantages genuine asylum seekers by clogging up the system with bogus applications. I'm glad you mentioned that. It's amazing job quickly and easily the UK government was able to put a smooth process in place for Ukrainians at such short notice......yet has been unable to put anything in place for victims of wars needing asylum and safe haven for the last two decades. The two words you used are key. Organised and controlled. Didn't somebody say that was going to be a benefit of brexit? The ability to control our borders? That seems to be going so well............. A" Ahhhhh...damn that Brexit!!!... | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just seen on the news about people dying in the sea.. trying to cross the channel in boats and not making it across… I saw a film which was based on a true story in regards to two sisters who were professional swimmers from Syria… who were actually training to swim for the olympics… it’s on Netflix, it really does tell a different side to this the story how people leave their countries who face extreme hardship and want to settle else where.. what they pay these con artists who tell them they will get them a boat.. and they will get them safe passage to where they want to go.. they pay thousands.. but then they are all put on a boat.. which is more of a raft.. and can only hold a few people and they send them across.. probably knowing they have no chance of making it.. The same thing happened to these two sisters.. and the boat they were put on was sinking.. and they swam across the sea.. quiet amazing actually.. My point is.. after seeing loads of comments on line.. and the hate these people get.. people suggesting don’t accept the boats and just turn them back.. is it really that easy.. yep we should not let either in yes there should be somewhere abroad that asylum seekers go get checked out then if accepted pay for them to come here but once there here they disappear I believe if you are court here and not been through the correct system no matter you should be sent back enjoy Sent back where? to drown in the sea???? that's there choice but personally I'd be happy to send them back to there country of birth by plane war and civil unrest shouldn't be a reason to get asylum in my opinion How very compassionate. So if as a country we've chosen to bomb the fuck out of somebody's country because we don't like the government running it for whatever reason, then we have no obligation to the citizens of that country despite them not asking us to destroy their homes and kill their relatives? OK........... A compassion doesn't come into it and yes no obligation but again I wouldn't want are country to help out about time we kept are nose out let the kill each other. So you'd have advocated leaving all the refugees fleeing the nazis in WW2 to stay at home then? Just for clarification....... A Taking that as an example, the UK welcomed Ukrainian refugees in a crisis - but in an organised and controlled manner. Migrants smuggled by gangs is just abuse of our borders and asylum processes. Illegal people smuggling actually disadvantages genuine asylum seekers by clogging up the system with bogus applications. I'm glad you mentioned that. It's amazing job quickly and easily the UK government was able to put a smooth process in place for Ukrainians at such short notice......yet has been unable to put anything in place for victims of wars needing asylum and safe haven for the last two decades. The two words you used are key. Organised and controlled. Didn't somebody say that was going to be a benefit of brexit? The ability to control our borders? That seems to be going so well............. A Ahhhhh...damn that Brexit!!!... " Brexit or not (and by the way it's done now) surely the security and safety of our borders is in all of our interests? Not knowing who or how is wandering in can't be something that people want to actually be happening. | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just seen on the news about people dying in the sea.. trying to cross the channel in boats and not making it across… I saw a film which was based on a true story in regards to two sisters who were professional swimmers from Syria… who were actually training to swim for the olympics… it’s on Netflix, it really does tell a different side to this the story how people leave their countries who face extreme hardship and want to settle else where.. what they pay these con artists who tell them they will get them a boat.. and they will get them safe passage to where they want to go.. they pay thousands.. but then they are all put on a boat.. which is more of a raft.. and can only hold a few people and they send them across.. probably knowing they have no chance of making it.. The same thing happened to these two sisters.. and the boat they were put on was sinking.. and they swam across the sea.. quiet amazing actually.. My point is.. after seeing loads of comments on line.. and the hate these people get.. people suggesting don’t accept the boats and just turn them back.. is it really that easy.. yep we should not let either in yes there should be somewhere abroad that asylum seekers go get checked out then if accepted pay for them to come here but once there here they disappear I believe if you are court here and not been through the correct system no matter you should be sent back enjoy Sent back where? to drown in the sea???? that's there choice but personally I'd be happy to send them back to there country of birth by plane war and civil unrest shouldn't be a reason to get asylum in my opinion How very compassionate. So if as a country we've chosen to bomb the fuck out of somebody's country because we don't like the government running it for whatever reason, then we have no obligation to the citizens of that country despite them not asking us to destroy their homes and kill their relatives? OK........... A compassion doesn't come into it and yes no obligation but again I wouldn't want are country to help out about time we kept are nose out let the kill each other. So you'd have advocated leaving all the refugees fleeing the nazis in WW2 to stay at home then? Just for clarification....... A Taking that as an example, the UK welcomed Ukrainian refugees in a crisis - but in an organised and controlled manner. Migrants smuggled by gangs is just abuse of our borders and asylum processes. Illegal people smuggling actually disadvantages genuine asylum seekers by clogging up the system with bogus applications. I'm glad you mentioned that. It's amazing job quickly and easily the UK government was able to put a smooth process in place for Ukrainians at such short notice......yet has been unable to put anything in place for victims of wars needing asylum and safe haven for the last two decades. The two words you used are key. Organised and controlled. Didn't somebody say that was going to be a benefit of brexit? The ability to control our borders? That seems to be going so well............. A Ahhhhh...damn that Brexit!!!... Brexit or not (and by the way it's done now) surely the security and safety of our borders is in all of our interests? Not knowing who or how is wandering in can't be something that people want to actually be happening. " There have always been ways and means of controlling access to the country, processing genuine asylum seekers effectively, efficiently and fairly, and removing those that aren't genuinely in need of save haven. The government have just chosen not to do anything about it, as its a useful political tool to create division, play on the sentiments of their voter base and to as always, use it as an opportunity to make money for supporters, donors and their chums. Who got the contracts to run accommodation for asylum seekers? Who got the contracts to process applications? Who is getting paid for everything involved in the Rwanda plan? Nothing that is being done benefits anyone. Not the refugees, the British public or anyone but the UK government who use what's happening to push a political agenda, generate hate and animosity to people who deserve compassion and to drive through legislative changes for reasons not linked to solving the problems faced with immigration. It's all smoke and mirrors and the press and media are all on board to do the work for the government. If they genuinely wanted to enact positive change they could do so in a very short space of time. But they don't. A | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Ffs, the UK mostly picks them up, half way across the channel and drops them on-shore. If that is not encouraging them. Then I don't know what is. Try being an illegal yourself and rucking up at a countries border. See what happens. Most people have to apply and have skills the country they are trying to enter may require....that's if your not an illegal and using your own set of rules. So what would u prefer? Leave them to drown like those poor souls yesterday? And no they not illegal if they are seeking asylum! X" Definition of seeking asylum is not passing through any number of countries until you arrive at the country that you would most like to take up residence. It's the first country you set foot in. | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Ffs, the UK mostly picks them up, half way across the channel and drops them on-shore. If that is not encouraging them. Then I don't know what is. Try being an illegal yourself and rucking up at a countries border. See what happens. Most people have to apply and have skills the country they are trying to enter may require....that's if your not an illegal and using your own set of rules. So what would u prefer? Leave them to drown like those poor souls yesterday? And no they not illegal if they are seeking asylum! X Definition of seeking asylum is not passing through any number of countries until you arrive at the country that you would most like to take up residence. It's the first country you set foot in." Where did you read that? Because that's definitely not the definition of seeking asylum. The standard definition is this. "The definition of an asylum seeker is someone who has arrived in a country and asked for asylum. Asylum is when a government accepts that your home country is unable or unwilling to ensure your protection and allows you to remain in their country in order to stay safe. Once someone is determined as needing protection, they become known as a refugee. Until they receive a decision as to whether or not they are a refugee, they are known as an asylum seeker." As you can see there's no reference to 'the first country you set foot in' nor as previously stated, is that a requirement of the 1951 Geneva Convention through which asylum is sought. A | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Why are they risking their lives to leave one safe country to get to the UK? There must be something for them to make that horrific journey.? " What makes you think they're 'safe' in a tent in freezing conditions at the side of a road in France? There are plenty of reasons people seek asylum in a particular country. Common language for one. Many people worldwide speak English as a second language as opposed to any other. Plenty of refugees look to settle elsewhere - the UK takes in far less than most. So the claim it's all down to some 'gravy train' can be debunked easily given the better conditions and benefits other countries offer. But hey. The press have done a great job convincing people asylum seekers have an easy life over here. Why should anyone bother doing some research to find out anything different..... A | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Why are they risking their lives to leave one safe country to get to the UK? There must be something for them to make that horrific journey.? What makes you think they're 'safe' in a tent in freezing conditions at the side of a road in France? There are plenty of reasons people seek asylum in a particular country. Common language for one. Many people worldwide speak English as a second language as opposed to any other. Plenty of refugees look to settle elsewhere - the UK takes in far less than most. So the claim it's all down to some 'gravy train' can be debunked easily given the better conditions and benefits other countries offer. But hey. The press have done a great job convincing people asylum seekers have an easy life over here. Why should anyone bother doing some research to find out anything different..... A" My question was about the ones making the choice to travel across the channel... Not the one who aren't. Choosing to put their lives at risk. When they make the decision to do so they must conclude its worth taking the risk. | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Wow! Unbelievable some people's lack of compassion! Sadly if anything this thread acts as a good filter! And making good use of the private note feature! x" Ooh get you 'that bad man disagreed with what i said. Note to self, dont suck him off' Nobody cares | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Why are they risking their lives to leave one safe country to get to the UK? There must be something for them to make that horrific journey.? What makes you think they're 'safe' in a tent in freezing conditions at the side of a road in France? There are plenty of reasons people seek asylum in a particular country. Common language for one. Many people worldwide speak English as a second language as opposed to any other. Plenty of refugees look to settle elsewhere - the UK takes in far less than most. So the claim it's all down to some 'gravy train' can be debunked easily given the better conditions and benefits other countries offer. But hey. The press have done a great job convincing people asylum seekers have an easy life over here. Why should anyone bother doing some research to find out anything different..... A" Why are they in a tent in France then? Is it because France won't give them asylum? In which case should we instead? Why is that? Do we have a hugely bigger land mass, a greater economic pot, and a better free health service?... Yes, absolutely we should take on those who legitimately have a reason to flee. But as much as its 'little Britain'. We are not a huge landmass, and we cannot exactly rehome huge numbers of the rest of the world logistically. Are you offering out spare space in your home OP? | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Wow! Unbelievable some people's lack of compassion! Sadly if anything this thread acts as a good filter! And making good use of the private note feature! x Ooh get you 'that bad man disagreed with what i said. Note to self, dont suck him off' Nobody cares " Good! Had u on that list yonks ago! But as u say no one cares! So why comment??? | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Why are they risking their lives to leave one safe country to get to the UK? There must be something for them to make that horrific journey.? What makes you think they're 'safe' in a tent in freezing conditions at the side of a road in France? There are plenty of reasons people seek asylum in a particular country. Common language for one. Many people worldwide speak English as a second language as opposed to any other. Plenty of refugees look to settle elsewhere - the UK takes in far less than most. So the claim it's all down to some 'gravy train' can be debunked easily given the better conditions and benefits other countries offer. But hey. The press have done a great job convincing people asylum seekers have an easy life over here. Why should anyone bother doing some research to find out anything different..... A My question was about the ones making the choice to travel across the channel... Not the one who aren't. Choosing to put their lives at risk. When they make the decision to do so they must conclude its worth taking the risk. " Exactly! Shows the desperation these poor folks face!! X | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Why are they risking their lives to leave one safe country to get to the UK? There must be something for them to make that horrific journey.? What makes you think they're 'safe' in a tent in freezing conditions at the side of a road in France? There are plenty of reasons people seek asylum in a particular country. Common language for one. Many people worldwide speak English as a second language as opposed to any other. Plenty of refugees look to settle elsewhere - the UK takes in far less than most. So the claim it's all down to some 'gravy train' can be debunked easily given the better conditions and benefits other countries offer. But hey. The press have done a great job convincing people asylum seekers have an easy life over here. Why should anyone bother doing some research to find out anything different..... A" The countries many come from are safe & not being bombed, they are coming here for a better life but making ours worse which is not acceptable to the majority who are not bleeding hearts. These people find the £5k to pay the smugglers so it's an investment for them. But many here can't find £5k so these financial migrants are not destitute but conto the most generous country rather than stay in a lesser one. | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The issue I have with the migrants coming across the channel is, they are getting better treatment than our own homeless people. I understand their reason for wanting to come here but it's still taking away valuable resources that could be used for our own people " And why is that? Not the fault of the asylum seekers at all. There are countless private charities helping the homeless and ex services. What are the government doing to solve the problem? Little, if nothing. Why is it the standard argument of some that they get better treatment than UK homeless/ex services etc? It's not a question of it being either/or. There is enough wealth in the country to help both. Yet tax cuts for the super rich are always a priority for this government over any support for those needing it most. Based on the last data available from Crisis, almost 40% of rough sleepers in London were foreign nationals. The percentage is similar across the country. These people have greater challenges than UK homeless in that by the nature of being asylum seekers and migrants they're not eligible for the same state support as UK citizens. It's an easy win for the government and media to push the 'them and us' agenda of native homeless vs migrants. It would be just as easy a task for them.to do something positive about it, given the rising number of homeless predicted due to the current cost of living crisis. But they won't. A | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Where did you read that? Because that's definitely not the definition of seeking asylum. The standard definition is this. "The definition of an asylum seeker is someone who has arrived in a country and asked for asylum. Asylum is when a government accepts that your home country is unable or unwilling to ensure your protection and allows you to remain in their country in order to stay safe. Once someone is determined as needing protection, they become known as a refugee. Until they receive a decision as to whether or not they are a refugee, they are known as an asylum seeker." As you can see there's no reference to 'the first country you set foot in' nor as previously stated, is that a requirement of the 1951 Geneva Convention through which asylum is sought. A" Er no. It's the first country you set foot in, after leaving your own country when entering a European country. Why would it not be? Remember your supposed to be desperate and fleeing your own country. Not picking or choosing a country to live in. Such processes are called emigration and as stated previously, you need to apply. Not just ruck up on a countries border or beach. C&P "Refugees seeking asylum in European countries must do so in the first country they reach, even in exceptional circumstances, the European Court of Justice ruled on Wednesday. The case, which was brought by Austria and Slovenia, relates to migrants who arrived during the crisis of 2015-16, and could result in several hundred people being affected. The European Union's top court upheld the Dublin Regulation, which states that refugees must seek asylum in the first place they reach." | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Where did you read that? Because that's definitely not the definition of seeking asylum. The standard definition is this. "The definition of an asylum seeker is someone who has arrived in a country and asked for asylum. Asylum is when a government accepts that your home country is unable or unwilling to ensure your protection and allows you to remain in their country in order to stay safe. Once someone is determined as needing protection, they become known as a refugee. Until they receive a decision as to whether or not they are a refugee, they are known as an asylum seeker." As you can see there's no reference to 'the first country you set foot in' nor as previously stated, is that a requirement of the 1951 Geneva Convention through which asylum is sought. A Er no. It's the first country you set foot in, after leaving your own country when entering a European country. Why would it not be? Remember your supposed to be desperate and fleeing your own country. Not picking or choosing a country to live in. Such processes are called emigration and as stated previously, you need to apply. Not just ruck up on a countries border or beach. C&P "Refugees seeking asylum in European countries must do so in the first country they reach, even in exceptional circumstances, the European Court of Justice ruled on Wednesday. The case, which was brought by Austria and Slovenia, relates to migrants who arrived during the crisis of 2015-16, and could result in several hundred people being affected. The European Union's top court upheld the Dublin Regulation, which states that refugees must seek asylum in the first place they reach."" Er no. That's literally not the law at all. And as stated earlier the Dublin Regulations ceased to be any part of UK law in January 2021. A | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm all for women and children fleeing war zones and coming to the UK (assuming they respect and contribute in some way) but up to 90% are adult males from none war zones is a bit worrying and they cross safe countries like Germany France Spain why risk life on a boat to get across to england" the one and only reason ANY of the refugees economic or not is that this govt has sealed of all safe legal routes for refugees to make thier way to this country so unless you are Ukrainian Afghani or form Hong Kong who currently have a resettlement schemes there are no legally ways to make an application for refugee status in great Britain other than arriving in this counrty if you do so by air you will be put on the next plane back to your country of origin and the airline sanctioned if you come try to via truck that method has been virtually sealed off the only way is by boat why do you think at tje start of the Ukraine crises the govt refused point blank to put a visa application center at calais instead they had to go to paris ? as they knew it would be over whelmed . | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I love these threads, partly because Fabbers seem so much less likely than the general public to swallow tabloid lies, and partly because it is such an easy way to add those who do to the 'Absolutely no' pile." This! It’s very easy to spot those that lack critical thinking skills and swallow everything that the likes of the Telegraph and the Mail spout. Far to many lack basic compassion and would rather be angry at some foreigners while this country is continually being harmed far more by our own government | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I love these threads, partly because Fabbers seem so much less likely than the general public to swallow tabloid lies, and partly because it is such an easy way to add those who do to the 'Absolutely no' pile. This! It’s very easy to spot those that lack critical thinking skills and swallow everything that the likes of the Telegraph and the Mail spout. Far to many lack basic compassion and would rather be angry at some foreigners while this country is continually being harmed far more by our own government " Oh the irony | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Where did you read that? Because that's definitely not the definition of seeking asylum. The standard definition is this. "The definition of an asylum seeker is someone who has arrived in a country and asked for asylum. Asylum is when a government accepts that your home country is unable or unwilling to ensure your protection and allows you to remain in their country in order to stay safe. Once someone is determined as needing protection, they become known as a refugee. Until they receive a decision as to whether or not they are a refugee, they are known as an asylum seeker." As you can see there's no reference to 'the first country you set foot in' nor as previously stated, is that a requirement of the 1951 Geneva Convention through which asylum is sought. A Er no. It's the first country you set foot in, after leaving your own country when entering a European country. Why would it not be? Remember your supposed to be desperate and fleeing your own country. Not picking or choosing a country to live in. Such processes are called emigration and as stated previously, you need to apply. Not just ruck up on a countries border or beach. C&P "Refugees seeking asylum in European countries must do so in the first country they reach, even in exceptional circumstances, the European Court of Justice ruled on Wednesday. The case, which was brought by Austria and Slovenia, relates to migrants who arrived during the crisis of 2015-16, and could result in several hundred people being affected. The European Union's top court upheld the Dublin Regulation, which states that refugees must seek asylum in the first place they reach."" not an expert, but believe that this part of the convention has since been replaced with Dublin III. Either which way, its an EU treaty. | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I love these threads, partly because Fabbers seem so much less likely than the general public to swallow tabloid lies, and partly because it is such an easy way to add those who do to the 'Absolutely no' pile. This! It’s very easy to spot those that lack critical thinking skills and swallow everything that the likes of the Telegraph and the Mail spout. Far to many lack basic compassion and would rather be angry at some foreigners while this country is continually being harmed far more by our own government Oh the irony " What is ironic about what I posted? | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I love these threads, partly because Fabbers seem so much less likely than the general public to swallow tabloid lies, and partly because it is such an easy way to add those who do to the 'Absolutely no' pile. This! It’s very easy to spot those that lack critical thinking skills and swallow everything that the likes of the Telegraph and the Mail spout. Far to many lack basic compassion and would rather be angry at some foreigners while this country is continually being harmed far more by our own government Oh the irony What is ironic about what I posted?" All of it. From calling our people who believe everything one media outlet says whilst at the same time demonstrating they have done just the same thing but from a different media outlet. From calling out people who lack compassion for the uncontrolled invasion whilst at the same time showing no compassion for those citizens whose lives are being affected. Insulting those with different opinions to yourself only serves to divide further and not to progress the problem. Now I don't no what the answer is but I do know that uncontrolled and illegal entry is not a good thing. Consider the size of the British expeditionary force that we sent to France in the second world War was 390k. And that by the end of this year they will have sent to us an equivalent number. Its a legitimate concern with unknown outcomes. | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"yep we should not let either in yes there should be somewhere abroad that asylum seekers go get checked out... " We have to accept asylum seekers. It's international law. Plus, it's the right thing to do. How can they apply for asylum in the UK if they're 'somewhere abroad'? That's not what asylym means. | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"yep we should not let either in yes there should be somewhere abroad that asylum seekers go get checked out... We have to accept asylum seekers. It's international law. Plus, it's the right thing to do. How can they apply for asylum in the UK if they're 'somewhere abroad'? That's not what asylym means. " Do we have to accept anyone who claims asylum? Or those who qualify for asylum.? And what happens to those who do not qualify for asylum? | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Do we have to accept anyone who claims asylum? Or those who qualify for asylum.? And what happens to those who do not qualify for asylum? " We are supposed to accept anyone who seeks asylum. They are then meant to be assessed and if granted asylym they are then given refuge in the UK. | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I love these threads, partly because Fabbers seem so much less likely than the general public to swallow tabloid lies, and partly because it is such an easy way to add those who do to the 'Absolutely no' pile. This! It’s very easy to spot those that lack critical thinking skills and swallow everything that the likes of the Telegraph and the Mail spout. Far to many lack basic compassion and would rather be angry at some foreigners while this country is continually being harmed far more by our own government Oh the irony What is ironic about what I posted? All of it. From calling our people who believe everything one media outlet says whilst at the same time demonstrating they have done just the same thing but from a different media outlet. From calling out people who lack compassion for the uncontrolled invasion whilst at the same time showing no compassion for those citizens whose lives are being affected. Insulting those with different opinions to yourself only serves to divide further and not to progress the problem. Now I don't no what the answer is but I do know that uncontrolled and illegal entry is not a good thing. Consider the size of the British expeditionary force that we sent to France in the second world War was 390k. And that by the end of this year they will have sent to us an equivalent number. Its a legitimate concern with unknown outcomes. " A few points.. Someone on here stated that they wished that the people on one of the recent rescues had “all drowned”… this is clearly a lack of compassion and human decency. The uncontrolled/ illegal entry aspect is solely down to the actions the government has taken in recent years… Brexit removed us from the various Dublin agreements where we could relocate people back to the first safe country, and the government has still failed to set up a legal method of entry for asylum seekers unless they happen to be from some certain groups. How are people’s lives being affected by the number of people crossing?…. Local services are struggling not because of migrants but due to 12 years of austerity and underfunding from the government, which is why it’s just as difficult to get Drs appointments etc in Devon as it is in Kent. As for the criticism of the dogmatic adherence to what the tabloids say…. I do not get my views from ANY of the media companies, I do however get information from international organisations and charities with no political affiliation and make judgements based on that, among other sources. | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Do we have to accept anyone who claims asylum? Or those who qualify for asylum.? And what happens to those who do not qualify for asylum? We are supposed to accept anyone who seeks asylum. They are then meant to be assessed and if granted asylym they are then given refuge in the UK. " Sorry yes when I wrote accept I meant that do all asylum seekers get granted asylum and if not what happens to them when their claim is rejected? | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I love these threads, partly because Fabbers seem so much less likely than the general public to swallow tabloid lies, and partly because it is such an easy way to add those who do to the 'Absolutely no' pile. This! It’s very easy to spot those that lack critical thinking skills and swallow everything that the likes of the Telegraph and the Mail spout. Far to many lack basic compassion and would rather be angry at some foreigners while this country is continually being harmed far more by our own government Oh the irony What is ironic about what I posted? All of it. From calling our people who believe everything one media outlet says whilst at the same time demonstrating they have done just the same thing but from a different media outlet. From calling out people who lack compassion for the uncontrolled invasion whilst at the same time showing no compassion for those citizens whose lives are being affected. Insulting those with different opinions to yourself only serves to divide further and not to progress the problem. Now I don't no what the answer is but I do know that uncontrolled and illegal entry is not a good thing. Consider the size of the British expeditionary force that we sent to France in the second world War was 390k. And that by the end of this year they will have sent to us an equivalent number. Its a legitimate concern with unknown outcomes. A few points.. Someone on here stated that they wished that the people on one of the recent rescues had “all drowned”… this is clearly a lack of compassion and human decency. The uncontrolled/ illegal entry aspect is solely down to the actions the government has taken in recent years… Brexit removed us from the various Dublin agreements where we could relocate people back to the first safe country, and the government has still failed to set up a legal method of entry for asylum seekers unless they happen to be from some certain groups. How are people’s lives being affected by the number of people crossing?…. Local services are struggling not because of migrants but due to 12 years of austerity and underfunding from the government, which is why it’s just as difficult to get Drs appointments etc in Devon as it is in Kent. As for the criticism of the dogmatic adherence to what the tabloids say…. I do not get my views from ANY of the media companies, I do however get information from international organisations and charities with no political affiliation and make judgements based on that, among other sources." Some good observations. Don't you think it a bit naive to claim that services are not affected by another 500k people who need housing health transport and food? Are all the materials free? Are the people who must now work for them expected to do so for free? Im not sure what the answer is but it takes funding to home and look after them. If funding is going there its coming from somewhere else. | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"DSorry yes when I wrote accept I meant that do all asylum seekers get granted asylum and if not what happens to them when their claim is rejected? " From the govt: 'The percentage of asylum applicants refused at initial decision reached its highest point at 88% in 2004. Since then, the refusal rate has been falling overall and was at 23% in the year ending September 2022, its lowest point since 1990. In the period from 2004 to 2020, around three-quarters of applicants refused asylum at initial decision lodged an appeal and almost one third of those appeals were allowed.' The UK is currently in a bit of a mess with those denied asylym, post-Brexit. Some return home voluntarily, whilst others are forcibly returned. Presumably, some stay incognito, as it were. | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I love these threads, partly because Fabbers seem so much less likely than the general public to swallow tabloid lies, and partly because it is such an easy way to add those who do to the 'Absolutely no' pile. This! It’s very easy to spot those that lack critical thinking skills and swallow everything that the likes of the Telegraph and the Mail spout. Far to many lack basic compassion and would rather be angry at some foreigners while this country is continually being harmed far more by our own government Oh the irony What is ironic about what I posted? All of it. From calling our people who believe everything one media outlet says whilst at the same time demonstrating they have done just the same thing but from a different media outlet. From calling out people who lack compassion for the uncontrolled invasion whilst at the same time showing no compassion for those citizens whose lives are being affected. Insulting those with different opinions to yourself only serves to divide further and not to progress the problem. Now I don't no what the answer is but I do know that uncontrolled and illegal entry is not a good thing. Consider the size of the British expeditionary force that we sent to France in the second world War was 390k. And that by the end of this year they will have sent to us an equivalent number. Its a legitimate concern with unknown outcomes. A few points.. Someone on here stated that they wished that the people on one of the recent rescues had “all drowned”… this is clearly a lack of compassion and human decency. The uncontrolled/ illegal entry aspect is solely down to the actions the government has taken in recent years… Brexit removed us from the various Dublin agreements where we could relocate people back to the first safe country, and the government has still failed to set up a legal method of entry for asylum seekers unless they happen to be from some certain groups. How are people’s lives being affected by the number of people crossing?…. Local services are struggling not because of migrants but due to 12 years of austerity and underfunding from the government, which is why it’s just as difficult to get Drs appointments etc in Devon as it is in Kent. As for the criticism of the dogmatic adherence to what the tabloids say…. I do not get my views from ANY of the media companies, I do however get information from international organisations and charities with no political affiliation and make judgements based on that, among other sources. Some good observations. Don't you think it a bit naive to claim that services are not affected by another 500k people who need housing health transport and food? Are all the materials free? Are the people who must now work for them expected to do so for free? Im not sure what the answer is but it takes funding to home and look after them. If funding is going there its coming from somewhere else. " where did the 500k come from ? | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I love these threads, partly because Fabbers seem so much less likely than the general public to swallow tabloid lies, and partly because it is such an easy way to add those who do to the 'Absolutely no' pile. This! It’s very easy to spot those that lack critical thinking skills and swallow everything that the likes of the Telegraph and the Mail spout. Far to many lack basic compassion and would rather be angry at some foreigners while this country is continually being harmed far more by our own government Oh the irony What is ironic about what I posted? All of it. From calling our people who believe everything one media outlet says whilst at the same time demonstrating they have done just the same thing but from a different media outlet. From calling out people who lack compassion for the uncontrolled invasion whilst at the same time showing no compassion for those citizens whose lives are being affected. Insulting those with different opinions to yourself only serves to divide further and not to progress the problem. Now I don't no what the answer is but I do know that uncontrolled and illegal entry is not a good thing. Consider the size of the British expeditionary force that we sent to France in the second world War was 390k. And that by the end of this year they will have sent to us an equivalent number. Its a legitimate concern with unknown outcomes. A few points.. Someone on here stated that they wished that the people on one of the recent rescues had “all drowned”… this is clearly a lack of compassion and human decency. The uncontrolled/ illegal entry aspect is solely down to the actions the government has taken in recent years… Brexit removed us from the various Dublin agreements where we could relocate people back to the first safe country, and the government has still failed to set up a legal method of entry for asylum seekers unless they happen to be from some certain groups. How are people’s lives being affected by the number of people crossing?…. Local services are struggling not because of migrants but due to 12 years of austerity and underfunding from the government, which is why it’s just as difficult to get Drs appointments etc in Devon as it is in Kent. As for the criticism of the dogmatic adherence to what the tabloids say…. I do not get my views from ANY of the media companies, I do however get information from international organisations and charities with no political affiliation and make judgements based on that, among other sources. Some good observations. Don't you think it a bit naive to claim that services are not affected by another 500k people who need housing health transport and food? Are all the materials free? Are the people who must now work for them expected to do so for free? Im not sure what the answer is but it takes funding to home and look after them. If funding is going there its coming from somewhere else. where did the 500k come from ?" Plus he didn't say Services weren't affected. Just that it's not purely down to immigration. Here in Somerset and down the road in Devon and Cornwall it's nigh on impossible to get an NHS dentist and there are issues in many areas re GP appointments. And we have far less immigrants than the SE. We have got the same government though that's underfunded health care, education and local services for 12 years now. I suspect that's a far more significant influence on local services nationwide than immigrants. Still. We made a lot of people rich during covid and there's a lovely new (if expensive and of no benefit to the majority of the UK population) train set on the way. If there's any rail staff left to run it of course...... A | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Rather that repeat all the above... Re the 500k number. It's interesting. I guessed it. But since you asked I've hit the ons and fact check. Its a full time job. Seems nobody knows the real number or even a close guess. Re the channel the only number they seem to capture is very tight defined and concerns small boats. Of which 2022 ytd number is something like 40k..of which 87% are interestingly male. The figures exclude and I cut and last here from gov site. ... arrive on larger vessels, such as go-fast craft, yachts, motor cruisers, tugs and fishing vessels – although these are rarely used by irregular migrants at present arrive in the UK clandestinely on larger vessels not referenced above, including where hidden in a vehicle on a ferry are prevented from departing France, or those intercepted by French authorities and returned to France arrive in the UK undetected, or where there have been reports of people making the crossing, but no actual encounters arrive on larger vessels, such as go-fast craft, yachts, motor cruisers, tugs and fishing vessels – although these are rarely used by irregular migrants at present arrive in the UK clandestinely on larger vessels not referenced above, including where hidden in a vehicle on a ferry are prevented from departing France, or those intercepted by French authorities and returned to France arrive in the UK undetected, or where there have been reports of people making the crossing, but no actual encounters A bigger picture is found at reuters fact check which fact checked this statement. "Fact check: It is not known how many illegal immigrants are in the UK" Which was done in response to this Facebook post.. : “There’s no point in locking us down when there are 2million illegals wandering around the UK & our borders are still open” The response shown below. VERDICT Misleading. The exact number of illegal immigrants in the UK is not known. However, the two most recent studies estimate the number to be between 594,000-745,000 and 800,000-1.2 million respectively. This article was produced by the Reuters Fact Check team. Read more about our fact-checking work here .????????? Interestingly they reference research from 2017 and 2019. Anyway to answer your question it was an informed guess. " ah okay. I thought it may have been thsinyrats net migration. Those numbers are about illegal migrants. Nothing to do with refugees. I saw c 15k pa. So 500k felt tippy as a total number. Refugees are something like 8pc of all migrants. The convenient tip of the iceberg. | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How many "safe" countries do these people pass through on their way to the promised land? The UK must be the laughing stock of the world. I can here the conversations now " In the UK they are stupid. We turn up with no paperwork, they rescue us, put us in a lovely hotel, give us a mobile phone (yes this is true) and plenty of food". I do feel sorry for future generations in this country as I'm afraid we are now done as "Great" Britain. Stupid Britain would be a better name ! " I'd not be getting on a dingy for a mobile phone. Plenty of asylum seekers choose France and others above the UK. We see a small percentage of those that enter safe countries. | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How many "safe" countries do these people pass through on their way to the promised land? The UK must be the laughing stock of the world. I can here the conversations now " In the UK they are stupid. We turn up with no paperwork, they rescue us, put us in a lovely hotel, give us a mobile phone (yes this is true) and plenty of food". I do feel sorry for future generations in this country as I'm afraid we are now done as "Great" Britain. Stupid Britain would be a better name ! " If you actually wanted to know the answer to your question, it's easy to google. And I'm not sure how we would be a laughing stock, as other countries take more of 'these people' than we do. Also, they don't ask for a mobile phone. If one is provided, it is because it makes things easier for the authorities. But I'm guessing you could have worked that out. Incidentally, it's not called "Great Britain" because it's great. That was never a part of the meaning. So your Stupid Britain comment is, well, not great! | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How many "safe" countries do these people pass through on their way to the promised land? The UK must be the laughing stock of the world. I can here the conversations now " In the UK they are stupid. We turn up with no paperwork, they rescue us, put us in a lovely hotel, give us a mobile phone (yes this is true) and plenty of food". I do feel sorry for future generations in this country as I'm afraid we are now done as "Great" Britain. Stupid Britain would be a better name ! " can I ask did you ask this of the recent refugees from Ukraine? How many safe countrys do they pass through why cant they all stay in Poland or lithuanuia after all they are safe ? | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How many "safe" countries do these people pass through on their way to the promised land? The UK must be the laughing stock of the world. I can here the conversations now " In the UK they are stupid. We turn up with no paperwork, they rescue us, put us in a lovely hotel, give us a mobile phone (yes this is true) and plenty of food". I do feel sorry for future generations in this country as I'm afraid we are now done as "Great" Britain. Stupid Britain would be a better name ! " 1) Have you tried living in a budget hotel for months and months with no way to prepare or cook food, bar a kettle? 2) Our entire system of support is now built around online or telephone appointments and forms, so a mobile phone or device is now essential to make applications for asylum and to engage with the British authorities. Long gone are the days of filling in paper forms. 3) Perhaps we should just let them starve?! Of course we give them food, what civilised country would deny people food? I doubt very much that they're being given stuff from the local Michelin starred restaurant, from the Cordon Bleu recipe book | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How many "safe" countries do these people pass through on their way to the promised land? The UK must be the laughing stock of the world. I can here the conversations now " In the UK they are stupid. We turn up with no paperwork, they rescue us, put us in a lovely hotel, give us a mobile phone (yes this is true) and plenty of food". I do feel sorry for future generations in this country as I'm afraid we are now done as "Great" Britain. Stupid Britain would be a better name ! can I ask did you ask this of the recent refugees from Ukraine? How many safe countrys do they pass through why cant they all stay in Poland or lithuanuia after all they are safe ?" Ukrainians applied for refugee status before coming to the UK. | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm all for women and children fleeing war zones and coming to the UK (assuming they respect and contribute in some way) but up to 90% are adult males from none war zones is a bit worrying and they cross safe countries like Germany France Spain why risk life on a boat to get across to england" How are children coming from war zones going to "contribute in some way"? Perhaps we should put them to work in the shortage areas? Fruit picking? Waiting tables? If any of them can teach Physics, let me know | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How many "safe" countries do these people pass through on their way to the promised land? The UK must be the laughing stock of the world. I can here the conversations now " In the UK they are stupid. We turn up with no paperwork, they rescue us, put us in a lovely hotel, give us a mobile phone (yes this is true) and plenty of food". I do feel sorry for future generations in this country as I'm afraid we are now done as "Great" Britain. Stupid Britain would be a better name ! can I ask did you ask this of the recent refugees from Ukraine? How many safe countrys do they pass through why cant they all stay in Poland or lithuanuia after all they are safe ? Ukrainians applied for refugee status before coming to the UK. " But only because we put this in place, by allowing applications in Poland, France and other places. We choose not to do the same for many others from active conflict zones. | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"All these people coming across the channel should be sent back to France, for them to deal with. It seems to me they just want them to come here so they don't have to pay for them" france have something like 3x the number of refugees as us. We dont take as many as we think we do. We just talk about it a lot. | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Britain has always been a safe space for people fleeing persecution and oppression. That's a tradition we should uphold and be proud if. We should nit be bowing down to dog whistle racists, who are using the issue for their own, narrow minded agendas." x | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Britain has always been a safe space for people fleeing persecution and oppression. That's a tradition we should uphold and be proud if. We should nit be bowing down to dog whistle racists, who are using the issue for their own, narrow minded agendas." that's just a myth spread by liberal lefties proud my arse | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Britain has always been a safe space for people fleeing persecution and oppression. That's a tradition we should uphold and be proud if. We should nit be bowing down to dog whistle racists, who are using the issue for their own, narrow minded agendas. that's just a myth spread by liberal lefties proud my arse " It's lovely that you are proud of your arse, but it's not really the issue here. | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How many "safe" countries do these people pass through on their way to the promised land? The UK must be the laughing stock of the world. I can here the conversations now " In the UK they are stupid. We turn up with no paperwork, they rescue us, put us in a lovely hotel, give us a mobile phone (yes this is true) and plenty of food". I do feel sorry for future generations in this country as I'm afraid we are now done as "Great" Britain. Stupid Britain would be a better name ! can I ask did you ask this of the recent refugees from Ukraine? How many safe countrys do they pass through why cant they all stay in Poland or lithuanuia after all they are safe ? Ukrainians applied for refugee status before coming to the UK. But only because we put this in place, by allowing applications in Poland, France and other places. We choose not to do the same for many others from active conflict zones." Is Albania a conflict zone? | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Britain has always been a safe space for people fleeing persecution and oppression. That's a tradition we should uphold and be proud if. We should nit be bowing down to dog whistle racists, who are using the issue for their own, narrow minded agendas. x" For people fleeing persecution and oppression. Who are in danger. Yes. Trouble is those who are availing of the service and are and are not fleeing oppression or imminent danger. | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How many "safe" countries do these people pass through on their way to the promised land? The UK must be the laughing stock of the world. I can here the conversations now " In the UK they are stupid. We turn up with no paperwork, they rescue us, put us in a lovely hotel, give us a mobile phone (yes this is true) and plenty of food". I do feel sorry for future generations in this country as I'm afraid we are now done as "Great" Britain. Stupid Britain would be a better name ! can I ask did you ask this of the recent refugees from Ukraine? How many safe countrys do they pass through why cant they all stay in Poland or lithuanuia after all they are safe ? Ukrainians applied for refugee status before coming to the UK. But only because we put this in place, by allowing applications in Poland, France and other places. We choose not to do the same for many others from active conflict zones. Is Albania a conflict zone? " it's not. Some problem it seems with human trafficking and modern day sl@very. This issue with Albania is not the boat crossings per se. It's that we are too slow in processing cases. We have very little idea on what basis the class of 2022 are claiming asylum as we are probably still on 2020. We play into the propoganda hands. And by having no safe routes we force asylum underground. Ironically this probably creates a stronger case as ppl get in servitude. | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How many "safe" countries do these people pass through on their way to the promised land? The UK must be the laughing stock of the world. I can here the conversations now " In the UK they are stupid. We turn up with no paperwork, they rescue us, put us in a lovely hotel, give us a mobile phone (yes this is true) and plenty of food". I do feel sorry for future generations in this country as I'm afraid we are now done as "Great" Britain. Stupid Britain would be a better name ! can I ask did you ask this of the recent refugees from Ukraine? How many safe countrys do they pass through why cant they all stay in Poland or lithuanuia after all they are safe ? Ukrainians applied for refugee status before coming to the UK. But only because we put this in place, by allowing applications in Poland, France and other places. We choose not to do the same for many others from active conflict zones. Is Albania a conflict zone? " No, but you don't need to come from a conflict zone to be eligible to claim asylum. People who are being persecuted or are at risk of persecution for a wide range of reasons might qualify as asylum seekers. Until their claim is processed, we don't know. We do know that a substantial number of Albanians are removed from the UK, having been unsuccessful and therefore the "system" resolves that issue in these cases. | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
Post new Message to Thread |
back to top |