Record numbers of women and children walk ashore and not a passport control officer in sight. Brexiteers rejoice! Who needs control of your borders when you have Nige and Priti standing guard.
Priti pointless
- Thread starter noseall
- Start date
Sponsored Links
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 14,535
- Reaction score
- 2,170
- Country
It would certainly help if those who had been significantly funded with U.K. taxes to prevent the illegal crossings did more, or even what they have been paid for.
Knowing that an illegal crossing might put you in jail, will certainly deter a few economic migrants.
Knowing that an illegal crossing might put you in jail, will certainly deter a few economic migrants.
B
Brigade77
I can't think of a civilised approach towards preventing the problem . . . . Oooh wait, I can !
How about not mucking up their home countries with our proxy wars. How about trading fairly with them so's their economies become one that everyone is desperate to get back home?
How about not mucking up their home countries with our proxy wars. How about trading fairly with them so's their economies become one that everyone is desperate to get back home?
I guess you mean France.
let’s not forget France dealt with around 100,000 asylum claims last year compared to UKs 20,000
On that basis why should France make any effort stopping a few coming to UK.
Sponsored Links
B
Brigade77
Because in International law, & the mind of anyone with one, passing through a safe country to claim asylum in another country makes them economic refugee's & NOT asylum seekers.
that's an interesting* opinion.
Where did you hear it?
Which country do you live in?
*incorrect
- Joined
- 31 Aug 2005
- Messages
- 4,064
- Reaction score
- 369
- Country
I wonder we have in circulation now who are also not being vaccinated against Covid because they don't actually exist here.
Saying that looking at current stats what's the point 40% in hospital apparently are double jabbers.
Thats alot of money for not alot of protection, thanks Pharmas!
Saying that looking at current stats what's the point 40% in hospital apparently are double jabbers.
Thats alot of money for not alot of protection, thanks Pharmas!
actually it’s not international law.
40% of a much much smaller total.
And less time consuming critical illness. Chicken dinner.
I was reading an interesting article earlier of a refugee from the first Afghan war with Americans in the 80's 90s.
The story was quite harrowing, and then when they landed in the UK they had quite the adjustment to make.
I went through a range of emotions feeling genuinely sorry for them, but at the same time there was an air of ungratefulness towards the UK partly because of the way they were treated (they had issues with a minority of people who didn't like them moving into the area, it was the East end of London before it became as cosmopolitan as it is today) and partly because of the lack of empathy from immigration, I don't think it's as bad as it was back in 92 when they landed here, but I imagine it's not too far off still.
I finished the article with mixed views still, because I genuinely feel sorry for them and what they have to go through, but then at the same time even though they ended up having what ultimately transpired as a good life, good education etc etc eventually they still seemed to see the UK with contempt, at no point did they express any positivity towards what they were able to achieve and the security they had in the UK.
Maybe it was my interpretation of what was written.
I do think we need to stop the illegal crossings, but perhaps more should be done via the official routes.
The story was quite harrowing, and then when they landed in the UK they had quite the adjustment to make.
I went through a range of emotions feeling genuinely sorry for them, but at the same time there was an air of ungratefulness towards the UK partly because of the way they were treated (they had issues with a minority of people who didn't like them moving into the area, it was the East end of London before it became as cosmopolitan as it is today) and partly because of the lack of empathy from immigration, I don't think it's as bad as it was back in 92 when they landed here, but I imagine it's not too far off still.
I finished the article with mixed views still, because I genuinely feel sorry for them and what they have to go through, but then at the same time even though they ended up having what ultimately transpired as a good life, good education etc etc eventually they still seemed to see the UK with contempt, at no point did they express any positivity towards what they were able to achieve and the security they had in the UK.
Maybe it was my interpretation of what was written.
I do think we need to stop the illegal crossings, but perhaps more should be done via the official routes.
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 14,535
- Reaction score
- 2,170
- Country
Because we paid them well over £100M to do so.
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 14,535
- Reaction score
- 2,170
- Country
kinda is: Article 31(1) of the Refugees Convention.
The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of Article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.
Passing through Europe with a lengthy stop over in France et al, is not "coming directly from" though there is case law that gives some flexibility.
We also have the Dublin convention for EU.
The Dublin convention did cover it, but that's lapsed (for us) now we're out the EU?
But I'm sure we can all agree that it is down to someone's personal responsibility to choose which country they choose to seek asylum in.
amnesty international seem to disagree:
4. There is no legal requirement for a refugee to claim asylum in any particular country
Neither the 1951 Refugee Convention nor EU law requires a refugee to claim asylum in one country rather than another.
There is no rule requiring refugees to claim in the first safe country in which they arrive.
The EU does run a system – called the Dublin Regulations – which allows one EU country to require another to accept responsibility for an asylum claim where certain conditions apply.
The relevant conditions include that the person is shown to have previously entered that other EU country or made a claim there. This is supposed to share responsibility for asylum claims more equitably among EU countries and discourage people moving on from one EU country to another. But it doesn’t work.
It is clear the system greatly benefits countries like the UK and is very unfair to countries like Greece and Italy. That’s part of the reason Germany has just suspended the Dublin Regulations when dealing with people fleeing from Syria.
https://www.amnesty.org.uk/truth-about-refugees
as does a lawyer:
landmark case:
In the landmark case of R v Uxbridge Magistrates Court (ex parte Adimi) [1999] Imm AR 560 Lord Justice Simon Brown held that refugees did not have to claim asylum in countries through which they pass to reach safety in order to be protected by Article 31:
… I am persuaded by the applicants’ contrary submission, drawing as it does on the travaux préparatoires, various Conclusions adopted by UNHCR’s Executive Committee (‘ExCom’), and the writings of well-respected academics and commentators (most notably Professor Guy Goodwin-Gill, Atle Grahl-Madsen, Professor James Hathaway, & Dr Paul Weis), that some element of choice is indeed open to refugees as to where they may properly claim asylum.
As confirmed by Adimi, nothing in the Refugee Convention suggests that status as a refugee is dependent on the individual making a claim for asylum in the first safe country in which he or she arrives. To put it another way, there is no legal obligation on refugees to claim asylum in safe countries and if they decline to do so it does not disqualify them from refugee status in any way.
Article by Nick Nason: a lawyer at Edgewater Legal, simplifying immigration law for individuals and businesses.
https://www.freemovement.org.uk/refugees-claim-asylum-upon-arrival-first-safe-country/
Sponsored Links
