But your cousin Mozzie is in Australia and you know you'd be able to find work there as you speak the language (in this pretend scenario you don't speak French btw). But you'd still stick with France?
Channel migrants face lifetime ban on returning to UK
- Thread starter motorbiking
- Start date
If that was the quickest and safest option, I’d have to. Beggars, sorry, refugees can’t be choosers. Priority number one would be the safety of my family. Maybe try at a later stage to emigrate from France to Australia if my skills were required. If not, tough - at least we'd be safe and we would have to learn French. I already know how to shrug and say "Non" so if Mrs Mottie stopped shaving her armpits, we'd be halfway there!
- Joined
- 25 Jul 2022
- Messages
- 18,079
- Reaction score
- 1,516
- Country
The big question to me is, is the UK new decision legal under International law ?
If so, there is an argument for it, but it is still not addressing the people smugglers who will still continue to try to get people here. They won't care if those people are moved away if they still get their money. So the issue will still remain.
If not, are we sinking that low that our reputation in the world for following agreed laws is not important.
The argument isn't, and shouldn't be, about how many immigrants we can accept. It should be about what is legal or not, and what is being done about anything illegal.
But, headlines.
If so, there is an argument for it, but it is still not addressing the people smugglers who will still continue to try to get people here. They won't care if those people are moved away if they still get their money. So the issue will still remain.
If not, are we sinking that low that our reputation in the world for following agreed laws is not important.
The argument isn't, and shouldn't be, about how many immigrants we can accept. It should be about what is legal or not, and what is being done about anything illegal.
But, headlines.
And if your family had previously moved on? What then? Would you be happily split up?
If you try and leave Essex you are only allowed to stop in the next safe county
They (the government) either don't want to and/or aren't capable of resolving this. Before anyone starts, I'm NOT referring to whether or not it's right to let the small boat people in. What I'm simply referring to is the powers that be refer to it as an issue year in year out, and yet the backlog of applicants grows ever bigger and the small boats keep coming.
Talk talk talk, waffle waffle waffle, serious face, sincere tone, firm pointing with the thumb .... no actual action/progress.
Talk talk talk, waffle waffle waffle, serious face, sincere tone, firm pointing with the thumb .... no actual action/progress.
- Joined
- 25 Jul 2022
- Messages
- 18,079
- Reaction score
- 1,516
- Country
Whilst their target audience is enraged, they can carry on with other stuff and still get support.
Every time their is another sideshow, go back to the "getting it under control" speech
Today, Rishi Sunak III, leader of the Progressive Vanilla Party, spoke at their 2100 annual conference. Sunak headlined his speech by saying the PVP are intent on solving the small boat problem ...
D
Deleted member 18243
The government has the means to stop the invasion but they don't want to. They hate us and want to replace us.
Don't worry, they will all get in eventually with full citizenship and all necessary paperwork. The immigration lawyers and charities will see to that.
The boats will get bigger.
- Joined
- 22 Aug 2006
- Messages
- 7,061
- Reaction score
- 1,180
- Country
Did you know that 100% of all people lie?
If you're going to apply for anything, you find out what helps you get what you want.
Wouldn't you?
And we publish a list. Not hard, is it?
This persecution must be because of:
- your race
- your religion
- your nationality
- your political opinion
- anything else that puts you at risk because of the social, cultural, religious or political situation in your country, for example, your gender, gender identity or sexual orientation
It's all very well to point out that we say
Your claim might not be considered if you:
- are from an EU country
- travelled to the UK through a ‘safe third country’
- have a connection to a safe third country where you could claim asylum
- you’re not a citizen of
- you would not be harmed in
- would not send you on to another country where you would be harmed
Last edited:
Clearly the home office need evidence, but quite how they do that, I’ve no idea.
lots of these boat arrivals throw away their documents, but that is evidence they need in their application.
it just make the process harder for them
Today, Rishi Sunak and Suella Braverman will announce a new plan to deal with the small boats crisis. But from using the navy to threatening asylum seekers with detention in Moldova to sending jetskis on patrol, the Conservatives have not been short of schemes to deter those who plan to cross the Channel since the issue came to the top of the agenda in the last weeks of 2018. Here’s a guide to some of them:
Forty Three times the Tories 'solved' the Migrant 'crisis'.
Forty Three times the Tories 'solved' the Migrant 'crisis'.
But how would you get to France if there were no legal options for you to flee to France?
What's that got to do with anything? We're an island with no land borders to other safe countries. Those coming here crossing the channel by dinghy have passed through several safe countries to get to the UK so they are perfectly safe and they would have reached a safe refuge long before they even got to France. Why do they pass through at least two safe countries to get to a third?
Similar threads
- Deleted member 18243
- General Discussion
