Channel migrants face lifetime ban on returning to UK

[Notch7]

Ask those that have ACTUALLY travelled through several SAFE countries and still risk their lives crossing the busiest stretch of water in a rubber dingy what persecution they were fleeing from in Italy and France.

the "safe country" argument is utter hogwash

there are lots of displaced people in the world, the vast majority do stay in neighbouring countries

some however disperse further afield -thats human nature

 

[carmanmemoranda]

It would greatly enhance the UK's respectability if we disregarded rules

Pure rubbish.

Nothing more needs to be said

 

[Mottie]

the "safe country" argument is utter hogwash

Well, if I weere fleeing persecution, I'd be more than happy to stop in the first safe place I reached. To feel they have the right to cherry pick is frankly, taking the pi55.

 

[Koolpc]

Anyone arriving by boat, illegally should be sent to the north pole.

 

[Brigadier]

"safe country" argument is utter hogwash

Explain why you say that.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

Well, if I weere fleeing persecution, I'd be more than happy to stop in the first safe place I reached. To feel they have the right to cherry pick is frankly, taking the pi55.

Another one prepared to ignore international law.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

Anyone arriving by boat, illegally should be sent to the north pole.

Define legally and illegally though

 

[ellal]

I'd have to try an illegal option and suffer the consequences if I got caught whether it be sent back to where I came from or shipped off to some African country.

Well done for recognising that there is no legal way for asylum seekers to enter the UK

However I'll bet that were you and your family then be subject to being sent back to your 'mortal danger' or dumped in Africa, you'd be squealing the loudest!

Or maybe not?

Given that you've already voted against the life choices of your own family!

 

[Ihavenojob]

Joe Biden is trying to push through a law which will enable the US to deport "asylum seekers" if they didn't seek asylum in the first safe country they passed through. Trump tried the same and was defeated, looks like the truth of the facts is starting to dawn on them.

 

[diy_fun_uk]

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?

This type of scenario comes up quite often (in defence of why some of the people are coming here) and it will no doubt be true in x number of cases, perhaps even the majority. However with this scenario in mind, at what point do you draw the line?

I see there's a traveller caravan parked up on the small common, they're not supposed to do that.
Yeah.
(x days later)
I see there's another two traveller caravans on the common now, three in total.
Yeah. I spoke with the newcomers. They say the main reason they headed for the common is because their uncle had pulled up there.
(x days later)
I see there's another three traveller caravans on the common now, six in total.
Yeah, I spoke with the newcomers. They say the main reason they headed for the common is because their relations headed here after hearing their uncle had pulled up there.
(x days later)
I see there's another ...

In this scenario, should the authorities allow more and more caravans to gather on the common because the people say they're coming to that specific common because their relatives are congregating there?

 

[Mottie]

However I'll bet that were you and your family then be subject to being sent back to your 'mortal danger' or dumped in Africa, you'd be squealing the loudest!

Unlike you who squealed that your highly educated self with a million pound pension pot had been prevented from emigrating to your 'partners' country after Brexit because of...Brexit! You gave all sorts of bulls hit excuses such as Brexit, covid and waiting for sonny Jim to finish his exams at school when the whole country weren't doing exams at school, just to turn down a place at Oxford. I think you also said that your super-fit young self wouldn't be able to get free health care too. Truth was, you were never eligible!

 

[carmanmemoranda]

This type of scenario comes up quite often (in defence of why some of the people are coming here) and it will no doubt be true in x number of cases, perhaps even the majority. However with this scenario in mind, at what point do you draw the line?

I see there's a traveller caravan parked up on the small common, they're not supposed to do that.
Yeah.
(x days later)
I see there's another two traveller caravans on the common now, three in total.
Yeah. I spoke with the newcomers. They say the main reason they headed for the common is because their uncle had pulled up there.
(x days later)
I see there's another three traveller caravans on the common now, six in total.
Yeah, I spoke with the newcomers. They say the main reason they headed for the common is because their relations headed here after hearing their uncle had pulled up there.
(x days later)
I see there's another ...

In this scenario, should the authorities allow more and more caravans to gather on the common because the people say they're coming to that specific common because their relatives are congregating there?

the difference being the ones being there already were judged, accepted and allowed. Not illegally camping.

 

[Koolpc]

Define legally and illegally though

Define full up, jog on.

 

[Deleted member 294929]

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?

Is Australia would let me in I'd go settle with Mozzle. If they wouldn't I wouldn't gate crash and settle in France
.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

Define full up, jog on.

False argument.

I have no issue with a legally binding system. But needs to be internationally legal