4 in 10 Channel Crossing Migrants are From Albania.

[Pat ex]

Angleeyes used to say my figures were wrong, and when I asked him for the correct ones he said "they don't exist".

I showed you they were wrong.

But if you are asking me the correct number of people we pay not to work that is just plain daft. It doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

Why doesn't it make sense Denso? Expand a little, rather than just telling me that I'm wrong and don't make sense.

If the data does not exist, then any of your quoted figures cannot be correct, but even if by some magical coincidence your guess was correct, there be no way to prove it.
Similarly, if the data does not exist, it can't be reliably quoted to disprove any of your imaginary figures. But your figures are still imaginary. You do quote some figures but apply those figures to the wrong group.
For example, because there's been an increase (or decrease) in a population, you cannot assume that it is due simply to migration. To quote the wrong figures in attempt to prove your bias is plainly twisting the data..

 

[Pat ex]

People keep screaming "illegal immigrants".....

1. What makes them illegal?

2. How do you know they are illegal?

It's an assumption based on difference in physical characteristics.

 

[motorbiking]

People keep screaming "illegal immigrants".....

1. What makes them illegal?

2. How do you know they are illegal?

Have they entered France in compliance with French immigration laws? Did they get their passports stamped on entry? did they apply for the appropriate visas?

They are illegal immigrants until they apply for asylum.

 

[Pat ex]

Have they entered France in compliance with French immigration laws? Did they get their passports stamped on entry? did they apply for the appropriate visas?

They are illegal immigrants until they apply for asylum.

They're asylum seekers in UK. UK cannot prosecute asylum seekers for illegally entering France.
France is highly unlikely to seek their extradition, even if they were aware of their illegal entry, and if they had no intention of staying in France.
The UN would object to a country detaining migrants unnecessarily.

Note: International human rights law provides that detention, including in the migration context, must only be used as a last resort, that is when alternatives cannot be applied.

iom.int/key-migration-terms

 

[Notch7]

Have they entered France in compliance with French immigration laws? Did they get their passports stamped on entry? did they apply for the appropriate visas?

They are illegal immigrants until they apply for asylum.

Under the refugee convention people are allowed to cross borders to claim asylum

also under the refugee convention people can not be forced to claim asylum in the first safe country.


Whilst those statements seem to be contradictory, Its not clear how they become ”illegal immigrants”, it would seem to imply that a refugee in transit across a country to reach another country is not illegal because that person is trying to reach another safe country.

 

[Pat ex]

I wonder (and I'm wondering this genuinely, not meaning it sarcastically) how much of a vote winner/loser it would be for the Conservatives or Labour if they were to introduce a manifesto pledge for the next GE to commit a HUGE sum of money to this for a period of 24-36 months to (hopefully) nip it in the bud? Not just with reference to Albanians but all migrants entering the country over the channel.

Let's face it, we can't rely on France to do anything overly constructive on this (in terms of stopping them leaving France) so what if our major parties committed to spend almost whatever it takes to significantly reduce the chances of these people getting further than the south coast? e.g. massive investment in patrol boats, land patrols, clean/safe purpose built and ultra secure holding premises for these people to be housed until their case was reviewed and decided on. Investment in specific legal folk to fast-track them one way or the other.

Obviously I don't have a scooby as to what this would cost, but let's say they estimated it would cost £700 million a year to literally make the coast like fort knox, would it be a vote winner?

It might be difficult to implement in practice:

States have a responsibility to ensure that border management legislation, policies and practices adhere to human rights and refugee law and respect the rights of all people moving across their borders despite their migration status.

Key Migration Terms

Alternatives to detention – Any legislation, policy or practice, formal or informal, aimed at preventing the unnecessary detention of persons for reasons relating to their migration status. Source: Adapted from International Detention Coalition, There Are Alternatives: A Handbook for...

www.iom.int

 

[denso13]

Why doesn't it make sense Denso? Expand a little, rather than just telling me that I'm wrong and don't make sense.

Because it is a nonsense statement that the economically inactive are paid not to work. They include the retired, students, carers and the ill. Are you really saying these people are paid not to work?

My wife is "economically inactive". She chooses not to work but receives no government money at all. She isn't "paid not to work".

Your gut feeling is not a measure of how true things are. Quite the opposite.

You also claimed that we've had 10 million immigrants since Blair through open the gates. That's a lie.

Population 1997 (Blair) 58.3 million; 2020 (23 years after Blair) 67 million. Increase 8.7 million or 15%

What is true is that the population has grown by, bt 8.7m not 10m, as per your link. Do you think there have been no births in the last 20 years? That's what your gut feeling is telling you. You claims are garbage, and you posted the links which prove it.

 

[Deleted member 18243]

I only know of 1 albanian. Hard working Plasterer.

You would, wouldn't you? Now answer this: how many Albanian freeloaders and criminals must we take in for every hard working Albanian plasterer? (It's all about numbers)

e retired, students, carers and the ill. Are you really saying these people are paid not to work?My wife is "economically inactive". She chooses not to work but receives no government money at all. She isn't "paid not to work".You also claimed that we've had 10 million immigrants since Blair through open the gates. That's a lWhat is true is that the population has grown by, bt 8.7m not 10m, as per your link. Do you think there have been no births in the last 20 years? That's what your gut feeling is telling you. You claims are garbage, and you posted the links which prove it.

We all know that there are students and those living by independent means, but they are not in a significant quantity. (It's all about numbers). What matters is those claiming to be sick - how many of the economically inactive are "on the sick", and how many of those genuinely cannot work because of their sickness? I'd like to see a breakdown of those many millions, showing how many are Blair's immigrants. (These are the figures you WON'T see because they will reveal awful truths, so rejoice lefties, that these "figures don't exist").

Population growth was 8.7 million from Blair to 2020, we are now in 2022, so 10 million would be a fair estimate. My figures are only ever approximate - do you know how stupid you appear when you try to claim that I am wrong in principle because you can quote accurate figures, that don't alter my case much, where I've given approximations? What matters here is the difference in growth. Why, in the 23 years after Blair has the population increased by 15% where in the previous 23 it increased by only 4 %? Go back further and you will see much the same slow, steady increase. Only after Blair has it surged.

How do you know they are illegal immigrants.

and how do you know these “clusters” are Romanian and Albanian.

can you tell the difference between those 2 languages?

It doesn't matter whether they are legal or illegal; they are not needed or wanted here.

I can tell they are Albanian / Romanian from my Ladybird book of peoples of the world. They live in the street and not in their houses; fight a lot; wear striped colourful ethnic clothing; have black hair, red faces and turnip-shaped heads. STUPID QUESTION Notch!

I can't tell the difference and and have no interest at all in their languages; why should I take any interest on unnecessary things imposed on me by my stupid government? They shouldn't be here.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

You would, wouldn't you? Now answer this: how many Albanian freeloaders and criminals must we take in for every hard working Albanian plasterer? (It's all about numbers)

Yes I know 1. That's what I said.

How many do you know? Sure they are Albanian ? How do you know? Or it doesn't matter, a foreigner is a foreigner?

 

[motorbiking]

Under the refugee convention people are allowed to cross borders to claim asylum

also under the refugee convention people can not be forced to claim asylum in the first safe country.


Whilst those statements seem to be contradictory, Its not clear how they become ”illegal immigrants”, it would seem to imply that a refugee in transit across a country to reach another country is not illegal because that person is trying to reach another safe country.

Thats not 100% correct - it was the interpretation of the UK courts that allowed brief transit through other countries to not limit a person's right to claim asylum in the UK. That does not of course mean, that offences aren't committed in those countries where they do not seek asylum protection.

Article 31 of the UN Refugee Convention states “coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened” provided they “present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence”.

As we've previously discussed, to comply with article 31, would require a 10,000 nm passage. These people are illegal immigrants, there status may change if their claims are accepted if/when they get to the UK. All the time they remain in France they are open to prosecution. We know the French authorities don't want to prosecute them as they risk asylum claims.

 

[Pat ex]

Thats not 100% correct - it was the interpretation of the UK courts that allowed brief transit through other countries to not limit a person's right to claim asylum in the UK. That does not of course mean, that offences aren't committed in those countries where they do not seek asylum protection.

Article 31 of the UN Refugee Convention states “coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened” provided they “present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence”.

There is no legal requirement for a refugee to claim asylum in any particular country. There is a requirement for the first safe country in which they arrive to hear their asylum claim but, if this does not happen for any reason, the refugee is then free to make their asylum claim elsewhere.

Why Don't Refugees Stay in the First Safe Country | Care4Calais

Why don't refugees stay in the first safe country? Find out about asylum shopping and why different countries receive different levels of asylum seekers.

care4calais.org

There are a myriad reasons why refugees move onto to other countries. Yet you persistently refuse to accept or understand those reasons, Instead you prefer to regurgitate old and inaccurate right wing tropes.

As we've previously discussed, to comply with article 31, would require a 10,000 nm passage. These people are illegal immigrants, there status may change if their claims are accepted if/when they get to the UK. All the time they remain in France they are open to prosecution. We know the French authorities don't want to prosecute them as they risk asylum claims.

They're asylum seekers in UK. UK cannot prosecute asylum seekers for illegally entering France.
France is highly unlikely to seek their extradition, even if they were aware of their illegal entry, and if they had no intention of staying in France.
The UN would object to a country detaining migrants unnecessarily.

iom.int/key-migration-terms

If there are sound economic, personal and humane reasons for refugees to move onto other countries by passing through first, second, third (etc) countries to claim asylum, why on earth do you suppose France should operate on a different level?
Otherwise, Italy, Greece, Turkey, Jordan, etc, etc would have prisons full of potential asylum seekers.
I assume you'd be content with that as long as they were not allowed to reach UK?
Talk about NYMBYism in the extreme!!!!

 

[Pat ex]

We all know that there are students and those living by independent means, but they are not in a significant quantity. (It's all about numbers). What matters is those claiming to be sick - how many of the economically inactive are "on the sick", and how many of those genuinely cannot work because of their sickness? I'd like to see a breakdown of those many millions, showing how many are Blair's immigrants. (These are the figures you WON'T see because they will reveal awful truths, so rejoice lefties, that these "figures don't exist").

The figures don't exist so you bandy figures about plucked out of the air to satisfy your bias. Or you quote figures for one set of criteria and claim they support your alternative criteria.
There's data and there's Andy11's imaginary figures.

Population growth was 8.7 million from Blair to 2020, we are now in 2022, so 10 million would be a fair estimate. My figures are only ever approximate - do you know how stupid you appear when you try to claim that I am wrong in principle because you can quote accurate figures, that don't alter my case much, where I've given approximations? What matters here is the difference in growth. Why, in the 23 years after Blair has the population increased by 15% where in the previous 23 it increased by only 4 %? Go back further and you will see much the same slow, steady increase. Only after Blair has it surged.

Again you are grasping at data and twisting it to suit your own ideology. In the real world it doesn't work like that.

It doesn't matter whether they are legal or illegal;

Of course it matters whether they are legal or illegal.
Maybe the government intentionally slow down the asylum processing in order to stir up anti-foreigner sentiment.
Whatever the reason for the unacceptable slow asylum processing, it needs severe overhaul, and has done for many, many years. But it seems UK government is unwilling or unable to do anything worthwhile.

; they are not needed or wanted here.

According to Andy11's extreme right wing ideology.

I can't tell the difference and and have no interest at all in their languages; why should I take any interest on unnecessary things imposed on me by my stupid government? They shouldn't be here.

Yet you blame the refugees and migrants for doing the same thing that has been human nature since the birth of humans in Africa, instead of blaming the failures or intentional policies of your government with which you vehemently disagree?
That's like blaming the weather for the cost of fuel bills. It's pointless and ideologically nonsensical.

 

[Pat ex]

Thats not 100% correct - it was the interpretation of the UK courts that allowed brief transit through other countries to not limit a person's right to claim asylum in the UK.

The UN charter does not specify that refugees should make a claim in the first country, and UK case law supports that.

Do refugees have to stay in the first safe country they reach?​

17 JANUARY 2019

WHAT WAS CLAIMED​

Under the Geneva Convention refugees should seek refuge in the first safe country they come to.

OUR VERDICT​

Incorrect. The UN Refugee Convention does not make this requirement of refugees, and UK case law supports this interpretation. Refugees can legitimately make a claim for asylum in the UK after passing through other “safe” countries.

Do refugees have to stay in the first safe country they reach? - Full Fact

Refugees are not required to seek asylum in the first safe country they reach. But under EU law they can sometimes be returned to the first safe EU country they reached.

fullfact.org

Of course since Brexit UK cannot use the Dublin Regulation to return asylum seekers to another country where they have made a claim.
Although the Dublin Regulation never made any obligation for refugees to seek asylum in any specific country. They were still free to travel through countries to arrive at another destination.

 

[denso13]

how many of the economically inactive are "on the sick", and how many of those genuinely cannot work because of their sickness? I'd like to see a breakdown of those many millions,

Exactly. You don't know so why quote figures? That's why your posts are nonsense.

Population growth was 8.7 million from Blair to 2020, we are now in 2022, so 10 million would be a fair estimate.

Yes, of population growth, not the number of immigrants as you claimed. Drivel.

 

[denso13]

I'd like to see a breakdown of those many millions, showing how many are Blair's immigrants.

They haven't changed an awful lot in the last 50 years. In 1971 the figure was similar to today.