Death in the channel…again

No the argument is that they should go to the nearest safe country and that we should assist that country with aid
Refugees disperse over a wide area, most do stay in neighbouring countries, Turkey has 3.8m, Jordan 1.5m etc

It us a false argument to claim they should stay in the nearest safe country, because Italy, Greece, France etc et have no more duty to take asylum seekers than the UK.

All your argument boils down to is: "We don't want them so so ebody else can take more". It's a BS argument, always has been
 
Sponsored Links
The whole point is to avoid the trafficking. You should also look at the act
The illegal illegal migrant act.

All ot boils down to is the Tories passing an act that dishonestly claims people arriving here by small boats are illegal immigrants.

They are not
 
The illegal illegal migrant act.

All ot boils down to is the Tories passing an act that dishonestly claims people arriving here by small boats are illegal immigrants.

They are not
The Illegal Migration Bill, which has now been passed by Parliament in the United Kingdom, is at variance with the country’s obligations under international human rights and refugee law and will have profound consequences for people in need of international protection,

Most people fleeing war and persecution either do not have or are unable to access formal documents such as passports and visas. Safe and “legal” routes are rarely available to them. The 1951 Refugee Convention, for its part, explicitly recognises that refugees may be compelled to enter a country of asylum irregularly.
 
Sponsored Links
The illegal illegal migrant act.

All ot boils down to is the Tories passing an act that dishonestly claims people arriving here by small boats are illegal immigrants.

They are not
Law says otherwise and unless its a repealed or amended, it's a fact. of course you can have an opinion that is different but its just opinion.
 
France has similar laws and rescue services.

They seem to think the moment they leave the beach, they are our responsibility. Funnily enough, I've had every piece of safety kit checked, ownership papers checked and even fuel tested when I've visited France on a private boat and more than once. Yet it's ok for 30-70 people to set off in an unregistered, unsafe craft with no safety kit.
 
here you go.


We seem to have capacity for ~20k per year +- Once we go above that the backlog builds. There are more case workers now than ever, it would appear they are being more thorough before saying yes or no, and they seem to have some IT issues.
So if UK had say about 100,000 over a five year period, there would be no excuse for a backlog. Certainly no excuse for a backlog of more than 6 months.
Oooh:
Of those awaiting an initial decision, 68% (110,000 people) had beenwaiting for more than six months and 32% (51,300 people) had beenwaiting six months or less.
from your link
And how many have arrived in UK by boat over five years:
Oooh?
In total, more than 100,000 people have come to the UK this way since 2018.
About 100,000 in five years. isn't that a coincidence.
So why the large backlog of 110,000 asylum seekers waiting for more than 6 months, more than arrived over a five year period?
 
Law says otherwise and unless its a repealed or amended, it's a fact. of course you can have an opinion that is different but its just opinion.
It's liable to break international laws.
Domestic law can overrule international law, but only at great risk to the country's international standing.
 
They seem to think the moment they leave the beach, they are our responsibility. Funnily enough, I've had every piece of safety kit checked, ownership papers checked and even fuel tested when I've visited France on a private boat and more than once. Yet it's ok for 30-70 people to set off in an unregistered, unsafe craft with no safety kit.
What do you think they should do about it?
You think the asylum seekers should carry their boat to a nearby port for testing? :rolleyes:
 
I hear this argument about international standing. I don’t see any evidence of it being anything other than tomorrow’s chip paper.
 
You think the asylum seekers should carry their boat to a nearby port for testing? :rolleyes:
If they are asylum seekers in France, why do they need boats? They will have already pleaded their case to the French authorities.
 
If they are asylum seekers in France, why do they need boats? They will have already pleaded their case to the French authorities.
Round and round we go again with the same old arguments :rolleyes:

There's no obligation on them to seek asylum in France, nor anywhere else en route. They are free to choose which country to claim asylum.
They prefer UK because they might be able to speak the language, they might have friends or family connections here.
 
You seem to be missing the point that until they claim asylum - they are illegal immigrants with no lawful authority to be in France.

But nobody cares because soon they will be the UKs problem. So we just pretend they aren’t here along with all the criminals that traffic them
 
Sponsored Links
Back
Top