Hey Amir I got in to England illegally it was worth it !!!!

[gasbanni]

I'VE MADE IT ! I GOT HERE ! They've put me up in a hotel THE GRAND BURSTIN I get all my meals and forty pounds a week spending money ! I've thrown all my papers away they don't know where I'm from so they can't send me back.

It really is GREAT BRITAIN

yes really a bit of research.... the Britannia chain of hotels profits have gone in to profit from housing illegals and asylum seekers ......don't forget all illegals claid asylum to start with .



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...-Europe-doubled-to-1.2-million-last-year.html

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepag...al-of-migrants-rooms-in-Britannia-Hotels.html

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/515303/Hotel-guests-unhappy-with-migrants-in-Grand-Burstin-Hotel

 

[fender]

Stupidity beyond belief of this country...
Whilst many of our own sleep on the streets.........

 

[tony1851]

I've only just learnt that they get free prescriptions, while we have to pay for ours.

 

[Himaginn]

Excellent pieces, gasbag. Thank you for drawing our attention to them.
It just illustrates how being in the EU has little or no effect on illegal immigrants or refugees. All the refugees in those hotels are non-EU refugees, so how would being outside of the EU change anything.
And we'd still need to accommodate the refugees somewhere, we couldn't accommodate them at some migrant camp in Calais! We couldn't rely on EU to help us.

A Brexit will not fix our broken Border Security Agency! And it's not the fault of EU that the Agency does not work.

 

[JohnD]

It appears that gasbaggi is admitting to being an illegal immigrant, so I suggest we treat his future posts with great suspicion and distrust, as he has tried to mislead us until now. You can't believe a word he says.

 

[Gerrydelasel]

being in the EU has little or no effect on illegal immigrants or refugees.

I was under the impression that if we're in the EU then we have to abide by their human rights act (or whatever it's called), which in turn makes it extremely difficult for us to say 'no' to immigrants of any kind. We are forced to give them all sorts of concessions, whether or not we want to, because it is their 'human right'. By leaving the EU we would be free to apply our own rules, deny entry or help, if we see fit, and deport illegals more quickly.

I admit to knowing next to nothing about it, so perhaps someone could tell me how far off the mark I am?

 

[Himaginn]

being in the EU has little or no effect on illegal immigrants or refugees.

I was under the impression that if we're in the EU then we have to abide by their human rights act (or whatever it's called), which in turn makes it extremely difficult for us to say 'no' to immigrants of any kind. We are forced to give them all sorts of concessions, whether or not we want to, because it is their 'human right'. By leaving the EU we would be free to apply our own rules, deny entry or help, if we see fit, and deport illegals more quickly.

I admit to knowing next to nothing about it, so perhaps someone could tell me how far off the mark I am?

You seem to be under a misguided idea that ECHR is for migrants, immigrants, refugees. It's for us!

The European Convention is still the only international human rights agreement providing such a high degree of individual protection......
First, in the aftermath of the Second World War, the convention, drawing on the inspiration of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights can be seen as part of a wider response of the Allied Powers in delivering a human rights agenda through which it was believed that the most serious human rights violations which had occurred during the Second World War could be avoided in the future. Second, the Convention was a response to the growth of Communism in Central and Eastern Europe and designed to protect the member states of the Council of Europe from communist subversion. This, in part, explains the constant references to values and principles that are "necessary in a democratic society" throughout the Convention, despite the fact that such principles are not in any way defined within the convention itself...
Over 100 parliamentarians from the twelve member states of the Council of Europe gathered in Strasbourg in the summer of 1949 for the first ever meeting of the Council's Consultative Assembly to draft a "charter of human rights" and to establish a court to enforce it.
British MP and lawyer Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe, the Chair of the Assembly's Committee on Legal and Administrative Questions, was one of its leading members and guided the drafting of the Convention.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_Rights
It predates the EU, EEC, etc.

 

[Gerrydelasel]

You seem to be under a misguided idea that ECHR is for migrants, immigrants, refugees. It's for us!

Ah, I forgot to explain that I am under the impression that ECHR has become bloated and irrational, providing all sorts of ridiculous 'rights' that are regressive and burdonsome on the people/instituions who are forced to concede them (votes for prisoners is one I seem to remember coming up?). Not just 'obvious' or 'basic' human rights.

EDIT: I just looked it up and its seems not to be the rights themselves that are the problem, but the way in which they are applied. (Although the 'right to family life' still seems like a silly right, to me).

If we were not in the EU then we can reserve all sorts of rights for British nationals only, and not for any Tom, Dick or Harry who happened to wander in. No?

 

[Himaginn]

You seem to be under a misguided idea that ECHR is for migrants, immigrants, refugees. It's for us!

Ah, I forgot to explain that I am under the impression that ECHR has become bloated and irrational, providing all sorts of ridiculous 'rights' that are regressive and burdonsome on the people/instituions who are forced to concede them (votes for prisoners is one I seem to remember coming up?). Not just 'obvious' or 'basic' human rights.

ECHR enshrines western values which are occasionally ridden over by governments, agencies, organisations, etc. It wasn't enshrined into EU law and Treaty until 2009. It was designed initially to protect EU citizens from the atrocities committed during wars.
Because it's based on western values, should we deny it to non-EU citizens?
Should we insist that the values of whatever nationality the refugees are, apply to those refugees, hanging, mutilation, incarceration without trial, torture, etc? (think Guantanamo and the repercussions.)
They escaped for the very reasons of repressive and cruel regimes, for the protection of western values. Do we turn our back on them and ignore them because they aren't the same nationality as us? Aren't we then ditching those western values ourselves, which are so priceless to us? Where would it end?
A slippery slope to the loss of western values, perhaps.

It's not the EU citizens or the refugees that we're protecting, it's our own values! And we're protecting it from the likes of the NF, Ukip, BNF, even our governments sometimes, and yes, the RWRs.

 

[Gerrydelasel]

ECHR enshrines western values which are occasionally ridden over by governments, agencies, organisations. Because it's based on western values, should we deny it to non-EU citizens? It's not the EU citizens or the refugees that we're protecting, it's our own values!

OK, I see your point. But would it not be better for us to wield our own human rights act based on British values, rather than be forced to live by the more nebulous 'Western' values of Strasbourg? Yes, we're all Western countries here in Europe, but we don't all see the world the same way. Different nations have different attitudes towards what is 'right'. OK, we all agree on big issues like free speech, for example, but some of the lesser 'rights' vary by national worldview.

 

[JohnD]

If we were not in the EU then we can reserve all sorts of rights for British nationals only, and not for any Tom, Dick or Harry who happened to wander in. No?

If you mean, can we torture foreigners, imprison them without trial, or arrest them without charge, then no, that would not be in accordance.

 

[JohnD]

But would it not be better for us to wield our own human rights act based on British values, rather than be forced to live by the more nebulous 'Western' values of Strasbourg?

That's really funny. Your ignorance leads you into ridiculous questions.

Guess which European nation, victorious after WW2, took the leading role in framing the European Convention on Human Rights?

 

[Gerrydelasel]

If you mean, can we torture foreigners, imprison them without trial, or arrest them without charge, then no, that would not be in accordance.

I think it's fairly obvious those particular rights would be extended to everyone. Let's net erect straw men.

Guess which European nation, victorious after WW2, took the leading role in framing the Human Rights?

The world has changed a lot since then. Not all of the knee-jerk reactions to WWII are so relevant or necessary today. We've had a long time to recover and rethink since then.

 

[JohnD]

So what do you think the rights are, and which ones would you deny to foreigners?

The right to life? Freedom from slavery? Go on, you tell us. You're the one who proposes that foreigners should have fewer rights. Which ones do you want to take away?

 

[Gerrydelasel]

Sorry, John, I have seen your hair-trigger mud-slinging before, and I have no interest in placating you. I'm more interested in debate and rhetoric on the general topic, not endless picking apart of the minutea of any particular example I might provide. Besides, I don't have a pre-prepared list of 'rights for foreigners' or anything. I'm just proffering the concept as an alternative viewpoint. It might not work in reality, and I may not agree with it, but discussions are so much more interesting when you look at them from every possibility.