How does immigration benefit the country when...

[Harry Bloomfield]

Retired childless pensioner filling days counting ants and staring at the energy meters.

Real world lol. FFS

Yes, the real world, where a personal attack like that would be met with a black eye.

FYI, your posts, alongside many others - are generally blocked here, because of your nonsense, and nonsensical personal attacks from behind a keyboard. Very occasionally, I take a peep, just reassure myself I am doing the right thing in blocking your rubbish.

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

That's horrible thing to say, maybe thats Harry's choice maybe it isnt....think before you comment...

Think, think with what? Expecting rather a lot are you not, from such a low individual?

 

[pete01]

Think, think with what? Expecting rather a lot are you not, from such a low individual?

I did expect a lot mate.....hes not very nice at all.

 

[SPLINE]

I pray for Noseall. He's really bad.

 

[MNW67]

There is no way to stop it. And UK has a legal duty to accommodate and feed its detainees.

But where does that legal duty come from?

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

I did expect a lot mate.....hes not very nice at all.

It does leave me wondering what sort of individual might spend their days, carefully taking notes on people's personal lives, to years later make use of it, as ammunition in a completely irrelevant thread. Thankfully, most normal individuals simply don't do that.

 

[Knave of Hearts]

But where does that legal duty come from?

From the Refugee Charter, for signatories to it, for refugees.
But also, as soon as someone is detained for other reasons, they become prisoners, and then the state has a legal duty to provide accommodation and feed them.
Prisons Act 1952, I think.

 

[MNW67]

From the Refugee Charter, for signatories to it, for refugees.
But also, as soon as someone is detained for other reasons, they become prisoners, and then the state has a legal duty to provide accommodation and feed them.
Prisons Act 1952, I think.

Most refugees aren't detained, though.

The level of support asylum seekers are entitled to receive under the Refugee Convention is actually very minimal. A colleague of mine was involved in the case against the Home Office in 2003, when the government cut off all support for certain groups of asylum seekers. And the Court of Appeal found that very little assistance was required. The government could let them reach a stage far below "destitution" before they were obliged to do anything to help.

 

[fillyboy]

Yes, the real world, where a personal attack like that would be met with a black eye.

FYI, your posts, alongside many others - are generally blocked here, because of your nonsense, and nonsensical personal attacks from behind a keyboard. Very occasionally, I take a peep, just reassure myself I am doing the right thing in blocking your rubbish.

Good on ya Harry.

 

[Knave of Hearts]

Most refugees aren't detained, though.

The level of support asylum seekers are entitled to receive under the Refugee Convention is actually very minimal. A colleague of mine was involved in the case against the Home Office in 2003, when the government cut off all support for certain groups of asylum seekers. And the Court of Appeal found that very little assistance was required. The government could let them reach a stage far below "destitution" before they were obliged to do anything to help.

They are initially, but then under the refugee Charter the government still has a duty to provide accommodation and food

The "refugee charter" is not a single, universally binding document but a concept based on international agreements like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. These frameworks establish a right to a standard of living that includes food, clothing, and accommodation for those unable to secure these necessities themselves. In practice, countries fulfill this through national asylum support systems, which often involve providing either direct accommodation or cash support to cover food and other essentials.

 

[MNW67]

They are initially, but then under the refugee Charter the government still has a duty to provide accommodation and food

None of those Declarations etc. are enforceable in practice, though. If the government decides not to assist an asylum seeker, the only protection they have is through the ECHR.

In the leading case I mentioned from 2003, the Labour government had cut off all support for certain groups of asylum seekers. Some of these asylum seekers became homeless and had to resort to begging. The policy was challenged and the case went to the Court of Appeal.

The government lost the case on some of the procedural issues around how each asylum seeker was assessed. But regarding the level of support asylum seekers were entitled to receive, the only legal issue was how bad a state of degradation did the asylum seekers have to reach before it amounted to "inhuman or degrading treatment" under the ECHR.

R. (on the application of Q) v Secretary of State… - Landmark Chambers

Explore 'R. (on the application of Q) v Secretary of State for the Home Department' at Landmark Chambers for in-depth analysis and expert commentary on…

www.landmarkchambers.co.uk

(2) the regime that was imposed on asylum seekers who were denied support by reason of s.55(1) of the 2002 Act constituted “treatment” within the meaning of Art.3 as treatment implied something more than passivity on the part of the State. However, the fact that there was a real risk that an individual asylum seeker might be reduced to a state of degradation did not in itself engage Art.3, Pretty v United Kingdom (2346/02) [2002] 2 F.L.R. 45 ECHR considered

 

[diy_fun_uk]

There is no way to stop it. And UK has a legal duty to accommodate and feed its detainees.

I would disagree with that, assuming you're referring to illegal immigration? It could be stopped in theory, it's just that we don't seem to have the inclination and/or legal mechanisms to do so.

 

[Knave of Hearts]

None of those Declarations etc. are enforceable in practice, though. If the government decides not to assist an asylum seeker, the only protection they have is through the ECHR.

In the leading case I mentioned from 2003, the Labour government had cut off all support for certain groups of asylum seekers. Some of these asylum seekers became homeless and had to resort to begging. The policy was challenged and the case went to the Court of Appeal.

The government lost the case on some of the procedural issues around how each asylum seeker was assessed. But regarding the level of support asylum seekers were entitled to receive, the only legal issue was how bad a state of degradation did the asylum seekers have to reach before it amounted to "inhuman or degrading treatment" under the ECHR.

R. (on the application of Q) v Secretary of State… - Landmark Chambers

Explore 'R. (on the application of Q) v Secretary of State for the Home Department' at Landmark Chambers for in-depth analysis and expert commentary on…

www.landmarkchambers.co.uk

Yes, so it's simpler and more humane to provide the basic accommodation and food. Otherwise the government risks embarrassing ECHR cases again.

 

[Knave of Hearts]

I would disagree with that, assuming you're referring to illegal immigration? It could be stopped in theory, it's just that we don't seem to have the inclination and/or legal mechanisms to do so.

Nor moral, nor humane.
Give me a lever long enough and a fulcrum strong enough and I can move the earth.
But as you say, legality, humanity an morality come into the equation.

We could reduce it by targeting the influences that drive the emigration form their home countries. But that's for the long game (as well as the long grass).

But emigration, exploration has always featured in the development of the human race.
It's inbuilt into our genes. If it were not so, this 'branch' of the human race may have disappeared long ago.