Refugees without ID documentation

[Roy Bloom]

When someone is fleeing their country, thay can't apply for a passport. They can't apply for an exit visa nor permission to leave (and many countries do require such permission)
So the refugees escape without appropriate documentation.
When the right-wingers argue that refugees intentionally dispose of their documentation it's an argument designed to suit the circumstances.
Not an accurate or true explanation for why the asylum seekers are undocumented.

it's a criminal offence to dispose of such documentation, or to withhold such information, and has been since 2003.

https://committees.parliament.uk/oralevidence/793/default/

 

[Roy Bloom]

Dan Mahoney's primary role, appointed and tasked by Pritti patel:

Together with the Home Secretary and Minister for Immigration Compliance, Dan O’Mahoney will have the primary responsibility of making the Channel route unviable for small boat crossings.

Laura Farris is a Tory minister.

Enough said.

 

[Roy Bloom]

Q8 of the Home Affairs Committee Oral Evidence referred to by motobiking:
Chair: So if those figures are also included in the total, the overall asylum numbers, that would suggest that the number of people applying for asylum coming through alternative routes, through flights or ferries orother kinds of arrivals, or who are here already, dropped from around10,000 in quarter 1 to nearer 4,000 in quarter 2. Is that an accuratereading of the figures?
Abi Tierney: I can’t do the calculations in my head as quickly as you can,but that is what I worked out, yes.
Dan O'Mahoney: It reflects a huge shift in the volume of traffic cominginto the country by air. A lot of the Iranians that we see arriving in smallboats now might have previously attempted to arrive in the UK as what wecall undocumented arrivals.

So that's an estimate of 22,000 people arriving by air to claim asylum.
It's strange there's been no mention of that.

 

[Roy Bloom]

Becauae many asylum seekers do not have ID does not prove they intentionally disposed of them.
That's an anti-refugee argument designed to fit the facts.
it's already been explained, and explained before, why they do not have ID when they escape their country of origin.
Inded, if they are detected in their country of origin with their ID intact, they would be immediately 'arrrested' and subjected to that from which they are fleeing.
So it makes sense to leave their country of origin without any ID, so that if they are detected, their ID is not immediately available.

 

[motorbiking]

there's another thread on this - why are you starting a new one?

 

[nwgs]

there's another thread on this - why are you starting a new one?

He’s on his last knockings now.

 

[Bod ...]

Until you two turned up I thought Roy was talking to himself.

 

[ReganAndCarter]

Until you two turned up I thought Roy was talking to himself.

For the 10 mins of each day that he's not on here, I bet he does mutter to himself.

 

[Roy Bloom]

there's another thread on this - why are you starting a new one?

Why are you representing an old argument that 's been presented numerous times before?
Because someone schemed to get me excluded from that thread.
Then coincidentally, you start on the same argument that you've presented before and that argument has been dismantled before.

Is it pure coincidence that you re-presented the same argument that you'd presented before, after I'd been prevented from participating?

You have a habit of intentionally misrepresenting the law, and you like to prevent your interpretation from being scrutinised:

That being a refugee is obliged to seek asylum in the first safe country.

Not true.

 

[Roy Bloom]

For the 10 mins of each day that he's not on here, I bet he does mutter to himself.

I don't waste time dreaming up ways to bypass the auto censor to make racist comments.

 

[nwgs]

I don't waste time dreaming up ways to bypass the auto censor to make racist comments.

Super

 

[Roy Bloom]

Super

I'm glad you appreciate my conduct.

 

[motorbiking]

Why are you representing an old argument that 's been presented numerous times before?
Because someone schemed to get me excluded from that thread.
Then coincidentally, you start on the same argument that you've presented before and that argument has been dismantled before.

Is it pure coincidence that you re-presented the same argument that you'd presented before, after I'd been prevented from participating?

You have a habit of intentionally misrepresenting the law, and you like to prevent your interpretation from being scrutinised:


Not true.

No it is in fact true. Your asylum claim can be rejected due to a connection with a safe 3rd country. A bit of reading for you:

https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-9724/CBP-9724.pdf

 

[Roy Bloom]

No it is in fact true. Your asylum claim can be rejected due to a connection with a safe 3rd country. A bit of reading for you:

https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-9724/CBP-9724.pdf

You should try reading it.
The small piece of the legislation refers to people seeking asylum from safe countries.
It cannot overrule the UN Convention on asylum seekers passing though safe countries to seek asylum in their country of choice.
It sasy so in that document that you linked to:

The UK Government’s position is that refugees should claim asylum in the firstsafe country they reach.28 The UN Refugee Agency says “this principle is notfound in the Refugee Convention and there is no such requirement underinternational law”

If their country of origin is a safe country, why would they need to seek asylum?
It would be like putting a block on food aid going to areas where there is no shortage of food.
Or a piece of legislation forbidding flood aid being given to a desert area.

The article goes on to say that asylum seekers can be returned to a third country that they had passed through, if it was considered safe. But since Brexit that option has been removed.
Rwanda is the only current option, but that's not been deemed to be a safe country, and so far no-one has been sent there.
So that piece of legislation is toothless. A perfect example of legislation for the purpose of gaslighting. What a waste of time and money to promote right wing propganda.

 

[Roy Bloom]

"As elsewhere in Western Europe, the rapid growth of the Muslim community in Germany has led to social tensions and political controversy, partly connected to Islamic extremism, and more generally due to the perceived difficulties of multiculturalism and fears of Überfremdung."

That rapid growth has been created by right-wingers promoting hatred of foreigners.
It's not unheard of, especially in Germany.
Now it's it's copied throughout Europe and beyond.

It might be partly explained by the Earth's shrinking resources, and access to those resources.