Horror As 'Man Doused In Bleach' In Busy...
News71 mins ago
The Side Of Immigration Some Would Like Us Not To See.
19 Answers
http://
Not only are asylum seekers costing the country £726,000 a day, but one out of three Metropolitan Police arrests are foreigners .
http://
Not only are asylum seekers costing the country £726,000 a day, but one out of three Metropolitan Police arrests are foreigners .
http://
Answers
1 to 19 of 19
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
aog
I am glad your two links were provided by the Express. If you had used the Daily Mail article you would have a long list of apologistsas howling"Well of course if it is from the Daily Wail it must be true". These same people are trying to tell us that mass immigration is an asset. Keeps the courts and prisons in business though!
I am glad your two links were provided by the Express. If you had used the Daily Mail article you would have a long list of apologistsas howling"Well of course if it is from the Daily Wail it must be true". These same people are trying to tell us that mass immigration is an asset. Keeps the courts and prisons in business though!
// Not only are asylum seekers costing the country £726,000 a day, but one out of three Metropolitan Police arrests are foreigners . //
Seeking asylum is not a criminal offence, though many on here would like it to be. Criminal foreigners and asylum seekers are completely different things and the comparison is not valid
Seeking asylum is not a criminal offence, though many on here would like it to be. Criminal foreigners and asylum seekers are completely different things and the comparison is not valid
// asylum seekers costing the country £726,000 a day, //
It wasn't too long ago that the Express were telling us the cost was £1.5million a day. Are the Government to be congratulated in more than halfing it to £726K?
http://
It wasn't too long ago that the Express were telling us the cost was £1.5million a day. Are the Government to be congratulated in more than halfing it to £726K?
http://
Gromit
/// Are the Government to be congratulated in more than halfing it to
£726K? ///
It would look like it, so come on Gromit credit where it's due.
*** Last night, a Home Office spokesman said: “This Government is committed to streamlining the asylum process and last year the average cost per asylum case fell by almost £1,000. ***
*** “Our changes have already seen asylum cases resolved more quickly, the number of appeals fall and the cost of asylum support reduced by
£200million.” ***
/// Are the Government to be congratulated in more than halfing it to
£726K? ///
It would look like it, so come on Gromit credit where it's due.
*** Last night, a Home Office spokesman said: “This Government is committed to streamlining the asylum process and last year the average cost per asylum case fell by almost £1,000. ***
*** “Our changes have already seen asylum cases resolved more quickly, the number of appeals fall and the cost of asylum support reduced by
£200million.” ***
Retrocop, when people apply for asylum, they are not here illegally.
A typical deliberately confusing editorial from the Express. The headline is about Asylum Seekers and the first paragraph hits us with 300,000. The true number of asylum seekers, which the Express for some inexplicable reason doesn't tell us is 23,000. Down from a peak of 85,000 in 2002.
A typical deliberately confusing editorial from the Express. The headline is about Asylum Seekers and the first paragraph hits us with 300,000. The true number of asylum seekers, which the Express for some inexplicable reason doesn't tell us is 23,000. Down from a peak of 85,000 in 2002.
Gromit
/// Seeking asylum is not a criminal offence, though many on here would like it to be. Criminal foreigners and asylum seekers are completely different things and the comparison is not valid ///
No it isn't if it is done lawfully i.e. claiming asylum in the first safe country. But ours are illegals who then claim asyliumn when they are found out.
So the comparison is perfectly valid, no matter how much you try to invalidate it.
/// Seeking asylum is not a criminal offence, though many on here would like it to be. Criminal foreigners and asylum seekers are completely different things and the comparison is not valid ///
No it isn't if it is done lawfully i.e. claiming asylum in the first safe country. But ours are illegals who then claim asyliumn when they are found out.
So the comparison is perfectly valid, no matter how much you try to invalidate it.
Asylum seekers should claim Asylum in the first country to be in a position to offer them refuge.Unless they buy a boat/plane ticket from the country they are fleeing from and present themselves directly to immigration on arrival as asylum seekers then they haven't broken the rules. As it is highly unlikely they are in a position to do as I described they must of entered this country through other means (illegally). You know,I hope,as well as I do that they are supposed to offer themselves up for asylum at the first country they enter in Europe.Not journey through several European couintries to end up illegally entering this Island.
this is a link to the Expess story, rather than the comment.
http://
They say the figures come from a FOI request to the Home Office.
http://
They say the figures come from a FOI request to the Home Office.
// Article 31 of the Refugee Convention 1967 concerns the responsibilities of Asylum seekers "surrendering without delay to the authorities" //
Article 31 is concerned more with the responsiblity of the contracting state rather than the responsibility of the refugee. The phrase they use is "presenting themselves" rather than surrendering.
// Article 31
refugees unlawfully in the country of refugee
1. The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.
2. TheContractingStatesshallnotapplytothemovementsofsuchrefu- gees restrictions other than those which are necessary and such restrictions shall only be applied until their status in the country is regularized or they obtain admission into another country. The Contracting States shall allow such refugees a reasonable period and all the necessary facilities to obtain admission into another country. //
http://
There is nothing in the 1967 Convention about the first state they arrive at must take them.
Article 31 is concerned more with the responsiblity of the contracting state rather than the responsibility of the refugee. The phrase they use is "presenting themselves" rather than surrendering.
// Article 31
refugees unlawfully in the country of refugee
1. The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.
2. TheContractingStatesshallnotapplytothemovementsofsuchrefu- gees restrictions other than those which are necessary and such restrictions shall only be applied until their status in the country is regularized or they obtain admission into another country. The Contracting States shall allow such refugees a reasonable period and all the necessary facilities to obtain admission into another country. //
http://
There is nothing in the 1967 Convention about the first state they arrive at must take them.
If only the Lefty's had their own place, like Scotland say, where they could adopt an asylum seeker each, have the BBC as a pay per view channel and communicate via the medium of radical political correctness. Then they'd be happy(despite a 98% tax rate) and the rest of us could get on with our pragmatic, happy lives in peace.
Since we’re picking nits about Article 31:
“The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization,”
Note “… coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened…”
The overwhelming majority of people entering this country illegally do not come “directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened”. Most of them come from France.
Also, no penalties should be imposed “… provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.”
Many of them do not present themselves without delay. They have had the opportunity to do so in other countries but have chosen not to do so. Also, as has been suggested, even when here (which is clearly their "destination of choice" as few of them seek to leave) many of them do so only after having been apprehended, usually working in a car wash, a kebab house or Chinese takeaway. Further they would struggle to “show good cause for their illegal entry or presence” having arrived from another safe nation. They have no good cause to travel illegally from France to the UK.
The Convention does not need to specifically state that asylum should be sought in the first safe country the seeker finds himself. The above provisions make this quite clear. It makes it quite clear that “asylum tourism” is not an option. Asylum seekers must present themselves without delay to the authorities and spending months or years in Calais jumping onto the back of lorries means they have not done so.
As a result, most of those arriving here do not qualify for the protection of the Convention because they do not arrive directly from a place where their lives or freedom is imperilled and they do not present themselves to the authorities without delay.
“The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization,”
Note “… coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened…”
The overwhelming majority of people entering this country illegally do not come “directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened”. Most of them come from France.
Also, no penalties should be imposed “… provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.”
Many of them do not present themselves without delay. They have had the opportunity to do so in other countries but have chosen not to do so. Also, as has been suggested, even when here (which is clearly their "destination of choice" as few of them seek to leave) many of them do so only after having been apprehended, usually working in a car wash, a kebab house or Chinese takeaway. Further they would struggle to “show good cause for their illegal entry or presence” having arrived from another safe nation. They have no good cause to travel illegally from France to the UK.
The Convention does not need to specifically state that asylum should be sought in the first safe country the seeker finds himself. The above provisions make this quite clear. It makes it quite clear that “asylum tourism” is not an option. Asylum seekers must present themselves without delay to the authorities and spending months or years in Calais jumping onto the back of lorries means they have not done so.
As a result, most of those arriving here do not qualify for the protection of the Convention because they do not arrive directly from a place where their lives or freedom is imperilled and they do not present themselves to the authorities without delay.
1 to 19 of 19
Latest Posts
Film, Media & TV85 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles97 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles121 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles128 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles141 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.