Quizzes & Puzzles32 mins ago
Letter To The Editor
Last week, the Daily Express ran a series of hostile stories about asylum seekers.
First, they were outraged at the thought of asylum seekers being temporarily housed, through no fault or choice of their own, in a hotel on the coast.
Then, they railed against the cost of the asylum system.
And then they wrote an aggressive, misleading attack on some of the most vulnerable people in the country.
We, the Regugee Council, were extremely concerned and we weren’t the only ones. We quickly teamed up with our friends Refugee Action and the British Red Cross to write a response. We wanted the chance to set the record straight, and give Express readers a more accurate understanding of who asylum seekers are, and why it’s vital we protect them.
Sadly, the Daily Express failed to publish our letter.
So here it is, in full.
Dear Sir,
The stream of aggressive stories about asylum seekers appearing in this paper in recent days is of serious concern to all of us who work with and support people fleeing persecution.
Your readers would be forgiven for thinking the UK is being flooded by asylum seekers. This couldn’t be further from the truth, with asylum applications around the 23,000 mark a year the UK is home to less than 1 per cent of the world’s refugees and takes proportionately below the EU average.
To characterise the people housed in Folkestone as having a ‘lovely break’ by the sea that Brits would be envious of is hugely misleading and dangerous.
Asylum seekers are people who have often fled horrifying experiences in their home countries. Some have been raped. Some have been tortured. Many have witnessed the death of a loved one. Be assured, people who have suffered extreme trauma and whose lives are hanging in the balance will not be focusing on the sea view of temporary room.
There are no refugee visas available for people fleeing persecution. The fact that people are forced to travel clandestinely is recognised within the Refugee Convention and British Law. Entering Britain illegally can be a necessity; it is not an indication of the validity of someone’s asylum claim.
Additionally, appealing a refusal does not indicate someone cheating the system. Decisions on asylum claims can be life or death and the appeal overturn rate shows the Government frequently gets it wrong the first time.
Stirring up hostility against asylum seekers is as unwelcome as it is unsavoury in a country with a proud tradition of protecting refugees.
Maurice Wren, Chief Executive, Refugee Council
Mike Adamson, Acting Chief Executive, British Red Cross
Dave Garratt, Chief Executive, Refugee Action
I hope you will take time to read this letter closely with open minds.
First, they were outraged at the thought of asylum seekers being temporarily housed, through no fault or choice of their own, in a hotel on the coast.
Then, they railed against the cost of the asylum system.
And then they wrote an aggressive, misleading attack on some of the most vulnerable people in the country.
We, the Regugee Council, were extremely concerned and we weren’t the only ones. We quickly teamed up with our friends Refugee Action and the British Red Cross to write a response. We wanted the chance to set the record straight, and give Express readers a more accurate understanding of who asylum seekers are, and why it’s vital we protect them.
Sadly, the Daily Express failed to publish our letter.
So here it is, in full.
Dear Sir,
The stream of aggressive stories about asylum seekers appearing in this paper in recent days is of serious concern to all of us who work with and support people fleeing persecution.
Your readers would be forgiven for thinking the UK is being flooded by asylum seekers. This couldn’t be further from the truth, with asylum applications around the 23,000 mark a year the UK is home to less than 1 per cent of the world’s refugees and takes proportionately below the EU average.
To characterise the people housed in Folkestone as having a ‘lovely break’ by the sea that Brits would be envious of is hugely misleading and dangerous.
Asylum seekers are people who have often fled horrifying experiences in their home countries. Some have been raped. Some have been tortured. Many have witnessed the death of a loved one. Be assured, people who have suffered extreme trauma and whose lives are hanging in the balance will not be focusing on the sea view of temporary room.
There are no refugee visas available for people fleeing persecution. The fact that people are forced to travel clandestinely is recognised within the Refugee Convention and British Law. Entering Britain illegally can be a necessity; it is not an indication of the validity of someone’s asylum claim.
Additionally, appealing a refusal does not indicate someone cheating the system. Decisions on asylum claims can be life or death and the appeal overturn rate shows the Government frequently gets it wrong the first time.
Stirring up hostility against asylum seekers is as unwelcome as it is unsavoury in a country with a proud tradition of protecting refugees.
Maurice Wren, Chief Executive, Refugee Council
Mike Adamson, Acting Chief Executive, British Red Cross
Dave Garratt, Chief Executive, Refugee Action
I hope you will take time to read this letter closely with open minds.
Answers
Scotland has taken, and is taking, its share https://
15:29 Sun 18th Sep 2016
“The fact that people are forced to travel clandestinely is recognised within the Refugee Convention and British Law…”
No it isn’t. Before becoming over-generous with other people’s money in support of these people, Maggiebee, you should understand that few of them properly qualify for asylum status. You (and your colleagues) need to familiarise yourself with Article 31 of the 1951 UN Convention on the Status of Refugees (which governs these issues). You can look it up yourself, but here’s a transcript:
Article 31 - Refugees unlawfully in the country of refuge
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.
Note the opening phrase:
“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…”
People who arrive in the UK from other European countries (which is around 99% of so-called refugees) have not come “…directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened…” and so are liable to penalties for illegal entry. In short, once they fail to present themselves to the authorities in the first safe country they arrive in, they lose the protection of refugee status and are simply illegal immigrants. The EU’s own (somewhat unnecessary) Dublin Agreement reinforces this as far as arrivals in the EU are concerned.
“Entering Britain illegally can be a necessity; it is not an indication of the validity of someone’s asylum claim.”
There is no necessity for anybody to seek refuge in the UK having come from, say, France and illegal entry is an indication of the (in)validity of their claim as you can see from Article 31. I can understand the tendency for Messrs. Wren, Adamson and Garratt to support illegal immigrants (in view of the organisations they represent) but when writing open letters to the national press they should at least have the decency to familiarise themselves with the relevant conventions and agreements.
No it isn’t. Before becoming over-generous with other people’s money in support of these people, Maggiebee, you should understand that few of them properly qualify for asylum status. You (and your colleagues) need to familiarise yourself with Article 31 of the 1951 UN Convention on the Status of Refugees (which governs these issues). You can look it up yourself, but here’s a transcript:
Article 31 - Refugees unlawfully in the country of refuge
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.
Note the opening phrase:
“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…”
People who arrive in the UK from other European countries (which is around 99% of so-called refugees) have not come “…directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened…” and so are liable to penalties for illegal entry. In short, once they fail to present themselves to the authorities in the first safe country they arrive in, they lose the protection of refugee status and are simply illegal immigrants. The EU’s own (somewhat unnecessary) Dublin Agreement reinforces this as far as arrivals in the EU are concerned.
“Entering Britain illegally can be a necessity; it is not an indication of the validity of someone’s asylum claim.”
There is no necessity for anybody to seek refuge in the UK having come from, say, France and illegal entry is an indication of the (in)validity of their claim as you can see from Article 31. I can understand the tendency for Messrs. Wren, Adamson and Garratt to support illegal immigrants (in view of the organisations they represent) but when writing open letters to the national press they should at least have the decency to familiarise themselves with the relevant conventions and agreements.
Please don't shoot the messenger. Each and every one of you is entitled to your opinions. This is a genuine letter posted to the Daily Express who chose not to publish it - rightly or wrongly. There is a vast difference between asylum seekers and illegal immigrants and most of you will know the difference.
I admit I thought it was you and your group maggie. Perhaps if you'd put the following passage (not the letter itself) in quotes and said when that was actually written (which still isn't clear to me) it would not be misleading
"We, the Regugee Council..... We quickly teamed up with our friends ..... We wanted the chance to set the record straight.......we protect them.
Sadly, the Daily Express failed to publish our letter"
"We, the Regugee Council..... We quickly teamed up with our friends ..... We wanted the chance to set the record straight.......we protect them.
Sadly, the Daily Express failed to publish our letter"
// "awa an' bile yer heid"//
here's a similar story about winning arguments.....
http://
here's a similar story about winning arguments.....
http://
maggiebee; You asked us to "read the letter closely", I did. Would you please do likewise to this below, and if you would like more Syrian immigrants in Scotland please approach the Police Chiefs of Berlin, Munich and Cologne, they are incandescent with rage at what their officers are facing at the behest of the countries politicians.
'Nearly 900 Syrians in Britain were arrested in 2015 for crimes including rape and child abuse, police statistics revealed. The British government has pledged to resettle up to 20,000 Syrian refugees in the UK by the end of 2020. "The government seems not to have vetted those it has invited into the country," said MEP Ray Finch. The disclosure came after Northumbria Police and the BBC were accused of covering up allegations that a gang of Syrians sexually assaulted two teenage girls in a park in Newcastle.
Male refugees settling in Britain must receive formal training on how to treat women, a senior Labour MP said. Thangam Debbonaire, chairman of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Refugees, called for a "refugee integration strategy" so that men "understand what is expected of them." She said it could help prevent sexual harassment and issues "including genital mutilation."
Jane Collins, MEP for the UK Independence Party (UKIP), launched a petition calling for the BBC to stop using the term "honor killing." The petition says the term "cultural murder" should be used instead.'
'Nearly 900 Syrians in Britain were arrested in 2015 for crimes including rape and child abuse, police statistics revealed. The British government has pledged to resettle up to 20,000 Syrian refugees in the UK by the end of 2020. "The government seems not to have vetted those it has invited into the country," said MEP Ray Finch. The disclosure came after Northumbria Police and the BBC were accused of covering up allegations that a gang of Syrians sexually assaulted two teenage girls in a park in Newcastle.
Male refugees settling in Britain must receive formal training on how to treat women, a senior Labour MP said. Thangam Debbonaire, chairman of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Refugees, called for a "refugee integration strategy" so that men "understand what is expected of them." She said it could help prevent sexual harassment and issues "including genital mutilation."
Jane Collins, MEP for the UK Independence Party (UKIP), launched a petition calling for the BBC to stop using the term "honor killing." The petition says the term "cultural murder" should be used instead.'
"There is a vast difference between asylum seekers and illegal immigrants and most of you will know the difference."
Indeed there is. I know the difference and have explained it in my earlier post. Unfortunately you seem to have chosen not to comment on it. One of the reasons the Express may have chosen not to publish the letter is that it states things that are factually incorrect. I know that doesn't normally stop newspapers from publishing things but you cannot complain if they do not publish such inaccuracies.
Indeed there is. I know the difference and have explained it in my earlier post. Unfortunately you seem to have chosen not to comment on it. One of the reasons the Express may have chosen not to publish the letter is that it states things that are factually incorrect. I know that doesn't normally stop newspapers from publishing things but you cannot complain if they do not publish such inaccuracies.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles54 mins ago
ChatterBank61 mins ago
ChatterBank66 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles69 mins ago
So Lets Shaft Our Farmers.....
News74 mins ago
