Film, Media & TV8 mins ago
Record Number Of Migrants Cross The Channel.
41 Answers
https:/
Interesting to read this BBC footnote on terminology:
/// A note on terminology: The BBC uses the term migrant to refer to all people on the move who have yet to complete the legal process of claiming asylum. This group includes people fleeing war-torn countries, who are likely to be granted refugee status, as well as people who are seeking jobs and better lives, who governments are likely to rule are economic migrants. ///
Surely in this case there is legal process of claiming asylum, they are illegal entrants into our country.
On second thoughts however, they are not since it was our rescue boats that brought them into this country, and they themselves didn't enter it illegally.
If people are fleeing worn torn countries etc, then fair enough but are they not legally expected to apply for asylum in the first safe country they come to, and they pass through many of those so as to get to this land of milk and honey.
Interesting to read this BBC footnote on terminology:
/// A note on terminology: The BBC uses the term migrant to refer to all people on the move who have yet to complete the legal process of claiming asylum. This group includes people fleeing war-torn countries, who are likely to be granted refugee status, as well as people who are seeking jobs and better lives, who governments are likely to rule are economic migrants. ///
Surely in this case there is legal process of claiming asylum, they are illegal entrants into our country.
On second thoughts however, they are not since it was our rescue boats that brought them into this country, and they themselves didn't enter it illegally.
If people are fleeing worn torn countries etc, then fair enough but are they not legally expected to apply for asylum in the first safe country they come to, and they pass through many of those so as to get to this land of milk and honey.
Answers
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.
// The EU wants to force the UK to take a share of refugees.
Brussels, Germany and France want to force all EU nations—including Britain—to take their share of up to 160,000 refugees." //
That was a scare story in the Daily Express from 4 years ago, and was a load of nonsense. It never happened.
// We have what's often referred to as an opt-out, although strictly speaking what happens is that EU laws on the likes of asylum and border control don't apply to the UK unless we choose to opt in. //
We didn’t opt in.
https:/
Brussels, Germany and France want to force all EU nations—including Britain—to take their share of up to 160,000 refugees." //
That was a scare story in the Daily Express from 4 years ago, and was a load of nonsense. It never happened.
// We have what's often referred to as an opt-out, although strictly speaking what happens is that EU laws on the likes of asylum and border control don't apply to the UK unless we choose to opt in. //
We didn’t opt in.
https:/
//That was a scare story in the Daily Express from 4 years ago, and was a load of nonsense. It never happened.//
It wasn't a scare story. It was a firm proposal from the EU to enforce a "relocation" scheme upon its members in the wake of the 2015 migrant "crisis" which, apparently, took the EU by surprise (after Frau Merkel had invited upwards of a million people to come to the EU).
In true EU style, some four years later, discussions are still ongoing. The latest plan is that some countries may be able to "buy" their way out of the responsibilities the EU wants to place on them under their "solidarity" plan. (Broadly speaking that is a plan where the EU nations show their "solidarity" by each having to take a quota of migrants from the influx that has hit Italy, Greece and Hungary).
These plans were not (and are still not) mandatory though at the outset it was clearly suggested that the UK should do its bit by accepting a quota of the first 40,000 people to be relocated. Of course since June 2016 the UK has not been party to any further talks of any significance on the matter.
Of course missing from all these talks is the acceptance that whilst migrants can be relocated to a place of the EU's choosing, unless they are to be placed under house arrest there is no guarantee they will remain where they are put. Incredible as it may seem, with the open borders provided by the ludicrous Schengen agreement, they tend to move about.
It wasn't a scare story. It was a firm proposal from the EU to enforce a "relocation" scheme upon its members in the wake of the 2015 migrant "crisis" which, apparently, took the EU by surprise (after Frau Merkel had invited upwards of a million people to come to the EU).
In true EU style, some four years later, discussions are still ongoing. The latest plan is that some countries may be able to "buy" their way out of the responsibilities the EU wants to place on them under their "solidarity" plan. (Broadly speaking that is a plan where the EU nations show their "solidarity" by each having to take a quota of migrants from the influx that has hit Italy, Greece and Hungary).
These plans were not (and are still not) mandatory though at the outset it was clearly suggested that the UK should do its bit by accepting a quota of the first 40,000 people to be relocated. Of course since June 2016 the UK has not been party to any further talks of any significance on the matter.
Of course missing from all these talks is the acceptance that whilst migrants can be relocated to a place of the EU's choosing, unless they are to be placed under house arrest there is no guarantee they will remain where they are put. Incredible as it may seem, with the open borders provided by the ludicrous Schengen agreement, they tend to move about.
Now this is what I call flimsy !
https:/
https:/
Far worse than any EU quota system is the agreement to a UN policy document on immigration recently endorsed (by May inter alia) at Marrakesh, which effectively gives any aspiring third world citizen the right to relocate himeself and his family to any rich democracy of his choosing and enjoy all the rights of that country's citizens.
https:/
https:/
Gromit, you posted at 1446: "There were 6000 less asylum claims last year as a result of better prevention of illegals coming in lorries by ferry and tunnel.
As that route is made more difficult, more are resorting to the far riskier method of attempting to get here by small boat. The rise in boat crossings is a direct result of our success in reducing stowaways in lorries." Now how do you know for a fact, that fewer illegal migrants got into the country by this method. Has it crossed your mind that the people-smugglers could have become much more efficient in their methods of secreting illegals in the vehicles and improving other aspects of their operations?
As that route is made more difficult, more are resorting to the far riskier method of attempting to get here by small boat. The rise in boat crossings is a direct result of our success in reducing stowaways in lorries." Now how do you know for a fact, that fewer illegal migrants got into the country by this method. Has it crossed your mind that the people-smugglers could have become much more efficient in their methods of secreting illegals in the vehicles and improving other aspects of their operations?
//Now how do you know for a fact, that fewer illegal migrants got into the country by this method//
I don't think Gromit gives a damnd whether it's true or not, Sanmac. He appears to think (just my inference based on his posts) that immigration of any sort, legal or illegal, and from anywhere is a good thing because, presumably, it contributes, firstly, to the UK's diversity (which as we all know is "our strength") and, secondly, dilutes national identity and Englishness (which we are constantly reminded are matters of shame).
I don't think Gromit gives a damnd whether it's true or not, Sanmac. He appears to think (just my inference based on his posts) that immigration of any sort, legal or illegal, and from anywhere is a good thing because, presumably, it contributes, firstly, to the UK's diversity (which as we all know is "our strength") and, secondly, dilutes national identity and Englishness (which we are constantly reminded are matters of shame).
'I don't think Gromit gives a damnd whether it's true or not...'
He is not alone there:
"...the agreement to a UN policy document on immigration recently endorsed (by May inter alia) at Marrakesh, which effectively gives any aspiring third world citizen the right to relocate himeself and his family to any rich democracy of his choosing and enjoy all the rights of that country's citizens. "
You refer to 'The Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration (GCM)' , "the Compact is not an international treaty, it will be non-binding under international law." ""The Global Compact reaffirms the sovereign right of States to determine their national migration policy and their prerogative to govern migration within their jurisdiction, in conformity with international law." -WIKIp
"The UK endorsed the deal and praised it as a way to tackle illegal migration as well as keeping migrants around the world safe
The government has been clear that the UN agreement will not change the ability of the UK to set its own migration policy.
The compact "protects every state's right to determine its own immigration policies, including in areas such as asylum, border controls and returns of illegal migrants", said Lord Bates, Minister of State at the Department for International Development.
Among those who refused to adopt the deal - in addition to the United States - were Hungary, Austria, Italy, Poland, Slovakia, Chile and Australia."
https:/
Seems USA, etc. above were taking no chances in this non-binding Treaty, but it appears to have you worried v_e, again ?
https:/
He is not alone there:
"...the agreement to a UN policy document on immigration recently endorsed (by May inter alia) at Marrakesh, which effectively gives any aspiring third world citizen the right to relocate himeself and his family to any rich democracy of his choosing and enjoy all the rights of that country's citizens. "
You refer to 'The Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration (GCM)' , "the Compact is not an international treaty, it will be non-binding under international law." ""The Global Compact reaffirms the sovereign right of States to determine their national migration policy and their prerogative to govern migration within their jurisdiction, in conformity with international law." -WIKIp
"The UK endorsed the deal and praised it as a way to tackle illegal migration as well as keeping migrants around the world safe
The government has been clear that the UN agreement will not change the ability of the UK to set its own migration policy.
The compact "protects every state's right to determine its own immigration policies, including in areas such as asylum, border controls and returns of illegal migrants", said Lord Bates, Minister of State at the Department for International Development.
Among those who refused to adopt the deal - in addition to the United States - were Hungary, Austria, Italy, Poland, Slovakia, Chile and Australia."
https:/
Seems USA, etc. above were taking no chances in this non-binding Treaty, but it appears to have you worried v_e, again ?
https:/
Thanks for citing my thread of last November, SevenOP. Had totallly forgotten it.
And thanks for the citation on the current thread of Lord Bates's anodyne reassurances about "protection". Is Lord Bates a confirmatory example of the Peter Principle whereby people are promoted one level (although, in the exceptional case of His Lordship, several) above their competence.
I see the novel solution to the problem of "illegal" immigration is to abolish the designation.God Almighty, where do we get these clowns?
And thanks for the citation on the current thread of Lord Bates's anodyne reassurances about "protection". Is Lord Bates a confirmatory example of the Peter Principle whereby people are promoted one level (although, in the exceptional case of His Lordship, several) above their competence.
I see the novel solution to the problem of "illegal" immigration is to abolish the designation.God Almighty, where do we get these clowns?
My apologies for not mentioning 'the basic fact' you wanted to hear sanmac, the flowerpot men had not informed me that was mandatory.
v_e, I have no knowledge of Michael Baron Bates beyond he has walked several thousand miles in support of the United Nations 'Olympic Truce' and is now a member of The House of Lords, the former indicating naivety and possible hypocrisy, the latter conformity.
A solution to illegal immigration (and illegal drug/arms/sex trafficking/human trafficking/ organs/etc ) would be well manned borders force, compulsory examined ALL imports AND exports - human,animal and merchandise ; it would provide jobs, secure borders, maybe reduce crime. Of course as it would interfere with profits there is zero chance of implementation.
v_e, I have no knowledge of Michael Baron Bates beyond he has walked several thousand miles in support of the United Nations 'Olympic Truce' and is now a member of The House of Lords, the former indicating naivety and possible hypocrisy, the latter conformity.
A solution to illegal immigration (and illegal drug/arms/sex trafficking/human trafficking/ organs/etc ) would be well manned borders force, compulsory examined ALL imports AND exports - human,animal and merchandise ; it would provide jobs, secure borders, maybe reduce crime. Of course as it would interfere with profits there is zero chance of implementation.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank11 mins ago
Society & Culture17 mins ago
Body & Soul28 mins ago
Crosswords34 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.