Shopping & Style0 min ago
Why Do Illegal Immigrants Not Apply For Asylum In The E U S S R?
140 Answers
https:/
We are always being told by the anti British and LibFac hordes that UK is the lowest of the low and heaven lies across the channel. Why then do thousands risk death to get to this "terrible" country. Surely they should apply for asylum in the utopia they are already in. France ain't too bad is it?
We are always being told by the anti British and LibFac hordes that UK is the lowest of the low and heaven lies across the channel. Why then do thousands risk death to get to this "terrible" country. Surely they should apply for asylum in the utopia they are already in. France ain't too bad is it?
Answers
The vast majority of the channel crossers are exploited by people traffickers. The way to deal with this difficult issue is to work with France and other countries to smash these criminal gangs.
10:46 Tue 11th Aug 2020
//
Cashier, I picked two from the link and neither are sub standard as stated in the Independent //
Please can people look at the reliability of the links they are citing? The one referred to here appears to have been set up by some unknown right wing froth merchant.
There are no reliable figures that I can find regarding these luxury hotel vs rat infested slum stats since the Government does not release them. That's not to say it doesn't happen that people are put in hotels - I'm sure it does happen - but I know from first hand experience that people are being placed in otherwise barely lettable accommodation.
Cashier, I picked two from the link and neither are sub standard as stated in the Independent //
Please can people look at the reliability of the links they are citing? The one referred to here appears to have been set up by some unknown right wing froth merchant.
There are no reliable figures that I can find regarding these luxury hotel vs rat infested slum stats since the Government does not release them. That's not to say it doesn't happen that people are put in hotels - I'm sure it does happen - but I know from first hand experience that people are being placed in otherwise barely lettable accommodation.
Chinajan
I do write facts so please do not accuse me otherwise. There is nothing untrue that I have quoted.
Never heard of Natasha Bouchart before ? Educate yourself.
Mayor of Calais Natacha Bouchart blames British benefits ...
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/...
28/10/2014 · Mayor of Calais Natacha Bouchart blames British benefits system for migrant influx Politician in charge of the French port tells British MPs that generous handout to asylum seekers in Britain.
https:/
https:/
https:/
I do write facts so please do not accuse me otherwise. There is nothing untrue that I have quoted.
Never heard of Natasha Bouchart before ? Educate yourself.
Mayor of Calais Natacha Bouchart blames British benefits ...
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/...
28/10/2014 · Mayor of Calais Natacha Bouchart blames British benefits system for migrant influx Politician in charge of the French port tells British MPs that generous handout to asylum seekers in Britain.
https:/
https:/
https:/
// started prattling on about the Geneva Convention.//
er typical AB - the geneva convention governs tmt of refugees and has the force of law in the UK since Britain has signed (*)
now that is very interesting since you have got me prattling
( A thousand ABers scream ( they always scream for some reason) no ! No ! please no! )
isnt it Morgan v Petersen 1897 ( yes it is) that said that treaties were incorporated into english law? but THAT meant the sovereign who signed da teengs see? could legislate by treaty
George V in a rare mistake said he didnt want to sign the Treaty of Brest Litovisk in er 1922 becaus 'the other side 'had butchered his cousins. and Lloyd George ( the Old Goat yeah him) said o never mind your majesty I will in future all of them
( geddit ? power pass from the sovereign to the prime mininister in a significant way)
and Now I think there are enabling acts
BUT as happened with Maastricht
the MPs put down amendments - always to almost always
originally to naturally
little tidy up s the good elected members thought improved the draft and Made the Treaty Much Better
and were told it was All or None
they would have none of it ! oh no !
As Palmerston said - Parliament cant do anything at all but it can do some very odd things
finally after arm twisting and so on = passed as was
er typical AB - the geneva convention governs tmt of refugees and has the force of law in the UK since Britain has signed (*)
now that is very interesting since you have got me prattling
( A thousand ABers scream ( they always scream for some reason) no ! No ! please no! )
isnt it Morgan v Petersen 1897 ( yes it is) that said that treaties were incorporated into english law? but THAT meant the sovereign who signed da teengs see? could legislate by treaty
George V in a rare mistake said he didnt want to sign the Treaty of Brest Litovisk in er 1922 becaus 'the other side 'had butchered his cousins. and Lloyd George ( the Old Goat yeah him) said o never mind your majesty I will in future all of them
( geddit ? power pass from the sovereign to the prime mininister in a significant way)
and Now I think there are enabling acts
BUT as happened with Maastricht
the MPs put down amendments - always to almost always
originally to naturally
little tidy up s the good elected members thought improved the draft and Made the Treaty Much Better
and were told it was All or None
they would have none of it ! oh no !
As Palmerston said - Parliament cant do anything at all but it can do some very odd things
finally after arm twisting and so on = passed as was
allenlondon- I'm sure you know really that there is a world of difference between the Jews who tried to flee Hitler's Germany and the migrants who would be as safe in France (and the other European countries they travelled through) than here but are persuaded by friends and traffickers for some reason that life is even better in UK
//If YOU were in desperate need of help, you too would turn to somewhere that you thought would treat you kindly.//
Yes I would. And I’d make my request for help of the first safe port of call I arrived in. I would not further endanger my life by making a sea crossing in an overloaded rubber boat. These people are not in desperate need of help. They are in France, a fairly civilised, Western European country.
//Be proud of our country’s reputation; don’t live your life in bitterness and hate.//
I don’t like to see our country taken for a ride by a bunch of chancers.
//New Judge it's a pity to spoil an otherwise informative post with rhetoric of this nature; it's reminiscent of low-level froth-provoking tabloid journalism.//
Tell me what’s untrue or inaccurate about my statement, then.
//Presumably, they "prattle on" about the Geneva Convention because the UN Convention on the Status of Refugees is also called the 1951 Geneva Convention.//
Is it? I’ve never seen it referred to as such. I’ve only ever known it as the UN Convention and Protocol on the status of refugees. The Geneva Convention that I know is concerned with the treatment of combatants and civilians in times of war. Having looked it up I see that the latest version of the Geneva Convention was ratified in 1949. The Refugee Convention and protocol was ratified in 1951 and in fact initially only gave protection to those suffering from events that occurred prior to that date.
//Also, can you point to the explicit article that talks about the "first safe country"? It is certainly not there in explicit terms.//
Article 31: Refugees unlawfully in the country of refugee:
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.
Article 32 expulsion: The Contracting States shall not expel a refugee lawfully in their territory save on grounds of national security or public order.
Article 31 clearly differentiates between those arriving directly from a place where they are under threat and those who do not. Those from France do not and the UK is entitled to impose penalties on such illegal entrants. Article 32 prevents expulsion for those lawfully in the country. Those from France (by virtue of A31) are not lawfully in the country.
//Clearly you missed the bit near the start where they wrote,
"The 1951 UN Refugee Convention (also known as the Geneva Convention)"//
No I didn’t. That was “Full Fact” referring to it as such. I don’t see the UN using the term. However, I’ll not argue the point. If some people call it the Geneva Convention they must not be surprised if others believe they are talking about the Convention that protects prisoners of war.
//Then why are they tranported North east to places like Newcastle for instance.
Why can't they be housed in The home Counties ?.//
If you have a look round the Home Counties you will find that many of them are. You will also find a number of them in many of the most expensive parts of London, such as Westminster.
Yes I would. And I’d make my request for help of the first safe port of call I arrived in. I would not further endanger my life by making a sea crossing in an overloaded rubber boat. These people are not in desperate need of help. They are in France, a fairly civilised, Western European country.
//Be proud of our country’s reputation; don’t live your life in bitterness and hate.//
I don’t like to see our country taken for a ride by a bunch of chancers.
//New Judge it's a pity to spoil an otherwise informative post with rhetoric of this nature; it's reminiscent of low-level froth-provoking tabloid journalism.//
Tell me what’s untrue or inaccurate about my statement, then.
//Presumably, they "prattle on" about the Geneva Convention because the UN Convention on the Status of Refugees is also called the 1951 Geneva Convention.//
Is it? I’ve never seen it referred to as such. I’ve only ever known it as the UN Convention and Protocol on the status of refugees. The Geneva Convention that I know is concerned with the treatment of combatants and civilians in times of war. Having looked it up I see that the latest version of the Geneva Convention was ratified in 1949. The Refugee Convention and protocol was ratified in 1951 and in fact initially only gave protection to those suffering from events that occurred prior to that date.
//Also, can you point to the explicit article that talks about the "first safe country"? It is certainly not there in explicit terms.//
Article 31: Refugees unlawfully in the country of refugee:
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.
Article 32 expulsion: The Contracting States shall not expel a refugee lawfully in their territory save on grounds of national security or public order.
Article 31 clearly differentiates between those arriving directly from a place where they are under threat and those who do not. Those from France do not and the UK is entitled to impose penalties on such illegal entrants. Article 32 prevents expulsion for those lawfully in the country. Those from France (by virtue of A31) are not lawfully in the country.
//Clearly you missed the bit near the start where they wrote,
"The 1951 UN Refugee Convention (also known as the Geneva Convention)"//
No I didn’t. That was “Full Fact” referring to it as such. I don’t see the UN using the term. However, I’ll not argue the point. If some people call it the Geneva Convention they must not be surprised if others believe they are talking about the Convention that protects prisoners of war.
//Then why are they tranported North east to places like Newcastle for instance.
Why can't they be housed in The home Counties ?.//
If you have a look round the Home Counties you will find that many of them are. You will also find a number of them in many of the most expensive parts of London, such as Westminster.
However you argue this, the symptoms are the same – the UK is being deluged with people who are entering the country illegally. They are in a safe place but they don’t like it there, they prefer it here. The country has no obligation to allow them entry and no facilities to accommodate them They are bound to end up in sub-standard accommodation and spend their lives living either beneath the radar or very close to it. I don’t feel at all proud that we are “welcoming” such people. They are not refugees and they’ve nothing to flee from. The country is being taken for a ride and if it is party to protocols which forbid it taking preventative measures (which I do not believe) then the time has come to withdraw from those treaties because quite frankly they are being abused. Seriously abused.
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.