Am I Right To Be Feeling This Way?
Family Life1 min ago
A Thousand In One Day
https:/
What is the answer to this out of control situation?
Enough is enough !
What is the answer to this out of control situation?
Enough is enough !
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Bobbisox1. 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.
-- answer removed --
What gets me about him is the fact he says he will never live in the UK again yet spends most of his day on here moaning about things that do not affect him except that he says he is a landlord which with higher interest rates should actually be in his favour either with his rents or with money he has in the bank. When asked a question he either disappears from the thread or ignores it altogether. Also if where he lives is so great why on earth would you want to be on answerbank all the time.
If you are concerned about illegal immigration (& a few other things leading the country to the dogs) why not check out Peter Whittle's speech from the recent SDP conference? There's a link to it on here;
https:/
I would think all countries could do without illegal immigration but finding a way to stop it is the problem. Most of the EU seem to let them go through to other countries so they don't have to deal with it themselves. Then you get some on here saying it is all Brexit's fault when as most know it has nothing to do with it.
//It's got a huge moat called the Channel, it's policing it that is the problem.//
Whether it’s a problem or not is unknown, Khandro, because it’s not been attempted since 1945. On the contrary, the UK’s maritime agencies (the Border Farce, the RNLI and occasionally the Royal Navy) have been actively assisting those who set out to imperil themselves. They do this by either taking them in tow or disembarking passengers from their rubber boats mid-Channel and bringing them ashore in the UK.
If the coast was being policed with the best efforts available but illegal entrants were still getting through I would have some sympathy. But plainly it is not and I don’t. This problem will continue – and exacerbate - unless and until they are physically prevented from landing here. After all, what’s not to like? You are living in squalor in northern France, so you set out in a rubber boat to cross the Channel, you get picked up by a larger vessel soon after you are in UK waters and are taken to a reception centre. Once there you are given free board and lodging (and however “terrible” it may be, it almost certainly beats living in a tent in the mud). As well as that, any medical treatment you require will be provided and any legal assistance you need (particularly to frustrate any efforts to deport you) will also be provided (both free of charge, natch). After an outrageously long period there (perhaps three or four weeks) you are found hotel accommodation.
The people of this country are being taken for a monumental ride. It is costing a fortune (£2bn per year and rising, just for accommodation), it is creating serious problems in many areas (but not in Paignton, apparently) and it is a scandal of epic proportions.
//These holding centres are terribly overcrowded. There is frequent outbreaks of diphtheria, whilst scabies is said to run rife.//
Oh dear! How sad! Never mind! If it's worse than living in the mud in Calais I'm sure there are ways they can get back.
Whether it’s a problem or not is unknown, Khandro, because it’s not been attempted since 1945. On the contrary, the UK’s maritime agencies (the Border Farce, the RNLI and occasionally the Royal Navy) have been actively assisting those who set out to imperil themselves. They do this by either taking them in tow or disembarking passengers from their rubber boats mid-Channel and bringing them ashore in the UK.
If the coast was being policed with the best efforts available but illegal entrants were still getting through I would have some sympathy. But plainly it is not and I don’t. This problem will continue – and exacerbate - unless and until they are physically prevented from landing here. After all, what’s not to like? You are living in squalor in northern France, so you set out in a rubber boat to cross the Channel, you get picked up by a larger vessel soon after you are in UK waters and are taken to a reception centre. Once there you are given free board and lodging (and however “terrible” it may be, it almost certainly beats living in a tent in the mud). As well as that, any medical treatment you require will be provided and any legal assistance you need (particularly to frustrate any efforts to deport you) will also be provided (both free of charge, natch). After an outrageously long period there (perhaps three or four weeks) you are found hotel accommodation.
The people of this country are being taken for a monumental ride. It is costing a fortune (£2bn per year and rising, just for accommodation), it is creating serious problems in many areas (but not in Paignton, apparently) and it is a scandal of epic proportions.
//These holding centres are terribly overcrowded. There is frequent outbreaks of diphtheria, whilst scabies is said to run rife.//
Oh dear! How sad! Never mind! If it's worse than living in the mud in Calais I'm sure there are ways they can get back.
article 14 of the 1948 universal declaration of human rights includes the right to seek asylum in a country other than your own… (as i understand it this does not mean a right to have your application granted)
the 1951 UN declaration on the status of refugees also includes protection against being returned to a country in which a given person is being persecuted and against being penalised for entering a country without permission for the purposes of exercising their right to claim asylum
the uk is a signatory to both of these documents.
https:/
the uk government has however decreed that it will only consider applications for asylum from people who are actually in the UK at the time of their application and has simultaneously closed all safe and legal routes to entering the uk for the purposes of claiming asylum.
https:/
the result is that people who wish to claim asylum here - or people who are pretending to do that (either on purpose or by coercion) are forced to make illegal crossings over a stretch of water that is extremely difficult to police…
if we want this problem to stop then we need to pragmatic. We need to set up safe and viable routes for claiming asylum in the UK outside of the uk and to consider applications there. it is hardline posturing on immigration that has caused this problem, combined with a global increase in displaced persons.
the 1951 UN declaration on the status of refugees also includes protection against being returned to a country in which a given person is being persecuted and against being penalised for entering a country without permission for the purposes of exercising their right to claim asylum
the uk is a signatory to both of these documents.
https:/
the uk government has however decreed that it will only consider applications for asylum from people who are actually in the UK at the time of their application and has simultaneously closed all safe and legal routes to entering the uk for the purposes of claiming asylum.
https:/
the result is that people who wish to claim asylum here - or people who are pretending to do that (either on purpose or by coercion) are forced to make illegal crossings over a stretch of water that is extremely difficult to police…
if we want this problem to stop then we need to pragmatic. We need to set up safe and viable routes for claiming asylum in the UK outside of the uk and to consider applications there. it is hardline posturing on immigration that has caused this problem, combined with a global increase in displaced persons.
//..the uk is a signatory to both of these documents.//
Yes I know that. But if we're quoting international law, I also know that the Article 31 of the 1951 Declaration which you cite says this:
"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, 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."
Nobody who enters the UK from France is coming "...directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened." So, by implication, if the receiving State cannot impose penalties on those who do arrive directly, it should be legitimate to impose penalties on those who don't.
However, that is somewhat by the way. The vast majority of arrivals from France are not asylum seekers. They are economic migrants. In particular, those from Albania have no grounds whatsoever to seek asylum. Albania is a peaceful European country and a candidate nation to join the EU. The government should state this as a fact and demonstrate that it will not entertain any asylum claims made by Albanians. They should be returned to Albania immediately.
However, a bit wider than that, the declarations you cite are over seventy years old and are no longer fit for purpose. It is preposterous that any nation should suffer an influx of up to 1,000 migrants a day and be expected to feed and accommodate them on demand. It is interesting to compare the treatment that illegal migrants to the UK receive with that meted out to those intending to invade the Spanish enclave of Melilla in North Africa:
https:/
This was just four months ago and, as far as I can recall, was not widely publicised in the UK. The Spanish are also signatories to the Conventions you cite. But they clearly viewed this an illegal invasion of their territory. It is no different in principle to those trying to enter the UK by boat but the approach taken is vastly different - and far more appropriate.
It is clear that the UK cannot sustain an influx of homeless migrants at the rate currently taking place. If the UN Conventions say that it must, then it is time for the UK to consider its position with regards to those conventions.
Yes I know that. But if we're quoting international law, I also know that the Article 31 of the 1951 Declaration which you cite says this:
"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, 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."
Nobody who enters the UK from France is coming "...directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened." So, by implication, if the receiving State cannot impose penalties on those who do arrive directly, it should be legitimate to impose penalties on those who don't.
However, that is somewhat by the way. The vast majority of arrivals from France are not asylum seekers. They are economic migrants. In particular, those from Albania have no grounds whatsoever to seek asylum. Albania is a peaceful European country and a candidate nation to join the EU. The government should state this as a fact and demonstrate that it will not entertain any asylum claims made by Albanians. They should be returned to Albania immediately.
However, a bit wider than that, the declarations you cite are over seventy years old and are no longer fit for purpose. It is preposterous that any nation should suffer an influx of up to 1,000 migrants a day and be expected to feed and accommodate them on demand. It is interesting to compare the treatment that illegal migrants to the UK receive with that meted out to those intending to invade the Spanish enclave of Melilla in North Africa:
https:/
This was just four months ago and, as far as I can recall, was not widely publicised in the UK. The Spanish are also signatories to the Conventions you cite. But they clearly viewed this an illegal invasion of their territory. It is no different in principle to those trying to enter the UK by boat but the approach taken is vastly different - and far more appropriate.
It is clear that the UK cannot sustain an influx of homeless migrants at the rate currently taking place. If the UN Conventions say that it must, then it is time for the UK to consider its position with regards to those conventions.
