Iwant To Make My Wishes About End Of My...
Law4 mins ago
Absolutely No Need For This Sort Of Thing.
236 Answers
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by douglas9401. 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.
Canary, you should watch your language. Many would consider that insulting…. me for one. Objecting to your country being invaded on a daily basis by economic migrants who are not only costing the taxpayer a fortune but many of whom plan a career in crime does not render people who disagree with you xenophobic.
A question for you. Why do you want them here?
A question for you. Why do you want them here?
the royal navy has already been tasked with patrolling the English channel... they have announced that this operation is being scaled back because they cannot spare the vessels...
https:/
it is not accurate to claim for certain that the migrants crossing the channel are not refugees... there is very little recent information available on this subject but a proportion of them do in fact claim asylum when they reach the uk... this is something they have every right to do. It is also at present the only way to claim asylum in this country due to a decision by the home office to refuse all applications for asylum made from outside the uk.
the result is that genuine asylum seekers and organised criminals make the crossings illegally at the same time... the former used as a smokescreen by the latter. As a result of our own policy we cannot process applications anywhere else but here.
towing the boats back to france is a non starter as uk vessels would need to enter french territorial waters for this purpose... they are not going to permit that in a hurry.
the most sensible solution is to process applications for asylum in the uk, in the north of france. This would allow a safe and legal route for asylum seekers and deprive criminals of their smokescreen.
https:/
it is not accurate to claim for certain that the migrants crossing the channel are not refugees... there is very little recent information available on this subject but a proportion of them do in fact claim asylum when they reach the uk... this is something they have every right to do. It is also at present the only way to claim asylum in this country due to a decision by the home office to refuse all applications for asylum made from outside the uk.
the result is that genuine asylum seekers and organised criminals make the crossings illegally at the same time... the former used as a smokescreen by the latter. As a result of our own policy we cannot process applications anywhere else but here.
towing the boats back to france is a non starter as uk vessels would need to enter french territorial waters for this purpose... they are not going to permit that in a hurry.
the most sensible solution is to process applications for asylum in the uk, in the north of france. This would allow a safe and legal route for asylum seekers and deprive criminals of their smokescreen.
//Xenophobes having their usual field day on this one.//
It is not xenophobic to want to control your country's borders. And, as above, it is insulting to suggest that it is.
//It is also at present the only way to claim asylum in this country due to a decision by the home office to refuse all applications for asylum made from outside the uk.//
They have no reason to claim asylum in this country as they are already in a safe country. Because the UN has declared A31 of its 1951 Convention to not mean what it says doesn't alter the fact that penalties can (and should) be imposed on people found to have landed without leave, having arrived from a country where they are not at risk.
//...the most sensible solution is to process applications for asylum in the uk, in the north of france.//
I would suggest not. This country has no resources or facilities to accommodate asylum seekers (as is evident from the recent shambles), wherever their claims are processed. The most sensible solution, therefore, would be to declare that we are no longer able to accommodate those seeking asylum.
It is not xenophobic to want to control your country's borders. And, as above, it is insulting to suggest that it is.
//It is also at present the only way to claim asylum in this country due to a decision by the home office to refuse all applications for asylum made from outside the uk.//
They have no reason to claim asylum in this country as they are already in a safe country. Because the UN has declared A31 of its 1951 Convention to not mean what it says doesn't alter the fact that penalties can (and should) be imposed on people found to have landed without leave, having arrived from a country where they are not at risk.
//...the most sensible solution is to process applications for asylum in the uk, in the north of france.//
I would suggest not. This country has no resources or facilities to accommodate asylum seekers (as is evident from the recent shambles), wherever their claims are processed. The most sensible solution, therefore, would be to declare that we are no longer able to accommodate those seeking asylum.
are they eligible to claim asylum in france? i do not know what the french criteria for asylum applicants are (if any) as i am unable to read french...
some asylum seekers seek to do so in the uk either because they have English as a second language or because they have existing connections to other people settled here
some asylum seekers seek to do so in the uk either because they have English as a second language or because they have existing connections to other people settled here
The only solution is to withdraw from the ECHR mess, redraft our own HRA to value th victims not the criminal and readdress the Modern Slavery Act to stop it being abused by the scum lawyers.
Oh, and stop legal aid to foreigners and no hotel or money or anything apart from a plane ride to where ever, eg Rwanda.
Need to drain the swamp of the Home Office luvvies too.
Oh, and stop legal aid to foreigners and no hotel or money or anything apart from a plane ride to where ever, eg Rwanda.
Need to drain the swamp of the Home Office luvvies too.
//…some asylum seekers seek to do so in the uk either because they have English as a second language or because they have existing connections to other people settled here//
Indeed. But that isn’t the purpose of asylum. Its function is to provide a place of safety for those fleeing places where their lives or safety are in danger. It is not a system where those who simply don’t like where they are to roam the world until they reach the destination of their choice. Nobody in France is in danger.
The criteria for being eligible for asylum in France are the same as they are here and if France is dopey enough to continue to subscribe to the ridiculous EU Schengen scheme (meaning they cannot control their borders) then they should deal with anybody who pitches up.
//…what would be the implications of the UK withdrawing from the UN over the asylum and refugee declarations?//
There is no need for the UK to withdraw from the UN. It simply withdraws as a signatory to the 1951 Convention on the treatment of refugees. That convention has been distorted (principally by the UN itself) so that asylum is now seen as a trump card for migrants to settle where they wish. It is not; it was designed as a means for people to get to safety. If the terms of the convention have been unilaterally changed by the UN, signatories are entitled to withdraw. It’s about time people wised up to what is going on here and not simply accept their politicians continually bleating that their hands are tied.
Indeed. But that isn’t the purpose of asylum. Its function is to provide a place of safety for those fleeing places where their lives or safety are in danger. It is not a system where those who simply don’t like where they are to roam the world until they reach the destination of their choice. Nobody in France is in danger.
The criteria for being eligible for asylum in France are the same as they are here and if France is dopey enough to continue to subscribe to the ridiculous EU Schengen scheme (meaning they cannot control their borders) then they should deal with anybody who pitches up.
//…what would be the implications of the UK withdrawing from the UN over the asylum and refugee declarations?//
There is no need for the UK to withdraw from the UN. It simply withdraws as a signatory to the 1951 Convention on the treatment of refugees. That convention has been distorted (principally by the UN itself) so that asylum is now seen as a trump card for migrants to settle where they wish. It is not; it was designed as a means for people to get to safety. If the terms of the convention have been unilaterally changed by the UN, signatories are entitled to withdraw. It’s about time people wised up to what is going on here and not simply accept their politicians continually bleating that their hands are tied.
makes no difference if labour get in, the unemployed and migrats must be ther main voter base, anyone well paid is a target..except themselves, to me they are just a radical party of misfits, who have there own agenda, there own cash comes first obviously, but let's not get ahead of anything ermmm yea right, work your but of make a business that successful, your a target.
