ChatterBank1 min ago
Common Sense At Last
https:/
We need to care for our own in these turbulent times , for example our ex servicemen sleeping rough on our streets , and show that the gravy train is going nowhere
We need to care for our own in these turbulent times , for example our ex servicemen sleeping rough on our streets , and show that the gravy train is going nowhere
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.
//On past performance, can we trust any British government to uphold the fundamental rights which safeguard us all.//
I have no doubt that they can. The country has adequate legislation to protect people's "rights" without recourse to supranational organisations over whom it has little if any control. But, once again, it depends upon whose “fundamental rights” you want them to protect and how you define those rights. Personally I don’t believe anybody from abroad should be granted an unfettered right to settle here unless the UK government agrees to their presence and places conditions on their remaining. That way the fundamental rights of the people already here are more likely to be preserved. I also don’t believe anybody from abroad should be granted asylum here unless they arrive directly from a place where they are threatened and the definition of those threats should be very carefully examined. The vast majority of those granted asylum at present would thus not qualify. The idea of asylum was to give shelter and protection to those fleeing danger. People are no longer in danger once they reach a safe country and their asylum claims should be considered there and not left until the claimant reaches the destination of his choice.
//In addition, wouldn't leaving the ECHR be to undermine Churchill's vision on human rights?//
I’m quite sure Churchill did not have in mind the country providing free board and lodging to anybody arriving here who didn’t particularly like it where they came from.
I have no doubt that they can. The country has adequate legislation to protect people's "rights" without recourse to supranational organisations over whom it has little if any control. But, once again, it depends upon whose “fundamental rights” you want them to protect and how you define those rights. Personally I don’t believe anybody from abroad should be granted an unfettered right to settle here unless the UK government agrees to their presence and places conditions on their remaining. That way the fundamental rights of the people already here are more likely to be preserved. I also don’t believe anybody from abroad should be granted asylum here unless they arrive directly from a place where they are threatened and the definition of those threats should be very carefully examined. The vast majority of those granted asylum at present would thus not qualify. The idea of asylum was to give shelter and protection to those fleeing danger. People are no longer in danger once they reach a safe country and their asylum claims should be considered there and not left until the claimant reaches the destination of his choice.
//In addition, wouldn't leaving the ECHR be to undermine Churchill's vision on human rights?//
I’m quite sure Churchill did not have in mind the country providing free board and lodging to anybody arriving here who didn’t particularly like it where they came from.
zebusanctuary: "In addition, wouldn't leaving the ECHR be to undermine Churchill's vision on human rights? " - leaving the ECHR does not mean abandoning human rights it means we'll have our own laws that make sense rather than some foreign imposed charter for criminal scum and a massive pay day for blood sucking lawyers.
NJ, "Personally I don’t believe anybody from abroad should be granted an unfettered right to settle here unless the UK government agrees to their presence and places conditions on their remaining."
If the right to settle has been granted, does that not mean the person must have met whatever conditions were set in order for it to be granted in the first place?
If the right to settle has been granted, does that not mean the person must have met whatever conditions were set in order for it to be granted in the first place?
//If the right to settle has been granted, does that not mean the person must have met whatever conditions were set in order for it to be granted in the first place?//
Alas yes it does, Corby,
But there are three issues that need to be addressed:
The first is that it is quite clear that this country is incapable of assessing asylum claims in a timely manner. This is partly because no country can be expected to properly examine such claims when the numbers are so vast. But even with lower numbers, the torpor with which those responsible for such things seem to be afflicted, coupled with the seemingly endless routes to appeal, mean that once here, an illegal migrant in vanishingly unlikely to be removed. This means that huge numbers of illegal arrivals are being granted "de facto" right to remain: they have not officially been granted that right but are not being denied it either, so they remain here.
Secondly, nobody who arrives from a safe country should have any claim whatsoever considered. Since virtually no arrivals into the UK come from a place where their safety is jeopardised, that rules virtually all of them out from day one. The UN's interpretation of Article 31 of its own Convention makes this quite clear, though in recent years they have sought to place a different interpretation on it to that which was originally intended (and to which the signatories agreed). But instead of placing the Article up for reconsideration, they insist their latest interpretation is the official one, even though it runs contrary to the plain language in which it is written.
Lastly, the reasons given by many of those claiming asylum are very questionable but rarely seem to be questioned. A thorough examination of the acceptable reasons for claiming asylum - and the evidence required to support those claims - needs to be undertaken because it is blindingly obvious that large numbers of those given the right to remain were under no threat in their country of origin, but simply fancied "a better life."
Alas yes it does, Corby,
But there are three issues that need to be addressed:
The first is that it is quite clear that this country is incapable of assessing asylum claims in a timely manner. This is partly because no country can be expected to properly examine such claims when the numbers are so vast. But even with lower numbers, the torpor with which those responsible for such things seem to be afflicted, coupled with the seemingly endless routes to appeal, mean that once here, an illegal migrant in vanishingly unlikely to be removed. This means that huge numbers of illegal arrivals are being granted "de facto" right to remain: they have not officially been granted that right but are not being denied it either, so they remain here.
Secondly, nobody who arrives from a safe country should have any claim whatsoever considered. Since virtually no arrivals into the UK come from a place where their safety is jeopardised, that rules virtually all of them out from day one. The UN's interpretation of Article 31 of its own Convention makes this quite clear, though in recent years they have sought to place a different interpretation on it to that which was originally intended (and to which the signatories agreed). But instead of placing the Article up for reconsideration, they insist their latest interpretation is the official one, even though it runs contrary to the plain language in which it is written.
Lastly, the reasons given by many of those claiming asylum are very questionable but rarely seem to be questioned. A thorough examination of the acceptable reasons for claiming asylum - and the evidence required to support those claims - needs to be undertaken because it is blindingly obvious that large numbers of those given the right to remain were under no threat in their country of origin, but simply fancied "a better life."
Zebu // can we trust any British government to uphold the fundamental rights which safeguard us all. //
NJ // I have no doubt that they can. //
Is this not to contradict your own stance?
Already this year, without any intervention from the ECHR, this government concluded that some Albanians have met the criteria as laid down by UK immigration policy.
As a result, they were granted asylum status.
Clearly then, issues concerning those migrants crossing the channel in dinghies who have landed on our shores, this government has indeed acted of its own accord. Is this not a British government behaving independently which is to align itself with your wishes?
Not only are you against those Albanians which this government has seen fit to award temporary leave to remain, you are vehemently opposed to the 'decision making' by this government which allows them to settle here in the UK.
For those who seek the UK to detach itself from the ECHR, I would say, be careful what you wish for!
NJ //Since virtually no arrivals into the UK come from a place where their safety is jeopardised, that rules virtually all of them out from day one //
This is why each individual case has to be judged on its own merits.
The UKVI issued 1.1 million visas up to the year ending June 2022.
The arrival of 50,000 migrants (in one year) from across the channel means an increase of 4.5% added to their workload.
As govt departments go, I'd say for the UKVI, that's not bad going.
NJ // I have no doubt that they can. //
Is this not to contradict your own stance?
Already this year, without any intervention from the ECHR, this government concluded that some Albanians have met the criteria as laid down by UK immigration policy.
As a result, they were granted asylum status.
Clearly then, issues concerning those migrants crossing the channel in dinghies who have landed on our shores, this government has indeed acted of its own accord. Is this not a British government behaving independently which is to align itself with your wishes?
Not only are you against those Albanians which this government has seen fit to award temporary leave to remain, you are vehemently opposed to the 'decision making' by this government which allows them to settle here in the UK.
For those who seek the UK to detach itself from the ECHR, I would say, be careful what you wish for!
NJ //Since virtually no arrivals into the UK come from a place where their safety is jeopardised, that rules virtually all of them out from day one //
This is why each individual case has to be judged on its own merits.
The UKVI issued 1.1 million visas up to the year ending June 2022.
The arrival of 50,000 migrants (in one year) from across the channel means an increase of 4.5% added to their workload.
As govt departments go, I'd say for the UKVI, that's not bad going.
// Is this not a British government behaving independently which is to align itself with your wishes?.//
//This is why each individual case has to be judged on its own merits.//
See the final paragraph of my previous answer.
//The UKVI issued 1.1 million visas up to the year ending June 2022.//
Which is far too many, but those people arrived here legally.
//The arrival of 50,000 migrants (in one year) from across the channel means an increase of 4.5% added to their workload.//
It means far more than that. The investigations needed to assess an asylum claim requires (or should require) far greater scrutiny than an application for a visa does.
//This is why each individual case has to be judged on its own merits.//
See the final paragraph of my previous answer.
//The UKVI issued 1.1 million visas up to the year ending June 2022.//
Which is far too many, but those people arrived here legally.
//The arrival of 50,000 migrants (in one year) from across the channel means an increase of 4.5% added to their workload.//
It means far more than that. The investigations needed to assess an asylum claim requires (or should require) far greater scrutiny than an application for a visa does.
// The investigations needed to assess an asylum claim requires (or should require) far greater scrutiny than an application for a visa does. //
The UKVI aims to deal with each asylum claim within 6 months. The process can take longer for some applicants.
Presumably you're saying you would approve of a system that takes longer than 6 months. Say, 12 to 24 months?
// The UN's interpretation of Article 31 of its own Convention makes this quite clear //
The UN's original interpretation has become a dead letter.
Give up on it, else risk further angst and possible detriment to your well being.
The UKVI aims to deal with each asylum claim within 6 months. The process can take longer for some applicants.
Presumably you're saying you would approve of a system that takes longer than 6 months. Say, 12 to 24 months?
// The UN's interpretation of Article 31 of its own Convention makes this quite clear //
The UN's original interpretation has become a dead letter.
Give up on it, else risk further angst and possible detriment to your well being.
