Quizzes & Puzzles18 mins ago
Why Are Illegal Immigrants Sailing From Tunisia To Italy?
Whats wrong with Tunisia?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by dave50. 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.
//and despite new judge quoting article 31 there is absolutely nothing in that legislation which forbids refugees from exercising a degree of choice about where they settle//
I've pointed out where it states - in plain English that everyone should be able to understand - that the legislation as it is written does forbid such a choice. The issue is that the UN has chosen to interpret their Convention to mean the opposite of what it says. And national courts have taken that as gospel instead of suggesting that the UN should table an amendment to its Convention and get it agreed by the signatories. The fact is that the Convention was written in a very different era when the thought of vast numbers of people roaming the globe because they do not like it where they are was unthinkable.
//... indeed if we insisted that all refugees should just settle in the countries which happen to neighbour their own then the UK would accept no asylum seekers whatsoever//
They do not have to be neighbours. The requirement is that they arrive directly from a place where they faced danger.
//...including for example ukranians...//
Ukranians were not excluded because they were flown directly to the UK from Ukraine.
//... and those unfortunate countries which neighbour crisis areas would be overwhelmed...//
Bad luck. The alternative is that the UK and other similar countries become overwhelmed (a situation which the UK is fast approaching, and which some would argue has already been reached). That would also be unjust.
//if we did facilitate asylum applications in e.g. france then we would not be faced with that problem//
People in France do not need asylum as they are safe there. But then of course we're back to the principle aim of asylum - is it to provide safe haven to people who are in danger or is it simply to facilitate them settling in the destination of their choice? If you permit asylum claims from people living in France then you obviously believe the latter.
//.. but we won't do that because tory voters i suspect want no asylum seekers to come to this country at all regardless of whether or not they are legimitate//
I think you may find it is not a belief exclusive to Tory voters and why you should suggest it is only you would know.
But returning to practicalities, this country simply does not have the accommodation and services to absorb such large numbers of people. The idea that it somehow "must" find them is fanciful and the end result is a reduction in living standards for those already here. And that really is unjust.
I've pointed out where it states - in plain English that everyone should be able to understand - that the legislation as it is written does forbid such a choice. The issue is that the UN has chosen to interpret their Convention to mean the opposite of what it says. And national courts have taken that as gospel instead of suggesting that the UN should table an amendment to its Convention and get it agreed by the signatories. The fact is that the Convention was written in a very different era when the thought of vast numbers of people roaming the globe because they do not like it where they are was unthinkable.
//... indeed if we insisted that all refugees should just settle in the countries which happen to neighbour their own then the UK would accept no asylum seekers whatsoever//
They do not have to be neighbours. The requirement is that they arrive directly from a place where they faced danger.
//...including for example ukranians...//
Ukranians were not excluded because they were flown directly to the UK from Ukraine.
//... and those unfortunate countries which neighbour crisis areas would be overwhelmed...//
Bad luck. The alternative is that the UK and other similar countries become overwhelmed (a situation which the UK is fast approaching, and which some would argue has already been reached). That would also be unjust.
//if we did facilitate asylum applications in e.g. france then we would not be faced with that problem//
People in France do not need asylum as they are safe there. But then of course we're back to the principle aim of asylum - is it to provide safe haven to people who are in danger or is it simply to facilitate them settling in the destination of their choice? If you permit asylum claims from people living in France then you obviously believe the latter.
//.. but we won't do that because tory voters i suspect want no asylum seekers to come to this country at all regardless of whether or not they are legimitate//
I think you may find it is not a belief exclusive to Tory voters and why you should suggest it is only you would know.
But returning to practicalities, this country simply does not have the accommodation and services to absorb such large numbers of people. The idea that it somehow "must" find them is fanciful and the end result is a reduction in living standards for those already here. And that really is unjust.
just a little something for ya https:/
“ that the legislation as it is written does forbid such a choice.”
that is your opinion which is equally interpretive because it relies on a particular understanding of the word “directly”… in the real world the “directness” of a path between a crisis area and a place where a refugee can attempt to rebuild their life may involve crossing other countries if for example the area they are fleeing does not have functioning airports.
your opinion does not seem favoured by actual judges as often as it is by people who pose as judges on the internet!
“ Bad luck”
Bad luck! that’s the newjudge response to a displaced person… none at all. terribly sorry your country fell apart, terribly sorry that the neighbouring countries are overwhelmed because nowhere else will take you, but you see you i just don’t really like asylum seekers so that’ll have to be hard luck.
“ think you may find it is not a belief exclusive to Tory voters and why you should suggest it is only you would know. ”
i did not say it was exclusive to tory voters though i am pleased that you seem to agree that it is prevalent among them. what i said was that the government won’t process applications in france because of this sentiment among tory voters. if someone truly believes that the uk should take no asylum seekers at all then they should probably have a think about how they would like to,be treated if they were displaced… this is the reason i gave the example above. if tories were persecuted in this country they would not simply settle in the countries right next to us would they.
“ But then of course we're back to the principle aim of asylum - is it to provide safe haven to people who are in danger or is it simply to facilitate them settling in the destination of their choice?”
not mutually exclusive. those who are in danger will flee to places where they can rebuild their lives… which may be neighbouring countries, may be north america or may in some cases be the uk depending on their circumstances. people who are fleeing danger should be settled in the best possible place for them and all signatories to the UN convention on refugees are obligated to assist… not just those countries which happen to be nearby
that is your opinion which is equally interpretive because it relies on a particular understanding of the word “directly”… in the real world the “directness” of a path between a crisis area and a place where a refugee can attempt to rebuild their life may involve crossing other countries if for example the area they are fleeing does not have functioning airports.
your opinion does not seem favoured by actual judges as often as it is by people who pose as judges on the internet!
“ Bad luck”
Bad luck! that’s the newjudge response to a displaced person… none at all. terribly sorry your country fell apart, terribly sorry that the neighbouring countries are overwhelmed because nowhere else will take you, but you see you i just don’t really like asylum seekers so that’ll have to be hard luck.
“ think you may find it is not a belief exclusive to Tory voters and why you should suggest it is only you would know. ”
i did not say it was exclusive to tory voters though i am pleased that you seem to agree that it is prevalent among them. what i said was that the government won’t process applications in france because of this sentiment among tory voters. if someone truly believes that the uk should take no asylum seekers at all then they should probably have a think about how they would like to,be treated if they were displaced… this is the reason i gave the example above. if tories were persecuted in this country they would not simply settle in the countries right next to us would they.
“ But then of course we're back to the principle aim of asylum - is it to provide safe haven to people who are in danger or is it simply to facilitate them settling in the destination of their choice?”
not mutually exclusive. those who are in danger will flee to places where they can rebuild their lives… which may be neighbouring countries, may be north america or may in some cases be the uk depending on their circumstances. people who are fleeing danger should be settled in the best possible place for them and all signatories to the UN convention on refugees are obligated to assist… not just those countries which happen to be nearby
//...that is your opinion which is equally interpretive because it relies on a particular understanding of the word “directly”…//
I would argue that even in its most liberal interpretation, "coming directly" would not involve criss-crossing Europe and hanging about in France (where asylum is available) for months until a space on a rubber boat can be secured.
However, leaving aside the legalities, which we will not agree on, the practicalities should also be considered. The UK is struggling to accommodate the volume of incomers arriving by unconventional means. The ineptitude over the barge and the stupidity of the Rwanda scheme, even if those shortcomings could be successfully overcome, are merely tinkering at the edges. On the day the 39 migrants were evacuated from the barge (capacity 500 or so) more than 700 new arrivals landed at Dover. This volume of people is clearly unsustainable. At some point the UK (along with many other European countries) is going to have to decide whether or not it can still afford to be (arguably) obligated to accommodate all-comers, whether or not they have a valid reason. As I said earlier, the UN Convention on the matter was drawn up in a very different time and recipient countries will have to decide whether they are prepared to endure huge population shifts from Asia and Africa. The sooner they take that decision the better because I have a feeling that if they don't, the people already in those countries may take the decision for them.
I would argue that even in its most liberal interpretation, "coming directly" would not involve criss-crossing Europe and hanging about in France (where asylum is available) for months until a space on a rubber boat can be secured.
However, leaving aside the legalities, which we will not agree on, the practicalities should also be considered. The UK is struggling to accommodate the volume of incomers arriving by unconventional means. The ineptitude over the barge and the stupidity of the Rwanda scheme, even if those shortcomings could be successfully overcome, are merely tinkering at the edges. On the day the 39 migrants were evacuated from the barge (capacity 500 or so) more than 700 new arrivals landed at Dover. This volume of people is clearly unsustainable. At some point the UK (along with many other European countries) is going to have to decide whether or not it can still afford to be (arguably) obligated to accommodate all-comers, whether or not they have a valid reason. As I said earlier, the UN Convention on the matter was drawn up in a very different time and recipient countries will have to decide whether they are prepared to endure huge population shifts from Asia and Africa. The sooner they take that decision the better because I have a feeling that if they don't, the people already in those countries may take the decision for them.
//nobody has argued for “all and sundry”//
//readers will note that i was talking about refugees not “all and sundry”!//
But they all claim to be refugees at the outset so your argument amounts pretty much to that.
By your definition of those entitled to asylum, just about anybody who pitches up on these shores is entitled to have their claim considered, and further by your definition, a high proportion of those claims will succeed. Those who are unsuccessful are unlikely in the extreme to be expelled (and it's no use arguing that they should be - the fact is they are not).
Close on 20,000 people have arrived in small boats so far this year, so not a dissimilar rate to the whole of last year. This means that to keep up with that demand, around 125 asylum claims must be considered and decided each and every working day. Regardless of the cost of accommodating such an influx (which is considerable), why should the UK taxpayer fund that process?
Those arrivals amount to "all and sundry" because by the time their claims have been assessed (during which time they cannot be detained - even if it takes just a few days) they have established themselves here and have probably disappeared into the ether. Whether or not their claims are successful is largely immaterial.
//readers will note that i was talking about refugees not “all and sundry”!//
But they all claim to be refugees at the outset so your argument amounts pretty much to that.
By your definition of those entitled to asylum, just about anybody who pitches up on these shores is entitled to have their claim considered, and further by your definition, a high proportion of those claims will succeed. Those who are unsuccessful are unlikely in the extreme to be expelled (and it's no use arguing that they should be - the fact is they are not).
Close on 20,000 people have arrived in small boats so far this year, so not a dissimilar rate to the whole of last year. This means that to keep up with that demand, around 125 asylum claims must be considered and decided each and every working day. Regardless of the cost of accommodating such an influx (which is considerable), why should the UK taxpayer fund that process?
Those arrivals amount to "all and sundry" because by the time their claims have been assessed (during which time they cannot be detained - even if it takes just a few days) they have established themselves here and have probably disappeared into the ether. Whether or not their claims are successful is largely immaterial.
“ By your definition of those entitled to asylum, just about anybody who pitches up on these shores is entitled to have their claim considered, ”
yep
“ further by your definition, a high proportion of those claims will succeed.”
this already happens because contrary to common belief a lot of them are not “chancers”
“ why should the UK taxpayer fund that process? ”
because it’s what we would expect and be entitled to in their situation. If the UK taxpayer was forced to flee their country they would go somewhere they knew the language or had connections… millions of us would end up in north america even though those countries are not our neighbours. you are asking me why common agreements on refugees should exist at all… and i would invite you to look at what happened before those agreements came about!
the uk’s failure to deport failed applicants stem largely from the government’s decision to cut the relevant sections of the civil service in the name of “efficiency”… it actually turned out that those jobs were not “non jobs” after all
yep
“ further by your definition, a high proportion of those claims will succeed.”
this already happens because contrary to common belief a lot of them are not “chancers”
“ why should the UK taxpayer fund that process? ”
because it’s what we would expect and be entitled to in their situation. If the UK taxpayer was forced to flee their country they would go somewhere they knew the language or had connections… millions of us would end up in north america even though those countries are not our neighbours. you are asking me why common agreements on refugees should exist at all… and i would invite you to look at what happened before those agreements came about!
the uk’s failure to deport failed applicants stem largely from the government’s decision to cut the relevant sections of the civil service in the name of “efficiency”… it actually turned out that those jobs were not “non jobs” after all
It is clearly untrue that should asylum seekers stop in the first safe country they came to then the UK wouldn't ever take in refugees.
Clearly if any country neighbouring the UK had such issues, perhaps due to involvement in a war, or an inability of their government to treat the citizens with respect, then the UK would be a valid place to flee to.
In other circumstances there is no restriction on the nation getting swamped by genuine refugees on asking for help from other nations by their taking in a portion; but that is going through the correct channels not just invading and making demands.
And as in the present case of Ukraine we see the nation is perfectly capable of offering shelter to further away nations if it feels it is appropriate.
However a nation can not be Lady Bountiful, as a massive influx into an already overcrowded nation is sure to ruin the economy created here for all existing citizens, which is unacceptable virtue signalling (which probably seems attrack to the woke).
This is why, while one might have sympathy for those in a nation that seems to offer little to the masses, economic justification is not an acceptable excuse (and why it's rarely admitted to). We have a foreign aid system, we are willing to help others build their own nation, but we aren't obliged to cope with the result of other governments failing to put their nation on the right track.
Nations desire independence so then they need to accept the responsibilities that entails and listen to good advice on how to deal with issues. Letting the country go to pot to make the leaders wealthy is a ridiculous type of independence, and it is situations like that which the troubled country needs to sort; not simply let their citizens leave to impose themselves elsewhere where they are simply a burden; and a burden of thousands and thousands at that.
Clearly if any country neighbouring the UK had such issues, perhaps due to involvement in a war, or an inability of their government to treat the citizens with respect, then the UK would be a valid place to flee to.
In other circumstances there is no restriction on the nation getting swamped by genuine refugees on asking for help from other nations by their taking in a portion; but that is going through the correct channels not just invading and making demands.
And as in the present case of Ukraine we see the nation is perfectly capable of offering shelter to further away nations if it feels it is appropriate.
However a nation can not be Lady Bountiful, as a massive influx into an already overcrowded nation is sure to ruin the economy created here for all existing citizens, which is unacceptable virtue signalling (which probably seems attrack to the woke).
This is why, while one might have sympathy for those in a nation that seems to offer little to the masses, economic justification is not an acceptable excuse (and why it's rarely admitted to). We have a foreign aid system, we are willing to help others build their own nation, but we aren't obliged to cope with the result of other governments failing to put their nation on the right track.
Nations desire independence so then they need to accept the responsibilities that entails and listen to good advice on how to deal with issues. Letting the country go to pot to make the leaders wealthy is a ridiculous type of independence, and it is situations like that which the troubled country needs to sort; not simply let their citizens leave to impose themselves elsewhere where they are simply a burden; and a burden of thousands and thousands at that.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles21 mins ago
ChatterBank60 mins ago
News67 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles104 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.