Coworker Mad At Me For Keeping A Selfie...
Business & Finance0 min ago
Who Is Really Paying For The Tories Grossly Incompetent Handling Of The Immigrant Crisis?
Rather than process immigrants expeditiously (deporting those not qualifying), the incompetent government is wasting enormous amounts of tax-payer money, putting them in hotels and barges for extended periods.
But who is ultimately paying the price for this?
The answer to that question is the poorest people in the world, who receive our aid; this is because the money spent on the asylum system is considered to be part of our spending on overseas aid.
So as our spending on housing immigrants soars, the amount of money available to help the poorest in the world diminishes.
But who is ultimately paying the price for this?
The answer to that question is the poorest people in the world, who receive our aid; this is because the money spent on the asylum system is considered to be part of our spending on overseas aid.
So as our spending on housing immigrants soars, the amount of money available to help the poorest in the world diminishes.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Hymie. 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.
//NJ seems to be blaming the migrants, who have a legal right to claim asylum here//
No I’m not. I’m blaming the economic migrants who don’t like it too much where they are. They don’t need to claim asylum because they are safe where they are. The fact that the current and previous governments have chosen to go along with the UN and ignore the wording of the Convention they signed simply exacerbates the problem.
//People wanting us to leave the ECHR don’t understand that that organisation gives us British citizen rights; so abandoning them we would be joining the likes of Russia and Belarus.
Don’t be absurd. You seem to be obsessed with requiring protection by supra-national bodies. How many people in this country do you suspect would be denied their rights if we left? Those arriving here by rubber boat do not do so under the auspices of the European Convention, but under the UN Convention. Citizens of places like Australia, New Zealand and Canada do not seem to be suffering a deprivation of their rights and, when I last looked, none of those countries were signatories to the ECHR nor were they signatories to anything similar.
//If we wanted to turn people away, arriving on our shores asking for asylum, we’d probably need to leave the UN too.//
Well since that organisation seems unable to properly interpret its own Convention, written in plain English, that’s probably not a bad idea. The UN is another institution that has largely outlived any usefulness it might once have had.
//Any competent government would process them and then deport them – rather than paying for their extended stay in 4* hotels.//
You know as well as I do that deporting them is simply not a possibility for many of them. Where are they to be deported to? France (from where nearly all of them of them set out) will not have them as they are not French and either will not lodge an asylum claim there or have already lodged one and been denied. Most of them have no papers and refuse to reveal their country of origin and even if they did, those countries would refuse their return.
The only way to deal successfully with illegal migration is to prevent those attempting it from landing here. Nothing else will stop it and the ridiculous notion that people living in France “have the right” to set out in a rubber boat and land on the Kent coast without permission to do so needs to be dismissed forthwith.
If you think this can continue unabated (and it will, regardless of who is in power unless the changes I mention are made), how many people do you think could be reasonably (and comfortably) accommodated in the UK? How much more of its GDP (which, as you go to great lengths to have us believe, is rapidly diminishing since we left the EU) do you think the country should devote to these people? How many people do you suggest the government should employ to examine their claims? How do you square this with the fact that the asylum system is denuding many African and Asian countries of huge numbers of its better off young people (predominantly men) who up sticks, leaving their womenfolk and older or less able relatives to fend for themselves? In the meantime, all the UK and other European countries are doing is to encourage those making the journey believe it is quite OK to do so. It isn’t, and the sooner that is accepted the sooner something will be done to end what will cause untold damage to Europe.
No I’m not. I’m blaming the economic migrants who don’t like it too much where they are. They don’t need to claim asylum because they are safe where they are. The fact that the current and previous governments have chosen to go along with the UN and ignore the wording of the Convention they signed simply exacerbates the problem.
//People wanting us to leave the ECHR don’t understand that that organisation gives us British citizen rights; so abandoning them we would be joining the likes of Russia and Belarus.
Don’t be absurd. You seem to be obsessed with requiring protection by supra-national bodies. How many people in this country do you suspect would be denied their rights if we left? Those arriving here by rubber boat do not do so under the auspices of the European Convention, but under the UN Convention. Citizens of places like Australia, New Zealand and Canada do not seem to be suffering a deprivation of their rights and, when I last looked, none of those countries were signatories to the ECHR nor were they signatories to anything similar.
//If we wanted to turn people away, arriving on our shores asking for asylum, we’d probably need to leave the UN too.//
Well since that organisation seems unable to properly interpret its own Convention, written in plain English, that’s probably not a bad idea. The UN is another institution that has largely outlived any usefulness it might once have had.
//Any competent government would process them and then deport them – rather than paying for their extended stay in 4* hotels.//
You know as well as I do that deporting them is simply not a possibility for many of them. Where are they to be deported to? France (from where nearly all of them of them set out) will not have them as they are not French and either will not lodge an asylum claim there or have already lodged one and been denied. Most of them have no papers and refuse to reveal their country of origin and even if they did, those countries would refuse their return.
The only way to deal successfully with illegal migration is to prevent those attempting it from landing here. Nothing else will stop it and the ridiculous notion that people living in France “have the right” to set out in a rubber boat and land on the Kent coast without permission to do so needs to be dismissed forthwith.
If you think this can continue unabated (and it will, regardless of who is in power unless the changes I mention are made), how many people do you think could be reasonably (and comfortably) accommodated in the UK? How much more of its GDP (which, as you go to great lengths to have us believe, is rapidly diminishing since we left the EU) do you think the country should devote to these people? How many people do you suggest the government should employ to examine their claims? How do you square this with the fact that the asylum system is denuding many African and Asian countries of huge numbers of its better off young people (predominantly men) who up sticks, leaving their womenfolk and older or less able relatives to fend for themselves? In the meantime, all the UK and other European countries are doing is to encourage those making the journey believe it is quite OK to do so. It isn’t, and the sooner that is accepted the sooner something will be done to end what will cause untold damage to Europe.
I can see why many ABers would want us to leave the ECHR; below are a few of the rights we’d lose:-
• The prohibition of slavery and forced labour
• The right to liberty
• The right to a fair trail
• The right to education
• The right to free elections
• The right to freedom of movement
• The right to compensation for wrongful conviction
You really do come up with some drivel.
How many people in the UK (or in the other countries I mentioned earlier, such as Australia, New Zealand, Canada) suffer from the deprivation of any of those rights? I won’t go through them all because your list is too silly for words, but to take a couple of examples:
Slavery and forced labour are prevented by the Modern Slavery Act 2015. Introduction:
“An Act to make provision about slavery, servitude and forced or compulsory labour and about human trafficking, including provision for the protection of victims; to make provision for an Independent Anti-slavery Commissioner; and for connected purposes.”
The right to education is enshrined in the Education Act 1996. This not only provides for it, but makes it compulsory for people up to age 16. Section 10:
“General duty of Secretary of State.
The Secretary of State shall promote the education of the people of England and Wales.”
The UK’s own Human Rights Act, which largely mirrors the ECHR, provides the right to liberty and a free trial (Article 6). Even if it didn’t, the various provisions of the Police & Criminal Evidence Act (“PACE”) together with custody time limits and Criminal Procedure rules ensure liberty and the right to a fair trial.
You said the rights in your list would be lost if we derogated from the ECHR. So would we also abandon the legislation I mentioned above (along with legislation which covers the rest of your list which I cannot be bothered to look up). If so, why would the UK government do that? Why is it that you simply do not trust a UK government to protect those rights? How is it other countries manage to maintain those rights without the protection of an outside authority?
Quite simply, you are making yourself sound foolish.
• The prohibition of slavery and forced labour
• The right to liberty
• The right to a fair trail
• The right to education
• The right to free elections
• The right to freedom of movement
• The right to compensation for wrongful conviction
You really do come up with some drivel.
How many people in the UK (or in the other countries I mentioned earlier, such as Australia, New Zealand, Canada) suffer from the deprivation of any of those rights? I won’t go through them all because your list is too silly for words, but to take a couple of examples:
Slavery and forced labour are prevented by the Modern Slavery Act 2015. Introduction:
“An Act to make provision about slavery, servitude and forced or compulsory labour and about human trafficking, including provision for the protection of victims; to make provision for an Independent Anti-slavery Commissioner; and for connected purposes.”
The right to education is enshrined in the Education Act 1996. This not only provides for it, but makes it compulsory for people up to age 16. Section 10:
“General duty of Secretary of State.
The Secretary of State shall promote the education of the people of England and Wales.”
The UK’s own Human Rights Act, which largely mirrors the ECHR, provides the right to liberty and a free trial (Article 6). Even if it didn’t, the various provisions of the Police & Criminal Evidence Act (“PACE”) together with custody time limits and Criminal Procedure rules ensure liberty and the right to a fair trial.
You said the rights in your list would be lost if we derogated from the ECHR. So would we also abandon the legislation I mentioned above (along with legislation which covers the rest of your list which I cannot be bothered to look up). If so, why would the UK government do that? Why is it that you simply do not trust a UK government to protect those rights? How is it other countries manage to maintain those rights without the protection of an outside authority?
Quite simply, you are making yourself sound foolish.
People wanting us to leave the ECHR clearly understand that that the ECHR doesn't give us British citizens any more rights that we couldn't legislate and negotiate for ourselves. They also clearly understand that by leaving the ECHR we would be taking control, and it doesn't matter one iota who else isn't in the ECHR club, or whether their reason for being outside was a brilliant one, like the UK's would be, or something less honorable, as may be the case for others. Any nation can negotiate common sense agreements with others, as long as the others are worth trying to negotiate with. As Brexit proved, when an agreement is abused, one can & will leave as soon as the politicians grow sufficiently bold to do what they should have done all along.
Unfortunately those against leaving the ECHR don't seem to realise this and often try in vain to make leaving sound like something wrong, rather than an obvious solution that should have been implemented years ago.
Unfortunately those against leaving the ECHR don't seem to realise this and often try in vain to make leaving sound like something wrong, rather than an obvious solution that should have been implemented years ago.
I am astounded ( I shdnt be) to hear that every dumb cluck believes that if you repeal a law - Human Rights Act - (rights geddit?) - you become freer.
You dont.
You remember the Great Lies of Boris? well Cameron had a few - one was the Great British Liberties Bill which wd replace the Human Rights Act - and?
yes you have guessed it, wd give LESS rights than the Human Rights Act....
Cameron cdnt get us to swallow whoppers, unlike Boris and Trump...
You dont.
You remember the Great Lies of Boris? well Cameron had a few - one was the Great British Liberties Bill which wd replace the Human Rights Act - and?
yes you have guessed it, wd give LESS rights than the Human Rights Act....
Cameron cdnt get us to swallow whoppers, unlike Boris and Trump...
// The only way is to pass legislation that is un appeal able and that is very difficult to do. //
Hmmm, Governments have been presenting legislation for centuries and MPs have been passing it.
The difference now is that the Government is so useless and incompetent, that their proposals are often illegal, and the only winners are the lawyers who easily defeat them.
If anyone should know the laws it is our legislators, and that is patently beyond their abilities, such is the poor standard of Minister at the moment.
Hmmm, Governments have been presenting legislation for centuries and MPs have been passing it.
The difference now is that the Government is so useless and incompetent, that their proposals are often illegal, and the only winners are the lawyers who easily defeat them.
If anyone should know the laws it is our legislators, and that is patently beyond their abilities, such is the poor standard of Minister at the moment.
PP 17.51. It's obvious that you haven't read the Magna Carta for if you did you would find that many of our Human Rights are enshrined in that document. Of course it has been noticed as we have lived under that charter, with up to date amendments, since that date. The EU gave us nothing in relation to Human Rights. In fact they gave us nothing.
ill say it, the uk is full of unwanted young illegal migrants, i do not care 1 iota where they came from, id ship the lot back haste and not care one bit, i can think of worse less i not mention it, france is safe.
this is all about taking advantage of our lax out of date laws, who i notice france does not erm does not adhere to them, get it.
uk dumping ground...for the luvie tax payer funded lawyers and the ilk of the labour party liberals and cons et al... it's i live in the countryside and never see the problem, let alone nhs woes... laa di da
this is all about taking advantage of our lax out of date laws, who i notice france does not erm does not adhere to them, get it.
uk dumping ground...for the luvie tax payer funded lawyers and the ilk of the labour party liberals and cons et al... it's i live in the countryside and never see the problem, let alone nhs woes... laa di da
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.