What I can do is correct you when you clearly haven’t got the first fucking clue what you are talking about.
You talked about people having no right to be here. Coming illegally etc. This things aren’t a matter of opinion. You are just factually wrong.
Crossing the channel without authorisation to enter the UK isn’t a legal means of entry to the UK. That is clear, although it would be wrong for anyone doing so to be penalised if they are coming directly from a territory where their safety and welbeing is threatened.
But they’re coming from France so that particular clause doesn’t apply.
The laws you like to refer to have many nuances and loopholes that are being exploited and it’s not as cut and dried as you make out.
As suggested earlier…
Its only men who travel across Europe to seek asylum,
Because if women travel, they are at risk of been raped or sold into the sex trade
Who commits these crimes?
And why dont the men who are travelling with the women protect the women from these horrendous crime?
As of right now, there are no legal means of claiming asylum in the way that you’re talking about.
You cannot enter the UK without a valid visa, but you cannot claim asylum without entering the UK.
What I would look at is that there is a great deal of public money being spent on shithole hotels and prison ships. Someone is profiting from that. Take the example of those barges. The cost is £2.5bn for two years for around 2,500 people. For £650m you could actually hire an entire luxury cruise liner and house twice as many people.
Somewhere there is an enormous markup and someone is profiting. The cheapest solution is actually to process the cases and then you will end up with some people who will be granted asylum and can work for their keep and another bunch that can be deported. Remember that the government ultimately makes these decisions.
People smugglers.
Their own survival isn’t even guaranteed.
I’m not being abusive in the slightest. Jaffod is putting the boot into some of the most vulnerable people in society, and this whole round was kicked by his brutally callous response to someone attempting to take their own life. And I’ve got to tread carefully around his feelings?
I mean this is all covered by international conventions anyway:
https://www.unhcr.org/publications/identity-documents-refugees-0
It is not illegal to travel to any country. There are legal requirements on entering a country (passports, visas etc) but the UNHCR conventions cover the fact that refugees will lack that documentation. There are also procedures for people who have lost documentation which I have had to use in the past. There is absolutely nothing illegal about this.
That’s not right. Article 31 of the 1951 clearly states “the right not to be penalised for illegal entry”
I see you have left out the bit where it states this applies to people who come directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened.
As most come from France then they are not coming directly from such a place.
I’m not putting the boot into anyone.
I’ll tell you what I struggled with when I read that article. I’m supposed to believe that people who have fled their homeland through fear of war, persecution and death, then made a perilous journey across the channel on an overcrowded dinghy in the middle of the night are then going to threaten to kill themselves because their accommodation isn’t what they expected or they didn’t like what they got for dinner?
Don’t make me laugh. And I’m willing to guess the number who actually follow through on the threat to take their own lives on the A12 flyover is a big fat ZERO.
And don’t worry about hurting my feelings. It’ll take a lot more than a thread on the internet to do that.
Again there is no obligation to seek asylum in the first safe country, so they are free to pass through, free from persecution . You’re welcome to challenge the wording and obligations of the 1951 convention as I’m sure Tory lawyers are currently doing but it’s pretty clear as I understand it.
Just for the record I’m not playing devil’s advocate or wokey soft shit stirrer here, I’m just quoting international law as it stands. The way I see it there’s a process in place, and it works but like all things (NHS for example) it only works if it’s resourced properly. The system in the UK isn’t, and that’s the fault of the UK government, no one else.
Are you really not understanding this?
Claiming Asylum renders any concerns about the illegality of entry moot. As soon as you claim asylum you are entitled to remain and have you claim assessed.
There is no provision in law that says you have to claim asylum in the first safe country. That is a right wing myth.
The Conservatives have closed all legal routes. This does not stop people trying to come. It just funnels people towards criminal gangs.
When people do arrive, the sensible thing to do would to process their claim, and deport those that don’t meet the threshold. This isn’t happening. That isn’t Asylum Seekers fault. It’s the governments, and it’s a choice.
Contrary to belief, we don’t take in a lot of asylum seekers. We take fewer than most European Countries. We’re right down the bottom of the list.
Migration is good for the country. We need migrants coming here and working, paying taxes in order to fund and support our aging population. 100k people per year isn’t a massive issue. It’s not been far off that for ages.
Anyone who thinks the current situation is bad is in for a very rude awakening as Climate Change impacts. This is a picnic compared to what’s coming.
You’re avoiding the point. Asylum seekers are free from being penalised if they enter unlawfully directly from a territory where their life or freedom is threatened.
France would not be considered such a place.
Entering the UK by crossing the channel without authorisation is an illegal means of entry. So a crime is being committed.
I have not claimed otherwise.
3.If the Tory’s have closed all legal routes then surely that means anyone making the journey is doing so illegally? Regardless of what you think of the cunts?
I agree on this, although your continued claim that it is deliberate policy is your opinion only and not a fact.
I don’t care how many we take in compared to anybody else, the simple fact is we don’t have the infrastructure to cope with the numbers coming. Who is to blame for that is irrelevant.
6.I agree migration is good in the right numbers and in the right areas. I have stated this before on several occasions. 100K a year is a massive problem given the absolute fucking state of public services in this country and I find it mind-boggling you or anyone else would think otherwise.
7.Agreed.
I am going to respectfully step back from this thread. There are clearly things we will never agree on and it has already gone way beyond what I originally intended when first posting.
Have a good day people.
No, you’re not supposed to believe that, because that is precisely not the point.
It’s about them being indefinitely subjected to conditions not too far off from prison cells, while their lives are being put on hold because of a government deliberately under-resourcing processing. It’s about them being treated inhumanely and callously by a government that wants to punish them for their existence, and for whom their well-being is not even relevant in consideration.
Erm, I think the very first post, where you suggested that’s people who’d been driven to attempt to taken their own live could essentially go and fuck themselves, was the nadir. It’s been all uphill since then.
Do they even have access to public services? You keep banging on about this, but it’s not the case.
There is a reasonably plain language explainer here:
This whole idea of refugees having to apply for refuge at the first safe country seems to be a misunderstanding of the Dublin regulations which treats the EU as a single entity and is intended to stop rejected asylum seekers from going to the next country and applying for asylum there. It no longer applies to the UK now anyway.
You left out the word “deliberate”, although it is entirely possible that the Tories are actually that thick.