Crosswords1 min ago
Why Do Illegal Immigrants Not Apply For Asylum In The E U S S R?
140 Answers
https:/
We are always being told by the anti British and LibFac hordes that UK is the lowest of the low and heaven lies across the channel. Why then do thousands risk death to get to this "terrible" country. Surely they should apply for asylum in the utopia they are already in. France ain't too bad is it?
We are always being told by the anti British and LibFac hordes that UK is the lowest of the low and heaven lies across the channel. Why then do thousands risk death to get to this "terrible" country. Surely they should apply for asylum in the utopia they are already in. France ain't too bad is it?
Answers
The vast majority of the channel crossers are exploited by people traffickers. The way to deal with this difficult issue is to work with France and other countries to smash these criminal gangs.
10:46 Tue 11th Aug 2020
//Danny posted this elsewhere, but the "first safe country" law isn't a thing.//
Unfortunately, as I commented when that link was posted last week, “Full Fact” provides neither the full nor the correct facts. I largely lost interest in their first response to a claim when they started prattling on about the Geneva Convention. Quite what that has to do with the price of fish is anybody’s guess. What, in fact, governs these matters are firstly the United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and secondly the EU’s own (rather superfluous) Dublin Agreement. Both these state that refugees should seek asylum in the first safe country they arrive in. Of course many lawyers have sought to distort that basic (and fairly sensible) principle and it now means we have tens of thousands of people roaming all over Europe, unchallenged at unpoliced borders, until they arrive at their destination of choice. It’s quite obvious that claims for asylum for people fleeing danger should be made as soon as reasonably possible. It’s also quite obvious that any nation should have the right to turn away anybody arriving on its shores (whether in a rubber boat or on a scheduled flight). Until those principles are accepted and enforced, nothing will change.
Unfortunately, as I commented when that link was posted last week, “Full Fact” provides neither the full nor the correct facts. I largely lost interest in their first response to a claim when they started prattling on about the Geneva Convention. Quite what that has to do with the price of fish is anybody’s guess. What, in fact, governs these matters are firstly the United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and secondly the EU’s own (rather superfluous) Dublin Agreement. Both these state that refugees should seek asylum in the first safe country they arrive in. Of course many lawyers have sought to distort that basic (and fairly sensible) principle and it now means we have tens of thousands of people roaming all over Europe, unchallenged at unpoliced borders, until they arrive at their destination of choice. It’s quite obvious that claims for asylum for people fleeing danger should be made as soon as reasonably possible. It’s also quite obvious that any nation should have the right to turn away anybody arriving on its shores (whether in a rubber boat or on a scheduled flight). Until those principles are accepted and enforced, nothing will change.
They come here because in spite of the very best endeavours of the question poser and his friends, Britain’s tradition of liberalism and of welcoming the downtrodden of the world still holds good.
If YOU were in desperate need of help, you too would turn to somewhere that you thought would treat you kindly.
Be proud of our country’s reputation; don’t live your life in bitterness and hate.
(When I posted on these lines earlier my post was expunged; still can’t work out why!)
If YOU were in desperate need of help, you too would turn to somewhere that you thought would treat you kindly.
Be proud of our country’s reputation; don’t live your life in bitterness and hate.
(When I posted on these lines earlier my post was expunged; still can’t work out why!)
// ... it now means we have tens of thousands of people roaming all over Europe, unchallenged at unpoliced borders, until they arrive at their destination of choice... //
New Judge it's a pity to spoil an otherwise informative post with rhetoric of this nature; it's reminiscent of low-level froth-provoking tabloid journalism.
New Judge it's a pity to spoil an otherwise informative post with rhetoric of this nature; it's reminiscent of low-level froth-provoking tabloid journalism.
Presumably, they "prattle on" about the Geneva Convention because the UN Convention on the Status of Refugees is also called the 1951 Geneva Convention.
Also, can you point to the explicit article that talks about the "first safe country"? It is certainly not there in explicit terms.
https:/
Also, can you point to the explicit article that talks about the "first safe country"? It is certainly not there in explicit terms.
https:/
Similarly, the text of the Dublin Regulation mentions "the first member state in which the application for protection was lodged", which implies that a refugee/asylum seeker, etc, may lodge the application in a country different from that in which they first arrived. Certainly, it places no obligations on refugees themselves, only on the member states.
"I largely lost interest in their first response to a claim when they started prattling on about the Geneva Convention. Quite what that has to do with the price of fish is anybody’s guess."
Clearly you missed the bit near the start where they wrote,
"The 1951 UN Refugee Convention (also known as the Geneva Convention)"
Clearly you missed the bit near the start where they wrote,
"The 1951 UN Refugee Convention (also known as the Geneva Convention)"
I'm just wondering when TTT will realise, may be one day, that protesting his wide rang of dislikes day and night on here is fruitless because he's only reaching the( same) number of folk who may disagree or agree with him. A better idea could be to join a group of dam savages ( like in Morrisions ) and stand on the beach shouting at the asylum seekers as they land, at least you may make the front page of the Sun, and get out a bit more. I don't think rehab did any good. :0)
//Which, if they are to be here at all, is exactly as it should be.//
erm is that fair or lawful ?
the lord chancellor wd be shocked !
to answer the q - they gedda a better deal here innit?
what I fear is a whole load of Beirutis coming over and saying we dont want to stay and rebuild our homeland we have made such a mess of - we want to live and stay in lundy !
erm is that fair or lawful ?
the lord chancellor wd be shocked !
to answer the q - they gedda a better deal here innit?
what I fear is a whole load of Beirutis coming over and saying we dont want to stay and rebuild our homeland we have made such a mess of - we want to live and stay in lundy !
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.