Blooming Personalities C/D 30Th November
Quizzes & Puzzles3 mins ago
27 Migrants Drown
so what will te powers on both sides of calais do now, probably nothing and some will say
tough luck to dead, you took a dangerous chance and died.
https:/
tough luck to dead, you took a dangerous chance and died.
https:/
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by fender62. 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.
//…people don't take risks like this unless they are desperate//
They are not desperate. They are determined, which is completely different. They are determined to get to the UK because they know that once here they will be given accommodation, money, healthcare and legal representation to help them fight the government’s efforts to remove them when their claims for asylum (if they ever make them) are turned down. They also know they can find work in the black economy if they want to and they are unlikely ever to be removed, regardless of what they do or how they behave. Nowhere else can they be sure of all that. That’s why they want to get here. They are not desperate, it is simply not agreeable enough for them where they are. If it was as unpleasant and disagreeable for them here as it is elsewhere, they wouldn’t make the trip.
//…in any case movement of people however undesirable cannot simply be stopped .//
Yes it can. It was stopped on the Belarus/Poland border recently. It is stopped in most other countries who are keen on securing their borders.
//would your point of view change if you thought they were desperate or would you still not care?//
No. When this country is able to successfully provide housing and essential services for the people are already here and the tax burden on those paying for these services is lessened a little from the scandalously high levels seen at present, I might care. But until then I don’t.
They are not desperate. They are determined, which is completely different. They are determined to get to the UK because they know that once here they will be given accommodation, money, healthcare and legal representation to help them fight the government’s efforts to remove them when their claims for asylum (if they ever make them) are turned down. They also know they can find work in the black economy if they want to and they are unlikely ever to be removed, regardless of what they do or how they behave. Nowhere else can they be sure of all that. That’s why they want to get here. They are not desperate, it is simply not agreeable enough for them where they are. If it was as unpleasant and disagreeable for them here as it is elsewhere, they wouldn’t make the trip.
//…in any case movement of people however undesirable cannot simply be stopped .//
Yes it can. It was stopped on the Belarus/Poland border recently. It is stopped in most other countries who are keen on securing their borders.
//would your point of view change if you thought they were desperate or would you still not care?//
No. When this country is able to successfully provide housing and essential services for the people are already here and the tax burden on those paying for these services is lessened a little from the scandalously high levels seen at present, I might care. But until then I don’t.
https:/
Another 40 arrived today
The French are not bothered
It is as simple as that
The link also says that asylum claims in the uk are the highest for 20 years
I thought the rule was that you claim asylum in the fist safe country that you reach ?
Another 40 arrived today
The French are not bothered
It is as simple as that
The link also says that asylum claims in the uk are the highest for 20 years
I thought the rule was that you claim asylum in the fist safe country that you reach ?
Bitter no. Frustrated by the pathetic response to what is tantamount to an invasion yes. The idea posted on here of denial permanently of visa and residential status for illegal entry onto our shores is a good one. Easy to implement theoretically, but bound to be blocked by the bleeding heart brigade.
ichkeria
“ I thought the rule was that you claim asylum in the fist safe country that you reach ?”
No that is not true. Neither the 1951 Refugee Convention nor any EU law, makes this stipulation
———-
Are you sure about that ichkeria ?
To avoid abuses, European law, the Dublin Regulation, requires that asylum seekers have their asylum claim registered in the first country they arrive in, and that the decision of the first EU country they apply in is the final decision in all EU countries.
https:/
“ I thought the rule was that you claim asylum in the fist safe country that you reach ?”
No that is not true. Neither the 1951 Refugee Convention nor any EU law, makes this stipulation
———-
Are you sure about that ichkeria ?
To avoid abuses, European law, the Dublin Regulation, requires that asylum seekers have their asylum claim registered in the first country they arrive in, and that the decision of the first EU country they apply in is the final decision in all EU countries.
https:/
//No that is not true. Neither the 1951 Refugee Convention nor any EU law, makes this stipulation//
This is often espoused. I take issue with this. The 1951 UN Convention (which trumps anything the EU might come up with) says this (Under Article 31 - Refugees Unlawfully in the Country of Refuge):
"The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of Article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to
the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence."
The key is "....coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened". There are two aspects to this. The first is that by implication, if penalties cannot be imposed on those who have arrived directly, then penalties can be imposed on those who have not (such as those arriving in the UK). But there is a wider implication. There seems a clear expectation under the Convention that those seeking refuge should do so as soon as possible (otherwise why make the distinction in Article 31?).
It is clear that the aim of the Convention is to allow those in danger and unable to rely on the protection of their home nation to seek such protection elsewhere. The aim is not to give those seeking such asylum carte blanche to roam around until they reach their chosen destination. Those in France and other mainland European countries are not in danger. They ceased to be in peril (as recognised by the Convention) as soon as they arrived in a safe nation. They are not refugees; they simply don't like it as much where they are than they would here. The sooner that is accepted the sooner these people can be treated as illegal entrants and returned whence they came. But that's not going to happen and meanwhile the people of the UK will have to endure this invasion (or "unwelcome intrusion" if invasion doesn't suit) and there will almost certainly be more deaths in the Channel.
This is often espoused. I take issue with this. The 1951 UN Convention (which trumps anything the EU might come up with) says this (Under Article 31 - Refugees Unlawfully in the Country of Refuge):
"The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of Article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to
the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence."
The key is "....coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened". There are two aspects to this. The first is that by implication, if penalties cannot be imposed on those who have arrived directly, then penalties can be imposed on those who have not (such as those arriving in the UK). But there is a wider implication. There seems a clear expectation under the Convention that those seeking refuge should do so as soon as possible (otherwise why make the distinction in Article 31?).
It is clear that the aim of the Convention is to allow those in danger and unable to rely on the protection of their home nation to seek such protection elsewhere. The aim is not to give those seeking such asylum carte blanche to roam around until they reach their chosen destination. Those in France and other mainland European countries are not in danger. They ceased to be in peril (as recognised by the Convention) as soon as they arrived in a safe nation. They are not refugees; they simply don't like it as much where they are than they would here. The sooner that is accepted the sooner these people can be treated as illegal entrants and returned whence they came. But that's not going to happen and meanwhile the people of the UK will have to endure this invasion (or "unwelcome intrusion" if invasion doesn't suit) and there will almost certainly be more deaths in the Channel.
If you arrive at Gatwick Airport without leave to be here, you are denied entry and are returned whence you came by the next available flight (with the carrier who brought you here bearing the cost of the return trip). If you arrive in Dover on a ferry, similarly undocumented, the same thing happens.
These people arrived from France. It is a known fact. They should be returned there forthwith. I don't expect the trafficker who organised the trip to be traced and pay for the trip. The taxpayer will have to pay for a ferry ticket from Dover to Calais. That would be money well spent.
These people arrived from France. It is a known fact. They should be returned there forthwith. I don't expect the trafficker who organised the trip to be traced and pay for the trip. The taxpayer will have to pay for a ferry ticket from Dover to Calais. That would be money well spent.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank4 mins ago
ChatterBank18 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles24 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles24 mins ago
