Quizzes & Puzzles65 mins ago
Hunt For On-The-Run Asylum Seeker
gobsmacked is not the word, begining of a giant iceberg for the uk, sadly we will become like sweden, and there rape explosion let alone gangsterism, anyone disagree.
https:/
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.
//To reiterate, one cannot claim asylum from outside the UK.//
And to reiterate again (with apologies for the tautology), one can. One can apply for asylum in France (i.e. seek protection from harm by remaining in France). One can also do so in most of the other countries through which migrants pass to get to France. It is true that applications for asylum in the UK are not entertained from elsewhere - especially France - and that's because people in France are not under threat.
But then, of course, we're back to the old argument (which we've done to death many times over): just what is the purpose of asylum? Is it to seek shelter from harm (in which case those seeking it would normally do so in their first safe haven, as Article 31 of the UN Convention on the Treatment of Refugees suggests they should)? Or is it to roam the Continent until your destination of choice is reached? We both come up with different answers and the difference is irreconcilable.
So from my perspective, I don't know why s40 of NABA was necessary. Article 31 already provides for penalties against those who enter the UK from France without leave to do so. It is interesting to read some comments from an outfit called the "International Rescue Committee" (who have a banner on their website "Refugees Welcome"):
"Unfortunately, the Act undermines the right to seek asylum in several ways. UNHCR has said that some provisions are in breach of the Refugee Convention. They have said that powers that seek to prevent people applying for asylum, shift responsibilities for refugee protection to other states, and criminalise new arrivals, are particularly concerning."
I don't know which of the provisions are in breach of the Refugee Convention, but s40 certainly isn't. I also don't know why the UN has taken it upon itself to arbitrarily alter one of the specific terms of its own Convention, seemingly without reference to the signatories, and then say that NABA breaches that Convention. But they have.
One can only hope that the government has the will to enforce its own, recently introduced legislation. But looking at what is happening in Kent, I'm not holding my breath.
And to reiterate again (with apologies for the tautology), one can. One can apply for asylum in France (i.e. seek protection from harm by remaining in France). One can also do so in most of the other countries through which migrants pass to get to France. It is true that applications for asylum in the UK are not entertained from elsewhere - especially France - and that's because people in France are not under threat.
But then, of course, we're back to the old argument (which we've done to death many times over): just what is the purpose of asylum? Is it to seek shelter from harm (in which case those seeking it would normally do so in their first safe haven, as Article 31 of the UN Convention on the Treatment of Refugees suggests they should)? Or is it to roam the Continent until your destination of choice is reached? We both come up with different answers and the difference is irreconcilable.
So from my perspective, I don't know why s40 of NABA was necessary. Article 31 already provides for penalties against those who enter the UK from France without leave to do so. It is interesting to read some comments from an outfit called the "International Rescue Committee" (who have a banner on their website "Refugees Welcome"):
"Unfortunately, the Act undermines the right to seek asylum in several ways. UNHCR has said that some provisions are in breach of the Refugee Convention. They have said that powers that seek to prevent people applying for asylum, shift responsibilities for refugee protection to other states, and criminalise new arrivals, are particularly concerning."
I don't know which of the provisions are in breach of the Refugee Convention, but s40 certainly isn't. I also don't know why the UN has taken it upon itself to arbitrarily alter one of the specific terms of its own Convention, seemingly without reference to the signatories, and then say that NABA breaches that Convention. But they have.
One can only hope that the government has the will to enforce its own, recently introduced legislation. But looking at what is happening in Kent, I'm not holding my breath.
OK, putting the British fleet circa 1800 aside;
I have a solution to Britain's immigrant problem. It would need just a small amount of goodwill from the French (?).
Form a posse of say, 100 likely British men - sort of West ham supporter types. Pay them a good salary & expenses (which would be more that covered by the savings made) & send them over to Calais. They are to do, working shifts, what the French & British cops are supposed to do, viz; just stop the dinghies from leaving.
All dinghies to be slashed on sight with Stanley Knives.
It's a wonderful opportunity, a great job for the right types.
I even know of a large empty hotel in Calais where they could stay.
Que pensez-vous ?
I have a solution to Britain's immigrant problem. It would need just a small amount of goodwill from the French (?).
Form a posse of say, 100 likely British men - sort of West ham supporter types. Pay them a good salary & expenses (which would be more that covered by the savings made) & send them over to Calais. They are to do, working shifts, what the French & British cops are supposed to do, viz; just stop the dinghies from leaving.
All dinghies to be slashed on sight with Stanley Knives.
It's a wonderful opportunity, a great job for the right types.
I even know of a large empty hotel in Calais where they could stay.
Que pensez-vous ?
'It would need just a small amount of goodwill from the French'
And there's the rub. Putting aside the Rossbif / Froggy love hate cordiale, I'm not sure the French would welcome anything which kept them their side of La Manche as they would then have the problem of what to do with them.
Nice try tho!
And there's the rub. Putting aside the Rossbif / Froggy love hate cordiale, I'm not sure the French would welcome anything which kept them their side of La Manche as they would then have the problem of what to do with them.
Nice try tho!
// the difference is irreconcilable //
Agreed. Our respective views could not be more diametrical.
COPY AND PASTED -
The Government’s view:
The Home Secretary has argued that the Government’s plans are compatible with Article 31(1), because the Article refers to people “coming directly” from a country of persecution.
UNHCR’s view:
UNHCR says that several the Government’s proposals are based on a
“misconstruction” of Article 31(1). It has published some detailed legal observations on the New Plan for Immigration (which the Bill implements).
From the above, it is clear the UK's interpretation is in contention with the UN's intended meaning.
Perhaps then, we can at least align ourselves to the general acceptance that this is a legal minefield?
Agreed. Our respective views could not be more diametrical.
COPY AND PASTED -
The Government’s view:
The Home Secretary has argued that the Government’s plans are compatible with Article 31(1), because the Article refers to people “coming directly” from a country of persecution.
UNHCR’s view:
UNHCR says that several the Government’s proposals are based on a
“misconstruction” of Article 31(1). It has published some detailed legal observations on the New Plan for Immigration (which the Bill implements).
From the above, it is clear the UK's interpretation is in contention with the UN's intended meaning.
Perhaps then, we can at least align ourselves to the general acceptance that this is a legal minefield?
// Whats Mark Knoppler got to do with this anyway. //
"Brothers in Arms"
So let us embrace our continental cousins regardless of which country they come from.
This is to deny what as actually happened. Up to the end of June 2022 the majority of those Albanians who applied for asylum were eligible for UK visas, since they were deemed to be in danger of harm
.
"Brothers in Arms"
So let us embrace our continental cousins regardless of which country they come from.
This is to deny what as actually happened. Up to the end of June 2022 the majority of those Albanians who applied for asylum were eligible for UK visas, since they were deemed to be in danger of harm
.
// It would need just a small amount of goodwill from the French (?).//
We had no goodwill from them during 2 World Wars when we were sacrificing millions of men and our wealth to save their miserable skins and none for the whole 40 odd years that we were stupid enough to expect it when we were members of the eeeyyooo. Why in God's name would we expect it to be a solution to a problem now, when their attitude has always been a contributing factor to an issue of concern?
We had no goodwill from them during 2 World Wars when we were sacrificing millions of men and our wealth to save their miserable skins and none for the whole 40 odd years that we were stupid enough to expect it when we were members of the eeeyyooo. Why in God's name would we expect it to be a solution to a problem now, when their attitude has always been a contributing factor to an issue of concern?
no ones in danger especially the gangsters, totally minted.
as for the illegals, one has to ask the question? all young men
who are not afraid to chance it, let alone knowing they are breaking the law in france and the u.k, point is thye know nothing will happen to them 0 detterence ie uk law has to erm process them yawn yrs appeals more appeals, join the backlog, total joke is the echr human rights act, the uk government has basically slit it's own throat.
as for the illegals, one has to ask the question? all young men
who are not afraid to chance it, let alone knowing they are breaking the law in france and the u.k, point is thye know nothing will happen to them 0 detterence ie uk law has to erm process them yawn yrs appeals more appeals, join the backlog, total joke is the echr human rights act, the uk government has basically slit it's own throat.
//Deemed by whom - in danger from whom? Complete gonads!//
The UKVI is responsible for issuing UK visas.
They deal with millions of applications every year. Rest assure when a visa is granted it is so on the merits of each individual claim.
Those Albanian women who were successful were considered so on the grounds of trafficking and modern day slavery. Hence deserving protection under the auspices of the UK.
Upto the end of June 2022, a smaller percentage of Albanian men were also successful on the same grounds.
The UKVI is responsible for issuing UK visas.
They deal with millions of applications every year. Rest assure when a visa is granted it is so on the merits of each individual claim.
Those Albanian women who were successful were considered so on the grounds of trafficking and modern day slavery. Hence deserving protection under the auspices of the UK.
Upto the end of June 2022, a smaller percentage of Albanian men were also successful on the same grounds.
// no goodwill from them during 2 World Wars when we were sacrificing millions of men //
This is not to defend the French. Perhaps though we might empathise with their position during WW2 if the background leading up to the full-blown conflict is understood.
When Chamberlain declared war on Germany, nothing happened in the field of battle for 9 months. Initially therefore it was dubbed the phony war.
As a result, allied forces were guilty of not making the necessary preparation. Not least the French. Little surprise then, the French were 'rolled over' in a matter of days after the Nazis invaded.
This is not to defend the French. Perhaps though we might empathise with their position during WW2 if the background leading up to the full-blown conflict is understood.
When Chamberlain declared war on Germany, nothing happened in the field of battle for 9 months. Initially therefore it was dubbed the phony war.
As a result, allied forces were guilty of not making the necessary preparation. Not least the French. Little surprise then, the French were 'rolled over' in a matter of days after the Nazis invaded.
Latest Posts
Technology71 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles111 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles151 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles161 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles165 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.