Quite An Achievement In 5 Months.....
News6 mins ago
A Thousand In One Day
https:/
What is the answer to this out of control situation?
Enough is enough !
What is the answer to this out of control situation?
Enough is enough !
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Bobbisox1. 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.
//Thing is, no measures are working across Europe. Spain and Germany have far higher rates of illegal immigrants than ourselves. I can only conclude this is an indication of the desperation of the migrants.//
I agree with the first 2 sentances. But not the third- some are desparate but most are just either been trafficked, or have been sold a lie by people smugglers and the rest are just taking advantage of the benefits and job promises as they know there unlikely to be stopped
I agree with the first 2 sentances. But not the third- some are desparate but most are just either been trafficked, or have been sold a lie by people smugglers and the rest are just taking advantage of the benefits and job promises as they know there unlikely to be stopped
Zacs; // no measures are working across Europe.//
Not true, Viktor Orban built, & policed, a barbed wire border fence which stopped immigrants from entering Hungary, any who did get in were given short shrift.
Brussels feigned outrage at his actions, but were secretly pleased, but no one dared say so.
Where is Britain's Orban?
Not true, Viktor Orban built, & policed, a barbed wire border fence which stopped immigrants from entering Hungary, any who did get in were given short shrift.
Brussels feigned outrage at his actions, but were secretly pleased, but no one dared say so.
Where is Britain's Orban?
Yes, Khandro and that worked oh so well.
https:/
https:/
First:
Immediately abandon the ridiculous Rwanda plan, which will never - literally - get off the ground. Whether that is fair or not isn't the point. It simply never will so no point pretending otherwise.
Reduce the overcrowding by moving people out of overcrowded refugee centres. If that means commandeering hotel rooms, so be it.
A recruitment drive to speed the procressing of claims
Serious talks with France worth a view to setting up processing centres on N France, paid for if need be by us.
A system (I am not aware of one already existing) of biometric checking of refugees. That might give failed applicants more of a chance of being caught and immediately returned should they land back in the UK after being refused asylum in France.
What is out of control is the system in the UK.
Too much effort and rhetoric is wasted fuming about cross-channel invasions, and the misguided belief that if we are "hard" on asylim seekers they will somehow stop coming. Absolute rubbish. You cannot easily stop the flow of refugees: it's always been there, and part of the ossue now has been inadvertently caused by the success of stopping other routes.
Being an island is actually a disadvantage. You cannot build a wall to keep people out, as if that would ultimately work anyway.
Immediately abandon the ridiculous Rwanda plan, which will never - literally - get off the ground. Whether that is fair or not isn't the point. It simply never will so no point pretending otherwise.
Reduce the overcrowding by moving people out of overcrowded refugee centres. If that means commandeering hotel rooms, so be it.
A recruitment drive to speed the procressing of claims
Serious talks with France worth a view to setting up processing centres on N France, paid for if need be by us.
A system (I am not aware of one already existing) of biometric checking of refugees. That might give failed applicants more of a chance of being caught and immediately returned should they land back in the UK after being refused asylum in France.
What is out of control is the system in the UK.
Too much effort and rhetoric is wasted fuming about cross-channel invasions, and the misguided belief that if we are "hard" on asylim seekers they will somehow stop coming. Absolute rubbish. You cannot easily stop the flow of refugees: it's always been there, and part of the ossue now has been inadvertently caused by the success of stopping other routes.
Being an island is actually a disadvantage. You cannot build a wall to keep people out, as if that would ultimately work anyway.
//Any attempt to apportion blame at the migrants is pointless. Surely an innate characteristic of being human, is to want to better ourselves?//
I went blaming them as such ZebuSanctuary... just reconizing that unless you put more checks and stops in place lots will continue to come, we need to make it harder.... or are you saying we should let as many come as wants to come
I went blaming them as such ZebuSanctuary... just reconizing that unless you put more checks and stops in place lots will continue to come, we need to make it harder.... or are you saying we should let as many come as wants to come
//This is in part due to the UK government’s commitment to protecting female victims of trafficking."//
// As they are not protected in Albania, why would those women return there?//
This precisely demonstrates my point. The UK cannot protect everybody worldwide from all the troubles they may face. If trafficking is a problem in Albania it is a matter for the Albanian people and their government to address. The answer is not to simply allow the victims of that misfortune to up sticks and settle here. But that is largely irrelevant. The overwhelming number of arrivals from Albania are not women. They are young men. Just take a look at the arrivals on the Kent
// The UK does have an obligation to consider applications for asylum…//
As I said, the UK needs to consider whether it can still commit to that obligation. There is no doubt that meeting that obligation is having a serious effect on the finance and facilities available for those already here, not to mention the threat it poses to social cohesion.
//Circa 30,000 of these refugees, instead of seeking safe haven in neighbouring Kenya (in line with UN policy), they were flown out and took up permanent residence here in Britain.//
First of all, it wasn’t UN policy. The UN has, for many years, insisted that it is not necessary to apply for asylum in the first safe country refugees encounter (contrary to their own Convention). But secondly, in the case of the Ugandan Asians, the UK chose to offer resettlement. This is possibly because Uganda was a former British Protectorate, but that is by the way.
//However the idea of towing back dinghies to French shores is fraught with danger.//
No more fraught with danger than the idea of towing them to the UK is. They are usually “intercepted” half way across the Channel, so the distance is similar. Many of them are disembarked from the dinghies to board larger vessels anyway, so they can be ferried back to France instead of being taken onward to the UK.
//I wonder how many of the people moaning on this thread voted in the Government responsible.//
It doesn’t matter. This is not a party political issue. No government, of any persuasion, has the political will to tackle this effectively. They are far too concerned with appearing to be “compassionate.”
//If that means commandeering hotel rooms, so be it.//
You say that as if it has no effect, Khandro. Why should people who enjoy going to a particular hotel be denied that opportunity so as illegal migrants can be comfortably accommodated? And why should UK taxpayers pay for that accommodation (currently £2bn pa and obviously rising)?
// …or are you saying we should let as many come as wants to come//
A good question, bob, which, when put to migrant sympathisers is often replied “of course – as many as want to come.” This is clearly ridiculous and shows a complete lack of understanding of the consequences of this invasion (for that’s unarguably what it is).
// As they are not protected in Albania, why would those women return there?//
This precisely demonstrates my point. The UK cannot protect everybody worldwide from all the troubles they may face. If trafficking is a problem in Albania it is a matter for the Albanian people and their government to address. The answer is not to simply allow the victims of that misfortune to up sticks and settle here. But that is largely irrelevant. The overwhelming number of arrivals from Albania are not women. They are young men. Just take a look at the arrivals on the Kent
// The UK does have an obligation to consider applications for asylum…//
As I said, the UK needs to consider whether it can still commit to that obligation. There is no doubt that meeting that obligation is having a serious effect on the finance and facilities available for those already here, not to mention the threat it poses to social cohesion.
//Circa 30,000 of these refugees, instead of seeking safe haven in neighbouring Kenya (in line with UN policy), they were flown out and took up permanent residence here in Britain.//
First of all, it wasn’t UN policy. The UN has, for many years, insisted that it is not necessary to apply for asylum in the first safe country refugees encounter (contrary to their own Convention). But secondly, in the case of the Ugandan Asians, the UK chose to offer resettlement. This is possibly because Uganda was a former British Protectorate, but that is by the way.
//However the idea of towing back dinghies to French shores is fraught with danger.//
No more fraught with danger than the idea of towing them to the UK is. They are usually “intercepted” half way across the Channel, so the distance is similar. Many of them are disembarked from the dinghies to board larger vessels anyway, so they can be ferried back to France instead of being taken onward to the UK.
//I wonder how many of the people moaning on this thread voted in the Government responsible.//
It doesn’t matter. This is not a party political issue. No government, of any persuasion, has the political will to tackle this effectively. They are far too concerned with appearing to be “compassionate.”
//If that means commandeering hotel rooms, so be it.//
You say that as if it has no effect, Khandro. Why should people who enjoy going to a particular hotel be denied that opportunity so as illegal migrants can be comfortably accommodated? And why should UK taxpayers pay for that accommodation (currently £2bn pa and obviously rising)?
// …or are you saying we should let as many come as wants to come//
A good question, bob, which, when put to migrant sympathisers is often replied “of course – as many as want to come.” This is clearly ridiculous and shows a complete lack of understanding of the consequences of this invasion (for that’s unarguably what it is).
There has been quote a few days this year when a thousand came over, I remember about Junish reading about 1000 on one day and 900 the day before (the article didn't mention the rest of the week). The trouble with the hotel blocking is there are no visitors who would spend moneyin the town/city. What never gets mentioned is make things safer for women movement, and the fact that so far this year there have been at least 30000 men arriving in the country. How is this making safer for women and girls?
//What does the UN Convention state about having to seek refuge in the first safe country?//
============
ARTICLE 31. REFUGEES UNLAWFULLY IN THE COUNTRY OF REFUGE
1. 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 , 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 important phrase, as I pointed out earlier, is “…coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened…” Nobody arriving from France fits that definition. By implication, I read it that if penalties cannot be imposed on those arriving directly from territory where they are under threat, they can be imposed on those who don’t.
You have to consider the purpose of the Convention. It is to give refugees the right to seek protection in a safe country having fled their homeland. It is not to allow them to roam the world, entering other countries unhindered and without leave to do so. The fact that other European countries are suffering similar problems is hardly the point. It’s up to them what they allow but it is not a valid argument to say that because other countries are enduring the same problems, that the UK must do so too.
There is no doubt in my mind that the asylum system is being widely abused. It has now become a system whereby those who don’t like living where they are can take up residence in somewhere more agreeable, often on the most spurious of bases. Much of Europe was very disagreeable five hundred years ago. The people there – our ancestors – made it a nicer place to live. If Europe as a whole does not get a grip on this, the entire continent will be overwhelmed by people from Africa and Asia, for whom there are no resources and insufficient public services and many parts of Europe will resemble the cesspits that the migrants have fled from. The UK should take the lead by declaring that it is full up and can no longer provide a haven for the homeless arrivals who do not like it where they currently live.
============
ARTICLE 31. REFUGEES UNLAWFULLY IN THE COUNTRY OF REFUGE
1. 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 , 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 important phrase, as I pointed out earlier, is “…coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened…” Nobody arriving from France fits that definition. By implication, I read it that if penalties cannot be imposed on those arriving directly from territory where they are under threat, they can be imposed on those who don’t.
You have to consider the purpose of the Convention. It is to give refugees the right to seek protection in a safe country having fled their homeland. It is not to allow them to roam the world, entering other countries unhindered and without leave to do so. The fact that other European countries are suffering similar problems is hardly the point. It’s up to them what they allow but it is not a valid argument to say that because other countries are enduring the same problems, that the UK must do so too.
There is no doubt in my mind that the asylum system is being widely abused. It has now become a system whereby those who don’t like living where they are can take up residence in somewhere more agreeable, often on the most spurious of bases. Much of Europe was very disagreeable five hundred years ago. The people there – our ancestors – made it a nicer place to live. If Europe as a whole does not get a grip on this, the entire continent will be overwhelmed by people from Africa and Asia, for whom there are no resources and insufficient public services and many parts of Europe will resemble the cesspits that the migrants have fled from. The UK should take the lead by declaring that it is full up and can no longer provide a haven for the homeless arrivals who do not like it where they currently live.
Have you heard about the group of RNLI volunteers who were on a training course for the use of inshore craft. Hoylake on the Wirral I think. When they got back to their "Hotel" after a day of training all their gear had been packed and forwarded to another Hotel where they had been rebooked without knowing to make room for ... Albanian illegals. Haha.
NJ, it doesn't state they must seek refuge in the first safe country, does it? If that were the intention, would that not have been made clear in that Article
You might have your own interpretation of the Convention but given it is the UN's Convention, I would think it likely the UN has a better understanding of the intention behind Article 31.
You might have your own interpretation of the Convention but given it is the UN's Convention, I would think it likely the UN has a better understanding of the intention behind Article 31.
The "COP" meetings are a farce. A load of hot air (and carbon emissions) produced by a bunch of people who come up with a series of declarations. They then trot off home (in their private jets) and carry on as usual. Good on them for doing that - the climate cannot be "tackled" - but it would be nice if they simply accepted that and worked on plans to live with the changes. Still, I suppose it's a nice jolly just as winter is setting in. I just wish they's be a little more pragmatic because achieving "net zero" - even with the creative accounting that goes with the exercise - is impossible.
//NJ, it doesn't state they must seek refuge in the first safe country, does it? If that were the intention, would that not have been made clear in that Article//
Then why should A31 make a distinction for those arriving "directly" from a place where they are under threat? Why else would that phrase be included if it wasn't intended that the rights provided by the convention only extend to those arriving directly? It's not my interpretation - the words are clear enough.
Anyway, it's by the way. The UK needs to urgently consider whether it can continue to provide asylum at all.
Then why should A31 make a distinction for those arriving "directly" from a place where they are under threat? Why else would that phrase be included if it wasn't intended that the rights provided by the convention only extend to those arriving directly? It's not my interpretation - the words are clear enough.
Anyway, it's by the way. The UK needs to urgently consider whether it can continue to provide asylum at all.
untitled,//i don't think viktor orban is an example we want to follow... you do seem to have a liking for autocrats and cults of personality khandro//
Like whom ? I like people who get the job done. What an absurd article put forward by Zacs master from the Grauniad! - someone cut their finger on the razor wire & there's a terrifying indictment of Orban's initiative in the shape of a dead dog.
Why not visit Budapest & have a look around?
Like whom ? I like people who get the job done. What an absurd article put forward by Zacs master from the Grauniad! - someone cut their finger on the razor wire & there's a terrifying indictment of Orban's initiative in the shape of a dead dog.
Why not visit Budapest & have a look around?
