|
|
Post by politician2 on Jun 15, 2022 14:12:02 GMT
Errr, no they don't. They may do in your mind but we are signataries to international charters that specify asylum seekers DO NOT have to seek asylum in the first "safe" country they come through. This is to stop one or two countries having to share a huge burdon whilst others have a very light one. I really wish people would stop pushing this lie that asylum seekers can't claim here after going through France, I hope you are just wrongly informed rather than deliberately trying to push a false narrative. I am neither wrongly informed nor pushing a false narrative, though I suspect you may be. I have quoted in this thread from the 1951 Convention and it states, in black and white, that refugees must seek asylum in the first safe country they reach. That may have been modified by case law, but the statute law position remains unchanged, and those arguing against that are simply dissembling. |
|
|
|
Post by zeopold on Jun 15, 2022 14:12:17 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2022 14:32:25 GMT
The numbers of economic migrants illegally attempting to enter Britain via the Channel keeps ramping up. We have to take firm action as we cannot possibly house them all, and this government – whatever its other shortcomings – is stepping up to the plate. Well, they aren't "stepping up to the plate" as it's economically unviable and doesn't work as a deterrent to people smugglers who will just replace men with women and children. It is being done as a purely political move to detract from the utter shower of shit this Government is. Personally I think it's ridiculous that people want to risk their lives coming from the safe country France to the safe country UK, but we need to understand and address why it happens.Is it being done because English is most nation's second language? Is it being done because there are more relationship ties in the UK? What is sure is that people shouldn't be risking their live's to come from one perfectly safe country to another. Until an agreement is made that all countries take a certain percentage of confirmed asylum seekers to share out the cost and obligation then nothing will get better. Middle Eastern countries need to also stop ignoring the plight of asylum seekers, this is a world problem and with climate change is going to get far worse. At present we are taking far less than our fair share, we should be upping our game, not appealing to the worst xenophobic attitudes of people in power who only care about their own electability. Considering you believe in repatriation anyway, I can't believe you have the audacity to scrutinise Politician's nonsense. It's simple-considering that Britain, France and the US created the problem in the first place, they should shoulder the responsibility. Interestingly, because Ukraine is fighting the West's enemy, there seems to be double standards when it comes to 'resettling refugees' but it seems that if they're caused by Britain's Wars they can fuck off. Disgraceful xenophobia. |
|
|
|
Post by doug61 on Jun 15, 2022 14:34:37 GMT
Why do you think it is an escalating problem? In 2018, 37,453 people applied for asylum. This number has been roughly constant over the past five years and is substantially lower than in 2002, when the number of applications peaked at 103,000. Why do I think that migrants crossing the channel is an escalating problem? I'll simply repeat the figures I quoted a few minutes ago. In the first five months of 2021, 3112 migrants made the crossing. In the first five months of this year, 8393. Just to add a sense of perspective to the hysteria.... Which country has the most asylum seekers in Europe? In 2021, asylum seekers came from around 140 countries. ... Most first time applications were lodged in: Germany (148,200) France (103,800) Spain (62,100) Italy (43,900) Austria (36,700) |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2022 14:35:20 GMT
Personally I think it's ridiculous that people want to risk their lives coming from the safe country France to the safe country UK, but we need to understand and address why it happens.Is it being done because English is most nation's second language? Is it being done because there are more relationship ties in the UK? What is sure is that people shouldn't be risking their live's to come from one perfectly safe country to another. Agreed entirely. I suspect the English language and relationship ties have something to do with it. However, I always suspect it's because we're much more generous with housing and benefits, and much less racist than, the French. You really believe that the British are less racist than the French or anyone else for that matter? Thing is, I think you might be serious too which is scary. Would you voice this opinion to people of colour in this country? |
|
|
|
Post by doug61 on Jun 15, 2022 14:41:11 GMT
Personally I think it's ridiculous that people want to risk their lives coming from the safe country France to the safe country UK, but we need to understand and address why it happens.Is it being done because English is most nation's second language? Is it being done because there are more relationship ties in the UK? What is sure is that people shouldn't be risking their live's to come from one perfectly safe country to another. Agreed entirely. I suspect the English language and relationship ties have something to do with it. However, I always suspect it's because we're much more generous with housing and benefits, and much less racist than, the French. Can't comment on the "racism" but our benefits are much worse than many European countries. That's another myth used by people smugglers and perhaps should be publicised more. Thing is the Tories would love to put them off with the truth but that would mean admitting that we give our people some pretty bad benefits compared to others, which doesn't fit their agenda. |
|
|
|
Post by doug61 on Jun 15, 2022 14:43:19 GMT
Errr, no they don't. They may do in your mind but we are signataries to international charters that specify asylum seekers DO NOT have to seek asylum in the first "safe" country they come through. This is to stop one or two countries having to share a huge burdon whilst others have a very light one. I really wish people would stop pushing this lie that asylum seekers can't claim here after going through France, I hope you are just wrongly informed rather than deliberately trying to push a false narrative. I am neither wrongly informed nor pushing a false narrative, though I suspect you may be. I have quoted in this thread from the 1951 Convention and it states, in black and white, that refugees must seek asylum in the first safe country they reach. That may have been modified by case law, but the statute law position remains unchanged, and those arguing against that are simply dissembling. Well, you should tell Conservative cabinet ministers because I have seen them argue on Television that the law needs changing so they have to apply in the first safe country. So you obviously know something that they don't. |
|
|
|
Post by zeopold on Jun 15, 2022 14:50:58 GMT
I always suspect it's because we're much more generous with housing and benefits, and much less racist than, the French. You really believe that the British are less racist than the French or anyone else for that matter? For sure. We put a brown lady in charge of kicking the brown people out. |
|
|
|
Post by Lord Emsworth on Jun 15, 2022 14:52:55 GMT
Guessing you are asking "will" I vote for Labour at the next election Probably not Where I live is now a safe Labour seat. The sitting MP had a 30,000 majority at the last election so it doesn't matter. With that in mind I may go with my heart and vote Green - although some of their policies are not to my liking. No party ticks all my boxes We need some form of PR to make smaller parties viable and reinvigorate our democracy No, did you vote for Blair in 2005 after he invaded Iraq? Be honest. No. I was too disgusted |
|
|
|
Post by Lord Emsworth on Jun 15, 2022 14:58:22 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Lord Emsworth on Jun 15, 2022 15:00:19 GMT
You really believe that the British are less racist than the French or anyone else for that matter? For sure. We put a brown lady in charge of kicking the brown people out. The cruellest irony of all - also... Johnson's family name was Kemal (Turkey), Patel (Uganda), Raab (Czech), Sunak (East Africa), Javid (Punjab), Kwarteng (Ghana), Sharma (Uttar Pradesh), Zahawi (Iraq) - all immigrants or children of recent immigrants Why do they seek to punish today's refugees in such a cruel way? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2022 15:01:50 GMT
But what makes each individual voter responsible? Once you’ve voted that’s it. You vote for an individual MP not an entire party. No voter can then exert any control on what then happens, be it good or bad. Sadly. I fully understand the concept of holding your nose and voting for the "least bad" option. If you want anything to change then the Tories have to be removed and there is sadly only one party that can do it. I hope they will only achieve it in coalition with the Lib Dems and SNP and Greens so that more voices from the left will force a say in what will otherwise be a Tory lite Starmer government. I think we'd all prefer to vote for a proper old fashioned left wing party, but better some change than feeling ideologically "sound" whilst causing no change. The Tories just pass on their right wing baton to Labour who don't repeal any of their anti union laws and/or benefit 'reforms'so in effect they're just passing on the same redundant anti working class politics with a tiny bit of tinkering. It's just perception but the fundamental politics are the same. You're a political fantasist if you think Labour will form a 'rainbow' coalition'. Labour will never get into power unless the SNP vote totally collapses which is unlikely this side of an independence referendum. If the SNP DID go into a coalition with Labour, the first thing they would demand is a referendum which they're going to press ahead with anyway! Labour are a political dead duck here and made minor inroads due to Tory defectors whilst the SNP vote increased. |
|
|
|
Post by Lord Emsworth on Jun 15, 2022 15:01:52 GMT
Errr, no they don't. They may do in your mind but we are signataries to international charters that specify asylum seekers DO NOT have to seek asylum in the first "safe" country they come through. This is to stop one or two countries having to share a huge burdon whilst others have a very light one. I really wish people would stop pushing this lie that asylum seekers can't claim here after going through France, I hope you are just wrongly informed rather than deliberately trying to push a false narrative. I am neither wrongly informed nor pushing a false narrative, though I suspect you may be. I have quoted in this thread from the 1951 Convention and it states, in black and white, that refugees must seek asylum in the first safe country they reach. That may have been modified by case law, but the statute law position remains unchanged, and those arguing against that are simply dissembling. Except we have established that case law trumps whatever is in the statute - that's the way the law works here |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2022 15:04:24 GMT
No, did you vote for Blair in 2005 after he invaded Iraq? Be honest. No. I was too disgusted But you continued to vote for them when they rebranded themselves? |
|
|
|
Post by Lord Emsworth on Jun 15, 2022 15:09:29 GMT
But you continued to vote for them when they rebranded themselves? How many more times? Yes, as the least worst option and not as some kind of ringing endorsement It's how our form of democracy works - you can't necessarily vote for what you want but against what you don't want Holding your nose as Doug so aptly put it I realise in your ideologically pure world that is tantamount to bombing innocent women and children but few people adopt your stance and are willing to make more rational decisions based on the world as it is and not how we'd like it to be Most people are disinclined to tortuously try and connect the dots so that all voters of mainstream parties become culpable for every drop of blood spilled by immoral UK foreign and domestic policy decisions |
|
