Reply With QuoteThats very nasty, even if said in the spitiit of irony. you'll end up on the naughty step with me!Originally Posted by Jordi Culé
| + Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
I thought voting Brexit meant “taking back control” which meant we were allowed to machine gun these Covid carrying miscreants and their dinghies whilst in range of our beloved white cliffs?
Don’t tell me that’s another Brexit fib?
****ing fuming here!
Thats very nasty, even if said in the spitiit of irony. you'll end up on the naughty step with me!
He’s taking the piss out of you, you numpty.
I don't disagree with any of that. However if you just let anyone in the flood will grow greater and greater, but that is not my point. I asked why when they are picked up in the sea are they not returned to the country from which they embarked. Take them back to France and Belgium and put them off there. If were not going to do that we may as well send across a channel ferry and say, "Come on chaps hops aboard we don't mind. It is no argument to say we should take more because we have less than this or that country. If that was the yard stick every time country was not at the top of the list they would be obliged to take more and more.
#you said we should not just take anyone who wants to come so how are you gonig to regulate them, decide who comes and who doesn't?
What is your reason for not wanting to help a desperate refugee in a boat trying to reach the UK?
Nevermind about why they should or shouldn't be allowed in.
What is your motivation for your stance?
I said that if they are found at sea they should be returned to the country they came from. Is your opinion that we should let in anyone who attempts to enter the country illegally?
And if we should help them then why don't we let in the people who apply through the proper channels and attempt to honestly comply with the immigration requirements?
For like, the fiftieth time, just because they are in a dinghy doesn't make them illegal immigrants
Asylum is a proper channel.
These people are seeking asylum which is legal, there are proper channels to process them so we aren't just taking everyone in.
What makes you think we are letting anyone in and the flood will grow greater and greater?
Net immigration last year was about 200,000, asylum seekers are a tiny minority of this. What makes you think too many people are getting in?
No I'm saying if they are in the middle of the sea we should help them and not turn them around.
Bring them here and then start the process of them starting to apply for asylum. (I'm not saying they will get it)
Why do you have the stance of send them back.
What does that achieve apart from putting an obviously desperate person in even more hardship
2 questions, why should we return them to the country they came from? And if they've crossed all of Europe from Iran how do you decide which country that is?
What makes you think we don't let people in who apply through the "proper channels"?
Asylum starts in the coun try in which you first sat foot, it is that county's responsibility, whic hte EU countries are conspicuosly failing to action.
And asylum only pertains when they reach British soil which is why for many many years airport areas before cu
stoms have been deemed to be outside that countries borders. If they are found at sea they should be returned to the country from when they came where they can apply for asylum in the internationally recognised manner.What is wrong about that?
someone arriving from any airport in the world into another county's air port, if found to not have the correct visa or documents is put on a plane back to the airport he or she came from. What's the difference?
Sounds perfect for an island country off the north coast. Never gonna be our problem.
Are the EU failing? Italy, Spain, France and Germany all take more than the U.K.
So using your argument the U.K. should never have any asylum seekers then?
The difference is these people are usually fleeing something and sending them back can result in Something bad happening to them.
Yes those countries are failing in their duty to obey their own laws because it does not suit them. they have a legal obligation to process and accept every illegal immigrant that lands in the EU until such time as they can show they have no claim and can be returned to where they came from.
How many any particular country takes or does not take isn't relevant to this point.
he UK has a system which allows people to apply for asylum in the country they are in, be processed and then flown to UK and be taken care of. In this way the UK fulfills its obligation. These people have actively avoided using that facility. If they don't care about doing it right they should be aware of the consequences of their actions.
you are followi
ng me aren't you?
you're a troll.
That's not how asylum seeking works, to seek asylum you land in the country first then seek asylum. The whole point of asylum is you have left your home country and can't go back. Otherwise it's just applying for normal immigration.
I don't understand why you're so angry about it, can you explain that please?
For someone with such a strong opinion on seeking asylum and illegal immigration you don’t seem to understand any of it.Yes those countries are failing in their duty to obey their own laws because it does not suit them. they have a legal obligation to process and accept every illegal immigrant that lands in the EU until such time as they can show they have no claim and can be returned to where they came from.
How many any particular country takes or does not take isn't relevant to this point.
he UK has a system which allows people to apply for asylum in the country they are in, be processed and then flown to UK and be taken care of. In this way the UK fulfills its obligation. These people have actively avoided using that facility. If they don't care about doing it right they should be aware of the consequences of their actions.
you are followi
ng me aren't you?
you're a troll.
Often something we're at least partly responsible for...
you mean you don't agree, I understand far more than you know. I also knoe yuour a troll and a keyboard warrior.
You just said they have to apply for asylum from their home country - wrong
You keep calling refugees illegal immigrants - wrong
It’s hard to agree or disagree with you when it’s impossible to see what you’re talking about.
The UK system has a facility for would be immigrants and refugees to apply where they are so they do not have to trudge across Europe. They choose not to use it.
A great number of the people arriving by boats across the channel are economic migrants not people suffering from persecution. If the seek to sneak into this country with out going through the correct procedures then they are acting illegally. You can huff and puff and be as indignant as you please but it won't change that fact.
Have you got a source for that? Illegal immigrants do get sent home if they're picked up by the UK authorities so what point are you trying to make?
Asylum seekers are allowed to turn up in a country and apply for asylum.
They are taking them back to France btw, don't you read the articles you post
The Home Office said the migrants had "left a safe country - generally France - and where appropriate we will be seeking to return them".
I know they are but EU law says they should be processed for asylum in the first country which they enter. that is clearly not UK, and never was. If they are correctly registered in another country they can either a. apply to come her legally or b be returned to that country if they come illegally.
I'm not saying it is just or unjust, I'm not saying it is good or bad, but it is the law! so why isn't it enforced? Because it doesn't suit the countries who signed up to make it law.
So we are back to asylum seekers now? I don't think that is true btw:
https://fullfact.org/immigration/ref...-safe-country/
Do refugees have to stay in the first safe country they reach?
Claim
Under the Geneva Convention refugees should seek refuge in the first safe country they come to.
Conclusion
Incorrect. The UN Refugee Convention does not make this requirement of refugees, and UK case law supports this interpretation. Refugees can legitimately make a claim for asylum in the UK after passing through other “safe” countries.
Posting Permissions
