|
|
Post by Saint on Oct 28, 2024 13:18:49 GMT
A concerned citizen writes:
Just been reported on GB News; as at 3pm this afternoon the total number of illegals who have crossed the channel this year from the safe EU state of France, is 29,451, overtaking the total number who crossed in 2023.
Hold the front page... as I write a Border Farce cutter has just arrived at Dover with another 75 criminals on board. So the total has just gone up to 29,526 and there's still two months to go to the end of the year.
What do you reckon, 40,000 by Christmas? And after a stay in some hotel they will all be pushed to the front of the housing benefits queue. Unless of course they murder someone, in which case they will go to prison for a few years, then be pushed to the front of the housing and benefits queue.
Smash the gangs my arse.
|
|
|
|
Post by Saint on Oct 28, 2024 13:21:29 GMT
Concerned Citizen is quite right: these people are criminals.
However, many of them are criminals whom The Refugee Convention requires the UK to grant a pardon.
So, not really criminals in the ordinary sense of that word at all. In fact, it is the UK that is acting illegally if it refuses pardons to those who meet the The Refugee Convention's requirements.
Hope that helps.
|
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 3,633
|
Post by Steve on Oct 28, 2024 13:25:22 GMT
As I've said before, just send them to Nissan Huts in South Georgia
|
|
|
|
Post by Saint on Oct 28, 2024 13:27:49 GMT
As I've said before, just send them to Nissan Huts in South Georgia Nothing wrong with sending them off-shore for processing. However, those who meet the Convention's definition of refugee must be granted access to the mainland upon processing. |
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 3,633
|
Post by Steve on Oct 28, 2024 13:32:04 GMT
As I've said before, just send them to Nissan Huts in South Georgia Nothing wrong with sending them off-shore for processing. However, those who meet the Convention's definition of refugee must be granted access to the mainland upon processing. Opinions vary on the matter, the Convention's wording isn't crystal clear and a few years ago we changed our law to exclude those that arrived via irregular means. The EU implements similar. The Convention needs editing. |
|
|
|
Post by Saint on Oct 28, 2024 13:35:24 GMT
Nothing wrong with sending them off-shore for processing. However, those who meet the Convention's definition of refugee must be granted access to the mainland upon processing. Opinions vary on the matter, the Convention's wording isn't crystal clear and a few years ago we changed our law to exclude those that arrived via irregular means. The EU implements similar. The Convention needs editing. I don't wish to get into another discussion about the wording of the Convention. Let's just say that I completely disagree with you (while acknowledging that you disagree with me). The Convention gives refugees the right to choose their place of refuge. You disagree - I get that. My main point is that many of these people are not criminals in the ordinary sense of that word. |
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 3,633
|
Post by Steve on Oct 28, 2024 14:26:19 GMT
I didn't say they were criminals. But they are certainly seeking to gain an undue advantage through non legal means so not much distinction.
|
|
|
|
Post by Saint on Oct 28, 2024 14:35:30 GMT
I didn't say they were criminals. But they are certainly seeking to gain an undue advantage through non legal means so not much distinction.I didn't mean to suggest you thought they were criminals. I'm not sure I understand what you mean by the bolded part above. |
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 3,633
|
Post by Steve on Oct 28, 2024 16:46:43 GMT
They should be claiming asylum in first safe country reached but they are seeking out the Uk because for multiple reasons they's be financially better off here (the undue advantage) and our laws say their method isn't legal.
|
|
|
|
Post by Saint on Oct 28, 2024 16:54:00 GMT
They should be claiming asylum in first safe country reached but they are seeking out the Uk because for multiple reasons they's be financially better off here (the undue advantage) and our laws say their method isn't legal. What's the basis for the 'should' in your above remark? Is it moral or legal? If it were legal (I don't believe it is), the burden would fall disproportionately on nations approximate to rights-abusing countries. |
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 3,633
|
Post by Steve on Oct 28, 2024 17:00:37 GMT
Moral and the clear intent of the refugee convention
As for the burden falling on those nations well they are those best placed to do something about the issues. Yes we should contribute to their costs - as we already do.
|
|
|
|
Post by Saint on Oct 28, 2024 17:11:03 GMT
|
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 3,633
|
Post by Steve on Oct 28, 2024 17:23:38 GMT
www.gov.uk/claim-asylum/eligibility 'When your claim might not be considered
Your claim might not be considered if you:
- are from an EU country
travelled to the UK through a ‘safe third country’ - have a connection to a safe third country where you could claim asylum
Generally, a safe third country is one that:
- you’re not a citizen of
you would not be harmed in - would not send you on to another country where you would be harmed'
|
|
|
|
Post by Saint on Oct 28, 2024 17:25:45 GMT
www.gov.uk/claim-asylum/eligibility 'When your claim might not be considered
Your claim might not be considered if you:
- are from an EU country
travelled to the UK through a ‘safe third country’ - have a connection to a safe third country where you could claim asylum
Generally, a safe third country is one that:
- you’re not a citizen of
you would not be harmed in - would not send you on to another country where you would be harmed'
Yes, but that's UK law. It's not international law. In fact, the UK law in this instance is a violation of international law. |
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 3,633
|
Post by Steve on Oct 28, 2024 17:27:28 GMT
According to you and those with an agenda
|
|
