Film, Media & TV2 mins ago
Why Are Illegal Immigrants Sailing From Tunisia To Italy?
Whats wrong with Tunisia?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by dave50. 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.
I can remember a few months ago Julia Hartley-Brewer had a Labour MP on her show, and the MP was clutching her pearls and insisting the men (funny how the vast majority are young men) were "fleeing" places like Syria. JHB made the reasonable point that as soon as they've left Syria they have succeeded in fleeing, and have most certainly fled by the time they've passed through numerous European countries and ended up in France. The MP had a fit of the vapours and kept on repeating they're fleeing places like Syria and simply could not/would not accept JHB's point.
It's as if the hand-wringers only consider these people to have fled once they arrive on our shores.
It's as if the hand-wringers only consider these people to have fled once they arrive on our shores.
let us imagine that tories are persecuted in Britain… electoral data is leaked and labour militias go from door to door hunting conservatives and taking to their families with knives… prime minister starmer declares that no conservatives have the right of citizenship anymore and conservative politicians are publicly accused of wild conspiracies and put to death in show trials… scotland and wales secede and the country falls into a three way civil war…. NI joins with ireland and the evil new regime threatens to invade and retake its territory
silly i know but if such an evil situation came about then tens of millions of people would flee the uk… would all of them just go to ireland or france and then go “ahhh i am safe now…” no. they would not. They would go to places they had relatives or where they could speak the language or where there were large communities of british people… essentially places where they could make an effort at rebuilding their lives
would all of those people have valid travel documents? probably not if they had to flee their homes in a hurry or if the government had seized them. they would be forced to claim asylum in the country they were heading to.
silly i know but if such an evil situation came about then tens of millions of people would flee the uk… would all of them just go to ireland or france and then go “ahhh i am safe now…” no. they would not. They would go to places they had relatives or where they could speak the language or where there were large communities of british people… essentially places where they could make an effort at rebuilding their lives
would all of those people have valid travel documents? probably not if they had to flee their homes in a hurry or if the government had seized them. they would be forced to claim asylum in the country they were heading to.
Nothing at all except....
They know the chances of being lobbed out of here are as good as zero.
They know that sooner or later they will get all that they have heard they will get..benefits,free everything basically. And if not already they will be getting their "families" onto the gravy train.
They know there are hoards of leftie lawyers, do gooder hand wringing liberals etc that will pull every trick in the book to make sure they stay(eg: using a fear of water as an excuse) to keep them here(the judge or whatever it was fell for it hook line and sinker). Witness the photos of the Portland locals and their "everybody welcome" signs to them when the first lot were being put on the barge week..
I'm willing to bet you dont even need two hands to count the number of true asylum seekers amongst the invading hordes , one is probably overkill.
All part of the grande plan to rid this country of its white northern "europeanness" ..and its working by the looks of it.
They know the chances of being lobbed out of here are as good as zero.
They know that sooner or later they will get all that they have heard they will get..benefits,free everything basically. And if not already they will be getting their "families" onto the gravy train.
They know there are hoards of leftie lawyers, do gooder hand wringing liberals etc that will pull every trick in the book to make sure they stay(eg: using a fear of water as an excuse) to keep them here(the judge or whatever it was fell for it hook line and sinker). Witness the photos of the Portland locals and their "everybody welcome" signs to them when the first lot were being put on the barge week..
I'm willing to bet you dont even need two hands to count the number of true asylum seekers amongst the invading hordes , one is probably overkill.
All part of the grande plan to rid this country of its white northern "europeanness" ..and its working by the looks of it.
//The question makes no sense.//
I disagree, Ikky. The question makes perfectly good sense.
The idea of asylum (i.e. being a refugee) is that it is too dangerous to remain where you are so you flee and seek refuge elsewhere (hence "refugees"). Those doing so are said to be so fearful for their safety that they have upped sticks, often leaving in such a rush that they had no time to see that their wives and children were safe.
So, with that in mind, surely once you have reached a place of safety, that should be sufficient. You report to the authorities there, lodge a claim for asylum under the UN Convention on the treatment of refugees, and get your status formalised.
There are plenty of safe countries between the point of departure for those fleeing their homelands and the UK. Certainly in most of mainland Europe and arguably in Africa and Asia. Tunisia is arguably safe.
Of course it may be that many of such countries are not quite so benevolent as the UK and does not allow migrants to pick and choose where they will stay, whilst providing free legal representation to those who wish to challenge the governments of the countries where they have imposed themselves. But that's quite a different matter.
I disagree, Ikky. The question makes perfectly good sense.
The idea of asylum (i.e. being a refugee) is that it is too dangerous to remain where you are so you flee and seek refuge elsewhere (hence "refugees"). Those doing so are said to be so fearful for their safety that they have upped sticks, often leaving in such a rush that they had no time to see that their wives and children were safe.
So, with that in mind, surely once you have reached a place of safety, that should be sufficient. You report to the authorities there, lodge a claim for asylum under the UN Convention on the treatment of refugees, and get your status formalised.
There are plenty of safe countries between the point of departure for those fleeing their homelands and the UK. Certainly in most of mainland Europe and arguably in Africa and Asia. Tunisia is arguably safe.
Of course it may be that many of such countries are not quite so benevolent as the UK and does not allow migrants to pick and choose where they will stay, whilst providing free legal representation to those who wish to challenge the governments of the countries where they have imposed themselves. But that's quite a different matter.
//..they would be forced to claim asylum in the country they were heading to.//
And quite rightly so. The world seems to have lost sight of the original intention of the asylum process. It was to provide immediate sanctuary to those fleeing danger. That's why A31 of the UN Convention makes a specific exception (from action for illegal entry) for those "unlawfully at large" providing they have come "...directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened." It was not designed as a "carte blanche" for people to roam the globe until they reach the destination of their choosing. It is only since the Convention's enactment that some governments and their judicial systems have placed an interpretation on that Article that it neither stated nor implied.
There are often calls to enable asylum applications to be made from outside the UK. This makes absolutely no sense. If somebody is in such peril in their homeland they need to flee, they will clearly not be in a position to make an application. Once they reach a country where they are able to apply, they are unlikely to be in any immediate danger and so do not need to apply for asylum.
The vast majority of those arriving in the UK - especially those arriving from France - are not in danger. They simply don't like it where they are and want to be here. In arriving in the manner they do they jump the queue of people applying to settle here before the arrive. That is not the function of the asylum system. But somehow I think we've argued this point before.
And quite rightly so. The world seems to have lost sight of the original intention of the asylum process. It was to provide immediate sanctuary to those fleeing danger. That's why A31 of the UN Convention makes a specific exception (from action for illegal entry) for those "unlawfully at large" providing they have come "...directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened." It was not designed as a "carte blanche" for people to roam the globe until they reach the destination of their choosing. It is only since the Convention's enactment that some governments and their judicial systems have placed an interpretation on that Article that it neither stated nor implied.
There are often calls to enable asylum applications to be made from outside the UK. This makes absolutely no sense. If somebody is in such peril in their homeland they need to flee, they will clearly not be in a position to make an application. Once they reach a country where they are able to apply, they are unlikely to be in any immediate danger and so do not need to apply for asylum.
The vast majority of those arriving in the UK - especially those arriving from France - are not in danger. They simply don't like it where they are and want to be here. In arriving in the manner they do they jump the queue of people applying to settle here before the arrive. That is not the function of the asylum system. But somehow I think we've argued this point before.
Specifically, the question asks why are they going from Tunisia to Italy. The reason is because this is a relatively direct way to go from Africa to Europe. Same risks of a sea crossing like our Channel, but they are well versed in the belief that once in Europe they can reach the UK. That in their eyes is where the gold is.
A Border Force friend of mine (now retired) once told me that at interview he was shown a scrap of a map torn from a diary with the migrant telling him that he had been told it was twenty minutes on a boat and you'll be in UK..... He thought the little gap of the English Channel seemed to validate his boat masters opinion.
A Border Force friend of mine (now retired) once told me that at interview he was shown a scrap of a map torn from a diary with the migrant telling him that he had been told it was twenty minutes on a boat and you'll be in UK..... He thought the little gap of the English Channel seemed to validate his boat masters opinion.
Latest Posts
Film, Media & TV2 mins ago
Snooker......mobile Phones....
Sport4 mins ago
Film, Media & TV8 mins ago
News13 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.