Mural Painted Over…

[Gromit]

Not in N. Ireland but in an asylum centre for little kids.
The smiling Disney characters were apparently too friendly for these solo children.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66132158

The soul of the Conservative Party is really dark and vacuous.

[Atheist]

NJ: Are we therefore free from any duty to accept asylum seekers (unless they come from France or Holland)?
Why do we sometimes boast about our record of welcoming people?

[douglas9401]

Asylum is well defined and it doesn't include not liking where you're born or the low standard of living.

[Old_Geezer]

There is a difference between legal duty and moral duty. However sure, if they haven't come directly from the place they claim to be fleeing from then this is not the first safe country they reach. So if they move on from another safe country they no longer qualify as asylum seekers (since they've not bothered to apply for it where they were) so there is no agreement/obligation for us to take them. If they wish to come here they can apply for permission through the normal channels.

[Atheist]

OG; so only if France or Netherlands became hellholes would we accept any asylum seekers from there?
Or, of course, Republic of Ireland.
We're well off the hook, then. Why did we ever let Jewish kids in? When's the last time we accepted refugees from France, Netherlands or RoI?

[New Judge]

//If you can't understand the difference between an asylum seeker and an illegal asylum seeker then that's your problem, not mine.//

I think it’s you who has the problem.

There is no such thing as an “illegal asylum seeker”. Migrants are either entitled to apply for asylum or they are not. A31 places a restriction on those not arriving directly from a place of danger and thus almost all those arriving in Dover do not qualify according to the Convention. They are illegal immigrants and should be returned to their point of embarkation. The fact that for some inexplicable reason the UK government sees fit to assess the claims of such people does not alter that.

//NJ: Are we therefore free from any duty to accept asylum seekers (unless they come from France or Holland)?//

According to the Convention, yes. Anybody arriving from France or Holland whether they were born there or arrived there from elsewhere would not be eligible as they are safe countries.

//Why do we sometimes boast about our record of welcoming people?//

By and large “we” don’t. Politicians are usually the people making that boast, presumably because it makes them feel good.

[Ellipsis]

> The fact that for some inexplicable reason the UK government sees fit to assess the claims of such people does not alter that.

Oh, I see now. The Government is wrong, the opposition is wrong, the Court of Appeal is wrong, and you are right. Got it.

[New Judge]

//Oh, I see now. The Government is wrong, the opposition is wrong, the Court of Appeal is wrong, and you are right. Got it.//

I'm not saying they are all wrong.

Many international treaties are open to interpretation (the ECHR being one of the most vague and so most open). There has been a concerted effort to place an interpretation on the UN Convention that is not contained within it. I don't know why that should be and don't really care. The UK government is obviously perfectly happy to comply with these interpretations. It's just a shame they are not honest and told us why they are so content to allow vast numbers of people who have no entitlement to be here, not only to arrive but to be cosseted after they do.

It's back to basics - the idea of asylum is to provide a safe haven to those in danger. Those in France are not in danger - they'd just rather be here than there and it seems the government is quite happy to accommodate that whim. But it's got nothing to do with asylum.

[fiveleaves]

Can you imagine Robert Jenrick looking his children in the eye and explaining his actions to them. No neither can I.
One of the many reasons why I will never vote Tory