27 Migrants Drown

Avatar Image
fender62 | 17:22 Wed 24th Nov 2021 | News
166 Answers
so what will te powers on both sides of calais do now, probably nothing and some will say
tough luck to dead, you took a dangerous chance and died.


141 to 160 of 166rss feed

First Previous 5 6 7 8 9 Next Last

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by fender62. 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 didn't point out an error either, RH. I questioned your claim - which turned out to be false.
How is it false?
//…people don't take risks like this unless they are desperate//

They are not desperate. They are determined, which is completely different. They are determined to get to the UK because they know that once here they will be given accommodation, money, healthcare and legal representation to help them fight the government’s efforts to remove them when their claims for asylum (if they ever make them) are turned down. They also know they can find work in the black economy if they want to and they are unlikely ever to be removed, regardless of what they do or how they behave. Nowhere else can they be sure of all that. That’s why they want to get here. They are not desperate, it is simply not agreeable enough for them where they are. If it was as unpleasant and disagreeable for them here as it is elsewhere, they wouldn’t make the trip.

//…in any case movement of people however undesirable cannot simply be stopped .//

Yes it can. It was stopped on the Belarus/Poland border recently. It is stopped in most other countries who are keen on securing their borders.

//would your point of view change if you thought they were desperate or would you still not care?//

No. When this country is able to successfully provide housing and essential services for the people are already here and the tax burden on those paying for these services is lessened a little from the scandalously high levels seen at present, I might care. But until then I don’t.
RH, //How is it false? //

No one said they are rapists or perverts. That's how it's wrong. You introduced that.
Well eventually I think they did. Some of them
Give a dog a bone …
Ok Naomi those words were not used but violent thugs, criminals, invaders and groomers were used.
I realise now that my mistake was the use a generic term!
Another 40 arrived today
The French are not bothered
It is as simple as that

The link also says that asylum claims in the uk are the highest for 20 years
I thought the rule was that you claim asylum in the fist safe country that you reach ?
Of course we don't know if they are rapists or perverts, but you can bet your life some of the many, many pouring into my country WILL BE !! While this is so uncontrolled, thugs of all types will definitely be getting in and it is naieve in the extreme to think that none of them are !
I am so glad I am not as bitter as some on here
“ I thought the rule was that you claim asylum in the fist safe country that you reach ?”

No that is not true. Neither the 1951 Refugee Convention nor any EU law, makes this stipulation
I don't think advocating serious solutions for a serious problem equates to bitterness.
One or two of the comments here are shameful. Nothing to do with those propounding solutions realistic or otherwise. I am sure Helen was not referring to those.
Bitter no. Frustrated by the pathetic response to what is tantamount to an invasion yes. The idea posted on here of denial permanently of visa and residential status for illegal entry onto our shores is a good one. Easy to implement theoretically, but bound to be blocked by the bleeding heart brigade.
How on earth would that help?
If someone is here illegally they are here regardless of any official permission. They are already denied offical status.
It may prevent many knowing that they would never be granted legal status. As criminals they could be incarcerated until deportation. Not given freedom and benefits while a debate never ending as to their status.
“ I thought the rule was that you claim asylum in the fist safe country that you reach ?”

No that is not true. Neither the 1951 Refugee Convention nor any EU law, makes this stipulation

Are you sure about that ichkeria ?

To avoid abuses, European law, the Dublin Regulation, requires that asylum seekers have their asylum claim registered in the first country they arrive in, and that the decision of the first EU country they apply in is the final decision in all EU countries.
//No that is not true. Neither the 1951 Refugee Convention nor any EU law, makes this stipulation//

This is often espoused. I take issue with this. The 1951 UN Convention (which trumps anything the EU might come up with) says this (Under Article 31 - Refugees Unlawfully in the Country of Refuge):

"The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of Article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to
the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence."

The key is "....coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened". There are two aspects to this. The first is that by implication, if penalties cannot be imposed on those who have arrived directly, then penalties can be imposed on those who have not (such as those arriving in the UK). But there is a wider implication. There seems a clear expectation under the Convention that those seeking refuge should do so as soon as possible (otherwise why make the distinction in Article 31?).

It is clear that the aim of the Convention is to allow those in danger and unable to rely on the protection of their home nation to seek such protection elsewhere. The aim is not to give those seeking such asylum carte blanche to roam around until they reach their chosen destination. Those in France and other mainland European countries are not in danger. They ceased to be in peril (as recognised by the Convention) as soon as they arrived in a safe nation. They are not refugees; they simply don't like it as much where they are than they would here. The sooner that is accepted the sooner these people can be treated as illegal entrants and returned whence they came. But that's not going to happen and meanwhile the people of the UK will have to endure this invasion (or "unwelcome intrusion" if invasion doesn't suit) and there will almost certainly be more deaths in the Channel.
//As criminals they could be incarcerated until deportation.//

Err yes but where do we deport them to?? Do we just drag them out to sea in a dingy, ship them on a French beach and what if the French turn the ship away?
If you arrive at Gatwick Airport without leave to be here, you are denied entry and are returned whence you came by the next available flight (with the carrier who brought you here bearing the cost of the return trip). If you arrive in Dover on a ferry, similarly undocumented, the same thing happens.

These people arrived from France. It is a known fact. They should be returned there forthwith. I don't expect the trafficker who organised the trip to be traced and pay for the trip. The taxpayer will have to pay for a ferry ticket from Dover to Calais. That would be money well spent.
Sadly its not going to happen newjudge is it. Why would France accept them. We ant prove they came from France and even so once there here there our problem not theres

141 to 160 of 166rss feed

First Previous 5 6 7 8 9 Next Last

Do you know the answer?

27 Migrants Drown

Answer Question >>