Donate SIGN UP

Why Do Illegal Immigrants Not Apply For Asylum In The E U S S R?

Avatar Image
ToraToraTora | 10:08 Tue 11th Aug 2020 | News
140 Answers
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-53723687
We are always being told by the anti British and LibFac hordes that UK is the lowest of the low and heaven lies across the channel. Why then do thousands risk death to get to this "terrible" country. Surely they should apply for asylum in the utopia they are already in. France ain't too bad is it?
Gravatar

Answers

121 to 140 of 140rss feed

First Previous 4 5 6 7

Avatar Image
The vast majority of the channel crossers are exploited by people traffickers. The way to deal with this difficult issue is to work with France and other countries to smash these criminal gangs.
11:46 Tue 11th Aug 2020
^Sounds like a potential Guantanamo Bay though unless all cases could be dealt with promptly. I think solicitors would have a field day
Thanks for the reply, NJ @17:02. Still, it has to be said that the "first safe country" description is a bit of a myth. Refugees are presumably requi

People traffickers prey on the desperate -- and presumably also on the greedy, but I'd say that if greed were the main/only motivation then you'd wait for something more seaworthy than a bathtub, so I'll go for desperation as the main motivation for those desperate or foolhardy enough to cross the Channel in this way. Same with those getting into freezer compartments on trucks.

Since the desperation isn't going to disappear any time soon, the better target is surely the traffickers rather than the trafficked.
Apparently "Ben & Jerry" the ice cream men have waded in:

"Hey @PritiPatel, we think the real crisis is our lack of humanity for people fleeing war, climate change and torture."

//Sounds like a potential Guantanamo Bay though unless all cases could be dealt with promptly. I think solicitors would have a field day//

Needs must. Laws must be changed and if necessary international treaties abandoned. Those treaties and protocols are being abused. They were to protect people from the things that Ben & Jerry seem to believe are going on in Calais. Not to allow young male chancers free rein to enter the UK illegally.



I wonder how much of that there is in Calais.
Funny how lefty posts Full 'Fact' nonsense and Inde garbage as though to say 'See'.
As though any normal sentient being would believe anything they had to say.
As I understand it, other EU countries do pay more generous benefits however, unlike this country, you can't just 'park' yourself on benefits for life.
They want the housing and the free NHS.
How on earth did they get to France in the first place?

If they arrived in Italy or Greece first and got tossed out, they should have been tossed back the way, not forward.

Where are the boats being bought from? Shut the shops which sell them.
Wouldn't have thought that was rocket science.
There is an abundance of islands around our shores, many uninhabited, which would make ideal places for camps. They could get weekly deliveries from the mainland so would not starve or lack any other basics.
“ which would make ideal places for camps. ”

And what could we call these camps, where such undesirables would be concentrated? I wonder.

And maybe a nice wrought iron sign over the entrance? “Arbeit mekt frei” - now that would have a ring to it, wouldn’t it.
//And maybe a nice wrought iron sign over the entrance? “Arbeit mekt frei” - now that would have a ring to it, wouldn’t it.//

Indeed it would – but with one critical difference. Those inside the wrought iron gates would not be queuing up for the "showers" and would be perfectly free to leave the UK and try their luck elsewhere. The residents of Auschwitz and similar establishments were not afforded that facility so your attempt at portraying the UK government as the Most Vile and Evil Government Ever to Have Walked The Earth (since 1939, anyway) is somewhat inappropriate.
How do you flee climate change, apart from launching into outer space?
There is something about Patel’s retort to Ben and Jerry that illustrates why she isn’t fit to be a government minister.
Strange to say that, given just about everything else she’s said and done does the same thing. She has a tabloid mindset and that illustrates it perfectly.
In fact I think Ben & Jerry's original post says more about them (whoever they are) than the Home Secretary's retort does about her.

To start with, if they want to be taken seriously, it might help if they did not address Her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for the Home Department as "Hey @PrittiPatel". Then they might care to investigate just how much more war, climate change and torture there is in Calais and its environs than there is here in the UK. Until they do I think I'll take what they have to say with a pinch of salt.
Hey @NJ that’s Twitter for you :-)
Whether you agree or not tho, the retort was not worthy of a Hone Secretary.
She’s an embarrassment
//Migrants attempting to cross the Channel have threatened to drown themselves if they are stopped by the Royal Navy.//

And our reaction to that is supposed to be what, exactly?
New Judge my answer to that would be why wait. The sea is waiting.
jim360 . "but the "first safe country" law isn't a thing... Still, it has to be said that the "first safe country" description is a bit of a myth."

Afraid not. Those exact words are used in Dublin III Regulation
Version 3.0 page 6 and 7; and
"The UK remains bound to both the Dublin III Regulation and the Eurodac Regulation during the Transition Period, until 31 December 2020." page 12

We will be fully transitioned after that date, allegedly.
Article 31 of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees which NJ quoted point 1 of, has as point 2
' The Contracting States shall not apply to themovements of such refugees restrictions other than thosewhich are necessary and such restrictions shall only beapplied until their status in the country is regularized orthey obtain admission into another country. TheContracting States shall allow such refugees a reasonableperiod and all the necessary facilities to obtain admissioninto another country."

O_G is correct in saying "Blame lies with the illegal immigrants, the folk abetting them, and a lack of law enforcement preventing illegal action." and of those 3 the guilt of France for not containing the illegal immigrants securely until they have been fully processed and either been deported from France or given the legal right to remain permanently in France is the crucial factor, which permits the problem with the migrants and the folk abetting them to even exist in the first place.
IF France gives the migrants legal right to remain in France it is *still* France's responsibility if they then illegally try to emigrate to the UK.

121 to 140 of 140rss feed

First Previous 4 5 6 7

Do you know the answer?

Why Do Illegal Immigrants Not Apply For Asylum In The E U S S R?

Answer Question >>

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.