Shamima Begum

[johnny2007]

They're free to choose whichever country they want to apply for asylum. That is written into international law.
It's been explained to you several times, yet you still refuse to accept it.
It's the typical RWR erroneous mantra.
I don't like that law, so I'll ignore it.

If UK deny their application on the grounds that another country would accept their application, what is to stop all countries doing that?

All well and good with your snowflake argument, but the matter of fact is that a real asylum seeker running from war or prosecution, would not further endanger his life and that of his family by trying to reach a particular country where they would get better conditions.
I know real asylum seekers who first arrived in Greece, Italy and Romania.
They claimed asylum there, then after they settled down they moved here.
What you're referring to are economic migrants who have legal channels to reach the UK but decide to use the illegal way.

 

[Deleted member 18243]

Mark Steyn predicts that more economic migrants will come and the boats will get bigger. Eventually big old rusting ships holding thousands will be afloat. Remember the Vietnamese boat people of the 1970s?

If we cannot repel the few hundred a week that we get now, how will we cope with thousands a week?

 

[johnny2007]

Mark Steyn predicts that more economic migrants will come and the boats will get bigger. Eventually big old rusting ships holding thousands will be afloat. Remember the Vietnamese boat people of the 1970s?

If we cannot repel the few hundred a week that we get now, how will we cope with thousands a week?

More recently, Albanians arriving in Italy in 1991

They were not economic migrants btw.

 

[AngleEyes]

I know real asylum seekers who first arrived in Greece, Italy and Romania.
They claimed asylum there, then after they settled down they moved here.

That is exactly what the overwhelming number of refugees do. Or they settle in the country of first arrival.
Because a small minority choose to make the perilous journey across Europe to be with their family, (where they imagine they will be immediately allowed to make contact, and be provided assistance), and/or they can speak English you, (who have a devout ideological hatred of refugees) decide they must be economic migrants.

Your ideological revulsion of refugees to UK has been fuelled by right-wing media and the likes of Farage, et al who have been proven to be racist liars.
But you choose to believe them. Moreover you choose to perpetuate the hatred against refugees.

Press Coverage of the Refugee and Migrant Crisis in the EU: A Content Analysis of Five European Countries
....while Italy and the UK press preferred the word ‘migrant’..
Threat themes (such as to the welfare system, or cultural threats) were the most prevalent in Italy, Spain and Britain....
while coverage in the United Kingdom was the most negative, and the most polarised. Amongst those countries surveyed, Britain’s right-wing media was uniquely aggressively in its campaigns against refugees and migrants.
https://www.unhcr.org/56bb369c9.pdf​

And

Beyond the ‘refugee crisis’: How the UK news media represent asylum seekers across national boundaries
asylum seekers, immigrants and migrants has become increasingly charged and heavily politicised. These groups are now frequently attacked and demonised by political elites as a means to build their popularity, and advance their political agenda
And asylum seekers were one of the most salient issues during the Brexit referendum in the United Kingdom, when the public narrowly voted to secede from the European Union. During the campaign, the ‘Vote Leave’ group frequently portrayed these migrants as both economic and security threats, setting boundaries between ‘us’ and ‘them’
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1748048520913230​

 

[AngleEyes]

What you're referring to are economic migrants who have legal channels to reach the UK but decide to use the illegal way.

It's pointed out to you by several on this forum and in national media that there are no legal safe routes. Yet you choose to perpetuate the myth.

 

[transam]

What is required is good old fashioned

understanding
Forgiveness
Decency
Fairness

is that to much to ask ??

 

[Justin Passing]

What is required is good old fashioned

understanding
Forgiveness
Decency
Fairness

is that too much to ask ??

Far too much. Too easy to say "So what, tough, go away".


Angie keeps saying there's International Law, without once having cited it.
There were UN conventions about 70 years ago, badly written and totally inadequate. Is it even relevant now?
Nobody is policing, so what laws are actually in effect?
Poland isn't applying laws, it's doing what it wants. EU and Brits are on their side.

Yes there should be a proper mechanism, of course. But then stick to it.
That's no reason to allow improper mechanisms/routes.

Not a direct analogy, but we don't allow people who are broke and hungry, to steal food.

 

[AngleEyes]

Angie keeps saying there's International Law, without once having cited it.
There were UN conventions about 70 years ago, badly written and totally inadequate. Is it even relevant now?
Nobody is policing, so what laws are actually in effect?

I was using 'law' loosely in referring to UN Standards, Conventions, Charters, Protocols, Obligations of States, etc.

"This is now considered a rule of customary international law."
UNHCR serves as the ‘guardian’ of the 1951 Convention and its 1967 Protocol. According to the legislation, States are expected to cooperate with us in ensuring that the rights of refugees are respected and protected.
https://www.unhcr.org/uk/1951-refugee-convention.html​

Which has never been replaced because it still applies and 149 states signed up to it.

Yes there should be a proper mechanism, of course. But then stick to it.

There is a proper Convention, then it's down to individual countries to design their mechanism to implement the Convention in the way that it should be applied.

That's no reason to allow improper mechanisms/routes.

If a country removes the safe legal routes, it only leaves the perilous routes. A country cannot abdicate its responsibilities to refugees.

Not a direct analogy, but we don't allow people who are broke and hungry, to steal food.

No, not a direct analogy, you feed the hungry children so there's no need for them to steal food.

 

[Deleted member 292770]

All well and good with your snowflake argument, but the matter of fact is that a real asylum seeker running from war or prosecution, would not further endanger his life and that of his family by trying to reach a particular country where they would get better conditions.
I know real asylum seekers who first arrived in Greece, Italy and Romania.
They claimed asylum there, then after they settled down they moved here.
What you're referring to are economic migrants who have legal channels to reach the UK but decide to use the illegal way.

prosecution ? ye gods. legend.

 

[transam]

Far too much. Too easy to say "So what, tough, go away".


Angie keeps saying there's International Law, without once having cited it.
There were UN conventions about 70 years ago, badly written and totally inadequate. Is it even relevant now?
Nobody is policing, so what laws are actually in effect?
Poland isn't applying laws, it's doing what it wants. EU and Brits are on their side.

Yes there should be a proper mechanism, of course. But then stick to it.
That's no reason to allow improper mechanisms/routes.

Not a direct analogy, but we don't allow people who are broke and hungry, to steal food.

Er hang on I did not see you putting your spare room up for the girl

unlike my good self

as per usual you are all ***s and wind

 

[Notch7]

All well and good with your snowflake argument, but the matter of fact is that a real asylum seeker running from war or prosecution, would not further endanger his life and that of his family by trying to reach a particular country where they would get better conditions.

one of the people that died on the boat that sunk was from Afghanistan:

"Among the migrants was an Afghan soldier who had worked with British forces. His family had decided to risk their lives to cross the channel after they “waited so long for help” from Britain"

a real asylum seeker -so thats your theory in the bin -they are that desperate

 

[Notch7]

Mark Steyn predicts that more economic migrants will come and the boats will get bigger. Eventually big old rusting ships holding thousands will be afloat. Remember the Vietnamese boat people of the 1970s?

If we cannot repel the few hundred a week that we get now, how will we cope with thousands a week?

fearmongering -no doubt you think they are all murderers and rapists


if we refuse to take more, what makes you think France will stop more?

you right wing have no actual solutions....you just peddle simplistic arguments all day long

 

[transam]

French will be emptying there lunatic asylums

and sending them across along with all there other dead beats

 

[Deleted member 18243]

you right wing have no actual solutions..

As usual we are going over the same things again and again...

I have given you the solution several times: treat them as an invading enemy and shoot them as they arrive. They will soon stop coming.

 

[SirGalahad]

fearmongering -no doubt you think they are all murderers and rapists


if we refuse to take more, what makes you think France will stop more?

you right wing have no actual solutions....you just peddle simplistic arguments all day long

You can take away their healthcare, education, public services etc but as long as you talk tough on immigration (Tories never act tough as they are playing to their crowd) they will keep voting for this shower of s hite.

Diabolical manipulation of people.

People in Hastings were trying to stop a RNLI Lifeboat from going out to sea to rescue people. That is all the fault of the Government and Media to create such a situation.