[Wooden Spoon]

calvin plummers socks said:

1667325709[/url]' post='1699922']
Very true Ian

Similar to the Windrush generation. Many left their families to travel and work and eventually earn enough to bring the families over.

It’s nothing like windrush, mate, nothing like it at all.


Windrush was a generation of migrant workers invited to the UK who were very badly let down by the government. Disgracefully so. Same as the ghurkas BTW.


Why should a bloke who turns up in a rubber dingy expect the same rights as windrush migrants who worked for decades in the UK at our invitation, paying taxes as a law abiding citizen or ghurkas who’ve served our nation for 22years?


These are economic migrants who, because they come here on a rubber boat from France seem to be, in some peoples eyes, see para 3 from Ian above, exempt from UK immigration laws.


Does the law of the land only apply to those already here and those who can manage to just “turn up” are exempt?

[Misnomer]

isleaiw1, on 01 November 2022 - 05:15 PM, said:

Have you actually met any of the asylum seekers / refugees (or service users as they are called once processed)? Do you know what sort of people they are?

I think the idea is that they are coming here to achieve a place of safety, whatever it is they are fleeing from.

Many are professionals who have paid good money to travel here, and have left behind homes, family, everything in the hope of starting a new life somewhere safer. The media love to promote the idea that they are all young single men who come here to cause trouble - but many cant afford to bring all of their family (its an expensive journey) so come here to get started in a new life to then bring family to join them.

To be fair most are much better behaved than your average drunk up Brit on a weekend away....

You know this how, Ian? Where have you got this precise breakdown from?

You can't just turn up here because you want a 'better life'. I can't just turn up at Sydney airport and say I've paid 'good money' to travel here and want a better life.

If you are genuinely seeking asylum, the first safe country you reach is where you claim it; they aren't doing that. Why not? It's a serious question.

If they are 'professionals' who have paid 'good money' to get here, why have they not flown here (it's a damn sight cheaper); why not apply for a visa? Why put yourself at the mercy of Albanian organised crime gangs? Why live in abject squalor for weeks/months?

Professionals are intelligent and conscientious, aren't they? Surely, they must know that their 'good money' is funding numerous other nefarious activities; including prostitution, drugs and people trafficking?

[Goku]

Misnomer, on 02 November 2022 - 08:51 AM, said:

If you are genuinely seeking asylum, the first safe country you reach is where you claim it; they aren't doing that. Why not? It's a serious question.

Are you saying that this is a legal (? better word required perhaps) requirement, or that that's what they should be doing?

[Mr Mercury]

Goku, on 02 November 2022 - 08:55 AM, said:

Are you saying that this is a legal (? better word required perhaps) requirement, or that that's what they should be doing?

After just a quick search online it seems it’s not a legal requirement, but happy to be proven wrong.

[Misnomer]

Goku, on 02 November 2022 - 08:55 AM, said:

Are you saying that this is a legal (? better word required perhaps) requirement, or that that's what they should be doing?

It's EU law. I'm not saying it; I'm saying the Dublin Regulations say it.

Obviously, we now aren't part of the EU but, the regulation still applies to those who are.

Why focus on that part of my post? The rest is equally as pertinent and I've posed valid questions.

This post has been edited by Misnomer: 02 November 2022 - 09:17 AM

[calvin plummers socks]

Goku, on 02 November 2022 - 08:55 AM, said:

Are you saying that this is a legal (? better word required perhaps) requirement, or that that's what they should be doing?

No legal requirement at any stage. It’s a myth that middle aged old women often peddle.

[Goku]

Misnomer, on 02 November 2022 - 09:13 AM, said:

It's EU law. I'm not saying it; I'm saying the Dublin Regulations say it.

Obviously, we now aren't part of the EU but, the regulation still applies to those who are.

Why focus on that part of my post? The rest is equally as pertinent and I've posed valid questions.

Because I didn't know if it was law or not...

[Misnomer]

Goku, on 02 November 2022 - 09:25 AM, said:

Because I didn't know if it was law or not...

Fair enough, brother....

[Misnomer]

https://foreignpolic...a-iraq-belarus/

Worth a read (not a skim). And before the usual suspects start on the 'right-wing' media tripe; it's a centrist media outlet.

[Goku]

Misnomer, on 02 November 2022 - 09:31 AM, said:

Fair enough, brother....

This appears to disagree with what you say:

https://fullfact.org...t-safe-country/

Quote

There is no obligation on refugees to claim asylum in the first safe country they reach
Ms Evans is wrong to claim that, under the Geneva Convention, refugees should seek refuge in the first safe country they come to.

It contains no obligation “either explicit or implicit” for refugees to claim asylum in the first safe country they reach, according to immigration lawyer Colin Yeo.

This means that an asylum seeker can arrive in France (or any other country) before travelling to the UK and still legitimately claim to be a refugee. It is then down to the UK to review that application.

[Misnomer]

Goku, on 02 November 2022 - 09:36 AM, said:

This appears to disagree with what you say:

https://fullfact.org...t-safe-country/

The Dublin Regulations requires the first EU country that encounters a refugee/asylum seeker to process them.

[Goku]

Misnomer, on 02 November 2022 - 09:39 AM, said:

The Dublin Regulations requires the first EU country that encounters a refugee/asylum seeker to process them.

Which is different to an asylum seeker having a legal requirement to apply for asylum in the first 'safe' country, isn't it?

[calvin plummers socks]

Misnomer, on 02 November 2022 - 09:39 AM, said:

The Dublin Regulations requires the first EU country that encounters a refugee/asylum seeker to process them.

It doesn’t actually ‘require’ that country to do so.
It’s expected but not a requirement.

[Misnomer]

Goku, on 02 November 2022 - 09:47 AM, said:

Which is different to an asylum seeker having a legal requirement to apply for asylum in the first 'safe' country, isn't it?

Yes, there's no legal requirement for any asylum seeker to do that; the emphasis is on the country. For instance, France is fully aware of the immigrants in Calais, but they are 'choosing' to do nothing about it.

However, in the grand scale of things, this is neither here nor there. It's also deflecting away from what Ian wrote about the vast majority being 'professionals'.

[Misnomer]

calvin plummers socks, on 02 November 2022 - 09:49 AM, said:

It doesn’t actually ‘require’ that country to do so.
It’s expected but not a requirement.

My bad then. I thought I'd read it was part of EU law. I definitely read that Germany was trying to opt out of it. So it must be of some significance?

[Goku]

Misnomer, on 02 November 2022 - 09:53 AM, said:

Yes, there's no legal requirement for any asylum seeker to do that; the emphasis is on the country. For instance, France is fully aware of the immigrants in Calais, but they are 'choosing' to do nothing about it.

However, in the grand scale of things, this is neither here nor there. It's also deflecting away from what Ian wrote about the vast majority being 'professionals'.

If they're gaming the system, then the system needs changing. Can't really blame often desperate people for taking advantage of it.

[calvin plummers socks]

An often overlooked stat by the Daily Mail et al is that the U.K. ranks 19th in the list (of European countries) of numbers of asylum seekers - hardly an invasion

[isleaiw1]

Wooden Spoon, on 01 November 2022 - 06:32 PM, said:

Second paragraph spot on


Third paragraph why are they crossing in dhingies and not applying for visas?

Because the treatment when you are here is different to when you apply from overseas? who knows, I havent and wont be asking. I guess lots think its OK for them to be in mainland Europe and their problem as long as its not in my back yard....

[isleaiw1]

Misnomer, on 02 November 2022 - 08:51 AM, said:

You know this how, Ian? Where have you got this precise breakdown from?

You can't just turn up here because you want a 'better life'. I can't just turn up at Sydney airport and say I've paid 'good money' to travel here and want a better life.

If you are genuinely seeking asylum, the first safe country you reach is where you claim it; they aren't doing that. Why not? It's a serious question.

If they are 'professionals' who have paid 'good money' to get here, why have they not flown here (it's a damn sight cheaper); why not apply for a visa? Why put yourself at the mercy of Albanian organised crime gangs? Why live in abject squalor for weeks/months?

Professionals are intelligent and conscientious, aren't they? Surely, they must know that their 'good money' is funding numerous other nefarious activities; including prostitution, drugs and people trafficking?

I know this because I have a good friend who operates some of the units they stay in, and have visited them.

So you think its OK for them to all stay in Turkey or France or Germany or wherever but not come to the UK? I'd say we should share the job of providing safety and security for others.

If you fly into an airport you are deported before you get chance to apply, dont you? never tried it. We know that the system would say no, but is that the right answer?

And yes, they know they are being scammed by criminals, and paying good money for a very dangerous crossing operated by crooks. The fact that they do that shows how desperate they are to escape.

But it should be someone else's problem. How very socially caring of you....

[Valley Blues]

isleaiw1, on 02 November 2022 - 10:42 AM, said:

I know this because I have a good friend who operates some of the units they stay in, and have visited them.

So you think its OK for them to all stay in Turkey or France or Germany or wherever but not come to the UK? I'd say we should share the job of providing safety and security for others.

If you fly into an airport you are deported before you get chance to apply, dont you? never tried it. We know that the system would say no, but is that the right answer?

And yes, they know they are being scammed by criminals, and paying good money for a very dangerous crossing operated by crooks. The fact that they do that shows how desperate they are to escape.

But it should be someone else's problem. How very socially caring of you....

Ok, so asylum seekers don’t legally have to apply for asylum in the first ‘safe’ country they reach.

Hypothetically, if you were an asylum seeker who was fleeing terror and brutality in you’re homeland, why would you not seek refuge in the first safe place? Surely once you had reached a place where you could stop running, in the knowledge you were now safe, you would remain there and enter the process? After all, you were fleeing for safety and now you have it.

Why would you pass through that safe place in order to jump on a dinghy and cross open seas, one of the busiest shipping lanes in the world, risking your life yet further?