Dave Ewing's Back 'eader
Well-Known Member
Yer can do summat about 'stupefying ignorance', but if yer a 'buffoon' there's not much help avaiable.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The Labour Government
- Thread starter SkyBlueFlux
- Start date
Mr Kobayashi
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 1 Oct 2020
- Messages
- 17,271
For what reason? Because they're refugees entitled to apply for asylum.That's probably because the electorate doesn't want safe and legal routes and it would destroy them in terms of opening the door to the Tories or Reform. No such safe route exists anywhere in the world. How many safe routes has Europe implemented to stop further people drowning in the Med? None.
Nobody has done this because asylum cannot be claimed from a foreign country and so countries have no obligation to facilitate that migration. Our position is that those migrants do not exist until they exist once they arrive and I don't see why we should change that. I'd understand if somebody was fleeing war but they're not, they're in France.
146,000 people have made the crossing so far since 2018 and that's 146,000 who decided an extremely dangerous journey was a risk worth taking. So how many will come once there is a 'legal' route?
We spend billions per year feeding and housing those that come now so how could we possibly resource for an additional X number of people? And for what reason, because migrants fancy the UK and not France or Europe?
The UK is home to approximately 1% of the 27.1 million refugees who were forcibly displaced across the world.
I know what you think - that they should apply for asylum in a safe country before they get to the Channel. And you'd think differently if Britain had a border with a war-torn country from which people have fled.
bluethrunthru
Well-Known Member
barely works but then it goes to the "House of Cunts" which is hope to MP's of every flavour ( Sinn Fein excepting as they do not take their seats ) which therefore means when subject to analysis all the MP's are cunts. Now I understand that some share that view and there will be some who alternatively would like to exempt their favourites from the context of the song but sadly for them its calling them ALL cunts
Technically that's wrong, a refugee can only apply for asylum in the country that they're stood in as that's how every country applies the rules. So no refugee can claim asylum in the UK until they're physically stood in the UK, our rules aren't any different to the rest of Europe.For what reason? Because they're refugees entitled to apply for asylum.
The UK is home to approximately 1% of the 27.1 million refugees who were forcibly displaced across the world.
I know what you think - that they should apply for asylum in a safe country before they get to the Channel. And you'd think differently if Britain had a border with a war-torn country from which people have fled.
That rule applies everywhere and refugees pass though many safe countries where they could claim asylum so the whole war-torn country thing isn't relevant if safety is all that matters. Of course refugees are entitled to claim asylum anywhere but that doesn't mean there is some given right to pick and choose and each country must facilitate that choice.
On asylum policy, the only difference between us and Europe is there is water between us however there is also water between Europe and Africa. How many border posts are there on the African continent? None. So what reason is there for the UK specifically to put one in Europe given nobody else has done it elsewhere?
What also stops people risking drowning to cross the Mediterranean to get to Calais to claim asylum? Should we put border posts along the entirety of Northern Africa to stop that too?
Last edited:
Ifwecouldjust.......
Well-Known Member
Technically that's wrong, a refugee can only apply for asylum in the country that they're stood in as that's how every country applies the rules. So no refugee can claim asylum in the UK until they're physically stood in the UK, our rules aren't any different to the rest of Europe.
That rule applies everywhere and refugees pass though many safe countries where they could claim asylum so the whole war-torn country thing isn't relevant if safety is all that matters. Of course refugees are entitled to claim asylum anywhere but that doesn't mean there is some given right to pick and choose and each country must facilitate that choice.
On asylum policy, the only difference between us and Europe is there is water between us however there is also water between Europe and Africa. How many border posts are there on the African continent? None. So what reason is there for the UK specifically to put one in Europe given nobody else has done it elsewhere?
What also stops people risking drowning to cross the Mediterranean to get to Calais to claim asylum? Should we put border posts along the entirety of Northern Africa to stop that too?
Totally incorrect ....a refugee has the right to choose the country in which they want to apply for asylum...
They should be allowed to apply for asylum at our consulates and embassies overseas ...that would stop the small boat crossings .
hilts
Well-Known Member
You can claim that it would lessen them but stop them? That's just made up.Totally incorrect ....a refugee has the right to choose the country in which they want to apply for asylum...
They should be allowed to apply for asylum at our consulates and embassies overseas ...that would stop the small boat crossings .
Ifwecouldjust.......
Well-Known Member
You can claim that it would lessen them but stop them? That's just made up.
Give them the right to apply for asylum whilst overseas but at our embassies and consulates would give the government the right to ''assume'' anyone crossing on a boat would have known that they would fail an application ... and thus could be turned back .
hilts
Well-Known Member
Thank you for confirming it wouldn't stop the boats.Give them the right to apply for asylum whilst overseas but at our embassies and consulates would give the government the right to ''assume'' anyone crossing on a boat would have known that they would fail an application ... and thus could be turned back .