The UK/European migrant problem

Himmler74

On ROPS
On ROPs
That's not what you implied here:-
"This country ruled the vast majority of the world, we opened our borders to those that would help is in times of need, we need those Commonwealth countries to destroy NAZi Germany, yet because of sporadic terrorist attacks using religion as a weapon, a small minority think we should ban everyone"
Yes a small minority on this thread would like nothing more than ban all refugees from the middle east, Africa.
 
Yes a small minority on this thread would like nothing more than ban all refugees from the middle east, Africa.
No, they're all doctors, dentists, nurses and lorry drivers, they are the epitome of work ethic and we should be importing millions of them. Just like we did from 96 onwards, and that's worked out just brilliantly.
 
Yes a small minority on this thread would like nothing more than ban all refugees from the middle east, Africa.
Again, I haven't seen anyone calling to ban legal refugees.
 
The peanut gallery refuse to accept the magic words, ’I claim asylum’ renders any technical offence moot and void.

Also remembering that many of those involved have already had their claims for asylum investigated and rejected in Germany, and then possibly additionally in France, before heading to UK for another eighteen months or two years of state-support while the claims are rejected again. And the near certainty that they will not be deported of course. The tricky bit is organising things so that the failed asylum attempt means deportation -- currently 'leaving for another country' is seen as good enough. Wasn't there something on this subject in the Dublin accords, which everyone signed up to then totally ignored when it was found to be a bit difficult.
 
Home Affairs Committee
Oral evidence: The Work of the Home Secretary, HC 192
Wednesday 21 July 2021

"Q232 Tim Loughton: Okay, but, Home Secretary, that is an excuse from the
French. The French having a different interpretation is the French giving
you an excuse for not doing what they are not only able to do under
international law but actually obliged to do under international law
because the occupants of those boats are committing two crimes. One is
trying to enter the UK illegally and the second is paying money to
organised crime, both of which provide grounds for those boats to be
intercepted and the occupants apprehended in as safe a way as possible
and returned to France.
You are getting fobbed off with excuses".

Page 21 -of- 35. https://committees.parliament.uk/oralevidence/2602/pdf/



If you disagree, write to . . .

Yvette Cooper MP
Chair of the Home Affairs Committee
House of Commons
London
SW1A 0AA
Once again Mr Loughton is editing his conclusions to suit his message. The actualite - as outlined in the links below - is somewhat different and can be summarised as "yes, they are technically committing an offence, but that does not confer the legal right to return them immediately to France".

https://committees.parliament.uk/oralevidence/1195/pdf/

https://committees.parliament.uk/oralevidence/1242/pd

There's also a highly relevant exchange in the first evidence session (Q411) which outlines the differences between the obligations on Australia (which operates a turn-back policy for migrant craft) compared to the UK (subject to ECHR). In particular, the difference between the ability of lawyers to hold the respective governments - and by extension their enforcement officers - to account :

"The thing is that there are not many ways to hold Australia accountable under those particular treaties, and I think it is fair to say Australia has had a spotted record when it comes to responding to recommendations that have emerged from the committees under the treaties. I say the situation is different for the United Kingdom because it can be held accountable before the European Convention on Human Rights. As you probably know, there was a case against Italy about the fact that it had been involved in rescuing people on a particular vessel. They held those people on that vessel for about 10 hours and they returned them to Libya, and Italy was found to be in violation of various provisions under the European Convention on Human Rights as a result of those particular actions. The difference that I was trying to make between Australia and the UK is that Australia is not part of a regional human rights mechanism through which it is held to account. Potentially, complaints could be made through to the human rights committees, but that would entail exhausting domestic remedies and so far that whole process has not gone through the Australian system for those complaints to have emerged at the international level."

Which takes us back to fixing the law before we can resolve the problem. Mr Loughton and his friend Mr Gwynne are technically correct in stating that these craft may committing offences - but that does not confer the right for the UK to do whatever it likes, contrary to what he implies. The French may well be failing to enforce all their responsibilities under their own laws, but again, that does not confer on the UK the right to ignore its responsibilities.

It's extremely frustrating and distinctly unsatisfactory and one hopes that Patels borders bill will sort some (preferably most) of these issues. But until it does, the problem will remain - however much we all wish it did not.
 
Just look at the graph in this link.
I agree with NF, that’s Nigel Farage before any one starts.


A small quote from the link.

The prime minister's spokesman said the government was committed to tackling the issue of small boats crossing the channel

Jesus I would hate to think how many would come across if we weren’t tackling this problem.


Hmm looking at this from the article, funnily enough from that fountain of "woke" propaganda Al beeb, snip "The lifeboat charity received over £200,000 in donations in 24 hours after it posted rescue footage on social media."
One has to wonder how much was from certain "woke" charities or anti British foundations often funded by people like Soros.
Many people I know have cancelled their DD's to the RNLI as a result of these ridiculous actions!
 
The Engerlanders aren't thinking this through…

‘owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reason of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it’.

the French Police systematically beating up migrants, destroying their camps and personal property, gives migrants a claim that they have a well founded fear of being persecuted.

C'est un own goal - pas de refoulment mes amies.
They love it here in Glasgow, they can walk about the East End and the Sou'side mob handed, the police ignored them in large groups all though the covid restrictions, concentrating instead on real villains like young women buying flowers for a bereaved neighbour. The only thing that they don't seem to like is dogs.
 
I'll just throw this in for anyone who thinks the RNLI is a shower of shit. 11 hours at sea last night for the Sennen Cove boat.




No one is saying the FRONT LINE RNLI are not doing a brilliant job saving lives of people in real distress, especially those who are mostly UNPAID volunteers & put their lives at risk every time they go out.
What I have a problem with is the increasingly "woke" management most of whom NEVER GO OUT ON A SHOUT but dictate all the stupid "woke" rules and appear to be trying to show how woke they are by using boats to "rescue" these chancers, rather than ensuring the boats are available for real emergencies!
If you can't see that then you are part of the problem!
 
Hmm looking at this from the article, funnily enough from that fountain of "woke" propaganda Al beeb, snip "The lifeboat charity received over £200,000 in donations in 24 hours after it posted rescue footage on social media."
One has to wonder how much was from certain "woke" charities or anti British foundations often funded by people like Soros.
Many people I know have cancelled their DD's to the RNLI as a result of these ridiculous actions!
"One has to wonder how much was from certain "woke" charities or anti-British foundations often funded by people like Soros" . . . who -even- individually, could easily donate the total of £200,000-00 themselves, in a single payment without even noticing the effect on their bank balance . . . and consider it "good value" in generating the publicity, to pursue their long-term goals . . . :( !!

 

Stan_Deesey

Old-Salt
Also remembering that many of those involved have already had their claims for asylum investigated and rejected in Germany, and then possibly additionally in France, before heading to UK for another eighteen months or two years of state-support while the claims are rejected again. And the near certainty that they will not be deported of course. The tricky bit is organising things so that the failed asylum attempt means deportation -- currently 'leaving for another country' is seen as good enough. Wasn't there something on this subject in the Dublin accords, which everyone signed up to then totally ignored when it was found to be a bit difficult.
One of the aims of the Dublin Agreement was to prevent migrants making asylum claims in multiple EU countries, and thus save on time, costs and paperwork. The idea was that if a migrant had a claim rejected by, for example, Germany, then he couldn´t just move to another EU country, and claim asylum there.

I don´t know how this worked out in practice. History Man was on here a few weeks ago, saying that some EU countries were a bit ´bureaucratic´, when it came to taking back migrants who´d left their shores to come to us.

Unfortunately though, now that we´re out of the Agreement, it´s perfectly legit for an asylum seeker whose claim has failed in an EU-member country to come to the UK, and have another try, and we voted for it.
 
One of the aims of the Dublin Agreement was to prevent migrants making asylum claims in multiple EU countries, and thus save on time, costs and paperwork. The idea was that if a migrant had a claim rejected by, for example, Germany, then he couldn´t just move to another EU country, and claim asylum there.

I don´t know how this worked out in practice. History Man was on here a few weeks ago, saying that some EU countries were a bit ´bureaucratic´, when it came to taking back migrants who´d left their shores to come to us.

Unfortunately though, now that we´re out of the Agreement, it´s perfectly legit for an asylum seeker whose claim has failed in an EU-member country to come to the UK, and have another try, and we voted for it.
When the claim is refused do they just say its OK you can now go freely anywhere you want, in this country and any other?
 
One of the aims of the Dublin Agreement was to prevent migrants making asylum claims in multiple EU countries, and thus save on time, costs and paperwork. The idea was that if a migrant had a claim rejected by, for example, Germany, then he couldn´t just move to another EU country, and claim asylum there.

I don´t know how this worked out in practice. History Man was on here a few weeks ago, saying that some EU countries were a bit ´bureaucratic´, when it came to taking back migrants who´d left their shores to come to us.

Unfortunately though, now that we´re out of the Agreement, it´s perfectly legit for an asylum seeker whose claim has failed in an EU-member country to come to the UK, and have another try, and we voted for it.
Exactly. Then reality intervened and it was found that, despite all the EU hand-wavium announcements, the necessary information could not be shared without various NGO groups going nuts. So it was all quietly dropped.
 

Stan_Deesey

Old-Salt
When the claim is refused do they just say its OK you can now go freely anywhere you want, in this country and any other?

That´s been discussed briefly on this thread. Germany was quite effective at sending failed asylum seekers back to where they´d come from, but the UK was reticent about returning people to war-torn places like Afghanistan, so most failed asylum seekers ended up staying here.

That´s what I read on here anyway. I am quoting someone else´s post.
 
That´s been discussed briefly on this thread. Germany was quite effective at sending failed asylum seekers back to where they´d come from, but the UK was reticent about returning people to war-torn places like Afghanistan, so most failed asylum seekers ended up staying here.

That´s what I read on here anyway. I am quoting someone else´s post.
I was referring to your post about the failed ones then are able to freely come here as we left the eu. I don't believe that that is what should happen by law.
 
There’s a really easy answer. Send them to Jockland. 6 months in Glasgow and they will insist on repatriation.
To die of a drugs overdose?
 

Stan_Deesey

Old-Salt
I was referring to your post about the failed ones then are able to freely come here as we left the eu. I don't believe that that is what should happen by law.

You may disagree with it, but there´s not much that you can do. The EU put in place a system for preventing migrants from making asylum claims in more than one EU-member country. I don´t know how effective this system was in practice, but we elected to leave it.
 
One of the aims of the Dublin Agreement was to prevent migrants making asylum claims in multiple EU countries, and thus save on time, costs and paperwork. The idea was that if a migrant had a claim rejected by, for example, Germany, then he couldn´t just move to another EU country, and claim asylum there.

I don´t know how this worked out in practice. History Man was on here a few weeks ago, saying that some EU countries were a bit ´bureaucratic´, when it came to taking back migrants who´d left their shores to come to us.

Unfortunately though, now that we´re out of the Agreement, it´s perfectly legit for an asylum seeker whose claim has failed in an EU-member country to come to the UK, and have another try, and we voted for it.
I think the Dublin agreement has been dead in the water for a number of years now. Fat Angie ran a coach and horses through it by unilaterally suspending it in 2015 and inviting one million Doctors, Scientists and Engineers to the fatherland. When she found out that not all of them were qualified in those subjects and that many were illiterate goat herders, that she tried to pass the latter on to other countries like the UK which to Camerons eternal credit- told her to do one.

Since then countries like Italy and Spain who are are the first to greet the new Europeans on their shores have complained that under Dublin they get lumbered with the problem and they should be shared by all EU countries. Brussels has agreed with this and stated that in the interest of EU solidarity refugees should be shared amongst all member states. The problem is that Viktor, he says "no" and his fellow bad boys (now the British have gone) have told Brussels 'they can stick that idea up their arrse.' Brussels has hummed and hawed and we are in a sort of limbo at the moment.
 

Latest Threads

Top