Stop the invasion

portisheadpete

First Team
Good question Pete . I have been over to Calais many a time and have seen first hand the trouble these people cause not only to the local population with thieving no respect for where they live fighting drinking drugs making a nuisance of were ever they go . Perhaps scum is a bit harsh a word for them but the majority of the locals want rid and I have heard them use it many a time .

Now to the other point as you suggest they are dispossessed they are in France a safe country with many traveling half way round Europe .If they wish to come here I have not got a problem if they have been vetted no security issue criminals etc and really are fleeing war torn countries or fleeing persecution. They need to go through the proper channels not sit over in Calais scaring the local population/lorry drivers half to death as well as not only putting their life's at risk but others as well.
But where are the dispossessed meant to stay or live if they were to go though the proper channels. Easy to say but the reality is that many here would just prefer that they didnt exist to spoil our relative karma. Pretending its not our issue, and that somehow by leaving the EU we can absolve ourselves of moral responsibility. A stain on us that will define UKs reputation for the next decades. On the BBC documentary Exodus that followed families fleeing their Syrian deathzone, they ended up at Calais. They were definitely not scum, had surrenderd al, their worldly belongings in escaping and had no support, money or hope of ‘following the proper channels’.
 

sussexrob

Forum Patron
Patron
What are the, "Proper," channels, rob?
Like the ones in the Turkish camps who have applied for asylum . I know you posted something a few weeks back about how they were not allowed in or something along those line so I will not fall into that trap . I would be interested to see it again as I must say it did surprise me then which was something I did not realise.
 

sussexrob

Forum Patron
Patron
But where are the dispossessed meant to stay or live if they were to go though the proper channels. Easy to say but the reality is that many here would just prefer that they didnt exist to spoil our relative karma. Pretending its not our issue, and that somehow by leaving the EU we can absolve ourselves of moral responsibility. A stain on us that will define UKs reputation for the next decades. On the BBC documentary Exodus that followed families fleeing their Syrian deathzone, they ended up at Calais. They were definitely not scum, had surrenderd al, their worldly belongings in escaping and had no support, money or hope of ‘following the proper channels’.
Not disagreeing with you Pete on a lot of what you have written. Why did that family end up in Calais they were safe? were they not being helped by other countries France Germany? I also agree about us taking the real needy in but that needs to be done properly .For me the problem is we seem to be letting all and sundry in without so much as a check here or there.
 

raefil

Forum Patron
Patron
Like the ones in the Turkish camps who have applied for asylum . I know you posted something a few weeks back about how they were not allowed in or something along those line so I will not fall into that trap . I would be interested to see it again as I must say it did surprise me then which was something I did not realise.

You mean this one?

Youre getting there.

I quite enjoy the ignorance of those, again on this thread, who keep on making false claims about what the law says regarding "First Port of arrival."

Now I wonder why this judgement made in 1999 is kept very quiet by our govt and media?

Read it here: https://www.refworld.org/pdfid/3ae6b6b41c.pdf

In summary.

In the landmark case of R v Uxbridge Magistrates Court (ex parte Adimi) [1999] Imm AR 560 Lord Justice Simon Brown held that refugees did not have to claim asylum in countries through which they pass to reach safety in order to be protected by Article 31:




As confirmed by Adimi, nothing in the Refugee Convention suggests that status as a refugee is dependent on the individual making a claim for asylum in the first safe country in which he or she arrives. To put it another way, there is no legal obligation on refugees to claim asylum in safe countries and if they decline to do so it does not disqualify them from refugee status in any way
 

raefil

Forum Patron
Patron
That's the one it did surprise me and made me open my eyes , very interesting read a lot more people should be made aware. Thanks for posting that again.
Theres also the Geneva convention

  • There is no such thing as an ‘illegal’ or ‘bogus’ asylum seeker.Under international law, anyone has the right to apply for asylum in any country that has signed the 1951 Convention and to remain there until the authorities have assessed their claim.
  • There is nothing in international law to say that refugees must claim asylum in the first country they reach. A European regulation allows a country such as the UK to return an adult asylum seeker to the first European country they reached. This means that countries on the edge of Europe have responsibility for a lot more asylum seekers than others. Some of the countries through which people travel to get to Europe are not safe places and many have not signed the Refugee Convention, meaning that people who remain there will not get international protection and be able to rebuild their lives.
  • It is recognised in the 1951 Convention that people fleeing persecution may have to use irregular means in order to escape and claim asylum in another country
 

portisheadpete

First Team
Not disagreeing with you Pete on a lot of what you have written. Why did that family end up in Calais they were safe? were they not being helped by other countries France Germany? I also agree about us taking the real needy in but that needs to be done properly .For me the problem is we seem to be letting all and sundry in without so much as a check here or there.
I guess if we were letting in all amd sundry they wouldnt have been stuck at Calais. It was and is an international crisis that we need to contribute to resolving in a humanitarian way in collaboration with other countries. But many would rather demonise the victims, blame the EU amd isolate ourselves from the crisis and those trying to resolve it. Basement level on the moral and international scale and really damaging to our reputation at a time when we need it most if we are to rebuild economic ties outside the EU.
 
Top