Should we have started doing this a long time ago?

Yes but they don't have the NHS.
 
Indeed, they are doing their best as they can though, not stealing or flogging drugs, not doing any harm other than stopping .gov taxing them, and none of us like that.
 
oppy said:
I may be wrong and probably am (as usual ) but shouldn't refugees apply for sanctuary / asylum in the first neutral country they arrive at
Click to expand...
Yes that’s correct . Or be returned to the very first safe country they came through.. never going to happen.
 
When we in the past have had a day in A & E the migrants who are there are very cheeky shouting and kicking up a fuss as to why they have been kept so long in the room, so bad one day the police had to sort it out.
 
Southern Ireland gathered them and there street tents and sent them packing, no idea where as yet.
Some got flooded in fields and other were dried out. :eek: tents a.jpgtents b.jpgtents c.jpg
 
oppy said:
But surely the Geneva Convention comes into play, or am I just being daft again?
Click to expand...
There is an EU acqui that requires immigrants to seek refuge in the first Member State [since all are consiered safe havens] they reach, and UK lost that benefit and the right to return economic migrants when we left the EU. There is the 1951 Refugee Convention or the Geneva Convention of 28 July 1951, which is a United Nations multilateral treaty that defines who a refugee is and sets out the rights of individuals who are granted asylum and the responsibilities of nations that grant asylum. The latter has obligations that stop short of repatriation, and repatriation agreements are often bilateral agreements. The 1951 Convention followed on from a 1933 version an was itself amended in 1969 an 1984 [the latter was, I believe, in response to the African complete crop failure and famine that Michael Buerk reported on, leading to Foo Ai, Live Aid et al

The Rwanda legislation is regared by the UNHCR as being in breach of the UK's obligations under the Refugee Convention

Steve
 
I can't believe some of the comments on here. It is almost like Richard Tice or Farage were posting! Immigrants are not your enemy, Lies and deceit are. And of all the commenters on here who are ragging on immigrants, how many would turn away a doctor from another country? How many would tell a nurse who is from another country, to leave them be? Oh of course, but they came here legally! OK so what about Mo Farrah? He is an illegal immigrant. His status has changed, does that make it OK? and there are many out there like him. But you seem to say that if he came over illegally, he should have been sent back. Are you all saying that no one deserves a fair hearing?

The reason the come over on small boats is because there is actually no legal way to claim asylum. That was sorted by the last Government. Yes it needs addressing, but for goodness sake, they are all humans!
 
oppy said:
I may be wrong and probably am (as usual ) but shouldn't refugees apply for sanctuary / asylum in the first neutral country they arrive at
Click to expand...
Unfortunately most people who comment on this don't know the facts. Under the rules that we wrote (mainly Churchill) migrants have the right to travel to the country they want to seek asylum in, without having to register in the first safe country they enter. The EU rule regarding registering in the first country no longer applies. Therefore, if I live in a country where I'm in danger and have family in the UK, I have to travel to the UK (illegally) in order to claim asylum here. It maybe nuts, but it's our rules.
 
PopesOnTour said:
Unfortunately most people who comment on this don't know the facts. Under the rules that we wrote (mainly Churchill) migrants have the right to travel to the country they want to seek asylum in, without having to register in the first safe country they enter. The EU rule regarding registering in the first country no longer applies. Therefore, if I live in a country where I'm in danger and have family in the UK, I have to travel to the UK (illegally) in order to claim asylum here. It maybe nuts, but it's our rules.
Click to expand...
While the 1951 Refugee Convention doesn't explicitly state that asylum seekers must register in the first safe country they enter, the concept of "first safe country" is often used in determining where asylum claims should be processed. Here's a breakdown:


  • Right to Seek Asylum: The 1951 Refugee Convention affirms everyone's right to seek asylum, regardless of how or where they enter a country.
  • First Safe Country: The idea is that asylum seekers should claim asylum in the first safe country they reach. This is often interpreted as the first country where they are safe from persecution.
  • Complexities: Determining what constitutes a "safe country" can be complex. Factors include:
    • Level of protection offered
    • Access to basic needs (food, shelter, healthcare)
    • Potential for integration
    • Family ties or community networks

It's important to note that the "first safe country" concept is not universally accepted, and there's ongoing debate about its application. Some argue that it can create obstacles for refugees seeking the best possible protection and opportunities.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who viewed this discussion (Total:0)

Back
Top