• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)

Silly McSilly Face said:
It does not explicitly state that we have to treat them as asylum seekers or refugees either or prohibit us from taking a dim view of travelling through multiple safe countries. It merely holds that it is not an automatic relinquishing of refugee status. Our stance of travelling via safe third countries negatively impacting the liklihood of asylum claims being considered is not incompatible with the treaty. And the UK's criminal law is what determines whether something is illegal in this country, not an international treaty. A refugee under the comvention is someone facing persecution in their home country based on their race, religion, nationality, political opinion or other characteristic likely to put them at risk. So as ive said, stepping off a boat and saying "i'm claiming asylum give me a lawyer" does not automatically just dissappear black and white uk law into a puff of smoke.
Click to expand...
Whilst their claims being processed they have status as asylum seeker. If after the process and any subsequent appeal the claim is unsuccessful then their temporary leave to remain is revoked. Should they remain beyond that point then they are here illegally.
 
ricky2tricky4city said:
Is this reliable?...has nationality breakdown

migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk

People crossing the English Channel in small boats - Migration Observatory

This briefing examines the phenomenon of people crossing the English Channel in small boats.
migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk
Click to expand...
It is from the home office irregular migration data statistics, which is the most reliable data. However i don't feel like the data has been accurately presented as they are implying that these nationalities are what make up the % of irregular arrivals in total, but the Home Office make it clear that the data excludes undocumented arrivals for which country or origin data is not available. The Home Office states that it is impossible to accurately document all iregular arrivals to the UK.
 
Glenda's Legs said:
Im not sure that you did as you continued to assert that those who enter illegally seeking asylum are illegal immigrants. Otherwise why not call them asylum seekers?
Click to expand...
They're illegal immigrants. If the home office grants them leave to remain pending an asylum application then they are no longer illegally here. Its not that difficult to understand. Although technically they still committed the offence of entering without leave. Its like the fact that current guidance is not to prosecute possession of small amounts of class B drugs for personal use.....doesnt change the fact the activity is illegal
 
Silly McSilly Face said:
They're illegal immigrants. If the home office grants them leave to remain pending an asylum application then they are no longer illegally here. It’s not that difficult to understand. Although technically they still committed the offence of entering without leave. It’s like the fact that current guidance is not to prosecute possession of small amounts of class B drugs for personal use.....doesnt change the fact the activity is illegal
Click to expand...
I really don’t have a difficulty understanding.
 
Silly McSilly Face said:
It is from the home office irregular migration data statistics, which is the most reliable data. However i don't feel like the data has been accurately presented as they are implying that these nationalities are what make up the % of irregular arrivals in total, but the Home Office make it clear that the data excludes undocumented arrivals for which country or origin data is not available. The Home Office states that it is impossible to accurately document all iregular arrivals to the UK.
Click to expand...
How about the man, woman, child data...is that happening (as can't exactly be hidden)?
 
ricky2tricky4city said:
How about the man, woman, child data...is that happening (as can't exactly be hidden)?
Click to expand...
"Detected" cases record that data but a lot of cases of irregular arrivals are not detected. There are boats and lorries arriving every day with people on them and they are not all being met and processed by officials or law enforcement, many have no intention of presenting themselves to official channels but slink into the underworld as soon as they arrive. As the Home Office says, their stats are based on detected cases only but it is not possible to accurately estimate the numbers of irregular arrivals to the UK or how many individuals are here illegally.
 
Silly McSilly Face said:
"Detected" cases record that data but a lot of cases of irregular arrivals are not detected. There are boats and lorries arriving every day with people on them and they are not all being met and processed by officials or law enforcement, many have no intention of presenting themselves to official channels but slink into the underworld as soon as they arrive. As the Home Office says, their stats are based on detected cases only but it is not possible to accurately estimate the numbers of irregular arrivals to the UK or how many individuals are here illegally.
Click to expand...
I don't expect officials to record data on undetected arrivals just as I wouldn't expect anyone to put even a number on the overall amount by virtue of them being 'undetected'. ie do they exist or not.

So out of the detected, processed illegal immigrants what is the douchbag breakdown ...men, woman, children ?
 
Silly McSilly Face said:
"Detected" cases record that data but a lot of cases of irregular arrivals are not detected. There are boats and lorries arriving every day with people on them and they are not all being met and processed by officials or law enforcement, many have no intention of presenting themselves to official channels but slink into the underworld as soon as they arrive. As the Home Office says, their stats are based on detected cases only but it is not possible to accurately estimate the numbers of irregular arrivals to the UK or how many individuals are here illegally.
Click to expand...

Whilst we're swimming in the Seas of Assumption (i.e. your projected sense that there a whole slew of criminals and bad 'uns illegally entering via boats and lorries), I'm going to swim in those waters and say that I believe the vast majority who are making landfall undetected via boat or stuffed in the back of a lorry for some godforsaken amount of time are desperate and scared people who genuinely feel there is no other alternative for survival. The nature of those types of journeys alone greatly filters out the 'tossers' from the desperate, abused and scared (many of whom are that way because of flimflam which has been visited UPON their countries by others)...

I get tired of reading about this brick as though it is a problem which will be solved. It will never be solved unless nations are interested in tackling the source problems which cause such waves of desperation to reverberate in such a way. Why can't there be more focus on that side of the coin? As always, it is the poor and desperate who end up carrying the fudging can, and it's happening increasingly everywhere...
 
Alot of people don't realise that there are many parts of the world, where if by pure lottery, you were born there and lived with your family, you would be desperate to escape for a better life.

And then there are people who already have a safe place with resources to live. They don't have to escape. They can just come.

Ultimately the discourse has dehumanised some because they were unlucky to be born in a poor place and have darker skin.

They are just other humans who don't have safety and resources. But the fact we were just lucky shouldn't drive us to hate those who don't have any luck.
 
LutonSpurs said:
Alot of people don't realise that there are many parts of the world, where if by pure lottery, you were born there and lived with your family, you would be desperate to escape for a better life.

And then there are people who already have a safe place with resources to live. They don't have to escape. They can just come.

Ultimately the discourse has dehumanised some because they were unlucky to be born in a poor place and have darker skin.

They are just other humans who don't have safety and resources. But the fact we were just lucky shouldn't drive us to hate those who don't have any luck.
Click to expand...
Its not about hate. We are discussing whether politicians, the media and the general public are correct in describing those people arriving by "irregular channels" as "illegal immigrants". The criminal law of this country is clear on this point. And it is nothing to do with the colour of their skin or their personal circumstances.

On the definition of "refugee" under the convention this "lottery" you speak of and "desperation to seek a better life" does not provide them with the status of refugee. To be a refugee they must be subject of "persecution". So an Afghan may find life incredibly tough living under the Taliban with barely anything to call their own. That doesn't make them a refugee or a legal immigrant. Which is the subject matter under discussion.
 
thfcsteff said:
Whilst we're swimming in the Seas of Assumption (i.e. your projected sense that there a whole slew of criminals and bad 'uns illegally entering via boats and lorries), I'm going to swim in those waters and say that I believe the vast majority who are making landfall undetected via boat or stuffed in the back of a lorry for some godforsaken amount of time are desperate and scared people who genuinely feel there is no other alternative for survival. The nature of those types of journeys alone greatly filters out the 'tossers' from the desperate, abused and scared (many of whom are that way because of flimflam which has been visited UPON their countries by others)...

I get tired of reading about this brick as though it is a problem which will be solved. It will never be solved unless nations are interested in tackling the source problems which cause such waves of desperation to reverberate in such a way. Why can't there be more focus on that side of the coin? As always, it is the poor and desperate who end up carrying the fudging can, and it's happening increasingly everywhere...
Click to expand...
I agree with a lot of what you've said there. But I can tell you from experience that it really does not separate the tossers from non tosser refugees. Amongst the numbers of people coming here out of desperation are those wanted or convicted of serious crimes in their home countries who are facing hard labour in prisons that would he unrecognisable in terms of safety and comfort to a western prison or the death penalty. So they are desperate and motivated. But they are very dangerous people all the same.
 
The major issue comes in this country and I have had this conversation on here countless times where people stop even identifying what type oo migrant they are and just say "all immigrants"

Someone who will remain nameless as I can't be doing with the spat just casually said "well its obvious which ones we mean" well its not and I have seen a huge increase in people being abused and attacked in day to day life because of pure assumption.
 
Silly McSilly Face said:
Its not about hate. We are discussing whether politicians, the media and the general public are correct in describing those people arriving by "irregular channels" as "illegal immigrants". The criminal law of this country is clear on this point. And it is nothing to do with the colour of their skin or their personal circumstances.

On the definition of "refugee" under the convention this "lottery" you speak of and "desperation to seek a better life" does not provide them with the status of refugee. To be a refugee they must be subject of "persecution". So an Afghan may find life incredibly tough living under the Taliban with barely anything to call their own. That doesn't make them a refugee or a legal immigrant. Which is the subject matter under discussion.
Click to expand...

Didn't you call them douches without knowing their stories?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back