France want more cash !!

[Safranfoer]

I read yesterday that it was correct, an international convention or some such. Not surprisingly, uropean countries and the ECJ maddied the waters to suit.
I have no problem with the Syrian refugees here. Screened and taken straight here from Syria. I do, however, have a huge problem with boatloads of unscreened who knows whats arriving unchecked.

See my reply to salarchaser - it isn’t correct under international law. The EU law muddied it in a way that suited us for a long time - I expect this is an aspect of leaving that won’t please a good few people.

There are no systems in Syria to screen people. There are no systems left there full stop. It’s a war zone. And we moaned and whined like all buggery when asked to take a number of screened displaced Syrians from an overwhelmed refugee camp. I remember it well.

 

[carrowmore]

I’m not sure this is true. I thought we could only return asylum seekers to the first EU country they entered, not the last? I read an article earlier in the year suggesting we had no legal recourse to return refugees to France and so need an agreement with them, to deter people traffickers.

Hang on - it’s here: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-england-kent-53238473

If boats are intercepted by The Royal Navy in the channel they cannot enter French waters to return migrants without an agreement with the French in place. The current returns mechanism within the EU , the so called Dublin regulation , ends on 31st December and there is no sign of any negotiation to replace it. Ironically it will therefore be much more difficult to return those who fail the asylum tests.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[cgaines10]

If boats are intercepted by The Royal Navy in the channel they cannot enter French waters to return migrants without an agreement with the French in place. The current returns mechanism within the EU , the so called Dublin regulation , ends on 31st December and there is no sign of any negotiation to replace it. Ironically it will therefore be much more difficult to return those who fail the asylum tests.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Then simply make it so they cannot enter into the UK, after a couple get turned back. They'd soon realise it's a no go.

 

[bassfly]

The Aussies seem to have cracked it.

Asylum in Australia - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

.

 

[Oscar]

Simple - they should all be forced to take asylum in France. If they don’t then they’re not refugees, just after a cushty life, paid for by someone else.

If happily give France more money to deal with it.

 

[Jack Holroyd]

Sorry Safranfoer, these boat people are not asylum seekers, they are ILLEGAL immigrants. If they were genuine asylum seekers they would have applied for asylum before they left their original country, or from another SAFE country . France is not unsafe. Please tell me why they don’t claim asylum in France?

 

[ibm59]

Anyone thinking that life within the british benefits system is a land of milk and honey littered with satellite dishes , beer , fags , and a fleet of taxis waiting to whisk you off to the supermarket and bookies at a moment‘s notice , should try it themselves for a few months.
I did.
I was lucky to escape with my sanity.

 

[Jack Holroyd]

Sorry, I did not know you were appying for asylum.

 

[ibm59]

Sorry, I did not know you were appying for asylum.

I’m not.

 

[bassfly]

I’m not.

So you would not be treated like a refugee/ asylum seeker/ economic migrant.

 

[carrowmore]

Then simply make it so they cannot enter into the UK, after a couple get turned back. They'd soon realise it's a no go.

Notwithstanding the fact that we’d be breaking International Law why would you want to turn them back when the majority of the people who risk their lives to get here are genuine refugees who simply seek safety and the chance of a better life ?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[carrowmore]

“Some commentators seek to make a point by describing those arriving as migrants rather than refugees, on the implicit assumption that one cannot be both. Ultimately, the latest asylum statistics suggest that the majority are genuine refugees who will be recognized as such once their asylum claims are processed.

Most of those crossing the Channel are reported to be Iranian. If we look at the latest asylum statistics for the year ended September 2018, there were 2,689 decisions made on Iranian asylum claims and the success rate was 47%. That is basically half of all Iranian claims being granted by the Home Office.

But that is not the whole story. Those who are refused by the Home Office are entitled to appeal. In the same period, there were 2,193 appeal decisions made in Iranian cases and 46% were allowed.

Basically, it looks like about three quarters of Iranian asylum claims lead to a successful outcome.

I’m going to stick my neck out and say that those Iranians seeking to cross the Channel to claim asylum are refugees.”

Are refugees obliged to claim asylum in the first safe country they reach? | Free Movement

There has been considerable fuss made in the last week about a handful of refugees crossing the English Channel to claim asylum here in the UK. Here I’m going to look at the numbers, the wider context, what we know about refugee decision making and then turn to the law and what Brexit might...

www.freemovement.org.uk

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[mows]

Notwithstanding the fact that we’d be breaking International Law why would you want to turn them back when the majority of the people who risk their lives to get here are genuine refugees who simply seek safety and the chance of a better life ?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I'm struggling to see how you would be breaking international law. They were in a safe country and have left a safe country try to claim asylum. I'm not sure how they can argue, I'm claiming asylum from France!

 

[Jack Holroyd]

If they were genuine refugees, they would apply for refugee status in France , Italy, Turkey, Spain or Greece , wherever they landed after fleeing the country that oppressed them.

 

[mows]

“Some commentators seek to make a point by describing those arriving as migrants rather than refugees, on the implicit assumption that one cannot be both. Ultimately, the latest asylum statistics suggest that the majority are genuine refugees who will be recognized as such once their asylum claims are processed.

Most of those crossing the Channel are reported to be Iranian. If we look at the latest asylum statistics for the year ended September 2018, there were 2,689 decisions made on Iranian asylum claims and the success rate was 47%. That is basically half of all Iranian claims being granted by the Home Office.

But that is not the whole story. Those who are refused by the Home Office are entitled to appeal. In the same period, there were 2,193 appeal decisions made in Iranian cases and 46% were allowed.

Basically, it looks like about three quarters of Iranian asylum claims lead to a successful outcome.

I’m going to stick my neck out and say that those Iranians seeking to cross the Channel to claim asylum are refugees.”

Are refugees obliged to claim asylum in the first safe country they reach? | Free Movement

There has been considerable fuss made in the last week about a handful of refugees crossing the English Channel to claim asylum here in the UK. Here I’m going to look at the numbers, the wider context, what we know about refugee decision making and then turn to the law and what Brexit might...

www.freemovement.org.uk

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Wrt Iranians, I'm not sure how the UK could object, as we were the root cause in the first place!

 

[keirross]

Haha indeed, Safronfoer. Migrant status resolves about first safe country. See the UN Migration Compact regulations. Get a grip on the histrionics.

It's a very wicked work we've enabled planetised, quite the anti-human agenda - desperarate to include.

Yes, Unis really pumped out tons of understanding....!

 

[ibm59]

So you would not be treated like a refugee/ asylum seeker/ economic migrant.

Correct
But dispelling popular misconception hinted at earlier in the thread is never wasted effort.

 

[carrowmore]

Some time ago the Home Office published a report entitled “ Understanding the Decision Making of Asylum Seekers “ . When commenting on the factors influencing choice of destination the report stated

“These were: whether they had relatives or friends here; their belief that the UK is a safe, tolerant and democratic country; previous links between their own country and the UK including colonialism; and their ability to speak English or desire to learn it.

There was very little evidence that the sample respondents had a detailed knowledge of: UK immigration or asylum procedures; entitlements to benefits in the UK; or the availability of work in the UK. There was even less evidence that the respondents had a comparative knowledge of how these phenomena varied between different European countries. Most of the respondents wished to work and support themselves during the determination of their asylum claim rather than be dependent on the state.”


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[carrowmore]

I'm struggling to see how you would be breaking international law. They were in a safe country and have left a safe country try to claim asylum. I'm not sure how they can argue, I'm claiming asylum from France!

We are signatories to the 1951 UN Refugee Convention.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[peterchilton]

I guess it depends if they are really asylum seekers, refugees or just illegal immigrants?

 

[Safranfoer]

I guess it depends if they are really asylum seekers, refugees or just illegal immigrants?

Yes. You need to process them to find out. Based on the countries people are coming from - Iran, Syria - enough of them are likely to be genuine refugees and asylum seekers to make it a legal obligation that we sort this.

Whoever said you need to apply for asylum before you leave the country you’re in is wrong.

You also don’t legally have to seek asylum in the first country you hit, and in the case of recent arrivals, those countries are overwhelmed anyway. Where would you go, if it was your wife and kids with you and you had the money and the luxury of the choice - would you take your family to overcrowded refugee camps in developing countries, rife with disease and crime and corruption? Or would you take them to a developed country where you all speak the language thanks to your education and you might all have a stab at building a new life? All things being equal, your life is in danger, you’ve lost everything worth having, you have to choose one, both are options for you - which would you choose? Cos I’d shoot for the best shot I could for my family. I have to flee - shall I go for safety, or safety with a better chance of a future? That’s like, do you want ice cream, or ice cream with a flake? No brainer.

 

[Niccancatch]

Back to a thread with the same old socialist Narcissists that will go on and on and on about how we are all " dogwhistling bunch of xenophobic ****ers"
Sad!!!

 

[SOS]

What if we ask France for £30 million a year for taking their migrants that they have let through their eastern borders,that are now a problem on their western coast which they are quite happy to jump in boats to become our problem.
Most of them are social economic migrants that want to come here for the handouts,including the pregnant women who know if they have a baby here that baby and the parents then have the right to stay here.
Because of the effects of covid we are going to have millions of unemployed who will seek benefits,so the last thing we need are any more people who we will struggle to look after,or pay France a bribe to keep then on their side of the channel.

I wonder what Trump would tell the French GFYS .

 

[carrowmore]

“David's first experience with migrants in the Channel was last May, when he "picked up a 10 foot rubber dinghy," carrying what he assumed to be three different families.

"It was one of the most moving things that's ever happened to me in my life, seeing the fear in these kids' eyes," he stated. He went on to tell Matt that the mothers told him that they came from Iraq and chose the UK because they could speak English.

The mothers told David "there was no future for their kids," in Iraq, and because life is cheap in the country they willingly took the risk of sailing one of the busiest shipping routes in the world in a rubber dinghy. “

Fisherman explains why he helps migrants in Channel: "They're coming to better their lives"

This fisherman opened up about helping migrants stuck in the Channel, telling LBC that sending them back to France isn't the answer.

www.lbc.co.uk

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[cgaines10]

“David's first experience with migrants in the Channel was last May, when he "picked up a 10 foot rubber dinghy," carrying what he assumed to be three different families.

"It was one of the most moving things that's ever happened to me in my life, seeing the fear in these kids' eyes," he stated. He went on to tell Matt that the mothers told him that they came from Iraq and chose the UK because they could speak English.

The mothers told David "there was no future for their kids," in Iraq, and because life is cheap in the country they willingly took the risk of sailing one of the busiest shipping routes in the world in a rubber dinghy. “

Fisherman explains why he helps migrants in Channel: "They're coming to better their lives"

This fisherman opened up about helping migrants stuck in the Channel, telling LBC that sending them back to France isn't the answer.

www.lbc.co.uk

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How many of these fear striken individuals do we take in then?