*** Official Putin Started Shootin' Thread ***

[OngBonga]

Now they're in a refugee hostel in Bristol or Plymouth or wherever. What are the UK's responsibilities here?

The same as any other asylum seeker in the country. Make sure they are safe, assist them with their application to go to USA, and if USA reject their application, it's the UK's problem. We can either deport them back to the country they arrived from, or take them in. Depends on their circumstances and the law.

I think we can agree that giving them food and shelter is on us while they're here, so no arguments about that.

Indeed, and we do provide food and shelter for refugees and migrants. Not a problem.

But, do you also think the UK is responsible for determining whether this refugee's application for asylum will be approved by the USA before allowing them to leave the UK for the USA?

Yes. We should not send them to USA without the USA approving of it.

who are we to decide how they choose to get there?

You understand we are obligated to feed and shelter them, yet to fail to recognise our obligation to ensure their safety. We should most certainly stop them from getting in a kayak and leaving the Cornish coast for the Atlantic. Do you think we should do nothing about that if it were happening?

And if so, how do we enforce it?

We patrol the waters, assuming there is a problem with people trying to leave the country like this. We have to do something, right? We can't do nothing. That is highly irresponsible.

[Poopadoop]

The same as any other asylum seeker in the country. Make sure they are safe, assist them with their application to go to USA, and if USA reject their application, it's the UK's problem.

They can't apply for asylum in the USA until they are physically in the USA. How are we supposed to assist them with an application here?

Yes. We should not send them to USA without the USA approving of it.

They're not cattle, they're people. If they chose to go to the USA, that's not the same as us "sending" them.

We should most certainly stop them from getting in a kayak and leaving the Cornish coast for the Atlantic. Do you think we should do nothing about that if it were happening?

What if there's a large number of them trying to do it all the time? What if they're setting off in the middle of the night? Should we turn our beaches into an armed camp to stop them, or is it enough that we just stop the ones we can catch?

We patrol the waters, assuming there is a problem with people trying to leave the country like this. We have to do something, right? We can't do nothing. That is highly irresponsible.

Is patrolling the waters going to stop 100% of them from getting out to sea?

And btw, do you think France just emptied the English channel of any French ships? Or do you think that they patrol it, but if they see a dinghy crossing they wave it through?

[Poopadoop]

assist them with their application to go to USA, and if USA reject their application, it's the UK's problem.

Can you see why this perfectly illustrates why the law is that people have to be physically in the country they're seeking asylum in before they can apply for asylum?

[OngBonga]

Can you see why this perfectly illustrates why the law is that people have to be physically in the country they're seeking asylum in before they can apply for asylum?

But they don't have to be. You're going to have to show me some actual law instead of just saying it over and over again.

What I just read directly contradicts you. Now what I read is an article, not law, so maybe you're right, but you're word isn't as good as that article I just read. Link above in previous post.

[Poopadoop]

But they don't have to be. You're going to have to show me some actual law instead of just saying it over and over again.

What I just read directly contradicts you. Now what I read is an article, not law, so maybe you're right, but you're word isn't as good as that article I just read. Link above in previous post.

Reductivo passivo-aggresso

Google: Do you need to physically be in the UK to seek asylum in the UK?

https://www.google.com/search?q=Do+y..._AUoAHoECAEQAA

[OngBonga]

Reductivo passivo-aggresso

Google: Do you need to physically be in the UK to seek asylum in the UK?

https://www.google.com/search?q=Do+y..._AUoAHoECAEQAA

Ok you're right.

This is the root of the problem. This needs to change. By not allowing people to apply for asylum in the UK from another country, this encourages people to make a highly dangerous sea crossing.

We have to try and stop this from happening, you surely agree with me on that much, right?

[OngBonga]

Going back to your previous comment about just going to Calais to pick them up... this is a ludicrous solution that does not solve the problem. More people just come to Calais and demand the UK comes to collect them. Why should the UK do this?

[Poopadoop]

Going back to your previous comment about just going to Calais to pick them up... this is a ludicrous solution that does not solve the problem. More people just come to Calais and demand the UK comes to collect them. Why should the UK do this?

You're right, treating refugees humanely will only encourage more to come. It would solve the dinghy problem though.

The solution seems to me to change the law.

That's going to be a bit tricky I think. It's an international agreement that's been around a long time.

[OngBonga]

That's going to be a bit tricky I think. It's an international agreement that's been around a long time.

yeah I wondered if it was international law rather than British law.

Surely you see that this is the problem though?

You're right, treating refugees humanely will only encourage more to come. It would solve the dinghy problem though.

Temporarily. How long can this go on for? How many people can the UK bring like this? This is an open border policy, just to stop people from taking ludicrous risks coming to the UK from a safe country. It would be an ever increasing flow of people, until one day we say "enough" and we're back to square one.

If I threaten to swim to USA< should they come and collect me?

[OngBonga]

I mean, we could just go and collect everyone from Calais, take them to a secure location in England, process their applications, and then deport those who fail back to France. That would solve the problem. It would require France's cooperation though.

[OngBonga]

And it wouldn't solve the problem indefinitely, because these secure processing centres would quickly fill up. So it would likely result in a bottleneck in Calais.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Going back to your previous comment about just going to Calais to pick them up... this is a ludicrous solution that does not solve the problem. More people just come to Calais and demand the UK comes to collect them. Why should the UK do this?

I mean...

Because the UK is awesome?

Because those people you're picking up want to be UK citizens and contribute to UK society and culture more than a shitload of actual people born and living in the UK? They got their pick of the EU for countries to seek asylum and they picked yours. They fucking like you. They want to be you.

Because they know the value of their freedom and the cost of said freedom, and will be patriotic and grateful to the UK for helping them in their darkest hour?

Because it's hugely economically +EV to have an influx of workers who will accept lower than average wages for the mere opportunity to do honest work and thank the nation that saved them?


IDK.

Pick one.

Immigration is such a massive net + to economics that arguments against need to be considered against that.
There's always pros and cons. Good and bad. From every national policy. There will always be unintended consequences and people who the system abandons.

Focusing only on the short-term negative consequences in ignorance of the long-term positive consequences seems like not the best adulting, IMO.

[OngBonga]

I mean...

Because the UK is awesome?

Because those people you're picking up want to be UK citizens and contribute to UK society and culture more than a shitload of actual people born and living in the UK? They got their pick of the EU for countries to seek asylum and they picked yours. They fucking like you. They want to be you.

Because they know the value of their freedom and the cost of said freedom, and will be patriotic and grateful to the UK for helping them in their darkest hour?

Because it's hugely economically +EV to have an influx of workers who will accept lower than average wages for the mere opportunity to do honest work and thank the nation that saved them?


IDK.

Pick one.

Immigration is such a massive net + to economics that arguments against need to be considered against that.
There's always pros and cons. Good and bad. From every national policy. There will always be unintended consequences and people who the system abandons.

Focusing only on the short-term negative consequences in ignorance of the long-term positive consequences seems like not the best adulting, IMO.

I'm not anti-immigration. I oppose open border immigration. I understand the benefits of immigration. But it has to be controlled, because we have to adapt our services like education and health. We also have to remember the UK is more densely populated than most of Europe, so our capacity to accept immigrants is not as high as other countries.

We have to have control. What poop is suggesting is giving up that control.

[OngBonga]

The solution seems to me to change the law.