Just looking into this. The official UK website is saying there are Visa application centres in Paris, Warsaw, Budapest, Bucharest and Chisinau (Moldova). No mention of Calais.
Printable View
Just looking into this. The official UK website is saying there are Visa application centres in Paris, Warsaw, Budapest, Bucharest and Chisinau (Moldova). No mention of Calais.
Latest from negotiation talks:
1. Install Russian puppet as PMQuote:
Two persons close to the Russia-Ukraine negotiations (including back channel talks) tell me Russia proposed (1) Zelensky remains pro forma president but Russia appoints Boiko as PM, (2) Ukraine recognizes L/DNR and Crimea, (3) No NATO. Ze told them emphatically no.
...I assume that was the end of the discussion there.
It does now. What did it say yesterday or the day before? Which website was Priti Patel getting her info from?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Also, since when do refugees need to apply for a visa?
Edit: It gets better.
Quote:
Ukrainians fleeing Putin's war for Britain are being told to go to the visa office in Paris - but there are no appointments until March 15 - Yvette Cooper tells Parliament.
Double Edit:
Quote:
They also told a Brit & family to travel to Belgium to get their visas but the Belgium authorities said they knew nothing of these so called arrangements.
A fair correction. They will become migrants if successful. The reason I made the distinction though is because there are different rules for refugees fleeing war, compared to asylum seekers seeking economic opportunities.Quote:
Let's get real. The people who float across the channel on a dinghy are asylum seekers.
People trafficking falls into the category of modern slavery and is illegal under international law.Quote:
There's no international law that says a country can't let people leave their country and go out to sea.
Quote:
Current international treaties (general)Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery, entered into force in 1957
Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, especially Women and Children
Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air
Optional Protocol on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography
ILO Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29)
ILO Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957 (No. 105)
ILO Minimum Age Convention, 1973 (No. 138)
ILO Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention, 1999 (No. 182)
Inter-American Convention on International Traffic in Minors
Countries are obligated to secure their borders with other countries. They are also obliged to take reasonable steps to ensure the safety of people in their territory. Letting people leave the coast for England on boats not fit for purpose is clearly failing in this obligation.Quote:
Nor does any country have an obligation to help another country's immigration system.
By reminding them of their obligations under international law, and raising formal protests with relevant international courts.Quote:
How can we get them to do cooperate? By being cunts over fishing?
It's certainly not easy. That does not mean we should not use every resource at our disposal to attempt to bring these people to justice.Quote:
Seems like it'd be hard to prosecute.
Indeed, and we do. This is how legal immigration happens.Quote:
We could help the people who want to get here to get here without having to cross in a dinghy. That's one way.
We could treat our immigrants like utter shit to the point they want to leave the UK for France, and then do fuck all when they get on dodgy boats and head south. But naturally that would be highly immoral.Quote:
Let's assume the French are dicks or whatever and they dont' want to help us. What do we do then? Send a battleship?
That's what France is doing.
No we shouldn't send a battleship to France. We should hit them with economic sanctions. Stop buying their wine.
I'm not saying they should. They should simply uphold their obligations to protect the safety of people in their country.Quote:
The French can't tell asylum seekers they can't go on to the UK.
I'm glad you think that those trying to come here all have family here. I suppose this is why we have such opposing opinions on this matter. I believe they want to come to the UK because we treat migrants better than France does, we provide accommodation, money, education and health to migrants. Contrary to popular opinion, British people are particularly welcoming towards migrants, certainly more so than the French and Polish. Maybe not compared to Germany and Sweden, but we treat migrants very well, both legally and socially. That's why they want to come here. Not because they speak English, and not because they have family here (though obviously some do).Quote:
Let's say a refugee comes from Syria. He travels first to Turkey, the border guard says "Who are you and where are you going?" The refugee says "I'm fleeing the war Syria and I have family in the UK I want to go there."
When they're arriving from a country not at war. Maybe we should stop being an island, it's incredibly selfish of us.Quote:
Also, since when do refugees need to apply for a visa?
The other demands are arguably reasonable. But this one isn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Recognising Crimea as Russian territory is accepting reality. Same with recognising the autonomy of the breakaway states. Russia are never going to give up Crimea without a fight, it is far too strategic. And the breakaway states have been oppressed by Ukraine since 2014, there is no hope of the people of these regions ever being loyal to the Ukrainian nation.
Not joining NATO is a no brainer if they want peaceful relations with Russia.
Accepting a puppet government though, that's very clearly going to be rejected.
Seriously, is Cruella Patel really this stupid or just plain evil?
https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1500823804972515334Quote:
Priti Patel insists there are UK immigration officials in Calais and that it’s “absolutely wrong” to suggest otherwise - 4 hours after Downing Street said there weren’t.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
You can say anything about recognising this or that territory. You can promise to never join NATO. Nothing to keep you from changing your mind later, especially after Russia agreed to recognise Ukraine in return for getting their nukes, then changed their mind about that.
Letting Putin install a puppet dictator though is basically just surrendering. Zelensky will never do this, they'll have to kill him first.
^^
#MRGA
Holy crap that's a lot of convo I missed.
Not going to read back through everything, but @ong, re human traficing.
This has been called out as almost entirely BS.
The evidence of human traficing is minimal to almost non-existent in US border crossings. It gets brought up because it is ugly, and horrible and it gets people riled up. But I've seen a few investigations into the allegations of human traficing happening as immigration / migration and it's basically a red herring.
It happens. It's just that the rate of it happening is not a good reason to deny migration to people. It's tantamount to saying, "there is at least 1 murderer in your home country, therefor we must assume you are a murderer until proven otherwise." It's a perversion of justice, IMO.
I'm not trying to shut you down but the USA/Mexico border is incomparable to the UK/France maritime border.Quote:
Originally Posted by mojo
This is not remotely how it is. I'm not suggesting that the people arriving on boats are people traffickers. I'm saying they are attempting to enter the country by illegal means, and we should prioritise those who attempt to enter legally. And I'm saying that by allowing people to arrive undocumented by boat, we encourage people traffickers.Quote:
It's tantamount to saying, "there is at least 1 murderer in your home country, therefor we must assume you are a murderer until proven otherwise."
If you think people trafficking isn't how these people get here, then where the fuck are they getting the boats from? These are desperately poor people remember. Acquiring a boat that is capable of crossing the channel with many people in it, this isn't something you buy at the supermarche at Calais. These crossings are organised. By whom?
From a quick google search, there were 24 arrests for people trafficking in the UK in 2020. Can't seem to find more recent figures.
Can't find French figures either, and this is where the traffickers are more likely to be based.
I can find tons of reports talking about how people traffickers are running a business ferrying people from France to UK, but what I can find is right wing media like the Express, the Sun, etc. Not gonna link shit like that.
To me, human trafficking means moving people against their will.
If the people hired or otherwise arranged for a boat to get across the water, then not human trafficking, IMO.
If they were forced onto the boat against their will, then yes human trafficking.
Ok so we disagree on what people trafficking means, and a little research implies you might be correct to use this term in this context. People smuggling seems to be the moving of people with consent. I guess I'm falling victim to the media preferring to use the term traffickers than smugglers.Quote:
To me, human trafficking means moving people against their will.
But I suspect it's a grey area between the two. If someone is coerced into movement by means of deception, or because they are convinced they have no other alternative, genuine consent becomes questionable.
Yeah I don't know what the evidence of widespread people trafficking in the UK is. I did read a story a few years back of some east Asian immigrants who died in the back of a truck somewhere in England. Didn't have anything to do with dinghies though afaik.
More to the point, none of the people in the dinghies are traffickers. If we accept that they're all asylum seekers, their means of getting to our country is irrelevant imo.
Yeah, from Wikipedia...
Key word in the context of France/UK border crossings... exploitation.Quote:
Smuggling situations can descend into human trafficking through coercion and exploitation
First sentence, no problem. Second, problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
It matters. It's relevant because it's allowing a criminal and highly immoral business to thrive. And it matters because for every person that enters illegally, that's one less person who can enter legally. Why do you want to prioritise those who enter illegally? Why do you think the UK as a state should be forced to accept these asylum seekers instead of the ones filling in paperwork in Paris or whatever?
The key word is AND.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
The definition includes coercion. That means forced. You can exploit someone without coercion and vice/versa - e.g., if you put a gun to their head or threaten their childrens' lives to force them to cross the channel, that's coercion. If you just jack up the price because if they don't pay it someone else will, that's exploitation. If you do both it's trafficking.
btw, France have a greater obligation to combat people trafficking than the UK does, because France is an EU member state. The EU have issued a directive relating to this crime. A "directive" is not optional or negotiable, you are outright obliged by law.
You think Wikipedia, written by normal people, is this tight when it comes to language? I don't. This seems like pedantry. Show me legalese that confirms your assertion and I'll backtrack.Quote:
The key word is AND.
Coercion can be achieved by deception. It's not necessarily outright forcing someone. It can be tricking them with lies.Quote:
The definition includes coercion. That means forced.
While this is exploitation, it's not how migrants are generally exploited. This probably happens, but the term "exploitation" in this context refers to taking advantage of the desperate plight of these people.Quote:
If you just jack up the price because if they don't pay it someone else will, that's exploitation.
It means the same as when we say sex workers are exploited, even though more often than not they choose to be sex workers. That's because people are taking advantage of their desperation.
So basically you're more worried that some scumbags in France are making a quick buck by exploiting the refugees than about the refugee's rights to asylum? Seems like a strange way of prioritising things. What if someone in Switzerland mugs a refugee and takes his wallet? Should we refuse that refugee then on the grounds that we're stopping crime?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Not how it works. A person crossing on a dinghy getting picked up on the beach by the coast guard is not stopping someone else coming across on a ferry. It's not a zero-sum game.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Who said anything about giving them priority? Again, you're assuming it's a zero-sum game, like someone in the Paris office is saying "we had 20 refugees land by dinghy today near Dover, therefore we're going to take 20 less applications in Paris. Sorry Ahmed, but it's back to Syria for you."Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Too easy.Quote:
Coercion
noun
the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats
Yes. These scumbags will just send more people over if they can make money doing so, and the problem becomes more serious.Quote:
So basically you're more worried that some scumbags in France are making a quick buck by exploiting the refugees than about the refugee's rights to asylum?
You seem to be more concerned about the safety of a boatload of people, rather than the safety of several boatloads of people.
Fucking hell, worst analogy ever.Quote:
What if someone in Switzerland mugs a refugee and takes his wallet? Should we refuse that refugee then on the grounds that we're stopping crime?
It's not literally how it works, we're don't have a strict limit that goes up and down for every migrant that enters and leaves. But when we talk of thousands, it becomes a different story. That is impacting on the ability of others to come here.Quote:
Not how it works. A person crossing on a dinghy getting picked up on the beach by the coast guard is not stopping someone else coming across on a ferry. It's not a zero-sum game.
Try reading a more detailed definition.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coercion
I got through the opening section and concluded that your one-liner is insufficient.
Here's a legal definition of coercion...
Quote:
Coercion
The intimidation of a victim to compel the individual to do some act against his or her will by the use of psychological pressure, physical force, or threats. The crime of intentionally and unlawfully restraining another's freedom by threatening to commit a crime, accusing the victim of a crime, disclosing any secret that would seriously impair the victim's reputation in the community, or by performing or refusing to perform an official action lawfully requested by the victim, or by causing an official to do so.
The bottom line is we can't control what happens in France. If we're nice to France they will cooperate with us if there's a serious concern over human trafficking. I imagine they do try to stop it, but within limits (i.e., they don't have 1,000 agents sneaking around tents at Calais trying to find traffickers). But they're not going to let us send MI6 over to do it on French soil because, you know, that word that you love so much. Starts with an S.
The UK's moral and legal responsibility starts when these people enter UK territory. There's no excuse for not processing them normally like any other immigrant, legal or otherwise, at that point. If they claim asylum, they need to be processed in the UK, and while that's going on they need to be fed and housed. It's international law. We don't get to pretend we're special somehow because some people here are xenophobes.
Sounds like a long-winded way of saying "using force or threat" to me. Don't see anything in there about deception.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Coercion is not simply making a threat. It's making someone feel like they have no alternative but to follow your demands.
If I tell you to get in the boat or you won't have another opportunity to get into England, when that is a blatant lie, I am coercing you.
No, my solution is to offer them a ferry ride. Yours is, I don't know what yours is. Care to share?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
It's just odd because it almost sounds like you want them to be able to come here, but don't want to help them do it. Then when they come illegally, you blame them for someone else not being able to come here.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
This is probably why we're sending boats out to stop them getting into our territorial waters.Quote:
The UK's moral and legal responsibility starts when these people enter UK territory.
I mean you're obviously just digging in your heels here when you know you're wrong and have been proven wrong, so I'm not going to bother entertaining you any further.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
We're not actually. They were talking about doing it, but I think it's actually impractical and/or possibly illegal to do so.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Sure. My solution is for them to fill out the required paperwork in Paris, instead of heading for Calais and hoping to bump into a dodgy fucker with a boat. If they have the required documents, then by all means give them a ferry ride.Quote:
No, my solution is to offer them a ferry ride. Yours is, I don't know what yours is. Care to share?
I want legal, documents, and safe migration to the UK. Not sure why that's so confusing for you. You seem to be happy to encourage seriously dangerous and illegal methods.Quote:
It's just odd because it almost sounds like you want them to be able to come here, but don't want to help them do it.
Well there's plenty of evidence of boats being escorted to shore, rather than being turned away or sunk by battleships. Presumably, that's because they reached territorial waters, which, iirc, is 2 miles from the shore.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Pretty sure there's no legal requirement for asylum seekers to fill in paperwork before they enter a country. Could be wrong though.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Edit: From UK gov't website on seeking asylum:
Quote:
You should apply when you arrive in the UK
Offering people a free ferry ride is pretty dangerous I guess yeah. Good point.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
It's not 2 miles, it's a lot more. Presumably there are no international waters between Calais and Dover, our territorial waters will border each other, though we'll both be obliged to allow free passage of shipping.
Well I don't know about this, but they generally need to do more than turn up at ports undocumented.Quote:
Pretty sure there's no legal requirement for asylum seekers to fill in paperwork before they enter a country. Could be wrong though.
Wait, you mean just go and pick everyone up from Calais? Blimey. I thought you meant escort them in, pick them up off the boats. My apologies. I didn't realise you were actually talking about just going to Calais and saying "who wants a free ferry ride to the UK?"Quote:
Offering people a free ferry ride is pretty dangerous I guess yeah. Good point.
If they're seeking asylum in the UK, yes, I'm saying we should do this. It would stop the human trafficking and be a lot safer for them than coming over in dinghies.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
You OTOH, seem to want them all to somehow find their way to Paris to fill in the paperwork that our own gov't website says they should fill in when they arrive in the UK, which afaik is in accordance with international law on dealing with asylum seekers.
Here's the ukgov website on asylum applications. It's pretty clear you should apply when you enter the UK, not before. Nothing in there about filling in forms or showing your paperwork at any time before you get here.
https://www.gov.uk/claim-asylum
Your solution seems to make it harder for them to get to the UK and seek asylum by adding in more hoops to jump through (get to Paris, fill in an application, provide documents, etc.). Pretty sure that's both illegal and not going to help stop human trafficking.
I'm glad to hear that because my response to what ong suggested was to say aloud, "That's fucked up!"Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
And what happens after we've collected everyone from Calais that wants to come to England? More people come to Calais wanting to come to England.Quote:
Originally Posted by poop
What you're saying here is that the UK is open to literally anyone in the world who wants to come.
What I meant by that was that I want them to be documented. Whether it's Paris, Calais, Damascus, wherever there is a British office for dealing with asylum seekers. What I don't want is people from around the world turning up at Calais, getting on a boat, and then being in Britain, without at any point having made an application for asylum. You don't turn up in Dover and apply there, otherwise we have no control over immigration and the borders are practically open to the world.Quote:
You OTOH, seem to want them all to somehow find their way to Paris...
Which is fucking stupid.
This is for refugees who are not safe in their country. And it also says this...Quote:
Here's the ukgov website on asylum applications.
So this implies you should apply as soon as possible, and ideally not from England.Quote:
You should apply when you arrive in the UK or as soon as you think it would be unsafe for you to return to your own country. Your application is more likely to be denied if you wait.
Economic migrants should not be turning up unannounced.
This is why earlier I tried to distinguish between migrants and refugees. One group of people are fleeing war and can turn up unannounced, although in the case of the UK it's hard to understand why they would do so since they are not fleeing a border country to the UK. But still, refugees are fleeing war and I don't have a problem with this at all.
Economic migrants are seeking a better life. There's a ridiculous amount of people in the world who would like better economic opportunities. Most of India, population 1 billion. It should be obvious the UK does not have room for India. Where's the line? You must have a line poop, you must realise there comes a point where we're full up.
On the one hand, you stop them by force. On the other hand, you create a business opportunity for people traffickers. There is no good solution. It's fucked up either way.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
France have to do their bit. What they're doing is fucked up. They are basically doing fuck all because they don't want these migrants.
Poop seems to think we should be nice to France. We are nice to France. They are our allies and we have excellent trade with them. We visit their country as tourists as have good relations with their people. We even teach their language at school. The UK and France are friends. Like most friends, we bicker about things. That's normal international relations.
What you're saying is France should feed, clothe, and house asylum seekers who want to go to the UK, indefinitely. And also they should stop and seize dinghies in the channel. So basically France should be our immigration service overseas.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
There's an international UN agreement on asylum seeking refugees. The UK is a part of that agreement. The UK govt website aligns with that agreement. The UK gov'ts actions don't. So we either should withdraw from the agreement and admit we're cunts, or follow it.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
You can't apply for asylum in the UK unless you're physically in the UK.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
What that bit you quoted means is if you're, e.g., a Ukrainian who comes to the UK in January on a visa that ends in March, and you decide it's not safe to go back, you apply as soon as you decide it's not safe.
I agree, and if they do they won't be allowed entry. But if they're seeking asylum they have to physically be in the UK to do so. They can't apply from Paris or Calais or anywhere outside the UK. You might not like it, but that's the law.Quote:
Economic migrants should not be turning up unannounced.
And the law is very clear on this. They can't apply while they're in another country, they can only apply once they get to the UK. There's no forms to fill out in country X to apply for refugee status in the UK, that's simply not how it works.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
You're confusing economic migrants with refugees. They're two completely different classes of people.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
The refugees are trying to get to the UK. You think France should stop them trying to do so, i.e., they should be breaking international law on our behalf. It's not a reasonable expectation.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
And let's say some of them are economic migrants, and some are legitimate refugees. You expect France to sort out who is who for us? Why should they? Those people need to be allowed into the UK to have their cases heard here. It's our responsibility, not France's.
The whole problem here is the media has convinced people like Ong and a lot of others that it's France's responsibility to deal with our immigration issues. Like France should break intn'l law to detain these people who are trying to get to the UK, either for legitimate reasons or not. That's not how border control laws work.
Next they'll be wanting to build a wall across the English channel and make France pay for it. It really is that absurd.
What's maddening to me is
if a family of refugees turned up on ong's doorstep and spoke English and could tell him their story and ask for some minimal hospitality for the night - I have a feeling ong wouldn't just slam the door in their face.
I have a feeling ong would feel compelled to extend compassion. Maybe offer some food or a blanket or just something.
Something.
And I suspect all the rhetoric about denying compassion to people is a byproduct of physical and emotional distance from those people.
After all... No one wants to see themselves as inhospitable to a person who needs a helping hand.
I don't think ong wants to live in a world where people don't help each other, even if they're strangers to each other.
It's just easy to separate individual human decisions into an amorphous glob of "migrants" or "refugees."
IDK. I'm pretty sure we're all decent folks, here.
That we can talk some smack, but at the end of the day, this is an internet conversation.
That despite certain hard line views, if we were confronted face to face with a starving family on the run from a war or a genocide that we'd at least sympathize with their simple need for someone in this fucked up world to not treat them like animals.
Yes. They're in France, not the UK. They are France's responsibility, not the UK's. They become the UK's responsibility when they are successful in their application.Quote:
Originally Posted by poop
If literally everyone in France suddenly said "I want to go to the UK", does that mean suddenly that the entire population of France is the UK's responsibility?
In their territorial waters, yes. They are obliged to secure their maritime border, and they are obliged to protect the safety of people in their territory.Quote:
And also they should stop and seize dinghies in the channel.
Ok. I'll take your word for it that we're failing in our agreed obligations, because frankly it wouldn't surprise me. If this agreement is the reason this situation is happening, then yes we should leave that agreement.Quote:
There's an international UN agreement on asylum seeking refugees. The UK is a part of that agreement. The UK govt website aligns with that agreement. The UK gov'ts actions don't. So we either should withdraw from the agreement and admit we're cunts, or follow it.
Presumably France are part of that agreement too though, and presumably they have obligations to protect their borders. They are certainly obligation by EU directive to tackle people trafficking.
Ok, we're getting lost in language again here. Let's use the words refugees and migrants to avoid this, because asylum seeker seem ambiguous.Quote:
You can't apply for asylum in the UK unless you're physically in the UK.
Migrants need to apply before coming here, or they need to be here already on a visa.
Ok, I'm glad we have some agreement on this. Presumably we now disagree on the status of these people on boats coming from France. I am saying these people are mostly economic migrants. I don't doubt some of them are legitimate refugees that we should be accepting, but their method of arrival is hugely problematic.Quote:
I agree, and if they do they won't be allowed entry.
There is no need to risk life to escape France. There is no war in France. They are safe in France. From France they can make their case to the British for why we should assist them in getting to England.
The law is also very clear that you do not get on a boat and head for another country without authorisation from both the country you are leaving and the country you are arriving in. At least it's clear to me.Quote:
And the law is very clear on this. They can't apply while they're in another country, they can only apply once they get to the UK.
Clearly, if they can't apply to the British for refugee status from another country, and they can't simply walk to the border, there is a problem. But the solution to that problem is not to get on a boat and head for the British coast. The solution is for the British to assist people in France, and other places where necessary. We have embassies in every capital.
What? Refugees are fleeing war or natural disaster. Economic migrants seek better economic opportunities. You seem to be the one getting confused here.Quote:
Originally Posted by ong
People who want a better life in another country are not refugees. People who are fleeing for their lives are refugees.
They are in France! Anyone in France is the responsibility of France.Quote:
Originally Posted by poop
Poop seems to think that all a refugee needs to do is state their desired country, anywhere in the world, and that makes them the responsibility of that country. That is ludicrous.
I don't think poop ever said anything hinting at that.
At least he understands the law vis-a-vis asylum seekers more than most.
My point was you keep bringing up economic migrants as if they're relevant to a discussion about refugees. They're not.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
France is not mistreating them while they're in France afaik. They're being fed and housed.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Then why are non-British people in France the responsibility of the UK? Because they want to come here? That's my point. You don't just say "I'm a refugee and I want to go to the UK" and that makes that the UK's problem. But that's what poop appears to be suggesting is what should be happening, because he thinks we should be picking these people up from Calais, as though it's our problem and not France's.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
They are in France. They are not British. The only thing that makes this relevant to the UK is that they want to come here.
What is poop saying if it's not that?
Is that so?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calais_Jungle
And yes it was "was" and not "is"... that camp might not be anywhere near as large, but Calais is still a hotbed of migrants camps. Ukrainians turning up there are discovering this.
Oh, and letting people sail off into the sunset on a boat not fit for the sea because you'd rather they fuck off to another country is mistreating them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Et tu et bananas?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Let's put it a different way. Let's say a refugee comes from Syria and is currently in the UK. They've passed through a number of countries along the way, and their stated final destination is the USA where they claim to have family. Now they're in a refugee hostel in Bristol or Plymouth or wherever. What are the UK's responsibilities here?
I think we can agree that giving them food and shelter is on us while they're here, so no arguments about that.
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? Or is that for the USA to determine? And if we don't have a responsibility to determine if they're ok to leave the UK for the USA, who are we to decide how they choose to get there?
Do we make a law whereby they aren't allowed to leave for the USA until they can show a valid plane ticket or oceanliner ticket, as opposed to a leaky rowboat? And if so, how do we enforce it? By imprisoning them until they meet our criterion for leaving, iow by going against their human rights by falsely imprisoning them?
Well if we're being pedantic about this, anyone in France is no longer a refugee, they are an economic migrant if they want to move on from France to the UK.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
A refugee flees their country to a safe country. Once they are in a safe country, they are the responsibility of that country. France might be able to argue that they are Italy's problem and not France's, but it's got fuck all to do with the UK until they get here.
Reductio whatabismo. The topic here is how the UK is behaving towards refugees. If anything, the French treating them badly should make us more willing to help them, not less.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
There's no law saying they have to stop in the first safe country they get to though. You want France to stop them from coming to the UK. It's neither their responsibility to do so, nor is it legal for them to do so according to intn'l law.
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.Quote:
Now they're in a refugee hostel in Bristol or Plymouth or wherever. What are the UK's responsibilities here?
Indeed, and we do provide food and shelter for refugees and migrants. Not a problem.Quote:
I think we can agree that giving them food and shelter is on us while they're here, so no arguments about that.
Yes. We should not send them to USA without the USA approving of it.Quote:
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?
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?Quote:
who are we to decide how they choose to get there?
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.Quote:
And if so, how do we enforce it?
Are you sure about that? I suspect their refugee status changes when they reach their first safe country. I think international law states that refugees are the responsibility of the first safe country they arrive in. Prove me wrong, I can't be arsed to dig.Quote:
There's no law saying they have to stop in the first safe country they get to though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I'm saying helping them get here is a lot better than letting them sit forever in Calais, or riding in a dinghy to get here. Your answer seems to be that France should both a) feed and house them indefinitely; and b) Keep them from trying to get here when it's here that they want to go to.
Yes I'm sure. I just read it today, and I've seen it before as well. I'm sure you can use your google machine just as well as I can.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I agree. Not by ferrying them undocumented though. Rather, by having an immigration office in France to assist them, and those who are approved we do ferry in safely.Quote:
I'm saying helping them get here is a lot better than letting them sit forever in Calais
a) certainly. We just agreed that the UK has a responsibility to feed and house migrants in the UK. That should remain the case as long as they are in the UK and not supporting themselves.Quote:
Your answer seems to be that France should both a) feed and house them indefinitely; and b) Keep them from trying to get here when it's here that they want to go to.
b) partly, France should only stop them putting themselves at serious risk of harm. Of course France need to also enforce normal border controls at ports and tunnel train stations, for their own national security and ours, just like we check who's leaving our country for France.
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
They're not cattle, they're people. If they chose to go to the USA, that's not the same as us "sending" them.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Is patrolling the waters going to stop 100% of them from getting out to sea?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
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?
Pretty sure they're doing this already.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I guess I'll just keep saying this until it sinks in, or you go find it out for yourself.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
They cannot apply for asylum in the UK until they're physically in the UK. You cannot therefore decide on their UK asylum status while they're in another country. So having a UK offiical in Calais checking asylum seekers' documents is pointless (and probably illegal).
https://fullfact.org/immigration/ref...-safe-country/
Not sure this is proof, but this is what I'm reading.
Refugees are not obligated to apply for asylum in the first safe country they enter. However, the UK is not obligated to consider asylum application even if they are in the UK.
AlsoQuote:
That said, there is some UK domestic law which allows the government to refuse to consider an asylum application if it is judged that the person could have claimed asylum elsewhere.
Article 31 doesn't apply because they are not fleeing for their lives or freedom from France.Quote:
Although it’s certainly true that crossing the Channel without authorisation isn’t a legal way to enter the UK, Article 31 of the UN Refugee Convention states that refugees cannot be penalised for entering the country illegally to claim asylum if they are “coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened” provided they “present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence”.
And none of this article deals with the problem of boats arriving at the English coast.
Those that succeed in getting here like this, well they're here, we have to take care of them, but we should be discouraging this method of arrival because it's extremely dangerous and unnecessary. There are better ways to apply for asylum in the UK.
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Sure they can. I've just read an article that makes it clear people can apply for asylum for the UK from outside of the UK.Quote:
They can't apply for asylum in the USA until they are physically in the USA.
By "send" I mean "transport". No need to be nitpicky.Quote:
If they chose to go to the USA, that's not the same as us "sending" them.
What do you think we should do? Fuck all? Just leave them to it? Have a nice cup of tea and watch?Quote:
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?
No.Quote:
Is patrolling the waters going to stop 100% of them from getting out to sea?
The Channel is one of the busiest shipping lanes in the world. It's not the Atlantic Ocean. They should monitor their coats.Quote:
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?
Can they stop everything? No. But they should be doing everything they can to stop as many as possible.
I think you're wrong. UK law states that we can refuse asylum if it can be shown they could have applied from another country. Why would UK law say this if it's not possible for asylum to be applied for in another country?Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
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.
You left off the bit after your second quotation there:Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Also, you don't know if Article 31 applies or not because you can't know that they are safe where they are. That's what the asylum application process is for.Quote:
A lot depends here on how to interpret which country people are “coming directly from”. It could be argued, for instance, that as the people crossing the channel are coming directly from France—which is not the country they initially fled—they don’t have the right to claim asylum in the UK.
However, in 1999 a UK judge ruled that “some element of choice is indeed open to refugees as to where they may properly claim asylum.” The judge specified that “any merely short term stopover en route” to another country should not forfeit the individual’s right to claim refugee status elsewhere.
This means people can legitimately make a claim for asylum in the UK after passing through other “safe” countries. Once in the UK it is then up to the authorities to review that application.
I might be just reading it in the wrong context.
Of course you can. This refers to the country they are coming from, not if some random guy just tried to rob them.Quote:
Also, you don't know if Article 31 applies or not because you can't know that they are safe where they are.
France is a safe country. Some people still get robbed there.
Reductivo passivo-aggressoQuote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
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
From the same article you quoted above:Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Quote:
For example, the European Court of Human Rights has previously found an EU country (Greece) to pose a risk to an Afghan refugee, therefore upholding the refugee’s right to seek asylum elsewhere (Belgium).
Ok you're right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
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?
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?
The solution seems to me to change the law.
[...]if it is judged that the person could have claimed asylum elsewhere.
I didn't read that to imply that they could have applied for asylum in the UK from elsewhere.
Only that they could have claimed asylum somewhere else that is not the UK.
*shrug*
You're right, treating refugees humanely will only encourage more to come. It would solve the dinghy problem though.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
That's going to be a bit tricky I think. It's an international agreement that's been around a long time.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I was speed reading, but yeah this is where I lost context.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
I mean...Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
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.
yeah I wondered if it was international law rather than British law.Quote:
Originally Posted by poop
Surely you see that this is the 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.Quote:
You're right, treating refugees humanely will only encourage more to come. It would solve the dinghy problem though.
If I threaten to swim to USA< should they come and collect me?
:highfive:Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
You know I'd come get you, honey bee.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
We have to have control. What poop is suggesting is giving up that control.
xQuote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
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.
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.
I guess it's a problem if you don't want to help refugees yeah.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I think the idea of being physically in the country you're applying for asylum is to keep countries from setting up an embassy in a country neighboring the refugee country, insisting applications come through there, and then the neighboring country having to look after the refugees while the target country processes their applications, which they could arguably then delay indefinitely.
It's not open-border, that implies you approve all the applications. No-one is suggesting that, it's just about giving the opportunity to apply.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
You don't know it would be ever-increasing. All you know is it would be more than we're taking now. There's not an infinite number of people trying to get into the UK.
That's up to them really. If we're talking about a 2 hour ferry ride, that's different to me than a cross-ocean ride.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
lol, we're not "full," we have shortages of manual farm labour, hospitality workers, etc.. Ignoring the humanitarian aspect of it, if ever there was a time for letting a lot of young immigrants in, it's now.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Moscow now reporting 500 dead soldiers makes me believe the Ukrainian number of 2000 russians dead was lowballing it.
https://twitter.com/PatrykJaki/statu...46080104775680
Just Poland being outraged with the EU. They accuse the EU of funding Putin's war (Euro 600 a day), while sanctioning Poland for not accepting enough "refugees", which of course actually means migrants in "humiliating camps". Meanwhile, Poland of course bears the brunt of the refugee flow from Ukraine, and isn't complaining about it. Yet the EU still sanction them.
What a fucking gang. Hard to decide which one is the most corrupt bastard here.
I believe this is, left to right...
Bono, Tony Blair, Putin, Bob Geldof.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FNaIzEUX...jpg&name=small
Bono is probably the least tedious wanker here, and that really is saying something.