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

[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?

[MadMojoMonkey]

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

You know I'd come get you, honey bee.

[OngBonga]

You know I'd come get you, honey bee.

x

[Poopadoop]

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

Surely you see that this is the problem though?

I guess it's a problem if you don't want to help refugees yeah.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

[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.

[Poopadoop]

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.

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.

[OngBonga]

The solution seems to me to change the law.