Channel Migrants

[Newbie to this]

3 minutes ago, Hamster said:

Saddam was Iran's worst enemy, the Western "proxy" war cost a million lives on each side but by attacking Iraq in the way that the coalition did (with such fictitious reasons) and the damage that it caused has now meant that many Iraqi's openly accept Iranian presence in their country in preference to anyone from the West because they have come to know the real enemy was selling them the arms for their oil money. 

Probably a lot of truth there.

[timmytree]

4 minutes ago, Hamster said:

Saddam was Iran's worst enemy, the Western "proxy" war cost a million lives on each side but by attacking Iraq in the way that the coalition did (with such fictitious reasons) and the damage that it caused has now meant that many Iraqi's openly accept Iranian presence in their country in preference to anyone from the West because they have come to know the real enemy was selling them the arms for their oil money. 

Then we should have left them to sort each other out. We didn't need to get involved. Our intervention did more harm than good.

[Rewulf]

15 minutes ago, Hamster said:

Apologies, I knew I'd overstepped the mark even as I typed it, it's just that as you can imagine I've been reading through lots of different threads in many places and believe me some of them are extremely unpleasant. I fully admit that most young people who are fleeing places such as Afghanistan and Iran are essentially economic migrants; their lives aren't in danger as such but they have lives hardly worth living.

I dont doubt for one moment that the lives of people living in Afghan ,Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Libya and most of Africa , are not as good as ours, by accident of birth, we will probably never know the horrors of what some face on a daily basis.
But is it fair to say that its all the fault of the west ?

Did we create tribalism, did we propagate the centuries old battle between Sunni and Shia, did we invent Wahabism ?
Yes weve extracted and continue to extract resources from the ME and Africa, did that cause the Rwandan genocide ?
Yes we interfered in Libya, but why is half of central Africa thinking its got every right to come to Europe, the migrants being picked up from the Med arent Libyan, they are sub Saharan.
The migrants coming over from Turkey and walking through Greece to Europe arent all Syrian, they are Pakistani, Indians, Indonesians and Africans.

I dont have any problem with genuine refugees, but the bandwagon has got that big now, its become an international business.
Part of that business is trafficking , part is about destabilising certain countries, its working too.
The rise of the far right puts us back around 100 years, growing resentment, economic uncertainty , civil unrest and a looming recession ?
Sound familiar ?

Why is Europe doing such a bad job of dealing with mass migration ?
Is it blatant ineptitude or deliberate ?
Ive often spoken about Sweden and its serious problem with migrants, over 10 % of Swedens population are 3rd world migrants, crime has skyrocketed, most are unemployed and on benefits.
Sweden shares the rare distinction of being the only country in the world that has a wiki page dedicated to its extensive grenade attacks over the past 5 years, over 200 and counting.
Yet no one wants to confront the issue, least of all address it.
Brush it under the carpet, just in case you offend someone.

Londons criminality among 1st and 2nd generation migrant youth, again , not spoken about in that context in case someone uses the R word.

Whichever way you want to look at it, we have enough trouble , economic and domestic to last us a generation, if we got a government in today, that was prepared to do what is necessary , its still going to take 10 -20 years to sort out.
What you dont need, is another 2-3 million 3rd world migrants to compound it in that time.

So when you get a government minister who takes a hard line view on illegal entry, I tend to stick up for them.
Especially when it comes to the rantings of SJW Hirsch, an Oxford educated campaigner who has never known hardship or poverty.
Ivory towers are never a good place to shout from about poverty and injustice.

[Dekers]

I am led to believe the vast majority are illegal Economic immigrants, simply looking to improve their plight, and not political refugees.

That being the case they should be returned to France, or their country of origin immediately!

The UK should not be assisting economic migrants to illegally enter the country.

[clakk]

Rewulf nail and head ,spot on we are not allowed to speak the truth because we must be rascist. Horsefeathers stay at home and fight for your country Syrians ,Iraquis ,Afgani,s most of the taliban are foreign invaders of Afganistan not locals .But all you freeloaders from Sudan,Somalia ,Pakistan etc stay at home why should we take you in when we cant house and feed our own people ??

[TIGHTCHOKE]

2 minutes ago, Dekers said:

I am led to believe the vast majority are illegal Economic immigrants, simply looking to improve their plight, and not political refugees.

That being the case they should be returned to France, or their country of origin immediately!

The UK should not be assisting economic migrants to illegally enter the country.

You are quite correct, unfortunately people like Hamster seem keen to invite them all in.

[crosswaters]

7 minutes ago, Dekers said:

I am led to believe the vast majority are illegal Economic immigrants, simply looking to improve their plight, and not political refugees.

That being the case they should be returned to France, or their country of origin immediately!

The UK should not be assisting economic migrants to illegally enter the country.

Agree 

[Hamster]

19 minutes ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

You are quite correct, unfortunately people like Hamster seem keen to invite them all in.

I've never said or intimated such a thing !!!

[guzzicat]

1 hour ago, Hamster said:

I've never said or intimated such a thing !!!

Seemed to pretty well blame the U.K

[das]

Seems that the international law regarding claim of asylum in the first safe country is being totally ignored.
Well, you certainly won't get bed and and breakfast in Hungary as an asylum seeker, but I wouldn't call Hungary an unsafe country.

Simple, they are coming here for a free ride to the land flowing with Milk and Money. They won't have to sleep in a cardboard box in the street and beg for money.
They know exactly just what a bunch of sots that our leaders are.
Solve the problem by making the UK a very unpopular place to come (like Hungary), by deterrants and they will probably get the idea.

Edited January 3, 2019 by das

[Hamster]

8 minutes ago, guzzicat said:

Seemed to pretty well blame the U.K

I blamed the West in its puppet entirety for the refugee/migrant "crisis" , I have never claimed they should have cart blanche access : 

 

You are quite correct, unfortunately people like Hamster seem keen to invite them all in.

3 minutes ago, das said:

Seems that the international law regarding claim of asylum in the first safe country is being totally ignored.
Well, you certainly won't get bed and and breakfast in Hungary as an asylum seeker, but I wouldn't call Hungary an unsafe country.

Simple, they are coming here for a free ride to the land flowing with Milk and Money. They won't have to sleep in a cardboard box in the street and beg for money.
They know exactly just what a bunch of sots that our leaders are.
Solve the problem by making the UK an very unpopular place to come (like Hungary), by deterrants and they will probably get the idea.

I was listening to a radio discussion on this subject and apparently there is no such law, refugees don't have to apply for refugee status in the first country they happen to get to, it appears the UK was an important partner/signatory to this effect. Tis but another one of those loose and baseless one liners that gets thrown around it seems. 

[das]

2 hours ago, Hamster said:

Apologies, I knew I'd overstepped the mark even as I typed it, it's just that as you can imagine I've been reading through lots of different threads in many places and believe me some of them are extremely unpleasant. I fully admit that most young people who are fleeing places such as Afghanistan and Iran are essentially economic migrants; their lives aren't in danger as such but they have lives hardly worth living.

When we are full of asylum seekers from every where, we wont't have lives worther living either😟😟😟

[Hamster]

Just now, das said:

When we are full of asylum seekers from every where, we wont't have lives worther living either😟😟😟

Good point, it's certainly not one that's lost on me I assure you. 

[Newbie to this]

These people are NOT asylum seekers.

[Lord Geordie]

Sift through them and see if any have trades and skills that may be beneficial to the UK as a whole! Give them a hot meal, inform them of the protocols regarding “applying for entry” and stick them on the first channel tunnel express straight back to Paris! Those who are able to fulfil a role that we need workers for would get priority status on an application. THEN allow them in. Those that have no skills, let them gain skills in a “first safe country” before applying for entry. I couldn’t even visit the Ukraine without a visa, and that was bad enough to get! Had to drive 120 mike to Edinburgh to apply for that! But these people expect just to hop off a lorry, ferry, lilo, pop out of a mattress and expect entry? Pfft.

[Newbie to this]

How would you go about assessing their so called skills? Take them at their untrustworthy word? They are after all, criminals.

Edited January 3, 2019 by Newbie to this

[Vince Green]

4 hours ago, Dekers said:

I am led to believe the vast majority are illegal Economic immigrants, simply looking to improve their plight, and not political refugees.

That being the case they should be returned to France, or their country of origin immediately!

The UK should not be assisting economic migrants to illegally enter the country.

Of course they are Economic migrants, the real refugees are still living in tents in freezing conditions in the camps on the Turkish borders because real refugees lack the ability to leave the camps.

Its practically a self cancelling test, if they can get this far they almost certainly won't be genuine. They also know that France won't take them back so once they land in this country, by what ever means, they have more or less cracked it 

Edited January 3, 2019 by Vince Green

[Rewulf]

5 hours ago, Hamster said:

was listening to a radio discussion on this subject and apparently there is no such law, refugees don't have to apply for refugee status in the first country they happen to get to, it appears the UK was an important partner/signatory to this effect. Tis but another one of those loose and baseless one liners that gets thrown around it seems

Claim asylum in the UK

Contents

1. Overview
2. Eligibility
3. Documents you must provide
4. Register your asylum claim
5. After your screening
6. Asylum interview
7. Get a decision
8. Help you can get
9. If you're under 18

Eligibility

To stay in the UK as a refugee you must be unable to live safely in any part of your own country because you fear persecution there.

If you’re stateless, your own country is the country you usually live in.

This persecution must be because of:

• your race
• your religion
• your nationality
• your political opinion
• anything else that puts you at risk because of the social, cultural, religious or political situation in your country, for example, your gender, gender identity or sexual orientation

You must have failed to get protection from authorities in your own country.

Your claim might not be considered if you:

• are from an EU country
• have a connection with another country you can claim asylum in, for example if you’ve claimed asylum in an EU country before arriving in the UK

Family members

You can include your partner and your children under 18 as ‘dependants’ in your application if they’re with you in the UK.

Your children under 18 and your partner can also make their own applications at the same time, but they will not be treated as your dependants.

[Remimax]

no need to get excited its just the last of the "kids" from the jungle making there way  over to where they belong.

[Rewulf]

This makes interesting reading , it's pro migration, and examines the the legal basis for asylum claims.

https://www.freemovement.org.uk/are-refugees-obliged-to-claim-asylum-in-the-first-safe-country-they-reach/

It technically debunks the first safe country hypothesis, points out that , as a refugee, you can do pretty much what the hell you want when it comes to to illegal entry to a country, without fear of prosecution.

However , read it all through, and you can see that unless they adhere to certain practices, they become illegible.

I would say that the whole process has that many vaguaries and grey areas, it's more about how a country wants to interpret the law, than what it has to.

[Hamster]

8 hours ago, Rewulf said:

This makes interesting reading , it's pro migration, and examines the the legal basis for asylum claims.

https://www.freemovement.org.uk/are-refugees-obliged-to-claim-asylum-in-the-first-safe-country-they-reach/

It technically debunks the first safe country hypothesis, points out that , as a refugee, you can do pretty much what the hell you want when it comes to to illegal entry to a country, without fear of prosecution.

However , read it all through, and you can see that unless they adhere to certain practices, they become illegible.

I would say that the whole process has that many vaguaries and grey areas, it's more about how a country wants to interpret the law, than what it has to.

A little off the track but it might be useful to the overall picture if we take an example or two from our own specialist subject of shooting; earlier in the week I chanced upon a thread on a FB fieldsports group where someone asked whether the fact he'd seen a shooter taking shots at deer from the roadside constituted an offence. Must admit my own initial reaction was the "50 foot" malarkey and of course the great majority of replies were quick to point this out as well as go on tirades about "poaching" and "should have reported him" etc, etc, as is often the case though eventually one or two people with actual knowledge of the finer points of law interjected and one even said he'd been doing so with police approval for a very long time. So you see, it's perfectly possible for myths to become part and parcel of our accepted shooting folklore, indeed I have personally had much fun exploding many such  falsehoods over the years. 

Another one is when for example we hear a panel of "experts" assembled who have an innate dislike of guns who use emotive, misleading language to get the public riled up and on their side. I well remember one such discussion where an idiot said something along the lines of : parful airguns can be purchased by anyone and together with steel headed ammo these can easily be used to kill people...............................luckily there was (MY if memory serves) an actual expert present who tried to explain that airguns power is measured via their ft lbs energy; that "Prometheus" pellets were no more parful than lead pellets when this is measured using scientific techniques - guess which remark the public remembers over time, guess which narrative the msm will use when it suits them, same goes for the subject of immigrants/refugees. 

The man who spoke on the radio was an ACTUAL current immigration lawyer, he sounded native if that makes a difference, and he said the notion is false. 

[Dougy]

Great white shark breeding program somewhere in the channel. 

 

[Rewulf]

2 hours ago, Hamster said:

The man who spoke on the radio was an ACTUAL current immigration lawyer, he sounded native if that makes a difference, and he said the notion is false. 

As I said, technically the 'notion' of 'first safe country' is false, however there is criteria that makes it technically true = grey areas.
Ill try to explain, but first check these, yes I know its wiki, but if it were untrue it would have been removed by now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asylum_shopping

https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-aims-to-stop-asylum-shopping-refugee-crisis/

The second link mentions the Dublin Convention, which is the basis for modern asylum 'law' which isnt really a law, but a guideline that that has been agreed by EU member states (Except Denmark , who opted out, as they have enough refugees now, thank you very much 😄)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dublin_Regulation

In brief 
The Dublin Regulation (Regulation No. 604/2013; sometimes the Dublin III Regulation; previously the Dublin II Regulation and Dublin Convention) is a European Union (EU) law that determines which EU Member State is responsible for the examination of an application for asylum, submitted by persons seeking international protection under the Geneva Convention and the EU Qualification Directive, within the European Union. It is the cornerstone of the Dublin System, which consists of the Dublin Regulation and the EURODAC Regulation, which establishes a Europe-wide fingerprinting database for unauthorised entrants to the EU. The Dublin Regulation aims to "determine rapidly the Member State responsible [for an asylum claim]"^[1] and provides for the transfer of an asylum seeker to that Member State. Usually, the responsible Member State will be the state through which the asylum seeker first entered the EU.

The link to the actual text is in the footnotes.

So, part of the process for claiming asylum, rests on the claimant getting registered in the 'first safe country/state' biometric data will be taken for proof.
The claimant doesnt necessarily have to claim asylum, but if they do, they cannot technically claim asylum in another EU country, thats the rules.
If they get registered (but not make an asylum claim)  then move to another EU country and make a claim, if that claim is rejected they can be sent back to the original point of entry , or where they first registered.
The problem arises, when they dont register, or refuse to give biometrics (citing human rights violations) this is extremely common.
Then when and if their eventual asylum claim is refused, there is no where to send them back to = limbo.

 

[oldypigeonpopper]

hello, i see they arrested 2 people for people trafficking one being an Iranian, but then most of those that have been caught crossing the channel come from Iran, you wonder why one of their own nationals would be envolved, yet if you remember the chinese cockle pickers tragedy in Morcombe bay their gang master was chinese  

[oowee]

You have to blame the Serbs for this one offering visa free travel to Iran was maybe not a smart move.