On the current migrant crisis (page 3)

truth_b_known

#2 - People are not "illegal". However, it is a crime to enter a country without getting permission first.

#3 - Under international law a person fleeing their home country to seek asylum must to do by requesting it from the first nation they enter from their home nation. If I flee my home country of the United States, cross through Mexico, and enter Guatemala I may request asylum from Guatemala, but it is under no legal requirement to grant it to me. Mexico would be.

If a Syrian refugee flees to France and is granted asylum that is great. However, once in France that refugee cannot cross the channel into England with an expectation of being granted asylum there as well. At that point England could enforce their laws as a sovereign nation. At that point the refugee would be a criminal alien and subject to deportation or whatever England does under those circumstances.

I bring this all up not as a moral discussion of "right and wrong," but as an explanation of the law. Right and wrong don't always fit into the box of legal and illegal.

Phizzy

"However, it is a crime to enter a country without getting permission first.

#3 - Under international law a person fleeing their home country to seek asylum must to do by requesting it from the first nation they enter from their home nation."

These two statements seem contradictory. At least, not complimentary.

The reality is that how do you think any Asylum seeker would get on requesting entry in to the U.K, with the Government and Home Secretary we have at present ?

Also, you and others like LUHE have not told me how the U.K absorbing just over 20,000 asylum seekers per annum is a "Migrant Crisis".

road to nowhere

Phizzy

If it is immigrants being absorbed how did London end up with a Muslim mayor and a huge Muslim population.

Where (USA) I live there is a huge Hispanic community to the point where documents are in Spanish and I am made to feel unwelcome at certain stores. They are not doing undesirable jobs but rather are doing skilled labor for enough money to have newer cars and trucks. They fly Mexicsn flags.

The same for the African immigrants keeping their dress, customs.

Mist of them are not absorbing or adding flavor to our institutions but are keeping separate

truth_b_known

Phizzy -

An asylum seeker would make contact with government officials at the border. So, yes, it would mean they would have to enter the country first. It does seem hard to enter the U.K. that way without using a boat/watercraft as the U.K. is an set of island nations.

As far as how 20,000 refugees per year being a "migrant crisis" I do not know. What is a migrant crisis? How many does it take or is it a matter of having enough tax payer funder resources to hand? I don't know. It is usually the second part of the question that stirs up the hornets nest.

I am speaking in broad terms, but a lot of the issues in the Middle East are as a direct result of U.K. meddling. Specifically the promise England made to both Jews and Arabs living in Palestine they would be given sovereign nations if they helped overthrow the Ottoman Empire back in WWI. Not all refugees are from the Middle East. Many are.

What it all boils down to is whether or not major, economically thriving nations are going to be World Police or the World's Motel 6 or both. I think the people of Earth have a lot of war fatigue. So if first world nations won't send their children to die in foreign lands to bring stability I guess those same nations will be importing refugees from those part of the Earth. The real issue is the tax payers in those first world countries are saying "Not my circus. Not my monkey." Another way of saying that is "It's their country. Let them fix it." Yet another way of saying it is, "Let them die."

These countries in conflict have super corrupt governments. They export their poor to the U.S., the U.K., etc. and then take billions in handouts from these same countries. I see only 2 solutions -

1. Send in the Marines. Let the first world nations obliterate these corrupt governments and occupy these countries until the locals get it right and fix it.

2. Take the refugees, but cut off all aid. Who is coming from these countries? Old people? No! It is young able bodied people. These countries are in danger of extinction because their citizens of child bearing years are coming to the U.S., the U.K., etc.

I am not advocate of war. #2 sounds like the better solution. I do realize the financial strain on countries will be huge, but it sure beat sacrificing our kids on the alter of war.

waton

migrants arriving in England, Germany, Canada the Us are not refugees, if at all, they were at the first border they crossed. For such migrants there is a visa system. outside the system they are in violation of the rules, often lying about their identities, . jumping the queue.

they will create a lawless component in the country they pick for the best benefits.

well, not lawless, they will establish, import their own laws, and make them stick.

Simon

It is certainly a crisis for the people in the boats.

Don't get in a dodgy boat. If you do, it's all on you.

Simon

Phizzy: I fact-checked your post and found it to be blatant lies and propaganda. So it's removed. You're welcome.

There are clear rules about how to seek asylum - it's a form of legal immigration. People shouldn't be crossing borders illegally in order to jump the queue or get into a country that they would not qualify to do so as a genuine asylum seeker.

We are countries of law and order and should now be importing the lawless and unordered.

LoveUniHateExams

you and others like LUHE have not told me how the U.K absorbing just over 20,000 asylum seekers per annum is a "Migrant Crisis" - just over 20, 000 migrants crossing the channel in rubber dinghies is a very serious matter.

It's utterly ridiculous to try and cross the channel in this manner when you can just walk across a land border to Germany or Belgium.

I don't know how many migrants have thus far drowned in the channel but it's very sad.

But, as Simon says, it's on them.

And when there are children in the dinghies then their parents are to blame.

Phizzy

The method of travel was not discussed by me, I simply asked how 20,000 or so Asylum seekers absorbed by a Nation of 66 million is a "Migrant Crisis".

There are Migrants who are not true Asylum seekers, and the Authorities have the onerous task of trying to sort out who is genuine. And we know that the E.U has been remiss in not supporting sufficiently their member Nations who are geographically most affected first. The whole thing should be handled much better, it is something that will continue as Political unrest, Economic problems and Climate Change affect many people.

But I hate to see the plight of any people used as a political Tool by people like Patel , Farage et al

What we need is International solutions to the problem of Migration, not blaming the victims of circumstances, who are forced to take desperate measures.

Phizzy

"Phizzy: I fact-checked your post and found it to be blatant lies and propaganda. So it's removed. You're welcome."

Could you be kind enough to let me know what material you removed ,as I wish to challenge the source I used. I cannot remember exactly what I posted ( old age). P.M. me rather than clutter this Thread if you prefer. Many thanks.

On the current migrant crisis

Share this