| 2 children drowned in the Channel today 16:08 - Sep 10 with 6555 views | noggin |
I bet they were fighting aged men in disguise. Stop the boats!, innocent people are perishing, while privileged white people fly flags as a show of hatred against them. |  |
| |  |
| 2 children drowned in the Channel today on 07:28 - Sep 11 with 690 views | noggin |
| 2 children drowned in the Channel today on 19:58 - Sep 10 by djgooder |
Crikey, very pleasant.
Bigoted? All I’m suggesting is people pass security checks. That isn’t bigoted, it is sensible. |
The vast majority of UK citizens never have to pass a security check. How would you security clear someone arriving on a boat, with no papers and from a war torn 'undeveloped' country? | |
| |
| 2 children drowned in the Channel today on 07:48 - Sep 11 with 625 views | djgooder |
| 2 children drowned in the Channel today on 07:28 - Sep 11 by noggin |
The vast majority of UK citizens never have to pass a security check. How would you security clear someone arriving on a boat, with no papers and from a war torn 'undeveloped' country? |
That’s exactly the point. How do you do it? ie it isn’t an acceptable entry point from any angle for entry to our country. From security, or from safety as seen with these recent young children crushed to death. |  | | |
| 2 children drowned in the Channel today on 07:59 - Sep 11 with 605 views | noggin |
| 2 children drowned in the Channel today on 07:48 - Sep 11 by djgooder |
That’s exactly the point. How do you do it? ie it isn’t an acceptable entry point from any angle for entry to our country. From security, or from safety as seen with these recent young children crushed to death. |
So you're suggesting safe and legal routes for everyone? Very controversial. I don't see how that would make security clearing any easier though.
Unless of course, you're saying nobody should be able to flee war, persecution or famine, because they might be future criminals? | |
| |
| 2 children drowned in the Channel today on 08:11 - Sep 11 with 573 views | djgooder |
| 2 children drowned in the Channel today on 07:59 - Sep 11 by noggin |
So you're suggesting safe and legal routes for everyone? Very controversial. I don't see how that would make security clearing any easier though.
Unless of course, you're saying nobody should be able to flee war, persecution or famine, because they might be future criminals? |
Well obviously nobody can predict the future.
But war and famine? How does crossing the channel
Align with that. If they are fleeing war and famine then there are many good options before the reach the channel. Hence, they are likely not fleeing war and famine. | | | |
| 2 children drowned in the Channel today on 08:15 - Sep 11 with 560 views | noggin |
| 2 children drowned in the Channel today on 08:11 - Sep 11 by djgooder |
Well obviously nobody can predict the future.
But war and famine? How does crossing the channel
Align with that. If they are fleeing war and famine then there are many good options before the reach the channel. Hence, they are likely not fleeing war and famine. |
Well government statistics of granted applications would suggest otherwise. You appear to disagree? | |
| |
| 2 children drowned in the Channel today on 08:35 - Sep 11 with 516 views | djgooder |
| 2 children drowned in the Channel today on 08:15 - Sep 11 by noggin |
Well government statistics of granted applications would suggest otherwise. You appear to disagree? |
Look. I don’t have all the answers obviously.
But channel crossings cannot be the answer, if do no reason apart for the tragedy we’ve seen yesterday of two children crushed to deaths | | | |
| 2 children drowned in the Channel today on 09:02 - Sep 11 with 467 views | Swansea_Blue |
| 2 children drowned in the Channel today on 08:35 - Sep 11 by djgooder |
Look. I don’t have all the answers obviously.
But channel crossings cannot be the answer, if do no reason apart for the tragedy we’ve seen yesterday of two children crushed to deaths |
Agreed, Channel crossings can’t be the answer. But neither is always stopping in the first safe country. For lots of well-publicised reasons, all countries need to work together to provide safe havens for people. |  |
| |
| 2 children drowned in the Channel today on 10:25 - Sep 11 with 327 views | ArnoldMoorhen |
| 2 children drowned in the Channel today on 16:41 - Sep 10 by Zx1988 |
I agree with all of this, except for the seemingly arbitrary decision as to whether someone will be granted asylum in France or the UK.
That element should be down to the needs and desires of the individual applicant, taking into account that there are probably a good number who already decide to stop and claim asylum in France.
I came across this poster outside a church in Gelsenkirchen at the weekend, which I feel is particularly fitting:
"Our cross has no hooks*. We want heart, not hate. You cannot choose your origins, but you can choose your homeland. We believe that falafal goes well with sauerkraut, and living together is better than living against oneanother. Our horizon is as wide as the sky over the Baltic beaches; rainbows included. Democracy means wanting the best for everyone and, as a result, sometimes having differing opinions. Racism is not an opinion. #WeAreMore"
*The German word for 'Swastika' literally translates as 'hooked cross'
If I, as a reasonably well-off and decently-educated individual can (broadly speaking) choose whether I want to live in the UK, France, Spain, Germany, or Burkina Faso, I believe that right should be afforded to everyone, not just those considered 'economically desirable'. [Post edited 10 Sep 16:44]
|
In an ideal world, we'd be free to choose...
Your open-heartedness is a long way from the middle ground of public opinion in the UK at the moment.
The Asylum Treaties and International Law that the UK has signed up to over the years was never intentioned to give freedom of movement. It was always intended to spell out humanitarian obligations to Sovereign States, and to provide a means for people's lives to be saved in the most horrendous and extreme circumstances.
Of course I understand that an individual may *prefer* to live in the UK if, for example, they can speak English or there is a community of people from their nation or region that is well-established in the UK.
But Asylum Law isn't about preference, it's about saving lives and preventing humanitarian disasters in extremis.
There is no prospect whatsoever in the UK at the moment of establishing the generous "everyone is welcome" policy that you favour. That would be supported by a very small proportion of the population.
Instead I would favour a re-establishing of the generations old consensus regarding Asylum and Refugee Status. That has been undermined by criminal people traffickers gaming the system, and by divisions with our former EU partners post-Brexit.
In the Trump era, the EU does need the UK, and the UK has a problem (people trafficking) that can only be solved with EU help. A sensible, mature, but urgent, shift is needed.
(And, on a fairly insubstantial point, I don't have the right to live in France, Spain or Germany. No idea about Burkina Faso!) |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| 2 children drowned in the Channel today on 11:44 - Sep 11 with 228 views | jayessess |
| 2 children drowned in the Channel today on 10:25 - Sep 11 by ArnoldMoorhen |
In an ideal world, we'd be free to choose...
Your open-heartedness is a long way from the middle ground of public opinion in the UK at the moment.
The Asylum Treaties and International Law that the UK has signed up to over the years was never intentioned to give freedom of movement. It was always intended to spell out humanitarian obligations to Sovereign States, and to provide a means for people's lives to be saved in the most horrendous and extreme circumstances.
Of course I understand that an individual may *prefer* to live in the UK if, for example, they can speak English or there is a community of people from their nation or region that is well-established in the UK.
But Asylum Law isn't about preference, it's about saving lives and preventing humanitarian disasters in extremis.
There is no prospect whatsoever in the UK at the moment of establishing the generous "everyone is welcome" policy that you favour. That would be supported by a very small proportion of the population.
Instead I would favour a re-establishing of the generations old consensus regarding Asylum and Refugee Status. That has been undermined by criminal people traffickers gaming the system, and by divisions with our former EU partners post-Brexit.
In the Trump era, the EU does need the UK, and the UK has a problem (people trafficking) that can only be solved with EU help. A sensible, mature, but urgent, shift is needed.
(And, on a fairly insubstantial point, I don't have the right to live in France, Spain or Germany. No idea about Burkina Faso!) |
Think the idea that the 21st Century refugee situation is wildly different to that imagined by the people drafting the 1951 UN Convention doesn't particularly work.
In 1951 they're principally thinking about the situation before the war and the failure of other states to facilitate Jewish people fleeing Germany. That was millions of people and those that did escape were not just dumped over the nearest border to 'safety' (and just as well they weren't). They made onwards journeys.
They're thinking about the millions of displaced people in camps across Europe after the war and the millions of people living under authoritarian regimes in Eastern Europe. Again, we're talking millions of people and again those people weren't just dumped over the nearest friendly border, they made onward journeys. 100,000s of people - Hungarians, Poles, Ukrainians, Lithuanians - settled in Britain.
The refugee convention is also explicit about granting refugees all sorts of social rights, so they can exist and have a life for however long they're in exile.
There isn't really much support for the idea that this was all set up for a different reality. What's different really is that in 1951 there was a widespread understanding that more should have been done to help people flee in the 1930s, sympathy for people displaced by the war and political sympathy for dissidents in the East.
Which is not so different to now really. Britain issued more than 400,000 visas to Ukrainians and Hong Kongers without widespread complaint, largely because there was an active effort on the part of politicians and media to paint their plight in a sympathetic light. You saw a brief flicker of something similar when Farage suggested we return people to Afghanistan and got at least some push back suggesting maybe sending people to be tortured and murdered by the Taliban might not be OK. [Post edited 11 Sep 12:11]
|  |
| |
| 2 children drowned in the Channel today on 12:21 - Sep 11 with 164 views | TRUE_BLUE123 |
| 2 children drowned in the Channel today on 19:32 - Sep 10 by djgooder |
The problem is that we are all in the same boat.
Mass immigration across the continent and one by one we are all starting to say stop.
This weekend there is going to be a mass rally in London. They are seen now in most European countries.
A solution is needed and just letting people in can’t be the permanent answer. |
I mean that Mass Rally in London is 100% for concerned citizens who want an intellectual debate on immigration as opposed to a bunch of blokes drinking tins and shouting outrageous things about foreign people whilst hero worshipping a man who is taking them all for a ride. |  |
| |
| ,2 children drowned in the Channel today on 12:54 - Sep 11 with 119 views | ArnoldMoorhen |
| 2 children drowned in the Channel today on 11:44 - Sep 11 by jayessess |
Think the idea that the 21st Century refugee situation is wildly different to that imagined by the people drafting the 1951 UN Convention doesn't particularly work.
In 1951 they're principally thinking about the situation before the war and the failure of other states to facilitate Jewish people fleeing Germany. That was millions of people and those that did escape were not just dumped over the nearest border to 'safety' (and just as well they weren't). They made onwards journeys.
They're thinking about the millions of displaced people in camps across Europe after the war and the millions of people living under authoritarian regimes in Eastern Europe. Again, we're talking millions of people and again those people weren't just dumped over the nearest friendly border, they made onward journeys. 100,000s of people - Hungarians, Poles, Ukrainians, Lithuanians - settled in Britain.
The refugee convention is also explicit about granting refugees all sorts of social rights, so they can exist and have a life for however long they're in exile.
There isn't really much support for the idea that this was all set up for a different reality. What's different really is that in 1951 there was a widespread understanding that more should have been done to help people flee in the 1930s, sympathy for people displaced by the war and political sympathy for dissidents in the East.
Which is not so different to now really. Britain issued more than 400,000 visas to Ukrainians and Hong Kongers without widespread complaint, largely because there was an active effort on the part of politicians and media to paint their plight in a sympathetic light. You saw a brief flicker of something similar when Farage suggested we return people to Afghanistan and got at least some push back suggesting maybe sending people to be tortured and murdered by the Taliban might not be OK. [Post edited 11 Sep 12:11]
|
Yes, the situation has changed so drastically.
WW2 displaced people walked, or maybe had donkey carts, across borders. Now there are international transit routes (plane, boat, lorry) which simply didn't exist then, and people can move across eight borders in a day.
And the heart of the issue here is the gaming of the system by criminal gangs. People trafficking either for cash upfront or for "indentured service", whether that be in kitchens, factories, on farms or in the sex trade.
Starmer is 100% right that we need to "smash the gangs", but by it's nature that work is covert and often painstaking and is operationally compromised if publicised for political leverage. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
