Not what I asked though is it I Said regardless of their eligibility to seek legal asylum in the UK, I have no issue contributing to a fellow human being that needs assistance in being safe from persecution and violence in their own country once they have been correctly investigated and it's been verified they are a genuine asylum seekers/ refugee
So I will ask again do you think it is in anyway acceptable or correct that someone who is not a genuine asylum seeker and has not left their country under the required and accepted reasons to gain sanctuary and safety but have done so due to economic or other reasons that do not and are not accepted in any eu country as a valid reason to enter another country and as a consequence have broken the law and are an illegal immigrant with no legal rights to be in this or any other country and have only gained entry via illegal and deceitful means
I think that is clear enough and not framed in any way so that you can provide a yes or no answer and to then explain your reason why, it's a debate not a trick or trip hazard, and I also would love to know your view on how such a legislation could be passed and nor be in any political manifesto of the labour government provided to the people they represent
I used the term 'asylum seekers'. Some will turn out to be genuine and some will not. Whilst their status is being established we have a responsibility to provide them with subsistence. I don't know what the the regulations are in the circumstances where the asylum seeker is deemed not to be genuine. Not sure why you think I have not answered your question. I can't be more clear. Yes, I think we should pay asylum seekers subsistence.
I think the presumption of guilt is what Red and others take issue with. NLA, notwithstanding your own experiences. No-one should have to qualify to be treated humanely.
Treat these people humanely, deport them if they don't qualify - and that should include those who have no good reason for being unable to identify themselves. There's clearly a bigger EU issue, but compared to other EU countries we're not badly done by in terms of the number of asylum seekers we take in - quite the opposite in fact.
It's not unreasonable, I think, to seek asylum in a country where the language is familiar and where you may already have family. There still should be a qualification process, and I don't see any reason why such people can't be processed at Calais - that is, they can claim asylum in France but subject to an agreement between the British and French can be accepted by the UK even though they made their first claim in France.
The lawlessness of some of those who wish to be UK immigrants in and around Calais is not acceptable, and certainly more must be done there.
I think the presumption of guilt is what Red and others take issue with. NLA, notwithstanding your own experiences. No-one should have to qualify to be treated humanely.
Treat these people humanely, deport them if they don't qualify - and that should include those who have no good reason for being unable to identify themselves. There's clearly a bigger EU issue, but compared to other EU countries we're not badly done by in terms of the number of asylum seekers we take in - quite the opposite in fact.
It's not unreasonable, I think, to seek asylum in a country where the language is familiar and where you may already have family. There still should be a qualification process, and I don't see any reason why such people can't be processed at Calais - that is, they can claim asylum in France but subject to an agreement between the British and French can be accepted by the UK even though they made their first claim in France.
The lawlessness of some of those who wish to be UK immigrants in and around Calais is not acceptable, and certainly more must be done there.
I think the presumption of guilt is what Red and others take issue with. NLA, notwithstanding your own experiences. No-one should have to qualify to be treated humanely.
Treat these people humanely, deport them if they don't qualify - and that should include those who have no good reason for being unable to identify themselves. There's clearly a bigger EU issue, but compared to other EU countries we're not badly done by in terms of the number of asylum seekers we take in - quite the opposite in fact.
It's not unreasonable, I think, to seek asylum in a country where the language is familiar and where you may already have family. There still should be a qualification process, and I don't see any reason why such people can't be processed at Calais - that is, they can claim asylum in France but subject to an agreement between the British and French can be accepted by the UK even though they made their first claim in France.
The lawlessness of some of those who wish to be UK immigrants in and around Calais is not acceptable, and certainly more must be done there.
I think the presumption of guilt is what Red and others take issue with. NLA, notwithstanding your own experiences. No-one should have to qualify to be treated humanely.
Treat these people humanely, deport them if they don't qualify - and that should include those who have no good reason for being unable to identify themselves. There's clearly a bigger EU issue, but compared to other EU countries we're not badly done by in terms of the number of asylum seekers we take in - quite the opposite in fact.
It's not unreasonable, I think, to seek asylum in a country where the language is familiar and where you may already have family. There still should be a qualification process, and I don't see any reason why such people can't be processed at Calais - that is, they can claim asylum in France but subject to an agreement between the British and French can be accepted by the UK even though they made their first claim in France.
The lawlessness of some of those who wish to be UK immigrants in and around Calais is not acceptable, and certainly more must be done there.
If they have no id to where would we deport them?
Stop bringing realism in to this immigration fairytale, you heartless right wing bstard!
But, you're bang on the money. Does anyone seriously think our government has any spine when it comes to removing individuals who ought not to be here? It took 8 years to remove an Eygptian national who was not only severely injured when attempting to produce a bomb, but was also a well documented preacher of hate, a convicted terrorist in the UK and wanted in connection with terror offences in the US! If we paid for Abu Hamza's upkeep for so long then I can't see our chances at getting rid of your average petty criminal being very large.
Think of it this way, you're a budding illegal immigrant, here's your instructions:
Step one: to gain entry to the UK make full use of the open borders found in EU countries and their reluctance to get involved with individuals intending to make passage to the UK.
At Calais, join the many groups currently roaming and attempting entry. Create maximum fear and intimidation, not only will this create political tension but it will also allow you more freedom in the area - you become untouchable.
Whilst in Calais attempt entry via lorries. The number of vehicle checks allow you maximum chances of success. When not attempting access via lorries partake in the group mentality of fear of intimidation above.
Step two when in the UK: if you have a passport then send it home, even if you do it via post. (Some would argue passports shouldn't be permitted out of the country via mail.)
Step three: if detained under an immigration offence, expect to be given a date to turn up to a Home Office centre - most likely Croydon if in SE London. Fail to turn up.
Step four: repeat step three.
In the unlikely event that real proceedings are started against you for the removal of you from the UK then use the services of one of many immigration lawyers who set up shop in areas that specifically attract illegal immigrants. Your human rights will be affected by any attempt to remove you from the UK: you will be OK.
Red these are old arguments, find some solutions. You make yourself too easy to dig out. There's a problem, who's fault is subjective, any practical solutions?
Wasn't making an argument. I was trying to provide perspective.
Your problem is that the perspective is completely irrelevant (for example one could counter that the cost to support one migrant family is a fraction of the hundreds of millions of public money trade unions get from the the taxpayer but it would be equally irrelevant).
Your £850bn figure is also hilariously inaccurate and I doubt you even understand what it actually means. £850bn was the figure that was made available by the Government to provide short-term support to the banking system in terms of emergency liquidity - in fact only £76bn of that was used to purchase shares in failing banks, with any other money being used to pay for auditors, consultants, financial experts etc. to assess the situation, the total cost of which only ran into the tens of millions.
So no, the bank bailout did not cost the taxpayer £850bn. The RBS shares are being sold at a loss but the Government is hoping to make up the loss by selling the recovering Lloyds shares at a profit, so in the end the net cost to the taxpayer will likely only be millions, perhaps a billion or two if things go a bit Pete Tong. This is compared to perhaps over a trillion that could have been lost if the banking system had been allowed to fail.
How's that for perspective?
It's getting like Question Time on here when they allow the audience to have a comment on the question and Dimbleby seems to always be able to find the tinfoil hat loony who, not matter what the question is (fox hunting, prescription charges, lifeboats) will always pipe up "Yeah but it's the Tory Eton Bankers who are the real problem! Let's get rid of them before we sort out any other issues!".
Another typically pompous and arrogant post from CL's self appointed 'expert' on all matters political. I could google 'cost to UK tax payer of bank bail out' and find links to many articles by eminent and respected economic observers which would suggest you are completely wrong. But, you could do the same and find articles that suggest I am wrong. We both choose to believe what we want so there is no point starting a pointless debate about it. However, I note even this morning Osbourne is defending the loss of £1 billion to the Uk tax payer on the latest sale of RBS assets.
But, this thread is about the issues caused by the mass migration from failed states surrounding Europe. It is a EU problem even though some in the EU would say 70%-80% of the migration is the direct result of the UK's (and it's ally the US) failed military policies in some of those countries. More specifically, this thread is about the immense problems being endured by people in Kent and by the owners and employees (and their families) of the businesses in Kent and the small haulage and logistic businesses that rely on efficient transport links across the channel. Given that they are not responsible for these problems (unlike the Bankers) I think it is entirely appropriate that all these businesses should be 'bailed out' by the UK tax payer immediately. Do you not agree with that single point?
Actually the thread is about traffic chaos in Kent which is, in part, due to industrial action by French transport employees working in Calais.
Nonsense. Try actually reading the thread. Not just the title.
So it's ok for you to change the subject away from the threat title but if someone else does they, jolly well, have to stop it and go back to what you want to talk about?
WTF you on about?
People started talking about asylum seekers on page 2. You got involved in the discussion about asylum seekers on page 6. I made my first post on page 9.
Pompous twat.
You started your frothing mouthed anti-asylum seeking, anti-French ranting on page 4 of this thread! You ignorant piece of shit.
Hypocrite...... Ranting away and frothing at the mouth using big boy language.
And I'm anti illegal immigrants, not anti genuine asylum seekers.
Spot on about the French though. You're not called Pierre by any chance?
Except whilst they're in France, the UK couldn't deport them anywhere...
Not having ID doesn't make someone an illegal immigrant - they might still be a genuine asylum seeker. They need to be processed, and if they're not genuine then entry should be denied. I'm sure it's not beyond the wit of man to be able to work out how to handle those whose origin is unclear.
As I see it the crux is that we ought to be giving them the opportunity to claim EU asylum rather than that of the nation they first land in. That way the EU could then agree amongst its member countries how best to deploy those accepted, processing them according to common rules wherever they land. Many will want to come to the UK for reasons of language and family, others will want to be anywhere but.
It's an EU issue that no-one's taking responsibility for.
Except whilst they're in France, the UK couldn't deport them anywhere...
Not having ID doesn't make someone an illegal immigrant - they might still be a genuine asylum seeker. They need to be processed, and if they're not genuine then entry should be denied. I'm sure it's not beyond the wit of man to be able to work out how to handle those whose origin is unclear.
As I see it the crux is that we ought to be giving them the opportunity to claim EU asylum rather than that of the nation they first land in. That way the EU could then agree amongst its member countries how best to deploy those accepted, processing them according to common rules wherever they land. Many will want to come to the UK for reasons of language and family, others will want to be anywhere but.
It's an EU issue that no-one's taking responsibility for.
If their country of origin is unknown, and almost certainly unprovable, how can you know where to send them to and what do you do if the country you designate refuses to take them? My last post was a little tongue in cheek, but we can't just sent people without any id where ever we like.
What would happen if thousands of people with no id were questioned in Germany and they said that they were British and the Germans decided to deport them to the UK?
I'm not being difficult but it is easy to see why, once they get here, we don't seem to know what to do with them.
I was simply making a conscious effort to stay off this thread from now on. But you keep persisting.
You are not exactly gifted when it comes to the written word. I tend to skim your longer posts rather than try to decipher them. If you really want an answer to this second question repeat it using no more than 1 or 2 sentences and I will try and answer it tonight.
If you think I am being rude you are right. I always respond in a tone that matches the way I am addressed. So when you make comments about something hanging out my arse don't expect a polite or respectful response.
I couldnt care if you are rude it bothers me not one jot if you honestly think that I care about what people write or say about me you couldn't be more wrong, I laugh at people that feel the need to respond with rudeness and insults, it demonstrates that you are the ones with issues and insecurity not the person who any rudeness or insults are aimed at, so fill your boots
and if you couldn't see that the post about skin hanging out of your arse was aimed at Redskin being so far up it as he feels the need to defend and respond on your behalf and wasn't aimed at you at all then once again you have highlighted your own short coming not mine
As for not being gifted with the written word I think that you are 100% right and over the last God knows how many years I have explained the reasons for this over and over again and I won't explain it again
Your arse comment was as inaccurate as it was puerile. Se8 doesn't need me to defend him or speak on his behalf especially when he's up against someone like you.I was simply commenting on your monotonous demands for him to answer it.
I wasn't rude but you felt the need to be. It doesn't matter, your strutting around this thread with your hands on your hips demanding answers is faintly preposterous.
Except whilst they're in France, the UK couldn't deport them anywhere...
Not having ID doesn't make someone an illegal immigrant - they might still be a genuine asylum seeker. They need to be processed, and if they're not genuine then entry should be denied. I'm sure it's not beyond the wit of man to be able to work out how to handle those whose origin is unclear.
As I see it the crux is that we ought to be giving them the opportunity to claim EU asylum rather than that of the nation they first land in. That way the EU could then agree amongst its member countries how best to deploy those accepted, processing them according to common rules wherever they land. Many will want to come to the UK for reasons of language and family, others will want to be anywhere but.
It's an EU issue that no-one's taking responsibility for.
If their country of origin is unknown, and almost certainly unprovable, how can you know where to send them to and what do you do if the country you designate refuses to take them? My last post was a little tongue in cheek, but we can't just sent people without any id where ever we like.
What would happen if thousands of people with no id were questioned in Germany and they said that they were British and the Germans decided to deport them to the UK?
I'm not being difficult but it is easy to see why, once they get here, we don't seem to know what to do with them.
Which is why it's an EU problem. I don't disagree, it's a fair point, but problems are there to be solved. Can't shrug our shoulders and open the doors now can we.
Not sure how exactly it is an EU problem, at least as far as the migrants at Calais are concerned. The UK is not in the Schengen zone and anyone arriving in the UK from France should still be showing their passport (although the last few times I've been to and from Calais no one has bothered to look at my passport). If the EU did not exist the problem would be the same in Calais, although illegal immigrants might find it more difficult to cross borders once the arrive in Europe.
When the Gibraltar crisis was happening and Spain closed their borders to them, the EU sat on their hands so not sure why they would intervene now.
Comments
Couldn't be any clearer.
Red you seem to have a bit of skin hanging out your arse might need a wipe
Treat these people humanely, deport them if they don't qualify - and that should include those who have no good reason for being unable to identify themselves. There's clearly a bigger EU issue, but compared to other EU countries we're not badly done by in terms of the number of asylum seekers we take in - quite the opposite in fact.
It's not unreasonable, I think, to seek asylum in a country where the language is familiar and where you may already have family. There still should be a qualification process, and I don't see any reason why such people can't be processed at Calais - that is, they can claim asylum in France but subject to an agreement between the British and French can be accepted by the UK even though they made their first claim in France.
The lawlessness of some of those who wish to be UK immigrants in and around Calais is not acceptable, and certainly more must be done there.
But, you're bang on the money. Does anyone seriously think our government has any spine when it comes to removing individuals who ought not to be here? It took 8 years to remove an Eygptian national who was not only severely injured when attempting to produce a bomb, but was also a well documented preacher of hate, a convicted terrorist in the UK and wanted in connection with terror offences in the US! If we paid for Abu Hamza's upkeep for so long then I can't see our chances at getting rid of your average petty criminal being very large.
Think of it this way, you're a budding illegal immigrant, here's your instructions:
Step one: to gain entry to the UK make full use of the open borders found in EU countries and their reluctance to get involved with individuals intending to make passage to the UK.
At Calais, join the many groups currently roaming and attempting entry. Create maximum fear and intimidation, not only will this create political tension but it will also allow you more freedom in the area - you become untouchable.
Whilst in Calais attempt entry via lorries. The number of vehicle checks allow you maximum chances of success. When not attempting access via lorries partake in the group mentality of fear of intimidation above.
Step two when in the UK: if you have a passport then send it home, even if you do it via post. (Some would argue passports shouldn't be permitted out of the country via mail.)
Step three: if detained under an immigration offence, expect to be given a date to turn up to a Home Office centre - most likely Croydon if in SE London. Fail to turn up.
Step four: repeat step three.
In the unlikely event that real proceedings are started against you for the removal of you from the UK then use the services of one of many immigration lawyers who set up shop in areas that specifically attract illegal immigrants. Your human rights will be affected by any attempt to remove you from the UK: you will be OK.
But ignoring the 'pompous twat' and 'ignorant shit' comments I respect Red's resolve
And I'm anti illegal immigrants, not anti genuine asylum seekers.
Spot on about the French though. You're not called Pierre by any chance?
Not having ID doesn't make someone an illegal immigrant - they might still be a genuine asylum seeker. They need to be processed, and if they're not genuine then entry should be denied. I'm sure it's not beyond the wit of man to be able to work out how to handle those whose origin is unclear.
As I see it the crux is that we ought to be giving them the opportunity to claim EU asylum rather than that of the nation they first land in. That way the EU could then agree amongst its member countries how best to deploy those accepted, processing them according to common rules wherever they land. Many will want to come to the UK for reasons of language and family, others will want to be anywhere but.
It's an EU issue that no-one's taking responsibility for.
Fuck all wrong with being a tree-hugger.
What would happen if thousands of people with no id were questioned in Germany and they said that they were British and the Germans decided to deport them to the UK?
I'm not being difficult but it is easy to see why, once they get here, we don't seem to know what to do with them.
You are not exactly gifted when it comes to the written word. I tend to skim your longer posts rather than try to decipher them. If you really want an answer to this second question repeat it using no more than 1 or 2 sentences and I will try and answer it tonight.
If you think I am being rude you are right. I always respond in a tone that matches the way I am addressed. So when you make comments about something hanging out my arse don't expect a polite or respectful response.
and if you couldn't see that the post about skin hanging out of your arse was aimed at Redskin being so far up it as he feels the need to defend and respond on your behalf and wasn't aimed at you at all then once again you have highlighted your own short coming not mine
As for not being gifted with the written word I think that you are 100% right and over the last God knows how many years I have explained the reasons for this over and over again and I won't explain it again
I wasn't rude but you felt the need to be. It doesn't matter, your strutting around this thread with your hands on your hips demanding answers is faintly preposterous.
i never demanded anything i asked his opinion on something and wondered why he only answered half of the question,
you thinking about me with my hands on my hips strutting is a bit weird but each to their own ,
When the Gibraltar crisis was happening and Spain closed their borders to them, the EU sat on their hands so not sure why they would intervene now.
It's nice to put a face to the name now nla