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

[Poopadoop]

People who want a better life in another country are not refugees. People who are fleeing for their lives are refugees.

My point was you keep bringing up economic migrants as if they're relevant to a discussion about refugees. They're not.

[OngBonga]

And yes it was "was" and not "is"... that camp might not be anywhere near as large, but Calais is still a hotbed of migrants camps. Ukrainians turning up there are discovering this.

[OngBonga]

My point was you keep bringing up economic migrants as if they're relevant to a discussion about refugees. They're not.

Well if we're being pedantic about this, anyone in France is no longer a refugee, they are an economic migrant if they want to move on from France to the UK.

A refugee flees their country to a safe country. Once they are in a safe country, they are the responsibility of that country. France might be able to argue that they are Italy's problem and not France's, but it's got fuck all to do with the UK until they get here.

[Poopadoop]

Well if we're being pedantic about this, anyone in France is no longer a refugee, they are an economic migrant if they want to move on from France to the UK.

A refugee flees their country to a safe country. Once they are in a safe country, they are the responsibility of that country. France might be able to argue that they are Italy's problem and not France's, but it's got fuck all to do with the UK until they get here.

There's no law saying they have to stop in the first safe country they get to though. You want France to stop them from coming to the UK. It's neither their responsibility to do so, nor is it legal for them to do so according to intn'l law.

[OngBonga]

Now they're in a refugee hostel in Bristol or Plymouth or wherever. What are the UK's responsibilities here?

The same as any other asylum seeker in the country. Make sure they are safe, assist them with their application to go to USA, and if USA reject their application, it's the UK's problem. We can either deport them back to the country they arrived from, or take them in. Depends on their circumstances and the law.

I think we can agree that giving them food and shelter is on us while they're here, so no arguments about that.

Indeed, and we do provide food and shelter for refugees and migrants. Not a problem.

But, do you also think the UK is responsible for determining whether this refugee's application for asylum will be approved by the USA before allowing them to leave the UK for the USA?

Yes. We should not send them to USA without the USA approving of it.

who are we to decide how they choose to get there?

You understand we are obligated to feed and shelter them, yet to fail to recognise our obligation to ensure their safety. We should most certainly stop them from getting in a kayak and leaving the Cornish coast for the Atlantic. Do you think we should do nothing about that if it were happening?

And if so, how do we enforce it?

We patrol the waters, assuming there is a problem with people trying to leave the country like this. We have to do something, right? We can't do nothing. That is highly irresponsible.

[Poopadoop]

The same as any other asylum seeker in the country. Make sure they are safe, assist them with their application to go to USA, and if USA reject their application, it's the UK's problem.

They can't apply for asylum in the USA until they are physically in the USA. How are we supposed to assist them with an application here?

Yes. We should not send them to USA without the USA approving of it.

They're not cattle, they're people. If they chose to go to the USA, that's not the same as us "sending" them.

We should most certainly stop them from getting in a kayak and leaving the Cornish coast for the Atlantic. Do you think we should do nothing about that if it were happening?

What if there's a large number of them trying to do it all the time? What if they're setting off in the middle of the night? Should we turn our beaches into an armed camp to stop them, or is it enough that we just stop the ones we can catch?

We patrol the waters, assuming there is a problem with people trying to leave the country like this. We have to do something, right? We can't do nothing. That is highly irresponsible.

Is patrolling the waters going to stop 100% of them from getting out to sea?

And btw, do you think France just emptied the English channel of any French ships? Or do you think that they patrol it, but if they see a dinghy crossing they wave it through?

[Poopadoop]

assist them with their application to go to USA, and if USA reject their application, it's the UK's problem.

Can you see why this perfectly illustrates why the law is that people have to be physically in the country they're seeking asylum in before they can apply for asylum?

[OngBonga]

Can you see why this perfectly illustrates why the law is that people have to be physically in the country they're seeking asylum in before they can apply for asylum?

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.

[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.

[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]

The solution seems to me to change the law.

[OngBonga]

There's no law saying they have to stop in the first safe country they get to though.

Are you sure about that? I suspect their refugee status changes when they reach their first safe country. I think international law states that refugees are the responsibility of the first safe country they arrive in. Prove me wrong, I can't be arsed to dig.

[Poopadoop]

Are you sure about that? I suspect their refugee status changes when they reach their first safe country. I think international law states that refugees are the responsibility of the first safe country they arrive in. Prove me wrong, I can't be arsed to dig.

Yes I'm sure. I just read it today, and I've seen it before as well. I'm sure you can use your google machine just as well as I can.

[OngBonga]

https://fullfact.org/immigration/ref...-safe-country/

Not sure this is proof, but this is what I'm reading.

Refugees are not obligated to apply for asylum in the first safe country they enter. However, the UK is not obligated to consider asylum application even if they are in the UK.

That said, there is some UK domestic law which allows the government to refuse to consider an asylum application if it is judged that the person could have claimed asylum elsewhere.

Also

Although it’s certainly true that crossing the Channel without authorisation isn’t a legal way to enter the UK, Article 31 of the UN Refugee Convention states that refugees cannot be penalised for entering the country illegally to claim asylum if they are “coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened” provided they “present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence”.

Article 31 doesn't apply because they are not fleeing for their lives or freedom from France.

And none of this article deals with the problem of boats arriving at the English coast.

Those that succeed in getting here like this, well they're here, we have to take care of them, but we should be discouraging this method of arrival because it's extremely dangerous and unnecessary. There are better ways to apply for asylum in the UK.

[Poopadoop]

https://fullfact.org/immigration/ref...-safe-country/

Not sure this is proof, but this is what I'm reading.

Refugees are not obligated to apply for asylum in the first safe country they enter. However, the UK is not obligated to consider asylum application even if they are in the UK.



Also



Article 31 doesn't apply because they are not fleeing for their lives or freedom from France.

And none of this article deals with the problem of boats arriving at the English coast.

Those that succeed in getting here like this, well they're here, we have to take care of them, but we should be discouraging this method of arrival because it's extremely dangerous and unnecessary. There are better ways to apply for asylum in the UK.

You left off the bit after your second quotation there:

A lot depends here on how to interpret which country people are “coming directly from”. It could be argued, for instance, that as the people crossing the channel are coming directly from France—which is not the country they initially fled—they don’t have the right to claim asylum in the UK.

However, in 1999 a UK judge ruled that “some element of choice is indeed open to refugees as to where they may properly claim asylum.” The judge specified that “any merely short term stopover en route” to another country should not forfeit the individual’s right to claim refugee status elsewhere.

This means people can legitimately make a claim for asylum in the UK after passing through other “safe” countries. Once in the UK it is then up to the authorities to review that application.

Also, you don't know if Article 31 applies or not because you can't know that they are safe where they are. That's what the asylum application process is for.

[OngBonga]

They can't apply for asylum in the USA until they are physically in the USA.

Sure they can. I've just read an article that makes it clear people can apply for asylum for the UK from outside of the UK.

If they chose to go to the USA, that's not the same as us "sending" them.

By "send" I mean "transport". No need to be nitpicky.

What if there's a large number of them trying to do it all the time? What if they're setting off in the middle of the night? Should we turn our beaches into an armed camp to stop them, or is it enough that we just stop the ones we can catch?

What do you think we should do? Fuck all? Just leave them to it? Have a nice cup of tea and watch?

Is patrolling the waters going to stop 100% of them from getting out to sea?

No.

And btw, do you think France just emptied the English channel of any French ships? Or do you think that they patrol it, but if they see a dinghy crossing they wave it through?

The Channel is one of the busiest shipping lanes in the world. It's not the Atlantic Ocean. They should monitor their coats.

Can they stop everything? No. But they should be doing everything they can to stop as many as possible.

[OngBonga]

I might be just reading it in the wrong context.

[OngBonga]

Also, you don't know if Article 31 applies or not because you can't know that they are safe where they are.

Of course you can. This refers to the country they are coming from, not if some random guy just tried to rob them.

France is a safe country. Some people still get robbed there.

[Poopadoop]

Of course you can. This refers to the country they are coming from, not if some random guy just tried to rob them.

France is a safe country. Some people still get robbed there.

From the same article you quoted above:

For example, the European Court of Human Rights has previously found an EU country (Greece) to pose a risk to an Afghan refugee, therefore upholding the refugee’s right to seek asylum elsewhere (Belgium).