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

[OngBonga]

What you're saying is France should feed, clothe, and house asylum seekers who want to go to the UK, indefinitely.

Yes. They're in France, not the UK. They are France's responsibility, not the UK's. They become the UK's responsibility when they are successful in their application.

If literally everyone in France suddenly said "I want to go to the UK", does that mean suddenly that the entire population of France is the UK's responsibility?

And also they should stop and seize dinghies in the channel.

In their territorial waters, yes. They are obliged to secure their maritime border, and they are obliged to protect the safety of people in their territory.

There's an international UN agreement on asylum seeking refugees. The UK is a part of that agreement. The UK govt website aligns with that agreement. The UK gov'ts actions don't. So we either should withdraw from the agreement and admit we're cunts, or follow it.

Ok. I'll take your word for it that we're failing in our agreed obligations, because frankly it wouldn't surprise me. If this agreement is the reason this situation is happening, then yes we should leave that agreement.

Presumably France are part of that agreement too though, and presumably they have obligations to protect their borders. They are certainly obligation by EU directive to tackle people trafficking.

You can't apply for asylum in the UK unless you're physically in the UK.

Ok, we're getting lost in language again here. Let's use the words refugees and migrants to avoid this, because asylum seeker seem ambiguous.

Migrants need to apply before coming here, or they need to be here already on a visa.

I agree, and if they do they won't be allowed entry.

Ok, I'm glad we have some agreement on this. Presumably we now disagree on the status of these people on boats coming from France. I am saying these people are mostly economic migrants. I don't doubt some of them are legitimate refugees that we should be accepting, but their method of arrival is hugely problematic.

There is no need to risk life to escape France. There is no war in France. They are safe in France. From France they can make their case to the British for why we should assist them in getting to England.

And the law is very clear on this. They can't apply while they're in another country, they can only apply once they get to the UK.

The law is also very clear that you do not get on a boat and head for another country without authorisation from both the country you are leaving and the country you are arriving in. At least it's clear to me.

Clearly, if they can't apply to the British for refugee status from another country, and they can't simply walk to the border, there is a problem. But the solution to that problem is not to get on a boat and head for the British coast. The solution is for the British to assist people in France, and other places where necessary. We have embassies in every capital.

Economic migrants are seeking a better life. There's a ridiculous amount of people in the world who would like better economic opportunities. Most of India, population 1 billion. It should be obvious the UK does not have room for India. Where's the line? You must have a line poop, you must realise there comes a point where we're full up.

You're confusing economic migrants with refugees. They're two completely different classes of people.

What? Refugees are fleeing war or natural disaster. Economic migrants seek better economic opportunities. You seem to be the one getting confused here.

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

[OngBonga]

Poop seems to think that all a refugee needs to do is state their desired country, anywhere in the world, and that makes them the responsibility of that country. That is ludicrous.

[Poopadoop]

Poop seems to think that all a refugee needs to do is state their desired country, anywhere in the world, and that makes them the responsibility of that country. That is ludicrous.

Et tu et bananas?

Let's put it a different way. Let's say a refugee comes from Syria and is currently in the UK. They've passed through a number of countries along the way, and their stated final destination is the USA where they claim to have family. Now they're in a refugee hostel in Bristol or Plymouth or wherever. What are the UK's responsibilities here?

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

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? Or is that for the USA to determine? And if we don't have a responsibility to determine if they're ok to leave the UK for the USA, who are we to decide how they choose to get there?

Do we make a law whereby they aren't allowed to leave for the USA until they can show a valid plane ticket or oceanliner ticket, as opposed to a leaky rowboat? And if so, how do we enforce it? By imprisoning them until they meet our criterion for leaving, iow by going against their human rights by falsely imprisoning them?

[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?

[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).