On 8/11/2020 at 2:11 PM, stephenterry said:

It's a reflection on the cruelty of humanity that such situations occur in the first place. Refugees, migrants are escaping the turmoil and hatred in their country - instead of berating officialdom and blaming these people, you should be thanking God that it's not affecting you - yet. That is, until China makes a bid for global domination by continuing subversive means against Hong Kong, Taiwan, India, and which will involve the USA. 

 

 

 

 

IF things are that bad at home and not just that they want a better life at someone else's expense, they should do something about it AT HOME. In the past people joined the revolution, now they just pay traffickers to relocate them to another country.

11 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

The Australian way works and saves lives. What's wrong with that?

I didna say the Australian way is wrong,

but in the European environent it would be somewhat odd, very odd, and hardly appreciated

UK doesn't need no more negative feelings for the time beeing

 

UK has a desperate need to be considered OK, likeable, reasonable, inviting, approachable, fair, safe, empathetic,

so better wach it

 

6 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

IF things are that bad at home and not just that they want a better life at someone else's expense, they should do something about it AT HOME. In the past people joined the revolution, now they just pay traffickers to relocate them to another country.

It save lives.

Doing something AT HOME, will certainly cost a lot of lives, and no guarantee of winning. 

Now only the ones who want to leave put their lives at risk. 

Up to the other countries to do something similar to what Australia does,

or than not. 

Here also each country has its own priorities. 

Will see what the U.K. will do in a few months. 

 

2 minutes ago, melvinmelvin said:

I didna say the Australian way is wrong,

but in the European environent it would be somewhat odd, very odd, and hardly appreciated

UK doesn't need no more negative feelings for the time beeing

 

UK has a desperate need to be considered OK, likeable, reasonable, inviting, approachable, fair, safe, empathetic,

so better wach it

 

Including "Banana Republic" implies that it is wrong.

 

 

2 minutes ago, luckyluke said:

It save lives.

Doing something AT HOME, will certainly cost a lot of lives, and no guarantee of winning. 

Now only the ones who want to leave put their lives at risk. 

Up to the other countries to do something similar to what Australia does,

or than not. 

Here also each country has its own priorities. 

Will see what the U.K. will do in a few months. 

 

Nothing worth while was achieved without casualties.

1 minute ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Nothing worth while was achieved without casualties.

Sure, but it is a choice the people AT HOME have to make. 

So far it seems they prefer the less possible casualties. 

11 minutes ago, luckyluke said:

Sure, but it is a choice the people AT HOME have to make. 

So far it seems they prefer the less possible casualties. 

I agree, but we don't have to make it easy to illegally enter other countries.

Just now, thaibeachlovers said:

I agree, but we don't have to make it easy to illegally enter other countries.

Exactly,

I don't see the E.U. changing their rules and approach of the problem (Accepting the "refugees" and each country trying to get them out of their land). 

The U.K., on the other hand, will soon  have the opportunity to create its own rules and regulations. 

Will see if it will do something about it,

or not. 

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Why are they providing a taxi service to Britain? Why are they not towing them back to French waters? I get they can't actually enter French territory, but they don't have to assist them get to their desired destination.

Exactly same situation the E.U. face on the Mediteranian sea & Greek side ....

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

The Australian way works and saves lives. What's wrong with that?

Holding asylum seekers offshore is costing the Australian tax payer approx $400k per person p.a., PNG has requested Australia to relocate the refugees as their Supreme Court has ruled indefinite detention is in breach of human rights. In the majority of cases they have been assessed as genuine refugees. Some still held as insufficient worldwide acceptance for resettling refugees or home countries refusing to accept deportees.

 

In the vast majority of cases France will not accept returnees from the UK, plus which country in the region will accept rejected asylum seekers and at what cost, with the very strong risk of indefinite detention?

Edited August 21, 20205 yr by simple1

So it turns out the so called migrant who died in a dinghy paddling with a spade where the liberal left wing media pulling on the heart strings of everyone saying he was 16.

 

Surprise, he is 28 years old and from Sudan who has been refused asylum in France. How easily duped people are.

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/sudanese-migrant-channel-death-named-abdulfatah-hamdallah-france-a9680346.html

 

 

On 8/11/2020 at 6:26 AM, Somtamnication said:

Didn't recognize London or Cambridge when I was there last year. Not English, anymore. Labour let them in a decades ago (thanks Blair) and it never stopped.

 

 

all the landmarks are torn down?

25 minutes ago, Laughing Gravy said:

So it turns out the so called migrant who died in a dinghy paddling with a spade where the liberal left wing media pulling on the heart strings of everyone saying he was 16.

 

Surprise, he is 28 years old and from Sudan who has been refused asylum in France. How easily duped people are.

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/sudanese-migrant-channel-death-named-abdulfatah-hamdallah-france-a9680346.html

 

 

You do understand members of the right on this forum always vilify The Independent as false news / 'lefty' blah, blah media outlet. Horror of horror, another 'lefty' outlet has also reported on the matter- Guardian, as well as MSN.

8 hours ago, simple1 said:

Holding asylum seekers offshore is costing the Australian tax payer approx $400k per person p.a., PNG has requested Australia to relocate the refugees as their Supreme Court has ruled indefinite detention is in breach of human rights. In the majority of cases they have been assessed as genuine refugees. Some still held as insufficient worldwide acceptance for resettling refugees or home countries refusing to accept deportees.

 

In the vast majority of cases France will not accept returnees from the UK, plus which country in the region will accept rejected asylum seekers and at what cost, with the very strong risk of indefinite detention?

Genuine refugees apply in the first safe haven or via the UN rather than illegally crossing multiple borders and the odd sea before turning up unannounced elsewhere. They should be immediately returned to their last known location...

 

FRANCE! 

Edited August 21, 20205 yr by evadgib

2 minutes ago, evadgib said:

Genuine refugees apply in the first safe haven or via the UN rather than illegally crossing multiple borders and the odd sea before turning up unannounced elsewhere. They should be immediately returned to their last known location...

 

FRANCE! 

Regards Oz, there are no 'safe' counties on the way from M.E. with acceptable laws protecting asylum seekers / refugees.

 

Dublin Regulation obviously not being enforced, so rather than going on and on, take it up with your MP. Some reading to guide your conversation...

 

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/home-affairs/immigration/what-is-the-dublin-iii-regulation-will-it-be-affected-by-brexit/

 

Your recommended reading channel is full of @#$%, but thanks for giving insight to one of your fonts of knowledge - Lol

13 minutes ago, simple1 said:

Regards Oz, there are no 'safe' counties on the way from M.E. with acceptable laws protecting asylum seekers / refugees.

 

Dublin Regulation obviously not being enforced, so rather than going on and on, take it up with your MP. Some reading to guide your conversation...

 

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/home-affairs/immigration/what-is-the-dublin-iii-regulation-will-it-be-affected-by-brexit/

 

Your recommended reading channel is full of @#$%, but thanks for giving insight to one of your fonts of knowledge - Lol

You asked, I answered. I couldn't care less if you liked it or not but appreciate the fact that you took the time to look.

22 hours ago, simple1 said:

Holding asylum seekers offshore is costing the Australian tax payer approx $400k per person p.a., PNG has requested Australia to relocate the refugees as their Supreme Court has ruled indefinite detention is in breach of human rights. In the majority of cases they have been assessed as genuine refugees. Some still held as insufficient worldwide acceptance for resettling refugees or home countries refusing to accept deportees.

 

In the vast majority of cases France will not accept returnees from the UK, plus which country in the region will accept rejected asylum seekers and at what cost, with the very strong risk of indefinite detention?

If so they should spend less on them.

 

I take it Australia is giving "aid" to PNG. If so they should agree to resettle the "refugees", but will cancel all monetary aid if having to do so.

 

If the "refugees" haven't been able to enter UK waters then they are not "returning" to France.

Edited August 21, 20205 yr by thaibeachlovers

28 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

If so they should spend less on them.

 

I take it Australia is giving "aid" to PNG. If so they should agree to resettle the "refugees", but will cancel all monetary aid if having to do so.

 

If the "refugees" haven't been able to enter UK waters then they are not "returning" to France.

From memory Oz government 'incentive' for housing asylum seekers on PNG territory was $400 million. it was a Supreme Court decision that Oz policy of indefinite decision was in breach of human rights. I do not believe Oz government would penalise PNG for a Supreme Court decision; it would be attacking the Rule of Law. Thankfully Oz government has so far not gone down the path of extreme right-wing ideology.

7 minutes ago, simple1 said:

From memory Oz government 'incentive' for housing asylum seekers on PNG territory was $400 million. it was a Supreme Court decision that Oz policy of indefinite decision was in breach of human rights. I do not believe Oz government would penalise PNG for a Supreme Court decision; it would be attacking the Rule of Law. Thankfully Oz government has so far not gone down the path of extreme right-wing ideology.

If it was an incentive payment and the PNG renege on it then take back the $400 million, or hold back $400 million in aid.

 

It's not extreme right-wing ideology, it's the ideology of common sense, IMO.

Extreme right-wing ideology had a different solution, or have you forgotten that?

11 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

If it was an incentive payment and the PNG renege on it then take back the $400 million, or hold back $400 million in aid.

 

It's not extreme right-wing ideology, it's the ideology of common sense, IMO.

Extreme right-wing ideology had a different solution, or have you forgotten that?

I getting the impression you don't comprehend Supreme Court ruling pertaining to govt decisions and the Rule of Law. Extreme right-wing ideology subscribes to undermining the Rule of Law, exactly what you suggesting, I'm not suggesting you are a right-wing extremist ideologue - just a lack of knowledge.

15 hours ago, simple1 said:

You do understand members of the right on this forum always vilify The Independent as false news / 'lefty' blah, blah media outlet. Horror of horror, another 'lefty' outlet has also reported on the matter- Guardian, as well as MSN.

And that is why I posted the link so even the extreme (a word that many like to use here) left and liberals can see even their 'bible' acknowledges it. The story is in numerous other papers and news outlets.

 

I guess you were one of that were duped.

 

Like the migrants claiming to be teenagers when they were in the late 20s. They are coached what to say to pull on the strings of the good natured people of the UK.

Edited August 21, 20205 yr by Laughing Gravy

5 minutes ago, simple1 said:

I getting the impression you don't comprehend Supreme Court ruling pertaining to govt decisions and the Rule of Law. Extreme right-wing ideology subscribes to undermining the Rule of Law, exactly what you suggesting, I'm not suggesting you are a right-wing extremist ideologue - just a lack of knowledge.

In that case, extreme left and extreme right wing are the same.

"Nuff said about off topic diversion.

 

58 minutes ago, Laughing Gravy said:

And that is why I posted the link so even the extreme (a word that many like to use here) left and liberals can see even their 'bible' acknowledges it. The story is in numerous other papers and news outlets.

I guess you were one of that were duped.

Like the migrants claiming to be teenagers when they were in the late 20s. They are coached what to say to pull on the strings of the good-natured people of the UK.

What link are you referring to?

 

Not so sure about the 'good natured people of the UK' when reading the posts over the years concerning asylum seekers. For sure non qualifying asylum seekers will be using false statement / ID, don't know the current percentages of genuine asylum seekers versus those rejected arriving in the UK, do you? If you do, facts please not rants.

Edited August 22, 20205 yr by simple1

1 hour ago, simple1 said:

What link are you referring to?

post 102. The independent newspaper.

 

1 hour ago, simple1 said:

Not so sure about the 'good natured people of the UK' when reading the posts over the years concerning asylum seekers

The UK is one of if not the most tolerant nations who have allowed millions of migrants in the country. It comes to a point when the country is full, many asylum seekers do not want to integrate and bring their customs and religion with them and often are not the best of people. Why didn't so many of the asylum seekers want their finger prints taken!

 

We are in a country or have links to it (Thailand) where you have criteria to come and stay. I agree with it. But so many posters are up in arms when it is their own country. Hypocrisy.

 

1 hour ago, simple1 said:

don't know the current percentages of genuine asylum seekers versus those rejected arriving in the UK, do you? If you do, facts please not rants.

Do your own research as it is out there and it wasn't a rant. This is a board for exchanging viewpoints not an academic paper where statistics are required to support an argument

Edited August 22, 20205 yr by Laughing Gravy

Baiting post and replies reported and removed.   Members are welcome to post in any topic, regardless of nationality.  

 

19 minutes ago, Laughing Gravy said:

We are in a country or have links to it (Thailand) where you have criteria to come and stay. I agree with it. But so many posters are up in arms when it is their own country. Hypocrisy.

None of us, I dare say, rowed a small boat to Thailand without documents and expected to be able to stay indefinitely without paying a satang.

I also dare say not many of us are opposed to immigration as long as the immigrant benefits the country and doesn't cost the taxpayer anything.

Given we all pay to stay, we would be in that category.

13 minutes ago, Laughing Gravy said:

post 102. The independent newspaper.

 

The UK is one of if not the most tolerant nations who have allowed millions of migrants in the country. It comes to a point when the country is full, many asylum seekers do not want to integrate and bring their customs and religion with them and often are not the best of people. Why didn't so many of the asylum seekers want their finger prints taken!

 

We are in a country or have links to it (Thailand) where you have criteria to come and stay. I agree with it. But so many posters are up in arms when it is their own country. Hypocrisy.

 

Do your own research as it is out there and it wasn't a rant. This is a board for exchanging viewpoints not an academic paper where statistics are required to support an argument

This is a board for exchanging viewpoints not an academic paper where statistics are required to support an argument

 

Disagree, if you wish your point/s to be accepted as 'truth' then provide facts, which BTW I understand to be forum rules, or at the very least, etiquette.

 

I was not talking to migrants, but asylum seekers, even though there have been countless posts on this forum denigrating migrants. 

 

I had hoped you would back up your claims as a matter of courtesy, but as you have refused to do so, HMG stats below, which counter a number of erroneous claims by some members on this forum e,g, number of child applicants.

 

The UK gave protection – in the form of grants of asylum, humanitarian protection, alternative forms of leave and resettlement – to 18,519 people in the year ending June 2019 (up 29% compared with the previous year). Of these, 40% (or 7,351) were children. This was the highest number of people granted protection in the UK over a one-year period since the year ending September 2003.

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/immigration-statistics-year-ending-june-2019/how-many-people-do-we-grant-asylum-or-protection-to

On 8/20/2020 at 11:49 PM, luckyluke said:

Exactly,

I don't see the E.U. changing their rules and approach of the problem (Accepting the "refugees" and each country trying to get them out of their land). 

The U.K., on the other hand, will soon  have the opportunity to create its own rules and regulations. 

Will see if it will do something about it,

or not. 

like to think so but wouldn't hold your breath.

9 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

None of us, I dare say, rowed a small boat to Thailand without documents and expected to be able to stay indefinitely without paying a satang.

And did these so called migrants/asylum seekers like many have come from all over Africa and the Middle East. These two in question actually applied for asylum in france and was refused. They are/were illegal immigrants like many are.

 

11 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I also dare say not many of us are opposed to immigration as long as the immigrant benefits the country and doesn't cost the taxpayer anything.

But that is the problem it does cost the tax payer a lot of money.

 

I will say it again the UK has welcomed millions of immigrants from many countries over the last 70 years. The UK is multi cultured although I personally think many facets of that and globalisation are the issues.

 

13 minutes ago, simple1 said:

Disagree, if you wish your point/s to be accepted as 'truth' then provide facts, which BTW I understand to be forum rules, or at the very least, etiquette.

I don't care if you accept my viewpoints or not. You certainly like to mention forum rules don't you.

 

14 minutes ago, simple1 said:

I had hoped you would back up your claims as a matter of courtesy, but as you have refused to do so, HMG stats below, which counter a number of erroneous claims by some members on this forum e,g, number of child applicants.

As I said do your own research which you did, albeit minimally.

 

15 minutes ago, simple1 said:

I was not talking to migrants, but asylum seekers, even though there have been countless posts on this forum denigrating migrants. 

There is a fine line between migrant and asylum seeker, which many abuse and use to their advantage whenever they feel.

 

So we disagree on the asylum seeker/migrant situation. That's fine. Move on and have a nice day. I certainly will.