2 hours ago, simple1 said:

The hundreds of Afghan security forces dying a month are not fighting for their country / protecting civilians  whatever? The rest of your post is well known, endemic corruption, drug smuggling and so on among those with any power, with <deleted> all achieved to address the corruption and other corrosive issues by Western governments as an outcome of nearly twenty years intervention; now with the strong possibility of Taliban taking control.

 

Given the Afghanistan Papers we now have somewhat of an insight to the BS which was occurring; it wasn't a one way street...

 

The degree of misrepresentation by military and civilian leaders of that effort in claiming success, and the specific details of those misrepresentations, should drive accountability as well as lessons for the future. But even extensive oversight mechanisms cannot guarantee the reversal of failing policy, if no one in a position of responsibility is willing to bite the bullet.

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/12/what-the-afghanistan-papers-revealed/603721/

 

I assume you soon assessed the situation in Afghanistan, you must have had a reason to stay, so out of curiosity what difference did you make from investing twelve years of your life in Afghanistan?

 

 

No they aren't fighting for their country, they are fighting for a more basic need ... money ... to buy food / shelter.  And if they get more from fighting for the Taliban, its a fair chance they will switch sides (not all of course, I am generalizing).  And frankly who the hell can blame them, they just want to survive at this point and the failed government in Kabul doesn't really care about the soldiers in the field.  

 

And what difference did I make or did the development community in general make ... ZERO.  Except for a few health related projects all the other projects: rule of law, construction, ag, mining, tech, civil service, anti drug, anti corruption, etc made no long term difference.  And I worked on both US and UK AID.  As soon as the international consultants / projects would leave the government offices they were supporting the work would return to how it was done before ... and God forbid the development agencies didn't provide what the Afghans deemed they needed as far as the latest in technology even though the computers were routinely found to be used for personal use instead of work.

 

Its a failed state.  And we need to realize that until they help themselves ... we can't help them.  And I know plenty of Afghans who will tell you the same thing behind closed doors.

 

22 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

What’s to understand, people have always migrated, always will.

Bit of a pathetic anology.

7 minutes ago, kingdong said:

The post clearly states " he smuggled himself into france ".

Making him an illegal immigrant.

45 minutes ago, kurtmartens said:

(not all of course, I am generalizing). 

You do a lot of that.

21 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

You do a lot of that.

After watching the billions of dollars wasted in development and seeing my Afghan friends and staff killed for working with us and personally having to identify the remains of 2 of my friends who were blown up by a suicide bomber while having dinner ... I've earned the right to generalize.  

Edited December 2, 20205 yr by kurtmartens
grammar

1 hour ago, kurtmartens said:

After watching the billions of dollars wasted in development and seeing my Afghan friends and staff killed for working with us and personally having to identify the remains of 2 of my friends who were blown up by a suicide bomber while having dinner ... I've earned the right to generalize.  

There is no right to generalize, though it is a useful tool to convince people to commit acts of terrorism. 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 2, 20205 yr by Chomper Higgot

6 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

There is no right to generalize, though it is a useful tool to convince people to commit acts of terrorism. 

 

 

 

 

Can I come live in your Ivory Tower?

37 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

There is no right to generalize, though it is a useful tool to convince people to commit acts of terrorism. 

 

 

 

 

acts of terrorism are like repeated patterns,  that's how - we - as targets  - learn to recognize weak signals. Attitude towards law enforcement officers is one of them.

 

Edited December 2, 20205 yr by Opl

8 hours ago, kurtmartens said:

Making him an illegal immigrant.

No it doesnt. The OP never says anyone there is illegal. It says migrants and asylum seekers.

 

requesting asylum does not make you illegal.

7 hours ago, kurtmartens said:

After watching the billions of dollars wasted in development and seeing my Afghan friends and staff killed for working with us and personally having to identify the remains of 2 of my friends who were blown up by a suicide bomber while having dinner ... I've earned the right to generalize.  

That doesnt make you correct. It just means an inherent bias.

Police rarely beat people who obey the law and comply with lawful orders. Funny how that works.

9 hours ago, kurtmartens said:

No they aren't fighting for their country, they are fighting for a more basic need ... money ... to buy food / shelter.  And if they get more from fighting for the Taliban, its a fair chance they will switch sides (not all of course, I am generalizing).  And frankly who the hell can blame them, they just want to survive at this point and the failed government in Kabul doesn't really care about the soldiers in the field.  

 

And what difference did I make or did the development community in general make ... ZERO.  Except for a few health related projects all the other projects: rule of law, construction, ag, mining, tech, civil service, anti drug, anti corruption, etc made no long term difference.  And I worked on both US and UK AID.  As soon as the international consultants / projects would leave the government offices they were supporting the work would return to how it was done before ... and God forbid the development agencies didn't provide what the Afghans deemed they needed as far as the latest in technology even though the computers were routinely found to be used for personal use instead of work.

 

Its a failed state.  And we need to realize that until they help themselves ... we can't help them.  And I know plenty of Afghans who will tell you the same thing behind closed doors.

 

IMO that's a much better post, accepting the realities the Afghan 'man in the street' faces. If you can be bothered I'm still interested why you spent twelve years in Afghanistan when you knew ultimately your efforts would make no difference.

42 minutes ago, Sujo said:

No it doesnt. The OP never says anyone there is illegal. It says migrants and asylum seekers.

 

requesting asylum does not make you illegal.

If a person smuggles himself into a country bypassing the legal proceedings that makes him illegal,he should have presented himself to the french authorities at the border,not smuggling himself in.

1 hour ago, kingdong said:

If a person smuggles himself into a country bypassing the legal proceedings that makes him illegal,he should have presented himself to the french authorities at the border,not smuggling himself in.

The question still remains that if a person enters France without a visa, under current French law can they then apply for refugee status. Please, not another opinion, but link to enacted legislation.

2 hours ago, simple1 said:

The question still remains that if a person enters France without a visa, under current French law can they then apply for refugee status. Please, not another opinion, but link to enacted legislation.

just because you can ,does not make it right .

4 hours ago, kingdong said:

If a person smuggles himself into a country bypassing the legal proceedings that makes him illegal,he should have presented himself to the french authorities at the border,not smuggling himself in.

Whatever you were doing in Afghanistan it wasn’t working as an immigration lawyer.

5 minutes ago, ivor bigun said:

just because you can ,does not make it right .

Can or may?

 

The law allows it, so an individual may enter a country to claim asylum, the law does not preclude smuggling oneself into France to do so.

 

What one may do under the law is not illegal.

4 hours ago, simple1 said:

IMO that's a much better post, accepting the realities the Afghan 'man in the street' faces. If you can be bothered I'm still interested why you spent twelve years in Afghanistan when you knew ultimately your efforts would make no difference.

I am a consultant.  And I am honest ... I go where they pay me to go.  I am not an idealist.  

5 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Can or may?

 

The law allows it, so an individual may enter a country to claim asylum, the law does not preclude smuggling oneself into France to do so.

 

What one may do under the law is not illegal.

The law allows what?  Claiming asylum?  Yes.  The law does not allow entering a country illegally.  

5 minutes ago, kurtmartens said:

The law allows what?  Claiming asylum?  Yes.  The law does not allow entering a country illegally.  

To claim asylum it does.

5 hours ago, Sujo said:

No it doesnt. The OP never says anyone there is illegal. It says migrants and asylum seekers.

 

requesting asylum does not make you illegal.

They entered France illegally.  Entering a country without a visa ... is against the law.  Just because you then claim asylum doesn't change that.  If you claim asylum you are normally then processed, registered, given housing, etc and a case and a hearing ... you are not just living on the street and saying you are seeking asylum.  These are not official asylum seekers, they are illegal immigrants.  Period.  

Just now, Sujo said:

To claim asylum it does.

Have they officially claimed claim asylum with the French Government?

6 minutes ago, kurtmartens said:

The law allows what?  Claiming asylum?  Yes.  The law does not allow entering a country illegally.  

It has been explained to you numerous times that the law does allow an individual to enter a country to claim asylum, smuggling themselves in to do so is not against the law.

 

 

 

 

20 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

It has been explained to you numerous times that the law does allow an individual to enter a country to claim asylum, smuggling themselves in to do so is not against the law.

 

Yes it is, hence the official term "illegal aliens". Once they claim asylum the act of illegally entering the country is ignored until such time they have been assessed, if deemed not to be genuine refugees they are then in the country illegally and can be removed.

 

I get it, amnesty et al don't want the word illegal to be associated with them due to it being used as a dog whistle by certain ... people. But IMO it doesn't help the issue.

25 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

It has been explained to you numerous times that the law does allow an individual to enter a country to claim asylum, smuggling themselves in to do so is not against the law.

 

 

 

 

differently  worded " an individual smuggled by a large poly-criminal network involved in migrant smuggling towards Western Europe, therefore financially supporting trafficking of human beings and drug trafficking  ... is against the law, ask Europol  

5 hours ago, Salerno said:

 

Yes it is, hence the official term "illegal aliens". Once they claim asylum the act of illegally entering the country is ignored until such time they have been assessed, if deemed not to be genuine refugees they are then in the country illegally and can be removed.

 

I get it, amnesty et al don't want the word illegal to be associated with them due to it being used as a dog whistle by certain ... people. But IMO it doesn't help the issue.

They perfectly know what the laws are, consider they have no obligation to enter France legally, but demand others to abide by the law at their benefit.   

In fact they are  illegal migrants who occupy public space illegally, refuse to respect the injunctions of a police officer - an obligation- and then plead against the police for using  force they consider disproportionate.

Reverse victim and offender tactic. 

Edited December 3, 20205 yr by Opl

A bickering and personal comment exchange between two members on the legalities of immigration and asylum status has been removed.

 

The thread topic is:

 

Afghan migrant: I thought France was humane until police beat me

 

 

1 hour ago, Opl said:

They perfectly know what the laws are, consider they have no obligation to enter France legally, but demand others to abide by the law at their benefit.   

In fact they are  illegal migrants who occupy public space illegally, refuse to respect the injunctions of a police officer - an obligation- and then plead against the police for using  force they consider disproportionate.

Reverse victim and offender tactic. 

Please show me where in the OP it says they are illegal. It says migrants and asylum seekers.

7 hours ago, kurtmartens said:

Have they officially claimed claim asylum with the French Government?

According to the OP migrants and asylum seekers. Unless you have other info thats what they are, legal.

7 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Whatever you were doing in Afghanistan it wasn’t working as an immigration lawyer.

Who said i,d ever been in afghanistan? Either you,re deliberately misquoting me or perhaps you recieved too many blows to the head whilst morris dancing causing confusion.