Prince Charles told by U.K. leaders to stop meddling in politics amid immigration comment backlash

[Excel]

1 minute ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Yes, I waked past a hotel in the U.K yesterday , a small 50 bedroom hotel which often hosted weddings and things .

   Its been closed for the past three years and houses asylum seekers , hotel is full and not open to the public .

   Often see the young middle eastern asylum seekers coming and going often with designer clothes bags , standing out side all having a cigarette together and our Council tax has been increased to pay for them .

  Its a nice hotel , although I never stayed there , its a bit expensive for me 

Well perhaps some of their pals who will arrive later may not be so impressed with the hotel conditions in Rwanda . Guess they will be out with their latest iphones telling their pals to give the UK a miss soon. So presumably currently the UK government will have to pay all of the costs of their hotel accommodation in Rwanda once it happens yet to date much of those costs that you highlighted have fallen on the locals by way of council tax increases ?

[ozimoron]

14 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Yes, they were .

link?

[xylophone]

40 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Yes it does. They can't be both. Once a person makes a claim for asylum they cease to be Illegal immigrants until that claim is assessed. International law provides for people to make claims for asylum regardless of the means in which they entered the country and compel the government to assess their claim. If that claim is rejected then they become illegal immigrants, not before.

But this says otherwise??? Or are they first being sent to Rwanda and then their claims being investigated whilst they are there??

 

"Anyone entering the UK illegally" after 1 January could be sent, with no limit on numbers, UK prime minister Boris Johnson said.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-61782866

[Mac Mickmanus]

8 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

link?

There is a 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.

[candide]

25 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

were they required to make a claim in France?

 

23 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Yes, they were .

Up to my knowledge, there is no such obligation, Do you have a source confirming your assertion? (I mean a law analysis,  not a politician's statement).

[Chomper Higgot]

44 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Yes it does. They can't be both. Once a person makes a claim for asylum they cease to be Illegal immigrants until that claim is assessed. International law provides for people to make claims for asylum regardless of the means in which they entered the country and compel the government to assess their claim. If that claim is rejected then they become illegal immigrants, not before.

To be absolutely correct, if their application for asylum is rejected they become ‘’failed asylum seekers’ and are justly liable for deportation within the law. 
 

 

[Loiner]

46 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Perhaps because the racists and bigots in the UK make the most noise.

Not true at all. We very rarely hear anything from racists and bigots. MSM does all it can to censor anything it does not agree with. All we do hear is the bleating of lefty activists and bleeding hearts. 

[Chomper Higgot]

4 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

There is a 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.

Link to that clause within law please.

[Excel]

2 minutes ago, candide said:

 

Up to my knowledge, there is no such obligation, Do you have a source confirming your assertion? (I mean a law analysis,  not a politician's statement).

Nor according to this article

 

https://www.amnesty.org.uk/truth-about-refugees

[Loiner]

28 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Its a nice hotel , although I never stayed there , its a bit expensive for me 

I’ve seen many of them loitering around sequestered Britannia hotels. Terrible places but free and better than a mud hut. I haven’t been able to check but these must be the ones with the porte cochere paved with gold. 

[Mac Mickmanus]

8 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Link to that clause within law please.

https://fullfact.org/immigration/refugees-first-safe-country/

[Chomper Higgot]

17 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

https://fullfact.org/immigration/refugees-first-safe-country/

You might want to try and quickly delete the link you provided before someone fixes it in a quote…. Oops, too late.

 

Here’s the verdict provided in the link you so kindly posted:

 

“WHAT WAS CLAIMED

Under the Geneva Convention refugees should seek refuge in the first safe country they come to.

OUR VERDICT

Incorrect. The UN Refugee Convention does not make this requirement of refugees, and UK case law supports this interpretation. Refugees can legitimately make a claim for asylum in the UK after passing through other “safe” countries.”

 

The other two claims addressed in your link also make interesting reading.

 

 

Thank you so much for sharing,

[Mac Mickmanus]

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

 

 

However very many British people do dislike foreigners.

 

 

92 % of British people have been abroad to foreign Countries ...................and quite often, you do get foreigners living abroad .

  Seems odd that foreigner hating Brits go abroad to places where foreigners are .

   You claim that "many British people dislike foreigners" is untrue , because if Brits hated foreigners . 92 % wouldnt have gone abroad 

[Lacessit]

Dear old Chuckles, he means well. He is the role model for Oscar Wilde's " The importance of being earnest." His education at Geelong Grammar was wasted on him.

 

I'd like to see Australia grow up and sever our ties with a dysfunctional monarchy.

 

Unfortunately, that would result in mass unemployment for the mawkish media, what would they do if we lost interest in Lilibet's latest bowel motion?

 

MP/PA = APB.

[Excel]

4 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

92 % of British people have been abroad to foreign Countries ...................and quite often, you do get foreigners living abroad .

  Seems odd that foreigner hating Brits go abroad to places where foreigners are .

   You claim that "many British people dislike foreigners" is untrue , because if Brits hated foreigners . 92 % wouldnt have gone abroad 

It seems that the last 20ish years has seen an unprecedented increase in immigration to the UK unlike anytime in the past. Perhaps it is this sudden influx that has effected peoples opinions ?

https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/437/the-history-of-immigration-to-the-uk

[candide]

27 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

https://fullfact.org/immigration/refugees-first-safe-country/

According to this article there is a UK law which may be used,  but It's not what the Geneva Convention says. There is also a jurisprudence against it, if I understand well, as also cited in the article.

 

So, at least according to international law, they have no obligation to apply in France.

 

As the article states:

"OUR VERDICT

Incorrect. The UN Refugee Convention does not make this requirement of refugees, and UK case law supports this interpretation. Refugees can legitimately make a claim for asylum in the UK after passing through other “safe” countries."

[Doctor Tom]

13 minutes ago, Excel said:

an unprecedented increase in immigration to the UK unlike anytime in the past.

I think that you will find that is incorrect.  Following the Eastern European Pograms in late 1890s and early 1900s  (which saw my paternal Grandparents arrive in the UK from Lithuania)  saw a substantial influx from those  countries.  There was also the 'Windrush' Caribbean immigrants in the 1950, from former British Colonies.   Not forgetting the large numbers of immigration from the India Sub Continent from 1960 to the mid 1990s  and supplemented in 1972 by the Asian peoples thrown out of Amin's Uganda.  The numbers right now, of illegal immigration, as opposed to legal immigration, is a relatively small number.  Its just that the media want to make a meal out of it  and the government is powerless to stop it, rather than the actual numbers involved. 

[Excel]

1 minute ago, Doctor Tom said:

I think that you will find that is incorrect.  Following the Eastern European Pograms in late 1890s and early 1900s  (which saw my paternal Grandparents arrive in the UK from Lithuania)  saw a substantial influx from those  countries.  There was also the 'Windrush' Caribbean immigrants in the 1950, from former British Colonies.   Not forgetting the large numbers of immigration from the India Sub Continent from 1960 to the mid 1990s  and supplemented in 1972 by the Asian peoples thrown out of Amin's Uganda.  The numbers right now, of illegal immigration, as opposed to legal immigration, is a relatively small number.  

So you know far more than that organistion from which I posted the link then. Interesting. Perhaps you should write to MigrationWatch and tell them that their statistics are wrong.  At the same time perhaps you could advise the UK government that their entire census information is also incorrect as that is where Migrationwatch garnered most of their information.

[Doctor Tom]

12 minutes ago, Excel said:

So you know far more than that organistion from which I posted the link then. Interesting. Perhaps you should write to MigrationWatch and tell them that their statistics are wrong.  At the same time perhaps you could advise the UK government that their entire census information is also incorrect as that is where Migrationwatch garnered most of their information.

you are misinterpreting this link.  The link is about 'refugees' both legal and illegal, but you stated in your post 'immigration'. Not the same thing at all. The Windrush immigrants were not refugees any more than sub continent immigrants were refugees. You play into the media idiocy by conflating the numbers and the people involved. 

[candide]

31 minutes ago, Excel said:

It seems that the last 20ish years has seen an unprecedented increase in immigration to the UK unlike anytime in the past. Perhaps it is this sudden influx that has effected peoples opinions ?

https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/437/the-history-of-immigration-to-the-uk

And if one excludes Irish immigrants for obvious reasons, not so much caused by EU nationals. The largest share of immigrants has been from former British colonies, in particular India and Pakistan.

[Excel]

12 minutes ago, Doctor Tom said:

you are misinterpreting this link.  The link is about 'refugees' both legal and illegal, but you stated in your post 'immigration'. Not the same thing at all. The Windrush immigrants were not refugees any more than sub continent immigrants were refugees. You play into the media idiocy by conflating the numbers and the people involved. 

Not misinterpreting my link at all. My link is about immigration. My post was a reasoning for why  perhaps  British people are labelled  as anti foreigner, my post being directly in response to this post

 

53 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

92 % of British people have been abroad to foreign Countries ...................and quite often, you do get foreigners living abroad .

  Seems odd that foreigner hating Brits go abroad to places where foreigners are .

   You claim that "many British people dislike foreigners" is untrue , because if Brits hated foreigners . 92 % wouldnt have gone abroad 

And I stated "It seems that the last 20ish years has seen an unprecedented increase in immigration to the UK unlike anytime in the past. Perhaps it is this sudden influx that has effected peoples opinions ?" 

 

Facts based on the  general census that you dispute.  But you have of course have your own opinion but I believe in the veracity of a country's census  rather than someone's opinion.

[Mac Mickmanus]

24 minutes ago, candide said:

And if one excludes Irish immigrants for obvious reasons, not so much caused by EU nationals. The largest share of immigrants has been from former British colonies, in particular India and Pakistan.

There are about 1.3 million people  in the U.K of Indian/Pakistani origin .

Over 6 million people from E.U Countries received U.K settlement  visas  before Brexit 

[Chomper Higgot]

12 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

There are about 1.3 million people  in the U.K of Indian/Pakistani origin .

Over 6 million people from E.U Countries received U.K settlement  visas  before Brexit 

I’m not sure where you are getting your numbers from.

 

There are 1.45Million people of Indian ethnicity in the UK and almost 1.2 million people of Pakistani ethnicity:

 

The ‘best estimate’ for the number of EU citizens in the UK is 3.5 million.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Indians

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Pakistanis

 

https://blog.ons.gov.uk/2021/07/02/are-there-really-6m-eu-citizens-living-in-the-uk/amp/

 

 

 

 

[Mac Mickmanus]

10 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I’m not sure where you are getting your numbers from.

 

There are 1.45Million people of Indian ethnicity in the UK and almost 1.2 million people of Pakistani ethnicity:

 

The ‘best estimate’ for the number of EU citizens in the UK is 3.5 million.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Indians

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Pakistanis

 

https://blog.ons.gov.uk/2021/07/02/are-there-really-6m-eu-citizens-living-in-the-uk/amp/

 

 

 

 

Well yes, even your figures show that there are more E.U Citizens in the U,K , than people with a Indian/Pakistani heritage .  

   ( I was replying to Candides claim that ........................go back and read the claim)

[Chomper Higgot]

Just now, Mac Mickmanus said:

Well yes, even your figures show that there are more E.U Citizens in the U,K , than people with a Indian/Pakistani heritage .  

   ( I was replying to Candides claim that ........................go back and read the claim)

But you nearly doubled the EU citizens and halved the Indian Pakistani population.

 

 

[Loiner]

19 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

 

The ‘best estimate’ for the number of EU citizens in the UK is 3.5 million.

So how have 6.1 million of them applied for settled status?

Anything to do with their benefit claims?

[Chomper Higgot]

4 minutes ago, Loiner said:

So how have 6.1 million of them applied for settled status?

Anything to do with their benefit claims?

If they are not in the UK how are they claiming benefits?

 

Or is your ‘broad negative stereotyped generalization wrt to foreigners from the EU’ getting in the way of you working that out?

 

[Mac Mickmanus]

8 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

But you nearly doubled the EU citizens and halved the Indian Pakistani population.

 

 

My figures are for people born abroad , your figures included people of Asian ethnicity born in the UK 

[Bluespunk]

24 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Well yes, even your figures show that there are more E.U Citizens in the U,K , than people with a Indian/Pakistani heritage .  

   ( I was replying to Candides claim that ........................go back and read the claim)

And why does a U.K. citizens heritage matter?

[Mac Mickmanus]

9 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

And why does a U.K. citizens heritage matter?

I will just scroll back and see how the subject arose . 

Wait right there , I will be back in a minute