ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 4th January 2019, 01:35 PM   #121
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 11,396
Originally Posted by baron View Post
Me too, but you said there was no such thing as a bogus asylum seeker.
That was just part of a quote from The Refugee Council and it was clearly referring to someone who has just claimed asylum.

Quote:
Taxi is great. You know this, I'm not sure why you're asking. A plane ticket from France to the UK costs a good deal less than £2K - £5K, which is what they pay to be smuggled across the channel in a rubber dingy, or a stolen trawler, or the £10K+ which is what many pay for their route up from Greece.
The original point I was making was that there is no official and unofficial way to arrive in the UK to claim asylum. People just get here as they can.
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2019, 01:39 PM   #122
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 11,396
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
Someone without a valid visa to enter the UK would generally be denied boarding of a plane ferry or train in any case.

There is pretty much no legal way for.most if not all asylum seekers to get to the UK.
Indeed, so if the acceptable arrival for asylum seekers is by a legal method, then the only people able to claim asylum in the UK are those whose countries have allowed them to obtain a visa to travel here and who have lied on the visa application. There is no box to tick for reason for travel; "asylum seeker".
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2019, 02:06 PM   #123
baron
Philosopher
 
baron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,611
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
Indeed, so if the acceptable arrival for asylum seekers is by a legal method, then the only people able to claim asylum in the UK are those whose countries have allowed them to obtain a visa to travel here and who have lied on the visa application. There is no box to tick for reason for travel; "asylum seeker".
A proven threat to life should be, according the the Convention, treated as a mitigating factor to false document usage in certain specialised cases; in other words, a refugee should not be found guilty of flying on a false passport if it can be proven that not doing so would put them in danger of death or severe persecution. But you do understand that these cases, in the UK, are very rare? Because a person in France cannot reasonably be said to be in fear for their lives, and refugees flying direct from outside of Europe does not happen frequently.
__________________
"I am a liar as well as a dwarf!"
baron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2019, 02:36 PM   #124
Norman Alexander
Illuminator
 
Norman Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,017
We have had this same debate in Australia for nigh on 20 years. The issues usually revolve around failing to understand the difference between asylum claim, and asylum granting.

Refugees may arrive from anywhere my any means and claim asylum. That is perfectly legal, and they need to be treated humanely when that happens while their claim is heard. And they need to be housed in decent conditions, and their claim should be processed "promptly". The 1951 refugee convention applies.

However, their claim may not be granted necessarily. This varies from country to country and is the tricky part. It is where the search for illegality begins. If their claims fail for some reason although they are found not to be actual criminals, they can probably be treated as "tourists" who have arrived without meeting entry requirements. Which may be considered "illegal" in many countries, with potentially stiff penalties applying plus deportation.

But the point is that the refugee arrival method and asylum claim is not the illegal part. The illegality comes AFTER they have arrived, not before. And trying to make a point by incarcerating refugees who have arrive by specific routes in inhumane conditions to encourage others not to try is inhumane. I should know - Australia is one of the worst offenders.
__________________
...our governments are just trying to protect us from terror. In the same way that someone banging a hornetsí nest with a stick is trying to protect us from hornets. Frankie Boyle, Guardian, July 2015

Last edited by Norman Alexander; 4th January 2019 at 02:42 PM.
Norman Alexander is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2019, 03:02 PM   #125
baron
Philosopher
 
baron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,611
Originally Posted by Norman Alexander View Post
But the point is that the refugee arrival method and asylum claim is not the illegal part. The illegality comes AFTER they have arrived, not before.
That's not entirely correct. The method of entry can be legal or illegal. It's not relevant who is making the journey, it could be an Iranian asylum seeker or a French pavement artist or Donald Trump, it's still illegal to enter the UK by 'non-conventional' means. I think what you're referring to is the fact that if an immigrant surrenders to authorities in a timely fashion they themselves will not be deemed illegal, unless there is clear evidence that they are not an asylum seeker (e.g. if they have just been deported for criminality). When their case is considered the manner of arrival will be taken into account alongside everything else, and at the end of the day, unless they have good reason, rocking up in a dinghy from France will count as a big fat negative.
__________________
"I am a liar as well as a dwarf!"

Last edited by baron; 4th January 2019 at 03:04 PM.
baron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2019, 03:17 PM   #126
Archie Gemmill Goal
Philosopher
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 5,218
Someone claiming asylum has to make themselves known to the authorities in order to do so. There is no advantage to them in being smuggled. Except where there is no traditional route available. this is the simple lie of the right. close the gate and insist that only criminals would climb the walls.
__________________
"I love sex and drugs and sausage rolls
But nothing compares to Archie Gemmill's goal"
Archie Gemmill Goal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2019, 08:56 PM   #127
Norman Alexander
Illuminator
 
Norman Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,017
Originally Posted by baron View Post
That's not entirely correct. The method of entry can be legal or illegal. It's not relevant who is making the journey, it could be an Iranian asylum seeker or a French pavement artist or Donald Trump, it's still illegal to enter the UK by 'non-conventional' means. I think what you're referring to is the fact that if an immigrant surrenders to authorities in a timely fashion they themselves will not be deemed illegal, unless there is clear evidence that they are not an asylum seeker (e.g. if they have just been deported for criminality). When their case is considered the manner of arrival will be taken into account alongside everything else, and at the end of the day, unless they have good reason, rocking up in a dinghy from France will count as a big fat negative.
See, there is that confusion. It is NOT illegal to ARRIVE by non conventional means. But your granting of asylum status does depend on completing the correct immigration process. That happens AFTER arrival. You can arrive in the UK floating in an inner tube from Calais if you like. That is OK. But if you fail to present yourself to authorities promptly and have no papers, sure, that is a legal problem.
__________________
...our governments are just trying to protect us from terror. In the same way that someone banging a hornetsí nest with a stick is trying to protect us from hornets. Frankie Boyle, Guardian, July 2015
Norman Alexander is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2019, 09:19 PM   #128
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 10,023
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
I would only call them bogus once it has been shown their claim is bogus.



You mean that asylum seekers are legal if they can afford a ticket and enter by rail, ferry or plane, but illegal if they use other means to enter the country? What if they arrive by taxi?
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
How does an asylum seeker arrive legally in the UK? Is there some way that a person fleeing persecution can phone ahead and advise they are on their way?

Does buying a plane ticket and arriving at Heathrow make the entry into the UK legal, but other methods are illegal?
AIUI, if you enter a country through border control at an official port of entry, you are doing so legally. However, if you do so by avoiding the border controls, you are entering the country illegally, although you can rectify that situation by immediately reporting to authorities that you have arrived.

A few years ago, some friends and I sailed from here in Nelson, to Tonga. When we arrived in Pangai on the island of Ha'apai we reported to the port authority, and they had a deputised customs official who processed us for a 30 day visitor visa. When we left, we didn't let anyone know we were leaving... when we got back to Nelson a couple of weeks later the Police and customs were waiting at our berth in the marina... apparently, the Tongan Ministry of Revenue & Customs was concerned that we hadn't told them we were leaving.
__________________
As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.
- Henry Louis Mencken - Baltimore Evening Sun, July 26, 1920
smartcooky is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2019, 01:10 AM   #129
Archie Gemmill Goal
Philosopher
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 5,218
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
AIUI, if you enter a country through border control at an official port of entry, you are doing so legally. However, if you do so by avoiding the border controls, you are entering the country illegally, although you can rectify that situation by immediately reporting to authorities that you have arrived.

A few years ago, some friends and I sailed from here in Nelson, to Tonga. When we arrived in Pangai on the island of Ha'apai we reported to the port authority, and they had a deputised customs official who processed us for a 30 day visitor visa. When we left, we didn't let anyone know we were leaving... when we got back to Nelson a couple of weeks later the Police and customs were waiting at our berth in the marina... apparently, the Tongan Ministry of Revenue & Customs was concerned that we hadn't told them we were leaving.
Wbat is the legal.means by which a Syrian refugee for example can arrive and claim asylum in the UK? If there is no legal means to do it then the country is not fulfilling its international obligations and all gum flapping from the right can stop.
__________________
"I love sex and drugs and sausage rolls
But nothing compares to Archie Gemmill's goal"
Archie Gemmill Goal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2019, 01:24 AM   #130
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 42,882
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
Wbat is the legal.means by which a Syrian refugee for example can arrive and claim asylum in the UK? If there is no legal means to do it then the country is not fulfilling its international obligations and all gum flapping from the right can stop.
I hope that when you are talking about the right you are not referring to me. Labelling people like that is cheap and lazy.
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2019, 02:17 AM   #131
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 10,023
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
Wbat is the legal.means by which a Syrian refugee for example can arrive and claim asylum in the UK?
Why should a refugee, allegedly fleeing from their country due to religious, political or cultural persecution, be allowed to cherry-pick the country they want to go to to claim asylum. When you flee from danger, you go to the first available place of refuge, you don't bypass several countries to get to the one you choose!

If you are lost in the forest and trying to find your way out, you don't bypass several houses because they are not the one you want to get to.

If you are lost in the forest and being rescued, you don't dismiss the first dozen rescuers because to want to be flown out by helicopter.

IMO, refugees should flee to the NEAREST country of refuge, and be processed into THAT country for political asylum. Once that happens they are safe from the persecution. NOW they can apply to emigrate to the country of their choice; take a number and wait their turn like everyone else.

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
If there is no legal means to do it then the country is not fulfilling its international obligations and all gum flapping from the right can stop.
There is a legal means, I have just explained it, and no way am I "on the right". Far from it!

The Town I live in has a vibrant culture of refugees, mostly from Asia (countries such as Myanmar, Bangladesh & North Korea). They mostly have come here legally by taking refuge in a country near where they fled from.

Here is an example I have personal knowledge of.

https://www.amnesty.org.nz/new-life-new-zealand

I have met Gracy, she is a friend of one of my grand-daughters
__________________
As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.
- Henry Louis Mencken - Baltimore Evening Sun, July 26, 1920

Last edited by smartcooky; 5th January 2019 at 02:18 AM.
smartcooky is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2019, 02:32 AM   #132
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 11,396
Originally Posted by baron View Post
A proven threat to life should be, according the the Convention, treated as a mitigating factor to false document usage in certain specialised cases; in other words, a refugee should not be found guilty of flying on a false passport if it can be proven that not doing so would put them in danger of death or severe persecution. But you do understand that these cases, in the UK, are very rare? Because a person in France cannot reasonably be said to be in fear for their lives, and refugees flying direct from outside of Europe does not happen frequently.
What you are doing is arguing other countries should take all the asylum seekers and excuse the UK from that role. Why do you want to excuse the UK from its duty to protect citizens of other countries and give them asylum?
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2019, 02:36 AM   #133
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 11,396
Originally Posted by baron View Post
That's not entirely correct. The method of entry can be legal....
The only way I can think of a legal entry is a diplomat who has met his own and the UKs entry requirements and once here, working as a diplomat he then flees his embassy and claims asylum.

How does someone who is in fear of his or her life from his or her own government, legally leave that country and legally enter the UK?
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2019, 02:42 AM   #134
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 10,023
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
What you are doing is arguing other countries should take all the asylum seekers and excuse the UK from that role. Why do you want to excuse the UK from its duty to protect citizens of other countries and give them asylum?
He probably is, although he has a point...to a point.

New Zealand took over 700 refugees last year.... not one of them fled directly here from the country they fled from, they took refuge in a country nearby to their own, and then applied to come here as migrants.

Once a person has fled the persecution and is safe in another country there is no longer any urgency. They should take their turn like anyone else.
__________________
As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.
- Henry Louis Mencken - Baltimore Evening Sun, July 26, 1920
smartcooky is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2019, 02:42 AM   #135
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 11,396
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
AIUI, if you enter a country through border control at an official port of entry, you are doing so legally. However, if you do so by avoiding the border controls, you are entering the country illegally, although you can rectify that situation by immediately reporting to authorities that you have arrived.

A few years ago, some friends and I sailed from here in Nelson, to Tonga. When we arrived in Pangai on the island of Ha'apai we reported to the port authority, and they had a deputised customs official who processed us for a 30 day visitor visa. When we left, we didn't let anyone know we were leaving... when we got back to Nelson a couple of weeks later the Police and customs were waiting at our berth in the marina... apparently, the Tongan Ministry of Revenue & Customs was concerned that we hadn't told them we were leaving.
I doubt there is a country that the UK would accept an asylum request from, that allows its citizens to just fly out to the UK without any form of visa or permissions. Flying is the only way to get to the UK without having to go through another EU country first.

I do not get why some claim only those who have entered the UK directly and legally should be allowed to claim asylum, when they cannot explain how that is possible to do and why it should be that way.
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2019, 02:42 AM   #136
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 42,882
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
What you are doing is arguing other countries should take all the asylum seekers and excuse the UK from that role. Why do you want to excuse the UK from its duty to protect citizens of other countries and give them asylum?
This, of course, is utter nonsense. As has been explained, being granted asylum is not the same as being granted residency. Those granted asylum can seek a visa and ultimately residency, to whatever country they wish, including the UK.
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2019, 02:52 AM   #137
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 10,023
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
I doubt there is a country that the UK would accept an asylum request from, that allows its citizens to just fly out to the UK without any form of visa or permissions. Flying is the only way to get to the UK without having to go through another EU country first.
Unless, of course, they undertake the journey by boat through the Med out the Straits of Gibraltar and then north to UK.

Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
I do not get why some claim only those who have entered the UK directly and legally should be allowed to claim asylum, when they cannot explain how that is possible to do and why it should be that way.
Well, I'm not claiming that.

What I am saying is that ultimately, a country can meet its obligations to take refugees without taking them directly. It is very rare for refugees to just turn up in this country, yet we take several hundred every year... how do you think they get here?

HINT: They don't arrive on boats from Asia having paid people smugglers to bring them here.
__________________
As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.
- Henry Louis Mencken - Baltimore Evening Sun, July 26, 1920

Last edited by smartcooky; 5th January 2019 at 02:54 AM.
smartcooky is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2019, 03:09 AM   #138
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 11,396
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
This, of course, is utter nonsense. As has been explained, being granted asylum is not the same as being granted residency. Those granted asylum can seek a visa and ultimately residency, to whatever country they wish, including the UK.
Baron was arguing that an asylum seeker who has got to France should have to claim asylum there.

If he meant that it was fine once that has been done the person can then apply for permission to move to the UK and reside here, he needs to say so.
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2019, 03:11 AM   #139
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 11,396
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Unless, of course, they undertake the journey by boat through the Med out the Straits of Gibraltar and then north to UK.



Well, I'm not claiming that.

What I am saying is that ultimately, a country can meet its obligations to take refugees without taking them directly. It is very rare for refugees to just turn up in this country, yet we take several hundred every year... how do you think they get here?

HINT: They don't arrive on boats from Asia having paid people smugglers to bring them here.
I am arguing against those who at least appear to be seeking to avoid that obligation.
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2019, 03:34 AM   #140
Archie Gemmill Goal
Philosopher
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 5,218
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
This, of course, is utter nonsense. As has been explained, being granted asylum is not the same as being granted residency. Those granted asylum can seek a visa and ultimately residency, to whatever country they wish, including the UK.
They really cant. A refugee would find it impossible to meet the requirements for a UK residency visa. And the UK refuses to take their fair share of refugees from those arriving in other countries.

Again this is simply a false narrative perpetrated by people who simply do not want refugees to come to the UK.
__________________
"I love sex and drugs and sausage rolls
But nothing compares to Archie Gemmill's goal"
Archie Gemmill Goal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2019, 03:45 AM   #141
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 42,882
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
They really cant. A refugee would find it impossible to meet the requirements for a UK residency visa. And the UK refuses to take their fair share of refugees from those arriving in other countries.

Again this is simply a false narrative perpetrated by people who simply do not want refugees to come to the UK.
Well you have a problem with your country, not me. You suggested I was right before. Are you now suggesting I do not want UK to admit refugees?

All I have ever said is that nations have the right to control immigration and that dangerous methods of getting to desired nations should be restricted.

Iíve been to the UK several times, and think itís multiculturalism is fantastic, as is Australiaís. This does not mean I support entry of everyone who simply arrives there. But Iím obviously a right, racist, immigrant hater....
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2019, 03:51 AM   #142
Archie Gemmill Goal
Philosopher
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 5,218
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
Well you have a problem with your country, not me. You suggested I was right before. Are you now suggesting I do not want UK to admit refugees?

All I have ever said is that nations have the right to control immigration and that dangerous methods of getting to desired nations should be restricted.

Iíve been to the UK several times, and think itís multiculturalism is fantastic, as is Australiaís. This does not mean I support entry of everyone who simply arrives there. But Iím obviously a right, racist, immigrant hater....
I did not suggest you were right. But your arguments are the same as those on the right on this topic. By right I refer to the politicians and decision makers who perpetrate these false narratives and half truths to further their own aims while portraying a false concern.

and yes my problem is with my country and my politicians that is what we are discussing here. But similar politicians exist elsewhere too and put forward the same lies couched in the same language.

But yes if you believe dangerous ways of getting to the UK should be stamped on without advocating for easier ways for refugees to arrive then you are effectively arguing for refugees to be excluded. this is not an immigration question and conflating the two is not helpful.
__________________
"I love sex and drugs and sausage rolls
But nothing compares to Archie Gemmill's goal"
Archie Gemmill Goal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2019, 03:54 AM   #143
Archie Gemmill Goal
Philosopher
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 5,218
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Unless, of course, they undertake the journey by boat through the Med out the Straits of Gibraltar and then north to UK.



Well, I'm not claiming that.

What I am saying is that ultimately, a country can meet its obligations to take refugees without taking them directly. It is very rare for refugees to just turn up in this country, yet we take several hundred every year... how do you think they get here?

HINT: They don't arrive on boats from Asia having paid people smugglers to bring them here.
A country CAN meet its obligations in this way. But the UK and several others don't. You are arguing with a symptom rather a cause.
__________________
"I love sex and drugs and sausage rolls
But nothing compares to Archie Gemmill's goal"
Archie Gemmill Goal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2019, 04:05 AM   #144
baron
Philosopher
 
baron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,611
Originally Posted by Norman Alexander View Post
See, there is that confusion. It is NOT illegal to ARRIVE by non conventional means.
Yes it is, if non-conventional means avoiding border control and processing. You could argue that if an asylum seeker called ahead from his dinghy and alerted UK authorities then that's a grey area, and it is unlikely any legal routes would be pursued, but essentially it's illegal to come in under the radar, even if the intent is there to present yourself soon after arrival. Of course, asylum seekers are rarely prosecuted for this because what would be the point, but it's still UK law (and the law of every other country in the world AFAIK).

Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
What you are doing is arguing other countries should take all the asylum seekers and excuse the UK from that role. Why do you want to excuse the UK from its duty to protect citizens of other countries and give them asylum?
First off, the UK is not excused from this role. We have taken on approximately 10,000 asylum seekers year on year for quite some time. More relevantly, you have to look at what a refugee is (edit: I mean, the circumstances of people who claim to be refugees). It's fine saying we should help people in fear for their lives, and I agree (which is why I advocate taking refugees direct from their country of origin, or from camps over the border) but these people comprise a distinct minority when considering the overall European influx. It is absurd to imagine that a person (usually a fit young man) fleeing a situation in their African home country is in fear for his life in every other country aside from the UK. Is it conceivable that there is no safe place for him in the whole of Africa? Is it credible that the UK must give him sanctuary despite him residing in France and having passed through three countries previously, all of them safe?

Yes, it is difficult to gain entry into the UK, thank god, because if it weren't we'd be worse off than Germany. The UK - specifically England - is already absurdly overcrowded; people in the US (and, dare I suggest, Scotland) don't seem to realise this, or at least the extent of it. Our roads are gridlocked, our rail services are busting at the seams, out hospitals and NHS are stretched to breaking point, our police are unable to deal with everyday crime, our prisons are failing, low income families are stuck on housing waiting lists for 15 years at a time, our old people are treated quite frankly like **** and 80% of the population live crammed together like sardines. That's why we need to be discriminating about how many we take in, and about who they are, and some random African who decides he'd like a free house, free healthcare, free education and the chance of a well paid job should quite rightly be told where to go.

What I would like to see are 100,000 of our foreign wasters and criminals (Christ knows how they got in in the first place) chucked out and 100,000 refugees taken in - women and kids and families who are as we speak being raped, bombed, killed in a variety of war-torn **** holes across the globe. Yes, we would take a hit but much less of a hit than the resource expended on criminals and scroungers. What's more, genuine refugees tend to want to work, to contribute, to give back to the country that saved their lives and, in many cases, return to their own country once it's safe to do so.
__________________
"I am a liar as well as a dwarf!"

Last edited by baron; 5th January 2019 at 04:06 AM.
baron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2019, 07:30 AM   #145
Information Analyst
Philosopher
 
Information Analyst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Besźel or Ul Qoma - not sure...
Posts: 8,665
Originally Posted by baron View Post
I don't agree. If you're fleeing for your life, the first thing you want to do on reaching a place of safety is ensure you're not going to get sent back to where you came from, so you claim asylum as soon as you can. There are hundreds of charities and schemes to help people do this. If they fail to do this then we can only question their motives.
Who is going to do that when they can claim asylum on the spot? Claiming asylum isn't a paintball game where the seeker has to get to a specific spot before they can claim it.
Information Analyst is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2019, 07:33 AM   #146
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 11,396
Originally Posted by baron View Post

First off, the UK is not excused from this role. We have taken on approximately 10,000 asylum seekers year on year for quite some time. More relevantly, you have to look at what a refugee is (edit: I mean, the circumstances of people who claim to be refugees).
I have only been discussing asylum seekers and genuine ones.

Quote:
It's fine saying we should help people in fear for their lives, and I agree (which is why I advocate taking refugees direct from their country of origin, or from camps over the border) but these people comprise a distinct minority when considering the overall European influx. It is absurd to imagine that a person (usually a fit young man) fleeing a situation in their African home country is in fear for his life in every other country aside from the UK. Is it conceivable that there is no safe place for him in the whole of Africa? Is it credible that the UK must give him sanctuary despite him residing in France and having passed through three countries previously, all of them safe?
Yes it is, otherwise you are arguing no asylum seekers in the UK.

Quote:
Yes, it is difficult to gain entry into the UK, thank god, because if it weren't we'd be worse off than Germany. The UK - specifically England - is already absurdly overcrowded; people in the US (and, dare I suggest, Scotland) don't seem to realise this, or at least the extent of it. Our roads are gridlocked, our rail services are busting at the seams, out hospitals and NHS are stretched to breaking point, our police are unable to deal with everyday crime, our prisons are failing, low income families are stuck on housing waiting lists for 15 years at a time, our old people are treated quite frankly like **** and 80% of the population live crammed together like sardines. That's why we need to be discriminating about how many we take in, and about who they are, and some random African who decides he'd like a free house, free healthcare, free education and the chance of a well paid job should quite rightly be told where to go.
I have not been advocating random Africans can just rock up and demand a new life in the UK. I don't think anyone does and you have created a fiction to argue against.

Quote:
What I would like to see are 100,000 of our foreign wasters and criminals (Christ knows how they got in in the first place) chucked out and 100,000 refugees taken in - women and kids and families who are as we speak being raped, bombed, killed in a variety of war-torn **** holes across the globe. Yes, we would take a hit but much less of a hit than the resource expended on criminals and scroungers. What's more, genuine refugees tend to want to work, to contribute, to give back to the country that saved their lives and, in many cases, return to their own country once it's safe to do so.
Operation NEXUS is how we already do identify and chuck out the criminals, where we can (China makes it almost impossible) which will get harder once we leave the EU.

Again, no one is advocating we give residency or any sort of status to illegals with criminal records. Our island status and location means we get far fewer than elsewhere anyway.
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2019, 07:40 AM   #147
Information Analyst
Philosopher
 
Information Analyst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Besźel or Ul Qoma - not sure...
Posts: 8,665
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Much as I dislike supporting baron (IMO many of his views are generally racist) I don't think that is what he is implying.

AIUI, he is saying that Germany is the gold standard as an example of what will happen if mass immigration were allowed, e.g. totally open borders.
I wouldn't think it counts as that, either.
Information Analyst is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2019, 08:31 AM   #148
baron
Philosopher
 
baron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,611
Originally Posted by Information Analyst View Post
Who is going to do that when they can claim asylum on the spot? Claiming asylum isn't a paintball game where the seeker has to get to a specific spot before they can claim it.
You know what I mean. If a person is in fear for their life and believes the only way to save it is to claim asylum then they're not going to fanny around for weeks, months or years before they bother to fill in the paperwork.

Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
Yes it is, otherwise you are arguing no asylum seekers in the UK.
Those who do what I describe may still be asylum seekers, but that doesn't mean they have a god-given right to choose their country of destination. That's why the ECJ ruled in 2017 that an asylum seeker must register in the first (safe) country they reach.

Do you believe that being unable to remain in your country of origin gives you the right to select the country in which you will settle? If so, why?

Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
I have not been advocating random Africans can just rock up and demand a new life in the UK. I don't think anyone does and you have created a fiction to argue against.
Plenty do, though.

Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
Operation NEXUS is how we already do identify and chuck out the criminals, where we can (China makes it almost impossible) which will get harder once we leave the EU.

Again, no one is advocating we give residency or any sort of status to illegals with criminal records. Our island status and location means we get far fewer than elsewhere anyway.
You're not, I grant you that, but several on this board advocate exactly that.
__________________
"I am a liar as well as a dwarf!"
baron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2019, 09:31 AM   #149
Information Analyst
Philosopher
 
Information Analyst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Besźel or Ul Qoma - not sure...
Posts: 8,665
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
IMO, refugees should flee to the NEAREST country of refuge, and be processed into THAT country for political asylum. Once that happens they are safe from the persecution. NOW they can apply to emigrate to the country of their choice; take a number and wait their turn like everyone else.
Which puts an undue strain on those "closest" countries.
Information Analyst is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2019, 09:52 AM   #150
Information Analyst
Philosopher
 
Information Analyst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Besźel or Ul Qoma - not sure...
Posts: 8,665
Originally Posted by baron View Post
Yes it is, if non-conventional means avoiding border control and processing. You could argue that if an asylum seeker called ahead from his dinghy and alerted UK authorities then that's a grey area, and it is unlikely any legal routes would be pursued, but essentially it's illegal to come in under the radar, even if the intent is there to present yourself soon after arrival. Of course, asylum seekers are rarely prosecuted for this because what would be the point, but it's still UK law (and the law of every other country in the world AFAIK).
Just out of interest, could you cite the relevant legislation?

Quote:
It is absurd to imagine that a person (usually a fit young man) fleeing a situation in their African home country is in fear for his life in every other country aside from the UK.
We established that this demographic is between twice and four times overrepresented, but you haven't explains why you think that is inherently a problem. What is about "fit young men" that you think they are inherently undesirable?

Quote:
The UK - specifically England - is already absurdly overcrowded; people in the US (and, dare I suggest, Scotland) don't seem to realise this, or at least the extent of it. Our roads are gridlocked, our rail services are busting at the seams, out hospitals and NHS are stretched to breaking point, our police are unable to deal with everyday crime, our prisons are failing, low income families are stuck on housing waiting lists for 15 years at a time, our old people are treated quite frankly like **** and 80% of the population live crammed together like sardines.
Very little of which is attributable to asylum seekers.

Last edited by Information Analyst; 5th January 2019 at 09:54 AM.
Information Analyst is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2019, 09:56 AM   #151
Information Analyst
Philosopher
 
Information Analyst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Besźel or Ul Qoma - not sure...
Posts: 8,665
Originally Posted by baron View Post
You know what I mean. If a person is in fear for their life and believes the only way to save it is to claim asylum then they're not going to fanny around for weeks, months or years before they bother to fill in the paperwork.
I think I previously asked you to quantify this, but you ignored it.
Information Analyst is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2019, 09:59 AM   #152
Delphic Oracle
Master Poster
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 2,698
As has been repeatedly pointed out, a lot of people do stay in the first country they reach. Hence the overflowing refugee camps (until they are overrun with famine and violence).

Imagine the confusion in the mind of a typical asylum seeker at seeing the camps and then seeing a typical western city boulevard or main drag in a smaller town only to be told that the camps are where they can get help, "there's just not enough to go around in our country."
Delphic Oracle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2019, 10:14 AM   #153
baron
Philosopher
 
baron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,611
Originally Posted by Information Analyst View Post
I think I previously asked you to quantify this, but you ignored it.
I've already quoted this

Quote:
Most applications for asylum are made by those already in the country (90% of applications) rather than by people at their time of arriving in the UK at a port.
Unless you believe that the criteria for being 'already is the country' is 'having been here a few hours or a couple of days' it's obvious that the timescales referenced are longer.

Articles like this quote

Quote:
Most of the applications were made after the Indians arrived in the UK, indicating that they may have travelled on valid visas and applied for asylum later. Less than 5% of the applications were made at UK ports on arrival.
Seeing as visas are commonly six months and may be as much as ten years it's a stretch to imagine the periods in question do not exceed a few days.

Then consider that a significant minority of asylum applications come from illegal immigrants and visa over-stayers, and that deduction is pretty much cemented.

Quote:
Third of asylum claims come from illegal migrants and visa overstayers
Quote:
Keith Vaz MP, chairman of the Commons home affairs select committee, told the newspaper: “It is deeply concerning that a third of all asylum applications have been made by illegal migrants and overstayers.

The very principle of seeking asylum is that you feel persecuted at the time you arrive, not saying you feel persecuted after arriving illegally or for different reasons and then remaining in the country until you are apprehended.”
__________________
"I am a liar as well as a dwarf!"

Last edited by baron; 5th January 2019 at 10:19 AM.
baron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2019, 11:08 AM   #154
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 10,023
Originally Posted by Information Analyst View Post
Which puts an undue strain on those "closest" countries.
Then other countries meet their obligations by working with that country (or those countries) to take refugees. This is what baron is saying should happen, and its what happens here. The NZ Government works closely with UNHCR and organisations such as Amnesty International to resettle refugees here, and I even quoted/linked an example earlier. Up until 2017 we took 750 refugees per year; last year that went up to 1000.

If you read back you'll see where I said that people don't just rock up to this country to seek asylum... we're too far away from the current trouble spots for that to happen....its a long, long boat trip here from Asia.

NOTE that refugees living in NZ are entitled to, and can apply for, NZ Citizenship after they have lived here for five years.
__________________
As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.
- Henry Louis Mencken - Baltimore Evening Sun, July 26, 1920

Last edited by smartcooky; 5th January 2019 at 11:12 AM.
smartcooky is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2019, 11:48 AM   #155
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 11,396
Originally Posted by baron View Post
.....
Those who do what I describe may still be asylum seekers, but that doesn't mean they have a god-given right to choose their country of destination. That's why the ECJ ruled in 2017 that an asylum seeker must register in the first (safe) country they reach.
That is an EU ruling which is not backed by the law in the UK.

Quote:
Do you believe that being unable to remain in your country of origin gives you the right to select the country in which you will settle? If so, why?
Of course people have to be able to pick where you can claim asylum. If they are being persecuted for being gay or a religious belief, they need to be able to go to a country that will tolerate them. They need to go where they can be sure they will be safe. They may speak a certain language and want to go there. They may already have some connection (like the various interpreters who worked for the British army) or family already there. They may have a skill that they can use or is needed.


Quote:
Plenty do, though.



You're not, I grant you that, but several on this board advocate exactly that.
Not that I have seen, can you link and quote any?
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2019, 12:03 PM   #156
Archie Gemmill Goal
Philosopher
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 5,218
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Then other countries meet their obligations by working with that country (or those countries) to take refugees.
Except they don't.

Quote:
This is what baron is saying should happen,
Except it isn't. Because he couldn't care less what happens to refugees in these countries provided they aren't an issue for the UK. They are someone else's problem. Why would anyone care how a legitimate asylum seeker arrived in the country?

Quote:
and its what happens here. The NZ Government works closely with UNHCR and organisations such as Amnesty International to resettle refugees here, and I even quoted/linked an example earlier. Up until 2017 we took 750 refugees per year; last year that went up to 1000.
A drop in the ocean.
__________________
"I love sex and drugs and sausage rolls
But nothing compares to Archie Gemmill's goal"
Archie Gemmill Goal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2019, 12:12 PM   #157
Information Analyst
Philosopher
 
Information Analyst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Besźel or Ul Qoma - not sure...
Posts: 8,665
Originally Posted by baron View Post
I've already quoted this

Unless you believe that the criteria for being 'already is the country' is 'having been here a few hours or a couple of days' it's obvious that the timescales referenced are longer.

Articles like this quote

Seeing as visas are commonly six months and may be as much as ten years it's a stretch to imagine the periods in question do not exceed a few days.

Then consider that a significant minority of asylum applications come from illegal immigrants and visa over-stayers, and that deduction is pretty much cemented.
None of which answers the request. At best, a third of applications may involve waits of around six months. That's clearly a minority of applications, so you still need to account for the other two-thirds.
Information Analyst is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2019, 12:59 PM   #158
baron
Philosopher
 
baron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,611
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
That is an EU ruling which is not backed by the law in the UK.
I didn't claim it was UK law, I said that the decision was taken for a reason, which is the one I described.

Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
Of course people have to be able to pick where you can claim asylum. If they are being persecuted for being gay or a religious belief, they need to be able to go to a country that will tolerate them. They need to go where they can be sure they will be safe.
Of course, that's why I'm referring to safe countries.

Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
They may speak a certain language and want to go there.
So what? People want a lot of things.

Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
They may already have some connection (like the various interpreters who worked for the British army) or family already there. They may have a skill that they can use or is needed.
The interpreters should certainly should be given citizenship if they want it... because they have earned it.

As for the skills, that's not for the immigrant to decide.

Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
Not that I have seen, can you link and quote any?
Sure. Here are some excerpts from a thread where Archie Gemmill Goal explains how the UK should have completely open borders, how literally anybody who wants to rock up should be permitted to settle here and how this includes known terrorists and criminals. That's the mindset sensible people are up against.

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
The mere idea of bad and good immigration is anathema to me
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
Well to my view anyone who wants to be here is pretty much desirable.
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
1. A terrorist would be a criminal in the UK. By admitting them to the UK we could arrest them and prosecute them...

2. A criminal would be a criminal in the UK. By admitting them to the UK we could arrest them and prosecute them...


Originally Posted by Information Analyst View Post
None of which answers the request. At best, a third of applications may involve waits of around six months. That's clearly a minority of applications, so you still need to account for the other two-thirds.
I don't because I never claimed that everybody turns up and waits around to apply. Had I done that then you would be correct.
__________________
"I am a liar as well as a dwarf!"
baron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2019, 01:54 PM   #159
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 10,023
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
Except they don't.
Except, of course, when they actually do

Argentina
Australia
Austria
Belarus
Belgium
Brazil
Bulgaria
Canada
Chile
Croatia
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Republic of Korea
Latvia
Liechtenstein
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Portugal
Romania
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
United Kingdom
United States of America
Uruguay

All members of the UNHCR
All take refugees and asylum-seekers by working with those countries nearest to the trouble spots to take and resettle as many as they can.

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
Except it isn't. Because he couldn't care less what happens to refugees in these countries provided they aren't an issue for the UK. They are someone else's problem. Why would anyone care how a legitimate asylum seeker arrived in the country?
Except that is only true when you cherry pick and highlight the bits that fit your argument, and selectively ignore those that do not.

Here is one that does not...
Originally Posted by baron View Post
What I would like to see are 100,000 of our foreign wasters and criminals (Christ knows how they got in in the first place) chucked out and 100,000 refugees taken in - women and kids and families who are as we speak being raped, bombed, killed in a variety of war-torn **** holes across the globe. Yes, we would take a hit but much less of a hit than the resource expended on criminals and scroungers. What's more, genuine refugees tend to want to work, to contribute, to give back to the country that saved their lives and, in many cases, return to their own country once it's safe to do so.
... but you ignore it because it doesn't fit in with your blinkered narrative.

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
A drop in the ocean.
Better a drop than a molecule, or nothing at all

We are a country of less than 5 million; the UK, on the other hand, is a country of 66 million.
__________________
As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.
- Henry Louis Mencken - Baltimore Evening Sun, July 26, 1920

Last edited by smartcooky; 5th January 2019 at 01:55 PM.
smartcooky is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2019, 02:12 PM   #160
Archie Gemmill Goal
Philosopher
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 5,218
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Except, of course, when they actually do

Argentina
Australia
Austria
Belarus
Belgium
Brazil
Bulgaria
Canada
Chile
Croatia
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Republic of Korea
Latvia
Liechtenstein
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Portugal
Romania
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
United Kingdom
United States of America
Uruguay

All members of the UNHCR
All take refugees and asylum-seekers by working with those countries nearest to the trouble spots to take and resettle as many as they can.
As many as they can? Even you don't believe that surely?
As little as they can get away with is more like it, with a few exceptions.

There are 3.5m refugees in Turkey. 1.4m in Pakistan and Uganda. 1m in Lebanon. 1m in Iran. 1m in Bangladesh. 1m in Sudan.

The numbers in the most developed countries are generally in the thousands.

Are you seriously arguing that the US, UK, AUS, NZ could not cope with a single extra refugee?

Quote:
Except that is only true when you cherry pick and highlight the bits that fit your argument, and selectively ignore those that do not.

Here is one that does not...
... but you ignore it because it doesn't fit in with your blinkered narrative.
Deary me. I'd be willing to do more to help refugees if we did this thing that will never happen to pander to my petty prejudices is not a serious argument that we should be taking more refugees. If you want to help more refugees then you don't make it conditional on anything at all, and you certainly don't repeat the ridiculous line that England is full and unable to cope with more people.

Quote:

Better a drop than a molecule, or nothing at all

We are a country of less than 5 million; the UK, on the other hand, is a country of 66 million.
Indeed something is better than nothing but it's not enough and its not morally competent to simply stand back and expect that developing countries should bear the brunt of the responsibility for refugees while wealthy nations plead poverty or refuse to accept refugees for political reasons.

1000 refugees a year is nothing. I mean NZ is far from the worst culprit but it still could be doing more. The UK is shameful. As is the US. And many others.
__________________
"I love sex and drugs and sausage rolls
But nothing compares to Archie Gemmill's goal"
Archie Gemmill Goal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:26 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.