neil999
Player Valuation: £80m
I think you've answered your own question, seems to be multiple nuanced reasons why they decide to come to the UK
Current Affairs Belarus…and migrants…..
- Thread starter peteblue
- Start date
- Status
You see, it's comments like that which betray your ignorance. There is no visa for claiming asylum, which is precisely why so many take the routes they do.
As for the rest, the link below might be a good start point.
Why do migrants and asylum seekers want to come to the UK? – Full Fact
We look at what the experts say on how, if at all, asylum seekers choose between potential countries of refuge.
fullfact.org
Zatara
Player Valuation: £100m
Indeed. Why they would choose the UK or Germany when they could opt for somewhere with a more pleasant climate and relaxed lifestyle is beyond me.
You see, it's comments like that which betray your ignorance. There is no visa for claiming asylum, which is precisely why so many take the routes they do.
As for the rest, the link below might be a good start point.
Why do migrants and asylum seekers want to come to the UK? – Full Fact
We look at what the experts say on how, if at all, asylum seekers choose between potential countries of refuge.
"Betray your ignorance" lol
What a character you are. Ive never claimed to have any knowledge within this thread and have asked straightforward questions.
Youve just confirmed that there is "no visa for claiming asylum", which I already knew.
Thats why I wrote that they dont really equate to being 'asylum seekers' and should apply for a visa if they prefer to risk all to choose a country rather than apply closer on their travel route.
Of course that doesnt apply to those who smuggling routes are designed to take them to the UK. Just the illegal immigrants.
Im still none the wiser. You seem to be trying to place yourself in a position of knowledge and superiority here.
Sound like someone who believes in 'free movement' across borders.
You've never claimed to have any knowledge and don't appear willing to do even basic research before offering an opinion. Like the fact that international law makes it quite clear that refugees can claim asylum in any country they like and are certainly not beholden to do so in the first "safe" country then come to.
Should refugees claim asylum in the first safe country they reach? - Free Movement
Over and over again we hear that refugees should claim asylum in the first safe country the reach. There are variations on the theme. Genuine refugees claim
www.freemovement.org.uk
Similarly, as this article from Amnesty International makes quite clear, it is not illegal for people to enter the country by any means in order to claim asylum. To do so is wrong and legally illiterate.
Stop saying 'illegal' immigrants
The word 'illegal' comes very easy to policy and law makers, but very few give much thought to what it means and whom it affects.
Zatara
Player Valuation: £100m
This backs you up I think:
The truth about… refugees
Europe’s refugee crisis is getting worse, and if you listen to government ministers and many other political commentators, constitutes a dire threat.www.amnesty.org.uk
What I dont understand is about those seeking asylum...
...perhaps my impression is wrong here but in my mind they are trying to 'escape' something...look for safe haven in another country.
So if they took a route to arrive in Spain, Italy, France or Germany what is the motivator (now theyre in a 'safe' country) to then want to travel to the UK ?
If someone is desperate then surely they want to apply for asylum at the closest and fastest 'safe' country.
If im from Myanmar and want to claim asylum as im in fear for my (and families) life. Am i going to apply in Thailand? Or should i travel further to Malaysia / Indonesia?
Or should i trek across those countries to Singapore? Why would i not apply in any of those 3 other countries if i was desperate?
You've never claimed to have any knowledge and don't appear willing to do even basic research before offering an opinion. Like the fact that international law makes it quite clear that refugees can claim asylum in any country they like and are certainly not beholden to do so in the first "safe" country then come to.
Should refugees claim asylum in the first safe country they reach? - Free Movement
Over and over again we hear that refugees should claim asylum in the first safe country the reach. There are variations on the theme. Genuine refugees claim
Similarly, as this article from Amnesty International makes quite clear, it is not illegal for people to enter the country by any means in order to claim asylum. To do so is wrong and legally illiterate.
Stop saying 'illegal' immigrants
The word 'illegal' comes very easy to policy and law makers, but very few give much thought to what it means and whom it affects.
"You dont appear willing to do basic research"...
See the link in my post that I included to support your point earlier? It points this fact out in point 4 -- asylum seekers can claim asylum in any country they choose. With the EU caveat which never works.
"It is not illegal for people to enter the country by any means to claim asylum"
Indeed, once again this is something im aware of.
Again, you seem to have some kind of superiority complex and are just throwing links at me.
Ive stated that in MY OPINION it makes NO sense for someone in fear of their life to travel all the way to the UK, or Germany (or wherever else) at increased personal risk to claim asylum if they can do so in a country along their route. Be that France, Spain or wherever.
That person/family has a priority of safety. They risk that safety by travelling an enormous distance which is unnecessary for them to achieve their goal -- claiming asylum in a safe country.
As I stated before, the only logical reason in my knowledge would be due to them paying for the trip to UK/Germany as opposed to elsewhere due to the smuggler they use.
Any other reason could mean they are illegal immigrants.
In your link it frowns upon this title for several groups such as asylum seekers and persons who have rights to stay in the UK but not those who are entering the UK illegally under the guise of being asylum seekers. Those people should apply for visas like everyone else.
No one is disputing an asylum seeker to have the right to enter the UK, Germany, Guatemala or Tibet.
What I am saying is that it is totally illogical for someone (in my opinion) to risk their well being, health and safety to travel to the UK or wherever else...when they can claim asylum in a place closer to them.
As i stated earlier, if im in Myanmar and in fear of my safety do i claim asylum in Thailand...or travel further to Malaysia or Indonesia....or go even further to Singapore because of its 'branding'?
Thailand would be a no because of their close ties with Myanmar but if im in feat id apply as soon as i was in Malaysia or Indonesia.
Huge numbers of people speak English in Europe as well as Asia. The examples are very similar in comparison.
Theres no logic to travel further.
So basically because the UK doesn't border any country that typically produces refugees, you think we should have none here because they must cross various other countries to get here?
Zatara
Player Valuation: £100m
Again, no.
As Article 31 of the UN refugee convention states if they are “coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened” and if they
“present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence”.
Then in 1999 a judge ruled that short term stops on route shouldnt prevent people from going to the UK to claim asylum.
So legally the ruling (as ive now stated 3 times) is that asylum seekers are free to travel hundreds or thousands of miles to the UK to claim asylum...they cant be penalised for this:
Immigration and Asylum Act 1999
An Act to make provision about immigration and asylum; to make provision about procedures in connection with marriage on superintendent registrar’s certificate; and for connected purposes.
Theres all of your legals you seem to be focusing on.
Back to your question...
I am saying that if someone is in fear for their life and/or their families life then why would they risk their health, well being and even their life to risk travelling further than they need to?
If i get to Spain then id imagine that my first thought it that im going to apply for asylum because im in fear.
My thought and goal isnt going to be trekking to France and then Germany or the UK.
It makes no sense to me whatsoever.
Why would someone in fear of their life then risk their life if they dont need to do so.
Again--with the usual caveats such as the Afgan situation and people smugglers bringing those people to a specifc place whether thats UK or elsewhere.
The same could apply for someone landing in Bulgaria and then going through so many countries to apply in Spain.
Again, no.
As Article 31 of the UN refugee convention states if they are “coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened” and if they
“present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence”.
Then in 1999 a judge ruled that short term stops on route shouldnt prevent people from going to the UK to claim asylum.
So legally the ruling (as ive now stated 3 times) is that asylum seekers are free to travel hundreds or thousands of miles to the UK to claim asylum...they cant be penalised for this:
Immigration and Asylum Act 1999
An Act to make provision about immigration and asylum; to make provision about procedures in connection with marriage on superintendent registrar’s certificate; and for connected purposes.www.legislation.gov.uk
Theres all of your legals you seem to be focusing on.
Back to your question...
I am saying that if someone is in fear for their life and/or their families life then why would they risk their health, well being and even their life to risk travelling further than they need to?
If i get to Spain then id imagine that my first thought it that im going to apply for asylum because im in fear.
My thought and goal isnt going to be trekking to France and then Germany or the UK.
It makes no sense to me whatsoever.
Why would someone in fear of their life then risk their life if they dont need to do so.
Again--with the usual caveats such as the Afgan situation and people smugglers bringing those people to a specifc place whether thats UK or elsewhere.
The same could apply for someone landing in Bulgaria and then going through so many countries to apply in Spain.
Again though, you seem to assume that there is no good reason why someone would want to come to the UK rather than Spain or Bulgaria or wherever. It feels like you're suggesting that they should have no agency over their affairs at all and should be grateful for anywhere that isn't a warzone.Again, no.
As Article 31 of the UN refugee convention states if they are “coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened” and if they
“present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence”.
Then in 1999 a judge ruled that short term stops on route shouldnt prevent people from going to the UK to claim asylum.
So legally the ruling (as ive now stated 3 times) is that asylum seekers are free to travel hundreds or thousands of miles to the UK to claim asylum...they cant be penalised for this:
Immigration and Asylum Act 1999
An Act to make provision about immigration and asylum; to make provision about procedures in connection with marriage on superintendent registrar’s certificate; and for connected purposes.
Theres all of your legals you seem to be focusing on.
Back to your question...
I am saying that if someone is in fear for their life and/or their families life then why would they risk their health, well being and even their life to risk travelling further than they need to?
If i get to Spain then id imagine that my first thought it that im going to apply for asylum because im in fear.
My thought and goal isnt going to be trekking to France and then Germany or the UK.
It makes no sense to me whatsoever.
Why would someone in fear of their life then risk their life if they dont need to do so.
Again--with the usual caveats such as the Afgan situation and people smugglers bringing those people to a specifc place whether thats UK or elsewhere.
The same could apply for someone landing in Bulgaria and then going through so many countries to apply in Spain.
spectateur
Player Valuation: £30m
Migrants desperate to get to Europe and some of them desperate enough to risk sailing across the Channel in overcrowded inflatables.
Today 31 of of them drowned off the coast of France, being trafficked to England.
Politicians on both sides of the Channel spouting their rhetoric but while people are prepared to pay gangsters ridiculous amounts of money they will never stop it.
Today 31 of of them drowned off the coast of France, being trafficked to England.
Politicians on both sides of the Channel spouting their rhetoric but while people are prepared to pay gangsters ridiculous amounts of money they will never stop it.
peteblue
Welcome back Wayne
Indeed. However France is complicit in this. French police are even there at the time these people ar putting to sea and doing sod all about it. A simple arrangement for France to accept returned illegal immigrants from the U.K. would put a stop to it tomorrow. But France and the EU are behaving exactly like Belarus, with added danger for the migrants……
Could you please stop calling them illegal as they're not.
Ghost Rider
Player Valuation: £8m
I always think that if people are fleeing their home country for a genuine reason then no matter what , we need to help in whatever way we can.
When said people aim to come to the UK, it's not fleeing anymore , it's targeting what country they want to live in , which is not how it should work.
More so when we have literally just had someone appealing a rejected asylum application for years try to harm this country. Above board migrants should be welcomed, a bunch on a boat that crossed many different safe countries to get here should be turned around and sent back as it's no longer fleeing for their lives and instead picking their new country out of a brochure.
When said people aim to come to the UK, it's not fleeing anymore , it's targeting what country they want to live in , which is not how it should work.
More so when we have literally just had someone appealing a rejected asylum application for years try to harm this country. Above board migrants should be welcomed, a bunch on a boat that crossed many different safe countries to get here should be turned around and sent back as it's no longer fleeing for their lives and instead picking their new country out of a brochure.
peteblue
Welcome back Wayne
Bruce. Anyone entering the U.K. via nefarious means and without appropriate passports or issued visas is illegal, whether you like it or not….
CharliePotato
Player Valuation: £10m
Couldn’t agree more.
bluelife
Player Valuation: £40m
So would the UK accept any migrants under your rules? As an island... are we supposed to just ignore it and let the Europe mainland take all migrants?
- Status