Immigrant violence at calais putting lives at risk

[NigelFargate]

Funny how villages the size of Wath-on-Dearne in the Netherlands are taking more refugees in this year than the WHOLE of the UK. Stop talking nonsense.

 

 

 

All the Dublin Regulation says is that the first country of contact is where the asylum seeker should be registered, it says nothing about what the asylum seeker can or can not do once registered, as there is a principle of freedom of movement there is no way to stop asylum seekers travelling on once they arrive. All asylum seekers arriving in Greece and Italy (primary landing ports for Med traffickers) are indeed registered there, but as long as countries further up the foodchain in the EU refuse to help resolve the issue, the Greeks and Italians are not going to stop refugees moving on. I am fairly sure that if the UK were the first port of call you would not want to stop them either.

 

Will all due respect, it is you who is talking nonsense. This is typical terminological sleight of hand by the pro-mass migration lobby. The trick used here is the definition of 'refugee', which has a specific legal meaning. What we are discussing here is migration into the UK. Most of the migrants into the UK will not meet the definition of 'refugees', as they are not in danger because they are already in a safe country.. As for the Dublin convention, I suggest you go back to the negotiations which led to it, the agreed purpose being to prevent asylum seeker shopping. Moreover, the UK is not part of the Schengen area, so we have every right to continue to impose border controls to prevent illegal migration.

[Eric Arthur]

Funny how villages the size of Wath-on-Dearne in the Netherlands are taking more refugees in this year than the WHOLE of the UK. Stop talking nonsense.

 

I don't think so. That's an egregious falsehood.

[Branyy]

Moreover, there is no "principle of freedom of movement" for asylum seekers, even within Schengen.

[retep]

Funny how villages the size of Wath-on-Dearne in the Netherlands are taking more refugees in this year than the WHOLE of the UK. Stop talking nonsense.

 

 

 

All the Dublin Regulation says is that the first country of contact is where the asylum seeker should be registered, it says nothing about what the asylum seeker can or can not do once registered, as there is a principle of freedom of movement there is no way to stop asylum seekers travelling on once they arrive. All asylum seekers arriving in Greece and Italy (primary landing ports for Med traffickers) are indeed registered there, but as long as countries further up the foodchain in the EU refuse to help resolve the issue, the Greeks and Italians are not going to stop refugees moving on. I am fairly sure that if the UK were the first port of call you would not want to stop them either.

 

Not going down too well is it,

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/dec/17/thousands-riot-in-small-dutch-town-over-plan-for-asylum-seeker-centre

[tzijlstra]

Will all due respect, it is you who is talking nonsense. This is typical terminological sleight of hand by the pro-mass migration lobby. The trick used here is the definition of 'refugee', which has a specific legal meaning. What we are discussing here is migration into the UK. Most of the migrants into the UK will not meet the definition of 'refugees', as they are not in danger because they are already in a safe country.. As for the Dublin convention, I suggest you go back to the negotiations which led to it, the agreed purpose being to prevent asylum seeker shopping. Moreover, the UK is not part of the Schengen area, so we have every right to continue to impose border controls to prevent illegal migration.

 

We ARE talking about refugees when it comes to Calais, EU immigrants don't have to wait at the Calais border. I don't need to go back to the negotiations either, I am talking about the current treaty, nor did I state that the UK does not have every right to impose border controls. You are still talking nonsense.

 

I don't think so. That's an egregious falsehood.

 

No it isn't, the UK took in the massive total of 216 Syrian refugees at the same time as the Netherlands took in 8600 in September alone, many of whom are relocated to 'AZCs' (Asylum Seeker Centres) based in villages with a population under 10,000. I grew up in a village with 5000 inhabitants, 600 of whom were asylum seekers.

 

Moreover, there is no "principle of freedom of movement" for asylum seekers, even within Schengen.

 

Once they have been registered they can move freely in Schengen countries, there is no mechanism to stop them and certainly no legal framework to do so.

 

Not going down too well is it,

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/dec/17/thousands-riot-in-small-dutch-town-over-plan-for-asylum-seeker-centre

 

These protesters were idiots and generally denounced as not representative of the population. As anywhere the issue is causing discontent, mainly because a lot of daft people, akin to you, do not quite understand things.

[lottiecass]

Not going down too well is it,

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/dec/17/thousands-riot-in-small-dutch-town-over-plan-for-asylum-seeker-centre

 

This is happening elsewhere in Europe,it would appear that the nationalist elements are getting more organised,but the Netherlands are known for liberal attitudes to just about everything.It doesn't look like they want the refugees in the small villages like wath.

[Eric Arthur]

No it isn't, the UK took in the massive total of 216 Syrian refugees at the same time as the Netherlands took in 8600 in September alone, many of whom are relocated to 'AZCs' (Asylum Seeker Centres) based in villages with a population under 10,000. I grew up in a village with 5000 inhabitants, 600 of whom were asylum seekers.

That's another egregious falsehood.

 

Wath's population is about 15k.

 

The UK took around 30k asylum application in the last year. Only about a third were succesful, but Syrians were overwhelmingly granted asylum as refugees.

[999tigger]

Okay, but legal obligations apply also for the asylum seekers, it's all described in those links. So, have the Calais migrants already apply for asylum in France? Have they submitted asylum requests to UK? Have they committed any crime while being in France?

 

Sorry for late reply

 

1. Yes they have obligations, which are to abide by the law of their country of asylum and respect measures taken for the maintenance of public order.

 

2. I wouldnt know what previous applications have been made. They should not have though as you can only make one application.I expect most assylum seekers know this. So the answer is I expect not, but if its discovered they made a previous application their application will be rejected and they will be returned to that country, unless some exception applies.

 

3. They will only be able to submit applicaions in the UK if they get to the UK. You cant do it from another country.

 

4.Apparently they check against European and UK police databases, but not against any records in their homeland. I can see some of the difficulties as those records might not exist in a warzone, but also how that leaves an area of someones history not checked.

[foxy lady]

Sorry for late reply

 

1. Yes they have obligations, which are to abide by the law of their country of asylum and respect measures taken for the maintenance of public order.

 

 

So breaking into a lorry, ruining the contents and entering the country without a valid passport wouldn't be a great start.

[Branyy]

Once they have been registered they can move freely in Schengen countries, there is no mechanism to stop them and certainly no legal framework to do so.

 

No, definitely not true. Schengen freedom of movement is restricted to citizens of Schengen signatory states only.

Edited December 19, 2015 by Branyy