The Good News Only - thread...

[mudsticks]

Nope. Show me the the law that makes this illegal.

Just imagine, having allegedly made squillions by profiteering from a mysterious brexit favoured deal..

'Dropping' 50k on a motor..

And then still feeling all peeved by some desperate folk trying to find sanctuary, and yes maybe opportunity even, in what you consider to be a decent civilised country.

Just how crabbed up, and mean minded would you have to be to take that approach.??

 

[Pale Rider]

Yes. That's the whole f*cking point of people risking their lives to come here - to claim asylum. Arriving to claim asylum is not illegal.

The reach of those persecuting will not stretch outside their borders.

Thus as soon as the persecuted person has left their country they are under no realistic threat.

They have no need to travel through loads of countries, and particularly no need to make the hazardous crossing of the channel.

However if they are only seeking economic prosperity, and a nice warm welcome, it all makes sense.

 

[Bromptonaut]

Entry without leave is a breach of section 3(1)(a) and therefore constitutes illegal entry as defined by section 33(1) of the Immigration Act 1971 (as amended by the 1996 Asylum and Immigration Act).8 Jul 2022


You'll be living here illegally if you came to the UK without permission or your permission to stay has expired. You can also get help returning to your home country if you want to. If you can't live in the UK legally but choose to remain here, life could be difficult.

Is it illegal to enter the UK by boat?


That means someone who reaches the UK on a small boat could face up to four years in prison. But people who make the Channel crossing are protected by international law if they claim asylum once they arrive.-

surprise surprise, lots of asylum applications

You're trolling again.

It's simple. Present yourself and claim Asylum ASAP upon arrival and you're legal.

 

[Bromptonaut]

The reach of those persecuting will not stretch outside their borders.

Are you sure? Wasn't it you who referenced the man killed on Waterloo Bridge c1978?

Thus as soon as the persecuted person has left their country they are under no realistic threat.

They have no need to travel through loads of countries, and particularly no need to make the hazardous crossing of the channel.

However if they are only seeking economic prosperity, and a nice warm welcome, it all makes sense.

The last two sentences are your opinion and nothing more.

 

[Pale Rider]

Are you sure? Wasn't it you who referenced the man killed on Waterloo Bridge c1978?

If one of the notional asylum seekers is such a target as to warrant a state backed assassination, it's not really going to matter where he is, he's toast in any event.

The last two sentences are your opinion and nothing more.

That's true, but there's an undeniable sense of logic to what I've opined.

 

[Deleted member 159]

The illegal immigration bill 2023 is now law, so all those arriving are illegal immigrants

 

[Bromptonaut]

If one of the notional asylum seekers is such a target as to warrant a state backed assassination, it's not really going to matter where he is, he's toast in any event.

So they're simultaneously out of reach of their home government and at risk of state backed assassination?

There's a Schroedinger joke in there somewhere....

 

[icowden]

The illegal immigration bill 2023 is now law, so all those arriving are illegal immigrants

But that bill itself is illegal and thus any attempt to use it will fail when it is taken to the EHCR which we are still signed up to.

 

[icowden]

That's true, but there's an undeniable sense of logic to what I've opined.

Yes. The logic is that you don't care about the problem as long as it's someone else's problem. You have no empathy or sympathy and fail to understand that people aren't coming to the UK because it's a great place to live, they are coming here because they have friends or relatives and can speak the language.

You also fail to comprehend that a system where asylum had to be claimed at the first country an asylum seeker comes to would fail utterly as those countries on the borders of countries where people are oppressed or in danger through war would quickly become swamped with new citizens. The current system ensures an even(ish) diaspora. The system needs to be improved because the need to move country is going to become ever greater as the world burns hotter.

 

[Bromptonaut]

But that bill itself is illegal and thus any attempt to use it will fail when it is taken to the EHCR which we are still signed up to.

The whole thing with the Illegal Migration Act 2023 (IMA) has diddly to do with actually solving the problem. It's obvious, even to a blind man on a galloping horse, that safe routes would do that without makin the UK a pariah.

The IMA is perfomative theatre for the Tory party and it's foghorns on the sidelines.

 

[mudsticks]

But that bill itself is illegal and thus any attempt to use it will fail when it is taken to the EHCR which we are still signed up to.

I really really hope you're correct about that outcome @icowden .

I'm quite big on hope (in many areas) as without it we fall into despair - and that's a really horrible place to be 😞

 

[mudsticks]

These have cheered me up the last two summers. 🍊🍊

I was at The COP in Glasgow for a couple of weeks in November 2021, one of my fellow agroecological growers, who was visiting from Spain gave me a yellow tomato from his farm.

I brought it home, and saved the seeds.

The shape and colour has changed somewhat from the original fruit.

I even wonder if it might have cross pollinated with one of the Italian varieties we grow.

Anyhow .

Xavier's Golden Promise 🧡

 

[Pale Rider]

is that you don't care about the problem as long as it's someone else's problem. You have no empathy or sympathy and fail to understand t

All this cobblers doesn't alter the analysis.

If I could find a more likely scenario, I would post it.

Your only point is a first country system would fail due to spikes in demand.

I agree, but I didn't say the easier life seekers should all go to their first country.

Some people are travelling through six, seven, or more countries to get to the UK.

All those intermediate countries look a reasonable prospect for a genuine asylum seeker.

That they are passed by, and that the travellers are prepared to undertake the particularly hazardous last leg, shows the end goal is not really safety, or even asylum as such, it's the UK.

 

[Bromptonaut]

Your only point is a first country system would fail due to spikes in demand.

It's a pretty big point though. Places like Jordan have massive numbers from Syria.

In so far as the Med Basin goes it's Italy, Greece and to an extent Malta who are the 'Front Line States' being the first country after Libya or Turkiye.

Is that really a minor issue?

Would you cross the Sahara, then Libya, the Med and the Channel if all you were after was an 'easier life'?

Which part of evidence is difficult to grasp?

 

[Deleted member 28]

But that bill itself is illegal and thus any attempt to use it will fail when it is taken to the EHCR which we are still signed up to.

It's about time the law was changed then.