It’s not complex. As a nation we have always depended on immigration.
That’s an Americanism. Immigration from one country to another is generally accepted, eg, between european countries. The issues are people “fleeing war” from Afghanistan and where do they settle. Pakistan? No. Turkiye? No. They have to make it to the UK for some strange reason.
I’m actually pro letting Afghans in who helped our nation and may face persecution under the taliban. The people coming in on small boats aren’t honest people. The honest people migrate legally as they respect our laws.
For starters there is absolutely no law or history where war refugees are required to settle in the first safe nation. Much the opposite the Geneva convention makes it illegal to use access or distance to limit the movement of refugees. This is specifically their as forcing nations nearest a war zone to accept refugees would increase the odds of the war spreading into their borders.
As for the difference between EU and refugees. Given the whole Brexit history that is an utterly dumb complaint. It has absolutely no marit in this debate as the flag was specifically used to argue against all type of immigration in recent times.
The law should be changed because you have fallen for right wing bull crap.
The law was created in the 1950s with the UK as a major proponent of that law. Yet we have had 0 wars on UK soil since then.
Where as nations bordering wars have had multiple wars expand into their territory as refugees run to escape. Seriously, you seem totally unable to base any of your arguments on facts or logic. But just emotional rubbish pushed by right wing lies and folks fighting for fascism.
Turkiye has been fine for Syrian refugees, the war didn’t carry over into there. If the war expands, run further there.
There is no right-wing bull crap. If you pay someone to get you to another country illegally, you have already shown you don’t respect the law. Someone who gets on a boat on the English channel isn’t a good person 99% of the time. They’re selfish. They don’t desperately need to go to England.
One or multiple examples where it did not happen. Is in no way an argument against 1000s of years of history, where it has. And a rather stupid argument.
It is illegal to consider the way an asylum seeker enters a nation. As a limitation on there right to claim asylum. That is also part of the Geneva convention.
It is there to stop the right wing actions of multiple Tory govs who intentionally limited access to the UK. In an attempt to end claims. Why did the convention do this after WW2. Because nations supporting Germany attempted the same crap when people ran from nations attacked by the fascists there.
The right wing gov trying to stop the boats is the illegal action. Not the boats.
The boats are part of an international human trafficking operation. Australia successfully stopped their boat problem, so why can’t we?
Someone fleeing germany to other European countries is different as it’s within the same continent. But the Taliban aren’t going to reach Türkiye, nor is Hezbollah going to reach France. Most Ukrainians seem fine settling in Poland anyway, which doesn’t ally with fascist Russia. They don’t need to go to Belarus.
Yes we can. By opening up safe route into the UK for asylum seekers. Rather then shutting them down and removing huge amounts of funding from HMRC to process such claims in a efficient manor.
Or did you some how think the boats increase during torys 14years. And over stressing in the right wing media was not related to Tory austerity measures.
I assume you ignore the actual numbers of illegal immigration. Vs legal. It’s under 5%. Of all immigration.
That’s an Americanism. Immigration from one country to another is generally accepted, eg, between european countries. The issues are people “fleeing war” from Afghanistan and where do they settle. Pakistan? No. Turkiye? No. They have to make it to the UK for some strange reason.
I’m actually pro letting Afghans in who helped our nation and may face persecution under the taliban. The people coming in on small boats aren’t honest people. The honest people migrate legally as they respect our laws.
You are inventing divisions where non existent.
For starters there is absolutely no law or history where war refugees are required to settle in the first safe nation. Much the opposite the Geneva convention makes it illegal to use access or distance to limit the movement of refugees. This is specifically their as forcing nations nearest a war zone to accept refugees would increase the odds of the war spreading into their borders.
As for the difference between EU and refugees. Given the whole Brexit history that is an utterly dumb complaint. It has absolutely no marit in this debate as the flag was specifically used to argue against all type of immigration in recent times.
The law should be changed. It didn’t account for a people smuggling industry. Why would you want a war to spread to the UK?
The law should be changed because you have fallen for right wing bull crap.
The law was created in the 1950s with the UK as a major proponent of that law. Yet we have had 0 wars on UK soil since then.
Where as nations bordering wars have had multiple wars expand into their territory as refugees run to escape. Seriously, you seem totally unable to base any of your arguments on facts or logic. But just emotional rubbish pushed by right wing lies and folks fighting for fascism.
Turkiye has been fine for Syrian refugees, the war didn’t carry over into there. If the war expands, run further there.
There is no right-wing bull crap. If you pay someone to get you to another country illegally, you have already shown you don’t respect the law. Someone who gets on a boat on the English channel isn’t a good person 99% of the time. They’re selfish. They don’t desperately need to go to England.
One or multiple examples where it did not happen. Is in no way an argument against 1000s of years of history, where it has. And a rather stupid argument.
It is illegal to consider the way an asylum seeker enters a nation. As a limitation on there right to claim asylum. That is also part of the Geneva convention.
It is there to stop the right wing actions of multiple Tory govs who intentionally limited access to the UK. In an attempt to end claims. Why did the convention do this after WW2. Because nations supporting Germany attempted the same crap when people ran from nations attacked by the fascists there.
The right wing gov trying to stop the boats is the illegal action. Not the boats.
The boats are part of an international human trafficking operation. Australia successfully stopped their boat problem, so why can’t we?
Someone fleeing germany to other European countries is different as it’s within the same continent. But the Taliban aren’t going to reach Türkiye, nor is Hezbollah going to reach France. Most Ukrainians seem fine settling in Poland anyway, which doesn’t ally with fascist Russia. They don’t need to go to Belarus.
Yes we can. By opening up safe route into the UK for asylum seekers. Rather then shutting them down and removing huge amounts of funding from HMRC to process such claims in a efficient manor.
Or did you some how think the boats increase during torys 14years. And over stressing in the right wing media was not related to Tory austerity measures.
I assume you ignore the actual numbers of illegal immigration. Vs legal. It’s under 5%. Of all immigration.
Then let’s do that, then.
I don’t see how this is relevant.