Phil Pascoe
Established Member
They had them while in France, they ditch them in the Channel. Why?
Keir Starmer
- Thread starter Delaney
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
RobinBHM
Established Member
So when he says: it is mostly men that take the journey because it is too arduous and dangerous for women, children and the elderly............you consider that to be "parroted unfact based opinions"
So are you saying you dont believe that: women, children and elderly would find such a journey more difficult than men?
RobinBHM
Established Member
how do you know they had them in France?
Am I surprised? YES. Oppressive regimes always require forms of ID to be carried at all times. Indeed the UK is one of very few countries that do not.
Having travelled right through Afghanistan on multiple ocasions, I can know for a fact that everyone over the age of 12 carries ID
So: Am i surprised? NO. Because I can work out why . . .
RobinBHM
Established Member
may I ask what criteria made you decide they "do not resemble these patients at all"?
Im not sure I follow your point that "most are coming from countries that dont seem to offer an immediate threat to life" the data shows the majority have originated from Syria, Eritrea, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Yemen -all places of war or persecution
If you want to use the argument that they came from a safe European country, well they have a right to choose the country in which they want to claim asylum, it is just by chance of geography that the UK is furthest from the source country.
RobinBHM
Established Member
Very few people escape from oppressive regimes like North Korea
we are talking about places of war or persecution.
most of the people arriving in small boats are from:
Syria
Eritrea
Afghanistan
Iran
Iraq
Yemen
Do you have any evidence to show those places require "forms of ID to be carried at all times"
As I said previously, the lack of ID is not evidence they are not genuine asylum seekers.
Jacob
New Luddism. Awake and resist!
And cheap housing and also highest levels of low skilled indigenous population. They have to start somewhere!
Vice versa the least depressed areas generally have the highest levels of high skilled immigrants / indigenous.
Absolutely untrue. Huge areas of public and private businesses would collapse entirely without the immigrant workforce, and there are shortages now.
Of course it has.
Not sure if they are Albanian as I don't know the lingo but in the last six years we have been invaded and it is just so obvious with many not speaking english so causing all sorts of issues as there are not many interpreters round here as well other services including employment.
RobinBHM
Established Member
I am surprised then that you did not know that the UK have made the resettlement schemes for Afghanis virtually impossible and so they have had to make there way to the UK by small boats
Perhaps you know that there were quite a number of Afghanis that worked with the UK forces have needed to flee the Taliban.
Phil Pascoe
Established Member
Because many of them have been filmed ditching them in the Channel, therefore they had them in France.
RobinBHM
Established Member
according to this report, "Legal identity and civil documentation in Afghanistan": millions arent able to obtain a Tazkira
"Consequently, many Afghans have been unable to acquire legal identity documentation for multiple generations"
So Im not sure you can reliably say everybody over age 12 carries ID, as it seems many cant get them
file:///C:/Users/Robin/Downloads/Legal%20Identity%20and%20Civil%20Documentation%20in%20Afghanistan_05062024.pdf
ey_tony
Established Member
If a migrant enters a the UK 'illegally' ( back of a lorry/ boat etc) therefore circumventing the normal entry process then they are by definition illegal migrants irrespective of what the jiggery-wokery brigade thinks.
It should be up to them to prove who they are or if they have a right to asylum not the government.
Those coming here illegally on the boats are most likely not to have ID documents as they would be much less likely to get in if they had them.
They can't ALL have lost their identity documents on their journey to the UK. Anyone who believes otherwise is bordering on dim in order to swallow that.
I've had a Kurdish friend of over 30 years who told me many years ago as to the lengths migrants would go and the lies they'd tell in order to get into the UK. Nothing really has changed as their MO matches the rules of the day.
I also have a family member, a solicitor who has dealt solely with migrants for over a decade for both the home office and as an independent adversary and they too know all the tricks they will use to be allowed to stay.
Currently there over 1200 asylum claimants who claim to be children when in fact they are adults! Some had even been placed in schools with genuine children...what the heck are the authorities up to? Those migrants know that children won't be deported so they lie about their age!
Somehow I don't think people like yourself actually live in the real world!
RobinBHM
Established Member
please could you quantity "many" is that 0.1%, 10%, 80%
and how do you know they were identity documents?
Im not sure an out of focus video on a rocking boat is going to show actual passports or ID
I think your evidence might be a tad shaky
Terry - Somerset
Established Member
Entry with or without leave
Section 3(1)(a) of the Immigration Act 1971 states that, persons who are not British citizens shall not enter the UK unless given leave in accordance with provisions in the Immigration Act 1971 or made under that act.
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).
One would hope that any reasonable claim for asylum would "legitimise" their illegal entry and remove from them any risk of prosecution.
Terry - Somerset
Established Member
They are guilty of illegal entry - I agree possibly only for the few minutes until they can talk to an appropriate official.
The somewhat extreme semantic reaction to what seems to be a matter of legal fact illustrates why the whole issue is emotive and controversial.
There is no one solution to make everyone happy. Without leadership the outcome is continued chaos and the reinforcement of ever more strident views. The time, energy and resources being wasted to no useful effect distracts from other far more important issues.
Conclusion - do nothing and accept immigration will be a perpetual running societal sore, or properly clarify policy and risk alienating a large part of the community- irrespective of what clarity entails.
Jacob
New Luddism. Awake and resist!
Well done! Do you realise that you too are an "illegal immigrant" every time you enter Britain, for the few minutes (usually much longer) it takes before you pass through controls?
It's a non issue.
Not at all.
Only in the minds of the xenophobes and racists. In reality immigration is not a big problem and is largely a benefit to the country.
It's certainly a big humanitarian issue globally and we have to play our part, with constructive and humanitarian actions.
Phil Pascoe
Established Member
"so those Syrians fleeing Putin's bombs in Syria had to pay people smugglers and cross the water" ?
There is no water between Syria and Turkey. Nor between Turkey and Bulgaria, Bulgaria and Roumania, Roumania and Poland, Poland and Germany, Germany and Holland, Holland and Belgium or Belgium and France
Jacob
New Luddism. Awake and resist!
There is water to cross for anyone wishing to get here from every other country in the world, excepting Scotland Wales and Ireland. Have a look at a map if you don't believe me!
John Brown
Freeloading Social media influenza
What's all this got to do with Kier Starmer?
Any excuse to rant about immigrants.
Maybe there should be an "Alf Garnet was right" forum.
Any excuse to rant about immigrants.
Maybe there should be an "Alf Garnet was right" forum.
