Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Gov have reduced no of child refugees from 3,000 to 350 Watch

    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    "
    No. To gain asylum, the Applicant merely has to be here and be a genuine refugee...

    However we have to provide him with asylum.
    Not if they aren't in the country.

    That is what is so insane about all this. There are enough people getting smuggled here that we have to consider and then grant asylum to.

    http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.a...the-uk-asylum/

    We have already committed to taking 20,000 refugees on top of this.

    Yet still the virtue signallers think that we have an infinite capacity to take in many thousand MORE child refugees.

    Enough is enough.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by astutehirstute)
    Not if they aren't in the country.
    What bit of "has to be here" are you struggling with?
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    You do realise this principle that asylum should be claimed in the first safe country is just a bit of EU law. It drops away as soon as we Brexit.

    A genuine refugee (ie someone with a well founded fear of persecution in their country of origin (not anywhere they happen to be passing through)) will be perfectly entitled to say, after we leave the EU "I satisfy the definition of a refugee in the UN Convention which you, the UK, have signed up to and I have claimed asylum here because I don't like the food in France and I prefer the Premier League to the Bundesliga."
    Actually it extends beyond the EU slightly, and even if it stops applying to us when we leave we still gave literally most of Europe as a buffer, they still need to come through about a dozen countries that it would still apply to. In fact really the only reason we need to be part of it at all is to help fund those countries such as Greece and Italy that take the burden.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Not good enough.

    Should make it a big fat zero.

    Imagine if the UK was poor and Syria was rich and we fled to Syria, do you think they would take us? God no. They would
    probably put the military on the border and shoot us. Look at the UAE and Saudi Arabia, do they take a single Syrian refugee, no.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Actually it extends beyond the EU slightly,
    I appreciate there is an issue on the Norway-Russia border but there is no sign that those refugees head towards the UK.
    and even if it stops applying to us when we leave we still gave literally most of Europe as a buffer, they still need to come through about a dozen countries that it would still apply to. In fact really the only reason we need to be part of it at all is to help fund those countries such as Greece and Italy that take the burden.
    But that is irrelevant if they claim in none of them. Someone who claims in France when they should have claimed in Italy will be sent back to Italy to have their claim determined there. Someone who neither claims in France nor Italy but claims when they are arrested in a restaurant kitchen in London (and 90% of asylum seekers in the UK are in-country applicants rather than applicants at the border) has to have their claim to refugee status determined in the UK (or rather will do once Brexit occurs).. Moreover the fact someone only claims when they were caught working in the black economy in the UK has no bearing on whether they had a genuine well founded fear of persecution when they left the old country. Name me any Syrian from Assad downwards who doesn't have a well-founded fear of persecution.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    I appreciate there is an issue on the Norway-Russia border but there is no sign that those refugees head towards the UK.
    Iceland, and Switzerland at also party to Dublin, and Denmark are not but have other arrangements.


    But that is irrelevant if they claim in none of them. Someone who claims in France when they should have claimed in Italy will be sent back to Italy to have their claim determined there. Someone who neither claims in France nor Italy but claims when they are arrested in a restaurant kitchen in London (and 90% of asylum seekers in the UK are in-country applicants rather than applicants at the border) has to have their claim to refugee status determined in the UK (or rather will do once Brexit occurs).. Moreover the fact someone only claims when they were caught working in the black economy in the UK has no bearing on whether they had a genuine well founded fear of persecution when they left the old country. Name me any Syrian from Assad downwards who doesn't have a well-founded fear of persecution.[/QUOTE]

    But you've also got that Dublin has basically collapsed, the entry point nations will not process the migrants, and the countries shielded by Dublin on paper are not paying more to allow the entry point countries to actually process them. Dublin III collapsed two years ago.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)


    But you've also got that Dublin has basically collapsed, the entry point nations will not process the migrants, and the countries shielded by Dublin on paper are not paying more to allow the entry point countries to actually process them. Dublin III collapsed two years ago.
    Dublin III collapsed during the 2015 crisis but is there any sign that it is non-operational at the moment?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mojojojo101)
    That is some seriously dodgy assumptions you are making there...


    The differing rhetoric between this issue and Brexit is hilarious. On one hand Britain is the 6th biggest economy in the world with loads to offer potential investors that is going to absolutely thrive outside the EU. On the other hand this country is awful, its falling to bits and we have so little money we can't even help a couple of thousand starving homeless children. Which one is the truth?
    A couple of thousand starving homeless children? We don't have enough money to sort our own health care out. People are dying in our own country, because they don't get the treatment in time in our hospitals. We put other countries above ourselves, our children aren't given meningitis C vaccinations so that we can give vaccinations to other countries.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by itsmeellenb)
    Tell this to the six million people who died as a result of Hitler, we could have helped some of those people by allowing refugees. But the antisemitic sentiment in Western countries at that time made it so the government did the same thing as they are doing now. This is because people are xenophobic, not because of anything to do with our economy.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Let me correct you 60 million died as a result of WW2. We took in at least 90 thousand Jewish refugees during the War period, that is not counting other refugees that were not Jewish. Also, it was called the 'World war' so why it is it just our responsibility to take on refugees? I am fed of people labelling others as xenophobic, it is an over-used term that people evidently don't understand. It has everything to do with our economy, we give millions in foreign aid, we are building thousands of houses so to cope with the influx of refugees. The education system and healthcare system cannot cope. People that have contributed their life into the British system, can't even get their medicine/ treatment because we are giving it to refugees over our elderly.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Danny Dorito)
    The Government have quietly announced that they will be dramatically reducing the amount of child refugees, who are without families, they will be welcoming into the UK.

    They have said they are doing so as they do not want to incentivize dangerous journeys across Europe, particularly "by the most vulnerable children".

    Find out more here.

    These are children, who have no family and are fleeing war torn country.

    Do you think the government are wrong for doing this? How many child refugees should we help? Or do you think the government are doing the right thing?
    Good, brilliant decision on solid reasoning. A small step in the right direction
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    You know what, i watched the film Lion the other day. Its based on a true story about an impoverished 5 year Indian child who is seperated from his brother doing night labour and gets on a train to nowhere lost. There are many thousands of similar stories to this day

    OVER 11 MILLION CHILDREN live alone on India's streets... Poor, hungry, raped and trafficked, exploited. Actual children, not young adults from north Africa wanting the good life in London. Actual impoverished and desperate children. This is the point i have made dozens of times on this site... WHY are opportunistic men more deserving of our limited support and charity over hundreds of millions of others in the world in far desperate and greater need?

    Fantastic film btw
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.