Calais people-smugglers block route with tree
Surely the police could patrol regularly ?
People smugglers
People smugglers
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
People smugglers
Bruv;1500334 wrote: Calais people-smugglers block route with tree
Surely the police could patrol regularly ?
The French Police could do far more but there is not the political will for them to do so.
Surely the police could patrol regularly ?
The French Police could do far more but there is not the political will for them to do so.
People smugglers
The camps should not be there in the first place. Sloppy handling by the French who spend more time arguing who's responsibility they are, than stopping the numbers grow.
The Dublin Agreement's purpose is to quickly identify the member state responsible for the asylum claim, among other purposes. Typically, they should claim asylum in the first safe country they land in. The French make a mockery of the Dublin agreement and use Article 31 of the Refugee Convention which states that countries must not penalise those who show good cause for illegal entry and ultimately, it is that governments decision as to whether they can take refuge while applying for asylum which can take years. The increasing pressure for any member state, is to determine which are genuine oppressed refugee's and which are culture enhancers.
The Dublin Agreement's purpose is to quickly identify the member state responsible for the asylum claim, among other purposes. Typically, they should claim asylum in the first safe country they land in. The French make a mockery of the Dublin agreement and use Article 31 of the Refugee Convention which states that countries must not penalise those who show good cause for illegal entry and ultimately, it is that governments decision as to whether they can take refuge while applying for asylum which can take years. The increasing pressure for any member state, is to determine which are genuine oppressed refugee's and which are culture enhancers.
People smugglers
Momus;1500688 wrote: The camps should not be there in the first place. Sloppy handling by the French who spend more time arguing who's responsibility they are, than stopping the numbers grow.
The Dublin Agreement's purpose is to quickly identify the member state responsible for the asylum claim, among other purposes. Typically, they should claim asylum in the first safe country they land in. The French make a mockery of the Dublin agreement and use Article 31 of the Refugee Convention which states that countries must not penalise those who show good cause for illegal entry and ultimately, it is that governments decision as to whether they can take refuge while applying for asylum which can take years. The increasing pressure for any member state, is to determine which are genuine oppressed refugee's and which are culture enhancers.
Indeed, their policy is to facilitate their passage to the UK in order to get them out of France.
The Dublin Agreement's purpose is to quickly identify the member state responsible for the asylum claim, among other purposes. Typically, they should claim asylum in the first safe country they land in. The French make a mockery of the Dublin agreement and use Article 31 of the Refugee Convention which states that countries must not penalise those who show good cause for illegal entry and ultimately, it is that governments decision as to whether they can take refuge while applying for asylum which can take years. The increasing pressure for any member state, is to determine which are genuine oppressed refugee's and which are culture enhancers.
Indeed, their policy is to facilitate their passage to the UK in order to get them out of France.
People smugglers
Bryn Mawr;1500690 wrote: Indeed, their policy is to facilitate their passage to the UK in order to get them out of France.
The situation is a myriad of chaos at present. A migrant is legally unable to claim asylum in the UK when they are outside of the UK, ie in a French camp. This means that to the UK, they remain illegal. They can only be afforded protection and move from asylum seeker status to refugee status, once they arrive in the country and make a claim. Once that claim has been submitted, the UK is duty bound to protect them until their claim is processed.
Under the Dublin Agreement, France can insist they claim from the first country they landed in, but France, being a member state of the European Union, is also party to the European Union Asylum Qualification Directive which should provide evidence of which member state is responsible for them. Many in Calais have already claimed asylum in France. If France can not prove which member state is responsible for them, then France must take responsibility. If they have not yet landed in the UK, then under European Union Asylum Qualification directive, the UK can not be held responsible as they have to arrive here first in order to claim asylum here. Under EU directive, the UK can only accept them if proven they have family already in the UK.
While the migrants are kept waiting, because they are on French territory, EU regulations on asylum apply and the French are responsible for them. The very purpose of the Dublin agreement is to deny migrants from choosing which country they wish to claim asylum in. EU directive on asylum seekers states basic welfare and accommodation must be provided from the country in which they are present in, and that is France who are criminally in breach of that EU directive.
The situation is a myriad of chaos at present. A migrant is legally unable to claim asylum in the UK when they are outside of the UK, ie in a French camp. This means that to the UK, they remain illegal. They can only be afforded protection and move from asylum seeker status to refugee status, once they arrive in the country and make a claim. Once that claim has been submitted, the UK is duty bound to protect them until their claim is processed.
Under the Dublin Agreement, France can insist they claim from the first country they landed in, but France, being a member state of the European Union, is also party to the European Union Asylum Qualification Directive which should provide evidence of which member state is responsible for them. Many in Calais have already claimed asylum in France. If France can not prove which member state is responsible for them, then France must take responsibility. If they have not yet landed in the UK, then under European Union Asylum Qualification directive, the UK can not be held responsible as they have to arrive here first in order to claim asylum here. Under EU directive, the UK can only accept them if proven they have family already in the UK.
While the migrants are kept waiting, because they are on French territory, EU regulations on asylum apply and the French are responsible for them. The very purpose of the Dublin agreement is to deny migrants from choosing which country they wish to claim asylum in. EU directive on asylum seekers states basic welfare and accommodation must be provided from the country in which they are present in, and that is France who are criminally in breach of that EU directive.
People smugglers
I would assume very few arrive as France being the first port of arrival, so why can't France simply insist they return to the previous country ?
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
People smugglers
Bruv;1500713 wrote: I would assume very few arrive as France being the first port of arrival, so why can't France simply insist they return to the previous country ?
Apathy and sloppiness. Wasting time arguing who's responsible instead of organising a structured procedure where each new arrival is immediately processed and dealt with ensuring they either return to the member state of entry or claim asylum within France. Also lack of co-operation from other member states to have them return to where they entered, believing France should deal with them, for being on their soil. The issue has been created due to freedom to pass through member states to get to France in order to sit it out and wait to get to the UK. That is a breach of the Dublin Agreement ie migrants getting to choose which country they claim asylum in, which in turn makes a mockery of any application to proceed from asylum seeker status to refugee status, in that genuine asylum seekers would take shelter in the first safe country they reached. We have to face facts that most camped up in France are not genuine asylum seekers but migrant cultural enhancers which is part of the French reluctance to deal with them swiftly. Should most of those in France get to the UK, it would be most likely that their asylum application be denied under the criteria to determine genuine applicants anyway and then comes the complex process of where to return them to.
There is then the added complication of Le Touquet Agreement made between France and Britain where the British intercept illegal's in Calais before they set foot on British soil and the French intercept them at Dover.ie the British get to stop illegals at source in France and not the French.
Apathy and sloppiness. Wasting time arguing who's responsible instead of organising a structured procedure where each new arrival is immediately processed and dealt with ensuring they either return to the member state of entry or claim asylum within France. Also lack of co-operation from other member states to have them return to where they entered, believing France should deal with them, for being on their soil. The issue has been created due to freedom to pass through member states to get to France in order to sit it out and wait to get to the UK. That is a breach of the Dublin Agreement ie migrants getting to choose which country they claim asylum in, which in turn makes a mockery of any application to proceed from asylum seeker status to refugee status, in that genuine asylum seekers would take shelter in the first safe country they reached. We have to face facts that most camped up in France are not genuine asylum seekers but migrant cultural enhancers which is part of the French reluctance to deal with them swiftly. Should most of those in France get to the UK, it would be most likely that their asylum application be denied under the criteria to determine genuine applicants anyway and then comes the complex process of where to return them to.
There is then the added complication of Le Touquet Agreement made between France and Britain where the British intercept illegal's in Calais before they set foot on British soil and the French intercept them at Dover.ie the British get to stop illegals at source in France and not the French.
People smugglers
Please tell me what you mean by the term "Cultural Enhancers"
I can understand once in the EU there are no travel restrictions, and I understand each country has the responsibility of looking after any migrants within it's borders.
So why has no agreement been reached to police the EU's borders with a combined force ?
I can understand once in the EU there are no travel restrictions, and I understand each country has the responsibility of looking after any migrants within it's borders.
So why has no agreement been reached to police the EU's borders with a combined force ?
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
People smugglers
Bruv;1500734 wrote: Please tell me what you mean by the term "Cultural Enhancers"
I can understand once in the EU there are no travel restrictions, and I understand each country has the responsibility of looking after any migrants within it's borders.
So why has no agreement been reached to police the EU's borders with a combined force ?
Much of the Dublin Agreement is to stop the practice of migrants choosing which country or member state to claim asylum in and claim in the first country of safety that they reach. Travelling through three or four safe countries by choice, does not fit with the criteria of assessing a genuine asylum seeker, which is one fleeing from an oppressed regime where their life may be in danger. If migrants at Calais have passed through other safe countries and are sitting it out because they have chosen the UK to reside in, then what exactly would you call them ?
I can understand once in the EU there are no travel restrictions, and I understand each country has the responsibility of looking after any migrants within it's borders.
So why has no agreement been reached to police the EU's borders with a combined force ?
Much of the Dublin Agreement is to stop the practice of migrants choosing which country or member state to claim asylum in and claim in the first country of safety that they reach. Travelling through three or four safe countries by choice, does not fit with the criteria of assessing a genuine asylum seeker, which is one fleeing from an oppressed regime where their life may be in danger. If migrants at Calais have passed through other safe countries and are sitting it out because they have chosen the UK to reside in, then what exactly would you call them ?
People smugglers
Momus;1500739 wrote: Much of the Dublin Agreement is to stop the practice of migrants choosing which country or member state to claim asylum in and claim in the first country of safety that they reach. Travelling through three or four safe countries by choice, does not fit with the criteria of assessing a genuine asylum seeker, which is one fleeing from an oppressed regime where their life may be in danger. If migrants at Calais have passed through other safe countries and are sitting it out because they have chosen the UK to reside in, then what exactly would you call them ?
You are lecturing again.......
I get it.......I got it some time ago.
I would call them what they are, "economic immigrants" rather than the pejorative and opinionated "cultural enhancers"
You are lecturing again.......
I get it.......I got it some time ago.
I would call them what they are, "economic immigrants" rather than the pejorative and opinionated "cultural enhancers"
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
People smugglers
Bruv;1500747 wrote: You are lecturing again.......
I get it.......I got it some time ago.
I would call them what they are, "economic immigrants" rather than the pejorative and opinionated "cultural enhancers" OK i can use economic immigrants. It's all the same at the end of the day. What ever they are called, they could be living in squalor for years. The French should begin housing them.
I get it.......I got it some time ago.
I would call them what they are, "economic immigrants" rather than the pejorative and opinionated "cultural enhancers" OK i can use economic immigrants. It's all the same at the end of the day. What ever they are called, they could be living in squalor for years. The French should begin housing them.
People smugglers
Momus;1500752 wrote: OK i can use economic immigrants. It's all the same at the end of the day. What ever they are called, they could be living in squalor for years. The French should begin housing them.
Ragheads is not acceptable either.
Ragheads is not acceptable either.
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
People smugglers
Bruv;1500761 wrote: Ragheads is not acceptable either. Who called them that ?
People smugglers
Momus;1500767 wrote: Who called them that ?
Reacting to your "Whatever they are called" Post 11
Reacting to your "Whatever they are called" Post 11
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
People smugglers
Bruv;1500787 wrote: Reacting to your "Whatever they are called" Post 11 In the context of enhancing their lives, not an excuse to apply racist tags. Come on then, let's hear how you would clear the camps.