nearly half the country says we are taking to many refugees!!

First topic message reminder :

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3227059/Nearly-half-Britons-think-taking-Syrian-refugees-Poll-exposes-gulf-opposition-parties-public-opinion.html

Nearly half of Britons think the government is planning to take too many refugees from Syria, a poll has revealed.
Data published last night exposed the huge gap between the public and opposition parties in Westminster, who have accused David Cameron of not doing enough.
Yesterday senior Labour figures demanded that Britain take even more refugees than the number planned by ministers, but a YouGov survey showed voters are hostile to the idea.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3227059/Nearly-half-Britons-think-taking-Syrian-refugees-Poll-exposes-gulf-opposition-parties-public-opinion.html#ixzz3lE26jhk3
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

I still think the main reason the UK fears immigration is because when they Emigrated that were so bad to the hosts.

Could you repeat that in English please?

nicko wrote:Could you repeat that in English please?

you think if people come to the UK they will treat you as badly as you treated the people in the nations the British went to

We don't want any more foreigners here.

Not because we fear them alt because we have enough already.

You mean you do not Twatty.

Big difference as you do not speak for everyone

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/01/07/uk-britain-immigration-survey-idUKBREA0600F20140107


Three quarters of the British people agree with me...


We have a govt elected under a promise to reduce immigration to tens of thousands.


We have never voted for any govt for saying they would be allowing immigration.


The British people have never given their consent for this.

Tommy Monk wrote:

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/01/07/uk-britain-immigration-survey-idUKBREA0600F20140107


Three quarters of the British people agree with of

On stopping opr reducing?

You want immigration stooped, they then do not agree with you

I want it hugely reduced.


And the British people agree with me.

Tommy Monk wrote:I want it hugely reduced.


And the British people agree with me.

You change your tune, you have said stopped, but it is reasonable to say reducing.
But when you say no Muslim refugees when they are facing persecution is daft, if you send them back its like a death warrant

They are already in surrounding safe Muslim countries.



And I have never said all immigration should be stopped.


You talk shit.

You just repeat the same lame point over and over and over and over again Tommy

The vast majority of Syrian refugees are in surrounding countries

Yes, safe countries!!!


Let them stay there with financial and other support with a view to them being ready to go back to their own land when ISIS are crushed... they should themselves be doing more to fight against them.

Many are there.

And there they should stay.

Its not up to you.

The rules on asylum and refugee status are clear.


They have fled war to safe countries so that is where they should remain.

Tommy Monk wrote:The rules on asylum and refugee status are clear.


They have fled war to safe countries so that is where they should remain.

Wrong.

Just saw some of these so called Syrian refugees on the BBC... most looked black African to me...

Tommy Monk wrote:Just saw some of these so called Syrian refugees on the BBC... most looked black African to me...

lol...odd isn't it...

Cuchulain wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:The rules on asylum and refugee status are clear.


They have fled war to safe countries so that is where they should remain.

Wrong.

How's it wrong?

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:


Wrong.

How's it wrong?

Simple, there is no UN ruling that states a refugee has to aplly within the first country they come to.
To further prove this point how do refugees get to become citizens in landlocked countries when they have come via sea?

Cuchulain wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

How's it wrong?

Simple, there is no UN ruling that states a  refugee has to aplly within the first country they come to.
To further prove this point how do refugees get to become citizens in landlocked countries when they have come via sea?

No country has to follow any UN convention or ruling. As a Zionist, you should know that.

But you are wrong that there is no UN directive about the first country a refugee enters.

Would you like me to educate you?

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:


Simple, there is no UN ruling that states a  refugee has to aplly within the first country they come to.
To further prove this point how do refugees get to become citizens in landlocked countries when they have come via sea?

No country has to follow any UN convention or ruling. As a Zionist, you should know that.
lol Zionist again, how childish and emotive of you

But you are wrong that there is no UN directive about the first country a refugee enters.

Would you like me to educate you?

No need you are wrong:

Neither the 1951 Refugee Convention nor EU law requires a refugee to claim asylum in one country rather than another.
There is no rule requiring refugees to claim in the first safe country in which they arrive.
The EU does run a system – called the Dublin Regulations – which allows one EU country to require another to accept responsibility for an asylum claim where certain conditions apply.
The relevant conditions include that the person is shown to have previously entered that other EU country or made a claim there. This is supposed to share responsibility for asylum claims more equitably among EU countries and discourage people moving on from one EU country to another. But it doesn’t work.
It is clear the system greatly benefits countries like the UK and is very unfair to countries like Greece and Italy. That’s part of the reason Germany has just suspended the Dublin Regulations when dealing with people fleeing from Syria.


http://www.amnesty.org.uk/truth-about-refugees


[*]It is recognised in the 1951 Convention that people fleeing persecution may have to use irregular means in order to escape and claim asylum in another country – there is no legal way to travel to the UK for the specific purpose of seeking asylum. (United Nations 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees)


http://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/policy_research/the_truth_about_asylum/facts_about_asylum_-_page_4

Cuchulain wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

No country has to follow any UN convention or ruling. As a Zionist, you should know that.
lol Zionist again, how childish and emotive of you

But you are wrong that there is no UN directive about the first country a refugee enters.

Would you like me to educate you?

No need you are wrong:

Neither the 1951 Refugee Convention nor EU law requires a refugee to claim asylum in one country rather than another.
There is no rule requiring refugees to claim in the first safe country in which they arrive.
The EU does run a system – called the Dublin Regulations – which allows one EU country to require another to accept responsibility for an asylum claim where certain conditions apply.
The relevant conditions include that the person is shown to have previously entered that other EU country or made a claim there. This is supposed to share responsibility for asylum claims more equitably among EU countries and discourage people moving on from one EU country to another. But it doesn’t work.
It is clear the system greatly benefits countries like the UK and is very unfair to countries like Greece and Italy. That’s part of the reason Germany has just suspended the Dublin Regulations when dealing with people fleeing from Syria.


http://www.amnesty.org.uk/truth-about-refugees


[*]It is recognised in the 1951 Convention that people fleeing persecution may have to use irregular means in order to escape and claim asylum in another country – there is no legal way to travel to the UK for the specific purpose of seeking asylum. (United Nations 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees)


http://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/policy_research/the_truth_about_asylum/facts_about_asylum_-_page_4

You're looking in the wrong UN document.

Would you like me to educate you?

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:


No need you are wrong:

Neither the 1951 Refugee Convention nor EU law requires a refugee to claim asylum in one country rather than another.
There is no rule requiring refugees to claim in the first safe country in which they arrive.
The EU does run a system – called the Dublin Regulations – which allows one EU country to require another to accept responsibility for an asylum claim where certain conditions apply.
The relevant conditions include that the person is shown to have previously entered that other EU country or made a claim there. This is supposed to share responsibility for asylum claims more equitably among EU countries and discourage people moving on from one EU country to another. But it doesn’t work.
It is clear the system greatly benefits countries like the UK and is very unfair to countries like Greece and Italy. That’s part of the reason Germany has just suspended the Dublin Regulations when dealing with people fleeing from Syria.


http://www.amnesty.org.uk/truth-about-refugees


[*]It is recognised in the 1951 Convention that people fleeing persecution may have to use irregular means in order to escape and claim asylum in another country – there is no legal way to travel to the UK for the specific purpose of seeking asylum. (United Nations 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees)


http://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/policy_research/the_truth_about_asylum/facts_about_asylum_-_page_4

[*]

You're looking in the wrong UN document.

Would you like me to educate you?

[*]


This is what I said:

Simple, there is no UN ruling that states a  refugee has to aplly within the first country they come to.

I just backed up this is indeed correct as seen lol

[*]Maybe you need to educate yourself because this is also backed up in practiece.

[*]Whoops

[*]So no matter what you post is not going to make any difference

Next.

Cuchulain wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:
[*]

You're looking in the wrong UN document.

Would you like me to educate you?

[*]


This is what I said:

Simple, there is no UN ruling that states a  refugee has to aplly within the first country they come to.

I just backed up this is indeed correct as seen lol

[*]Maybe you need to educate yourself because this is also backed up in practiece.

[*]Whoops

[*]So no matter what you post is not going to make any difference

Next.

Lol! You're so arrogant that you refuse to be educated.

This is why you are a closed mind.

You are looking at the wrong UN document. Would you like me to educate you about the document to look at?

So you keep claiming Mowgli

Let me know when you want to for once in your life try and prove me wrong lol


Whist you do that I will play this song:

Cuchulain wrote:So you keep claiming Mowgli

Let me know when you want to for once in your life try and prove me wrong lol


Whist you do that I will play this song:

All you have to do is ask nicely and I'll happily educate you.

Till then - you're wrong. I don't need to do anything, yet. I'm too busy enjoying your ignorance.

All I have to do is laugh at you because I know for a fact you have not read article 26 properly ha ha ha ha ha

Here you go:

http://www.refworld.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/rwmain/opendocpdf.pdf?reldoc=y&docid=4bab55da2

Cuchulain wrote:All I have to do is laugh at you because I know for a fact you have not read article 26 properly ha ha ha ha ha

Here you go:

http://www.refworld.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/rwmain/opendocpdf.pdf?reldoc=y&docid=4bab55da2

lol! It took you about an hour of frantic googling and you have only gotten this far.

I suppose it's an improvement from your first one word answer "Wrong". You see how wrong you were now? I doubt it.

Don't worry - I've PM'ed a few people with the correct link, so we can all laugh at your ignorance.

PMSL like I say I knew already because I knew you had not read this properly


Ha Ha Ha ha



Like I say there is no ruling that states they have to aplly



You PM people ha ha ha ha seriously a big day when you are that desperate to get one over on me


Give yourself a round of applause if for the first time you suceed

Most amusing!!!

And EU rules clearly state that anyone entering as a asylum seeker must claim in the first EU country they arrive in!!!


Those already fled Syria and in neighbouring safe countries should remain there.


Those Africans coming across should all be returned to the African union to re settle in safe African countries.

I know it is most amusing ha ha ha

Like I say poor Zack needs to read fully the link I sent him so in order that he wipes that egg off his face

Hee hee

And you need to read the Dublin rules...

Dublin rules are as easily dropped Tommy, look what Germany did lol

Looks like they are going to scrap it as its very unfair to other EU nations

Anyway that is EU rullings not UN

Like I say I love it when poor Mowgli thinks he was being smart and never read it right through.

Cuchulain wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

How's it wrong?

Simple, there is no UN ruling that states a  refugee has to aplly within the first country they come to.
To further prove this point how do refugees get to become citizens in landlocked countries when they have come via sea?

Just to remind Mowgli that what I said above is 100% correct

Would be nice if you can spell "apply".

First I thought it was a typo but you've repeated the same mistake on this page alone

Considering you screwed up yourself on spelling today that is quite funny and ended up with egg on your face to smelly.

I can live with some screw ups Mowgli, but you seem obsessed with me ha ha ha ha.

Never mind

Tommy Monk wrote:Most amusing!!!

And EU rules clearly state that anyone entering as a asylum seeker must claim in the first EU country they arrive in!!!


Those already fled Syria and in neighbouring safe countries should remain there.


Those Africans coming across should all be returned to the African union to re settle in safe African countries.

rules don't seem to always apply..