Solidarity with refugees march – London 12th September

[drummonds 10]

Sick of hearing about this now. Let them sort out their own problems in their own time, just as we had to in this country.

 

i'm with you on this. have you noticed how many of these "refugees" are fit young men of army age and how few are women. if radical islam is a minority thing how has isis recruited enough to take on governments. how is it that the majority of peace loving muslims cannot defend themselves against this "minority" of nutters?

...if they are a minority.

[blake 10]

Well done to David Cameron for visiting a refugee camp in Lebanon and hearing the stories and seeing Syrian refugees for himself .

 

A much more productive act than the leader of the opposition who just added to the chaos inflicted on local residents and businesses by joining the march in London at the weekend .

 

I do agree with this. The Esteemed Leader also hijacked the London refugees event, to the displeasure of at least a part of the crowd, into being a part of the Labour party leadership coronation jamboree, as if refugees, like gay rights, or women's rights, is an exclusively left wing issue which Labour has all to themselves - which of course they don't. There are Tories as well as people in other parties who are supportive of refugees and who want to try to resolve it. It is not just Labour people, Trotskyites and leftists that are supportive of refugees.

 

Corbyn the next day - yesterday - then spent part of his first full day as Labour party leader attending the World Mental Health day event. Most appropriate.

[johncocker 10]

I wonder if they'll organise one for the 30,000 UK families who are living in emergency housing also make sure all marchers contribute £10 towards their local NHS to help pay for the additional costs the refugees will cost

[harvey19 541]

I wonder what the Syrian soldiers who are fighting ISIS thought about the march and if they sympathise with the fit young men who could be boosting their ranks.

[petemcewan 27]

There have always been insular leftists who see themselves as the only true Marxists.

but we seem to have shifted from a mass movement to protect the working class, from the power of the rich, to an increasingly insular movement of the "right kind of people, with the right attitudes". In the meanwhile the toffs and the bankers are in complete control. As the new lefts definitions of deviance have expanded to exclude the very people the movement was for.

I also believe that there is a huge amount of political correctness surrounding Islam where any criticism is immediately associated with bigotry, which has been going on for a while now

/would you Care to elaborate?..I'm curious too:)

 

.

 

You are describing the Parliamentary Labour Party under the leadership of Blair.

When you say, " we seem to have shifted from a mass movement....etc, etc.

Who's the "we" ? Presumably you are included in the "we" (or you wouldn't use, "we"). Who are the others.? Or does the "we" mean me and you ? Your post reads like you were once working class warrior-who is now disillusioned. However, I suppose I must not interpret what you've written literally .

 

I haven't a clue what you want me to elaborate on. I only asked you a question-which you answered (in a hurry I guess ). Re -read your post and your mistake will leap out at you.

 

Below is what I guess you want

I understand the "Left" to be parliamentary and extra -parliamentary social

democrats . (Hope that is elaborate enough)

 

NB. I think we are way off topic.

Edited September 14, 2015 by petemcewan

[Solomon1 10]

No, most of them aren't

 

Oh yes they are!

[WiseOwl182 10]

Oh yes they are!

 

Oh no they aren't.

 

The moment an asylum seeker by-passes a safe country (or 5) in preference of somewhere with more kerching, jobs, training, housing, anything, they cease being asylum seekers and become illegal immigrants. It's a legal definition, not something you can just deny because one sounds more sympathetic to your agenda.

[mafya 243]

Oh no they aren't.

 

The moment an asylum seeker by-passes a safe country (or 5) in preference of somewhere with more kerching, jobs, training, housing, anything, they cease being asylum seekers and become illegal immigrants. It's a legal definition, not something you can just deny because one sounds more sympathetic to your agenda.

 

Oh yes they are! Section 4 of this link says they don't need to claim refugee status in the first safe country= http://www.amnesty.org.uk/truth-about-refugees#.VfsUEsSkqrV

You can't just make up legal definitions to suit your agenda!

[WiseOwl182 10]

Oh yes they are! Section 4 of this link says they don't need to claim refugee status in the first safe country= http://www.amnesty.org.uk/truth-about-refugees#.VfsUEsSkqrV

You can't just make up legal definitions to suit your agenda!

 

 

Amnesty international? That does not trump EU law, which states refugees must register and apply for asylum in the first safe country reached. They may later be distributed to other countries. Refusing to register and ignoring international borders makes them illegal immigrants.

[Solomon1 10]

Oh yes they are! Section 4 of this link says they don't need to claim refugee status in the first safe country= http://www.amnesty.org.uk/truth-about-refugees#.VfsUEsSkqrV

You can't just make up legal definitions to suit your agenda!

 

 

 

---------- Post added 18-09-2015 at 12:48 ----------

 

"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"

[WiseOwl182 10]

 

 

---------- Post added 18-09-2015 at 12:48 ----------

 

"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"

 

 

Any person who has successfully escaped a war zone and reached a safe country, but then chooses to put themselves and their family at further danger by travelling further and ignoring international boundaries can no longer be defined as a refugee. Their motivation to migrate has changed. They become economic immigrants.

[petemcewan 27]

Any person who has successfully escaped a war zone and reached a safe country, but then chooses to put themselves and their family at further danger by travelling further and ignoring international boundaries can no longer be defined as a refugee. Their motivation to migrate has changed. They become economic immigrants.

 

You've just straightforwardly contradicted Solomon.

 

Please cite some reference in support of your statement .

 

Solomon's post is in inverted commas . So ,presumably it can be referenced

 

Your statement has no inverted commas . So ,the word must be your own.

Your post must be your understanding of the rules governing "Refugee" status.

Can you please give a reference so I can look it up ? Thank you.