Ironic how reform tell us all immigrants are a danger to women when a reform mp attacked his girl friend bad not just a push as he described it

[Littlemissgobby]

https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/politics/reform-uk-mp-jailed-for-repeatedly-kicking-his-ex-girlfriend-386193/

Isn’t it funny how all these right wing men always say? They want to look out for women and help protect them? It always turns out that half of them are dodgy motherfuckers.
You have the guy that has just had to step down that Donald Trump wanted to be the Attorney General he’s got loads of sex trafficking offences against him Matt gaetz .
Then you have this gentleman maybe not a gentleman who brutally attacked his girlfriend but yet they were convinced the average Joe that we should all be scared of the immigrants I think to be honest with you I’m quite a lot scared by these right wing twats what about yourselves?

I have no idea what you're talking about. The point I was making was that we can't turn people away at the border. I gave an example of Germany who have enforced their borders in order to cut down on irregular migration.

There have been countries in Europe who have turned asylum seekers away at the borders. However to do so is illegal.

Coming out of the ECHR won't make any difference and I have no idea why people think losing their human rights is something positive.

‘British men can rape so we may as well let in more men who can rape’ is such a bizarre argument. I’m not saying that all these men will be rapists; far from it. But shrugging off those who are with a ‘well a home grown man might have done it to you’ is just ludicrous. Surely we want to keep the rate of violent men as low as possible, and letting in many, many unchecked and unverified men is not a way to do this.

They will be reform voters. They always prove posts like this right

@username8348 I get that sense as you've mixed up two types of entry

What you've linked is not comparable to across channel entry so not really relevant

Your claim that Germany is in a different position due to land not sea wasn't shown in that article

You seem to be deliberately misunderstanding what I'm saying. That's fine.

@username8348 not at all. I think your posts were mixing up two types of entry

I was surprised by your first post on Germany closing borders so wanted to know if you thought it included asylum

It doesn't which you've now said. The channel or border being there, land or sea doesn't make much difference

I see. So you think refusing someone entry from Poland is exactly the same as turning back a boat from France?

They can both be a danger to women.

@username8348 I think the U.K. and Germany are in the same position

Both can do this from the article with the current law

'Entry is currently denied to people who do not have valid entry documents, who present forged or falsified documents, or who attempt to enter without a visa or valid residence title.'

But both cannot do the same for asylum claims, they need to be processed

This is the case no matter if it's across land or other

We just happen to receive asylum claimants across the channel from France and there are probably more people entering Germany who can be stopped as they are not claiming asylum

That's not what I'm talking about. There is some confusion here evidently.

Both the UK and Germany have to abide by the same laws. I'm not disagreeing with that.

I'm saying that we can't leave asylum seekers in the sea. Whereas Germany could hypothetically break the law and leave them at the border.

I didn't say "it's actually not that many". Why do you put words into my mouth? You did this on another thread too.
We all agree that these cases are horrific and appalling but you can't deny human rights to all men because of a bad minority. Where does this logic end - so I've seen it reported that black people are more likely to be muggers in London than white people. So what does this mean - We stop all black people visiting London? It's just ridiculous. You can't discriminate against all black people. Women are more likely to physically (not sexually) abuse their children than men. So what shall we do with this information? Stop women working with children? Of course not. You can't punish all women for the minority that physically abuse their children.

I'm saying that we can't leave asylum seekers in the sea. Whereas Germany could hypothetically break the law and leave them at the border.

You can only leave someone at a border if you have a physical barrier running along the whole of it. Otherwise people just enter by foot or other

If not this when you envisage this how are you stopping people entering Germany?

And I also would say Australia shows what a sea surrounded country can do. I'd say your likelihood of being able to practically do something is reversed

No - not all asylum seekers are fleeing persecution- that’s why their applications are refused. The frauds take up resources that ought otherwise be devoted to the really vulnerable- eg. Afghanistani women.

And frankly, if it was up to me, I would insist on a quid pro quo for granting asylum - you contract to abide by the laws of the country that’s taken you in - otherwise you’re deported if convicted of any serious crime. And if that’s to somewhere nasty, tough.

You're talking about illegal immigrants. They're people sneaking into the country to work in Germany.

I'm talking about asylum seekers. Asylum seekers are people fleeing persecution. If their claim is successful, they become refugees.

The people on the small boats are a mixture of economic migrants and asylum seekers. They tend to claim asylum. Asylum seekers are protected under the law.

Pushbacks are contrary to various laws and endanger life. I understand that several European countries such as Greece and Italy have done it and they've been taken to court.

Asylum seekers have a right to be individually assessed and are protected under maritime law. We have an obligation to people in our waters.

Where are you going to push them back to? France won't take them so you're just going to let them drift in the channel.

@username8348 no you linked to the article which covered non asylum claims. I said it wasn't relevant.

Then you stated it would be easier for Germany to practically turn back people due to being land based.

I disagree and gave an example of a country in pp which is sea surrounded

This is a very 'be kind' view. I also have known apparently lovely men from those cultures. One was a highly educated professional working on gender issues for an international NGO. After divorcing his western wife he then imported and married a young woman from back home, who he beat and tortured. He's now in jail. Another chap used to give me a lift to our post graduate training seminars. Very respectful and decent. Until I met him by chance when I was in a bar with girlfriends... total change of character, lewd etc. Obviously thought women in bars were pretty much prostitutes, even me his colleague.
This is not to say that you don't have awful men in every country and culture, just that we are fooling ourselves, and endangering women, if we ignore the fact that some cultures have more dangerous levels of misogyny baked in.

Pull the other one, being on the left doesn't stop men being perverts. Bidens son uses prostitutes on the regular. Clinton was feeling up Monica lewinski in his office both leftwing Democrats.Geraint Davies labour accused of sexually harrasing colleagues sane as mike Hill and John Woodcock also Labour. The comment about lying about qualifications is a joke, labour mp just got caught out for doing just that. It's not a right wing thing so stop the crap.

I was talking to another poster about landlocked countries being able to tighten their border controls which we can't do.

It's obviously easier to leave someone in a country than it is in the sea.

@username8348 I think it's the other way round. A porous border is harder to close than one with a natural barrier

Look at the US Mexico border v Australia

Australia doesn't just leave boats in the sea. They return people to their country of origin, take them to a third country, take them to Nauru or bring them temporarily to Australia.

They can only return people or take them to a third country with the country's permission.

By not processing claims and returning people to countries where they could be in danger, Australia are breaking the law. They also detain people indefinitely.

You're already aware of this because I've had this discussion with you several times.

We can't take people back to France because France won't accept them back.

Again you're talking about illegal immigrants rather than asylum seekers. Asylum seekers claim asylum in order to gain refugee status. Illegal immigrants get into a country to work and live there without a visa.

We do send economic migrants back, for example we used to get a lot of Albanians but deported them and rarely get any now.

@username8348 I have no idea which posts you've written I don't keep track as some do.

Your Germany link was irrelevant as it wasn't to covering the asylum process.

And your claim re landlocked countries doesn't stack up against actual examples and countries.

And no I'm not 'talking about illegal immigrants'

Your link did not refer to asylum, and I have only been discussing asylum and the laws surrounding it.

Those number names are easier to repeat discussions, in other cases I'd swerve

Now I know they've posted the same I'll move on, a CDU politician made an interesting statement today as in pp

The shifts I mentioned a while back are happening, it won't be easy or fast but pressure will build

This is the last time I'm explaining this:

I was talking about landlocked countries and being able to turn people away at the border. It's easier to do that on land. You can't just leave them at sea.

I'm talking about asylum seekers not illegal immigrants. Asylum seekers claim asylum, they aren't sneaking in to work. They want refugee status.

I've explained that countries in Europe have turned people away at the border. It's easier to do that than at sea.

Australia still has to deal with asylum seekers. I explained what they have to do. It's obviously far easier to not let someone in on land.

I've explained that countries in Europe have turned people away at the border. It's easier to do that than at sea.

You linked to Germany and then agreed it didn't include asylum process, as per the article

You'll need another example not that article for a country turning away asylum claimants at the border