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?

This.

Oh that's nice. What should they do? Risk being tied to a chair and thrown off a high building perhaps?

You can see some here. I believe Slovakia and Romania do as well.

Well, I've never seen European men sexually assaulting 1200 women in one night in a single country.

But actually asylum seekers are hugely over represented in sex crimes. Like 20% of serious sex crimes in France despite being 1-2% of the population, and 50% of gang rapes in some countries over a five year period.

Every European country for which we have the data has seen sex crimes increasing in proportion with the number of asylum seekers taken in. If you read Prey by Hirsi Ali there are loads of statistics in there. I just tried to find the thread with them all but I think it was deleted due to people complaining.

But still we'll never realistically ban males from entering. I'm guessing that women with children arriving from countries where they probably weren't allowed to work will be much more of a drain on the economy than young men who might work in kebab shops etc.

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

Your link again differs from your post. It details how countries do it at sea not just land

Read the entries for Italy and Greece at sea

You asked for evidence of countries turning people away on land, so I provided it. I was talking about how much easier to do on land it is than at sea. I think I've said that several times now.

I also said that Greece and Italy had been taken to court for pushbacks at sea. My point was not that pushbacks at sea don't happen, my point was that it's easier to turn people away at a border on land.

I would have thought that was common sense.

I am sure on a per capita basis that men are, in fact, more likely to physically abuse and harm their children. We know for a fact that an unrelated male (usually boyfriend) is the riskiest person in a child’s home.

But this gets to a larger point: different groups of people have different risk factors. We shouldn’t shy away from this discussion because it may make you personally uncomfortable.

If your child gets lost outside, you tell
them to approach an older woman, because they are statistically the safest group for children.

You might not like what that says about men (and indeed men complain about women assuming they are rapists and the like) but I’d rather be called a man-hater than be sexually assaulted or worse.

I would have thought that was common sense.

I'm aware you are convinced it's 'common sense' but it doesn't align with rw examples

Look at the recent drop in crossings to Italy. Including Starmer meeting to discuss how they did it.

And remember Australia is one of the few places that has reduced numbers the most

We're talking at cross purposes here. All I said was that it's easier to turn people away at a land border than it is at sea.

You're now talking about reducing levels of asylum seekers approaching a country. They're completely different things.

Australia has reduced the boat people by breaking the law on several counts. It has agreements in place with various countries to return people. It has unlawful detention.

That's more difficult for people in the EU who have to abide by EU law, various international treaties and the ECHR. The EU can fine countries for not complying with EU regulation and apply penalties.

Asylum seekers can also take governments to court which they have done in both Italy and Greece for pushbacks. The Rwanda scheme was found illegal in our Supreme Court.

I keep explaining to you that it's not as simple as turning people away.

I keep explaining to you that it's not as simple as turning people away.

I'm aware you are saying the same things in each post, it still doesn't align with rw examples

Italy reduced Med crossings by 60%

That's why Starmer did his I'm going over to learn from Meloni gig

Your claim that land reduction is easier than sea doesn't bear out in figures

I wasn't talking about reduction I said it was easier to turn people away at a land border than it is at sea.

For example, if we were direct neighbours of France, we could refuse asylum seekers at our land border. They therefore remain in France.

Our problem is that the boats are in our waters and we are therefore obligated to help; we can't just let them float around indefinitely at sea. They have left France and France won't take them back, so they are our problem.

Do you see the difference?

easier to turn people away at a land border than it is at sea.

How would you do this physically and practically?

Can you say more on barriers you'd use and methods

It's very easy to do. Border guards march you back and dump you in the country you're coming from.

Italy's situation is very different to ours. Their migrants are coming from Tunisia and Libya. They approached those governments with the EU, and paid millions for them to invest in schemes and ramp up their security.

Their Albanian scheme failed because it was illegal but they fine charity ships if they rescue more than one boat at a time.

Our problem is that the boats are coming from France. France won't bring back boats once they leave their shores and won't them back.

@username8348 it’s only easier to turn people away at land borders if they are dumb enough to try and cross at a border post. Most coming into Europe via land just walk across borders in the countryside away from official border crossings. Borders between countries are generally unprotected except at road, rail and river crossings.

It's very easy to do. Border guards march you back and dump you in the country you're coming from.

Do you mean you want to 'dump asylum claimants back where they're coming from'?

And where are border guards situated if the border is pretty much open?

What's the barrier along the whole border?

You also should read your link on how it is done on land

'Croatianan*_ border guards are accused of forcibly returning migrants to Bosnia-Herzegovina. Alleged victims also accuse officers of beating, robbing and humiliating them in many instances'

You're not thinking it through. It's really the opposite of 'easy'

How does that work for people who want to claim asylum in that country?

They make their way to a settlement, find a police station and make their claim there.

So you think that a country that isn't taking in asylum seekers at the border is going to take them in if they've sneaked into the country?

@username8348 @SuzieNine is correct

Your posts are not based on the process, I think that's why you're saying it's easier by land

This is the advice when you arrive in Germany for example

Step 1: Report to a public authority
As soon as you arrive in Germany, report to a public authority, such as the police. Say that you would
like to apply for asylum. Follow the instructions of the staff. They will refer you to accommodation
in a nearby reception centre.

We're talking about hypothetical scenarios here. Germany aren't turning away asylum seekers at the border. They're registered at the border and sent to a reception centre.

I'm talking about countries that aren't accepting asylum seekers into the country. If they won't accept them at the border, then they're not going to accept them if they sneak in.

Croatia is on that list below with dodgy methods as in pp

They still have a process once someone gets in

You must request protection/asylum immediately, as soon as you enter Croatia. It can be at the border crossing, at a police station or with the first police officer you see, or at the Reception Centre for Foreigners (Detention Centre).

Can you explain what the U.K. would do in practise? What methods are you saying would be easy if by land?

Obviously we could turn people away at the border as I already explained. We just wouldn't let them into the UK

Once they're in the UK it's more difficult because France would have to accept them back and we know they won't.

In order to deport people you need permission from their country to return them. How would that work with the Taliban?

If we returned asylum seekers to Afghanistan they would probably be imprisoned or worse. Most civilised countries don't return people to a place where they could be at risk of harm.

Failed asylum seekers can be returned because they've been assessed as not being in danger.

However you're already aware of all this as I've given this information to you quite a few times.

What it boils down to is whether or not you believe in human rights. Those who dehumanise asylum seekers and want to take away their rights, obviously don't. They also don't believe in the law.

Obviously we could turn people away at the border as I already explained. We just wouldn't let them into the UK

This isn't easy for reasons @SuzieNine and I have explained

Your idea that border guards can just 'dump people back where they came from' as you put it isn't within the law or possible

Your last line reminds me why I don't repeat discuss with some posters although your number name I just gloss over

Your posts are muddled, misunderstanding the process and not possible within international law

I'm perfectly aware it's not possible within international law. You keep asking me the same question over and over which is a habit of yours. Irrespective of how many times you get an answer, you ask the same questions again.

It's not my posts that are muddled and it's not me who has an obsession with asylum seekers.

I don't know how many times I've told you that we have to comply with international law. Countries like Australia choose not to.

You keep asking me how a land border is easier to deal with than water. I keep telling you that hypothetically speaking, you can turn someone away at the border, you cannot turn someone away in our waters.

Now you're telling me that turning people away is not compatible with international law. I know it's not - I keep telling you that.

I don't know how many times I've told you that Australia are breaking the law. Your answer is always the same - who cares.

Please ignore my posts in the future. I change my username a lot but I'll let you know it's me.

I'm perfectly aware it's not possible within international law.

Ok so it is you who is recommending going against international law.

As for ignoring posts yes I don't recall your number name as there are many but I would very much welcome not having any quotes from you in the future.

Your number name isn't something that sticks in the mind but had I realised you post as such I would have avoided them.