Stella Creasy doesn’t understand the law

Refugee camps are not a long-term solution. But demolishing them or hoping other countries will deal with the problem because it isn’t happening on our soil isn’t a sustainable or honourable response. As signatories to the 1951 refugee convention, Britain should share responsibility for helping more people, not just in camps in poorer nations but across Europe too. That means providing more legal safe routes to sanctuary and funding the administrative mechanisms for people to access them.

The people in the Calais Jungle are in a safe country. Therefore it is right, proper and correct that they apply for asylum or immigration in France.

As far as I can tell the Jungle exists because France refuses to process said applications. Or they refuse to make them. Either way, it is not a British problem. Not under EU nor UN law.

You do indeed have an absolute right to asylum. That right being exercisable in the first safe country.

34 thoughts on “Stella Creasy doesn’t understand the law”

  1. France should process them and say: Ok, you entered Europe via Greece, that’s the first safe country, we grant you asylum in Greece, here’s the train.

  2. A law made in 1951 is dated.
    Nobody want refugees especially if they could get the cream of other countries..
    There is no sense in stuffing nations till they are overfull.
    And this ‘refugee’ thing is an aspect of the ‘national borders are evil’ of the intelligentsia.

  3. So Much For Subtlety

    Human Rights are not a suicide pact. Even if Angela Merkel thinks they are.

    In reality we owe people who hate us nothing. I don’t give a sh!t about a single one of them. I do not care if they are turning each other into bars of soap. We owe them nothing. And we should accept none.

    We do not save the world by destroying its only civilised part under a flood of barbarians. Tow them back out to sea. Let their God look out for them.

    Not. A. Single. One.

  4. Correct. But it’s easy to point at the law when you’re on the island that, save for our shamrock-loving cousins to the west, is approximately the least likely to be reached first by those fleeing the most likely places to merit fleeing from.

    Yes. The law is what it is and everyone has signed up to it. No argument. But if everyone stuck to it then it would privilege the UK to the detriment of most others.*

    (* the words ‘privilege’ and ‘detriment’ assume, for the sake of convenience, a negative impact of accepting asylum seekers. That’s a moot point. And there’s a contradiction here that can be exploited to get SJW’s tying themselves in knots.)

  5. Stella’s and Yvette’s policy would likely result in more people heading to Calais, and more people drowning in both the Med and the Channel.

    If we want to try and help, we should buy some guns and tanks and stuff and create UN safe parts of Syria, Libya, Sudan et al.. Sadly we can’t do that because the same Lefties wouldn’t like that.

  6. TTG:“…the words ‘privilege’ and ‘detriment’ assume, for the sake of convenience, a negative impact of accepting asylum seekers. That’s a moot point. “

    Do please tell me what benefit the UK gains from a toothless Somali grandfather or fit, young Afghan posing as a 15 year old..?

  7. Refugee camps might well solve the problem.

    If, instead of housing, feeding, tending to, caring for, etc, refugees to the same standard of living as many people working and paying taxes in the destination country they were placed in camps with only basic accommodation and services available, the journey would be less attractive to economic settlers, while those in genuine need of asylum would accept it.

    If you’re a refugee in an African country, you are in a camp, not given the same standard of living as permanent residents of that country. Why should Europe be different?

  8. TTG, but every country has its geographical advantages and disadvantages. Greece and Italy get Mediterranean islands and beaches and we don’t expect them to share the proceeds from all the tourism they get with us but we’re supposed to share the costs of their geographical disadvantages?

  9. TTG – “it’s easy to point at the law when you’re on the island that, save for our shamrock-loving cousins to the west, is approximately the least likely to be reached first by those fleeing the most likely places to merit fleeing from.”

    Yep.

    It’s easy.

    And that’s why we should do it.

    There are no wars or famines or floods in France. So if you left your own country because of those problems, then you have escaped them when you arrive in France.

  10. There just seems to be such a huge divide between people who can’t conceive of or accept a difference between a refugee and an economic migrant, and those who can.

    One decision I thought was very wise from Cameron was to focus help, and offer sanctuary if needed, only to the refugee camps immediately displaced from the crisis zone. I’d rather have a hundred orphans and widows from there than a single man who has broken into a lorry in France.

    Merkel’s policy has resulted in the deaths of thousands.

  11. Surely if the French wanted to solve the problem of the jungle all they need to do is give the ‘refugees’ a French passport and a £30 single ticket to Dover.
    Until the UK actually Brexits there is nothing anybody could do to stop them.

  12. Of course, our glorious leaders could stop stirring the shit in the middle east, which has been of absolutely no benefit to Europe or the US and has in fact created huge problems for us.

  13. The ‘Guardian’ has another story up (headed ‘Exclusive!’) about how the Calais camp is running out of money for food, and all the little charities are fighting donor apathy:

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/02/calais-refugee-camp-running-out-of-food-as-donor-fatigue-sees-donations-dry-up

    The comments are rather interesting so far. Especially the response to thios bit:

    “How you can help

    Money, donations and volunteers are needed at the camp at Calais, but certain supplies are needed more than others – key items required are listed here.

    • Support the campaigning work of Citizens UK, lobbying to bring unaccompanied refugee children to the UK.

    • Donate to the Women’s and Children’s bus, supporting the smaller number of families with young children in the camp, and helping work with the smallest unaccompanied children, some as young as eight.

    • Volunteer to collect litter and help clean the camp, which is vital to stop rat infestations.”

    Commenters are pointing out that those ‘unaccompanied children’ are of dubious age, they are admitting that families make up a smaller percentage than fit young men and what the hell else do they have to do all day but clean up after themselves?

    The regular bleeding hearts are fighting a losing battle!

  14. They are asylum-shoppers and refuge-shoppers.

    “But if everyone stuck to it then it would privilege the UK to the detriment of most others.” Bloody right. I’m sure the EU makes up pay fully for every disadvantage of being an island; in that case we should exploit every advantage of that status.

    So should our cousins the Micks. In fact, they and we really should co-ordinate our activities on this topic, irrespective of whether either country is in or out of the EU.

  15. Well I was going to make a pithy comment on the Grauniad website re the article but for some reason they have turned the comments off.

    TW is of course right, these migrants (not refugees) should be claiming asylum (although to claim asylum they would have to be refugees) in the first safe country. Although I suppose with so many of their coreligionists in France, they may well have decided that France was no longer safe enough.

    We need to get Brexit done so that they cannot come in under the radar as “French or German or whatever citizens”. As none EU nationals they have absolutely no right to come here at all.

  16. Bloke in North Dorset

    The left are always telling us that immigration creates wealth. Given the sclerotic French economy shouldn’t they be welcoming these people with open arms?

    As Daedalus points out, it would help if we distinguished between refugees is those fleeing natural or even man made disasters, and econmic migrants. The former should be helped as close to the disaster as is safe and then returned as soon as the disaster is alleviated.

    Unless the latter have useful skills they shouldn’t be allowed in.

  17. Bloke in North Dorset

    I rarely agree with smfs (welcome back), but he does have a point. From this week’s Economist:

    Others are less sanguine, among them Germany’s best-known Syrian immigrant of an earlier generation, Bassam Tibi. The 72-year-old Mr Tibi was born into an aristocratic family in Damascus. He learned to recite the Koran as a child, and grew up imbibing the anti-Semitism that pervaded his environment. But in 1962 he came to Germany, studied with renowned German-Jewish philosophers such as Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer, and embraced the West’s tolerant and open society. As a professor of international relations at the University of Göttingen for four decades, he popularised the term “Euro-Islam”, arguing that Muslims can and should integrate by blending their traditional and adopted cultures into a secularised and modern faith.

    But of late Mr Tibi has turned pessimistic. Mrs Merkel’s welcome last year, he thinks, could even turn Germany into a “failed state”. Recently, he spoke with ten young Syrians. “Two of them spoke German, were doing well, and reminded me of myself back then,” he says. “The other eight were telling me that ‘Allah gave us Germany as a refuge, not the Germans’.” Most Syrians and other Muslims, he now thinks, will never integrate, instead retreating into misogynistic, anti-Semitic and anti-democratic worldviews and segregating themselves in radicalised enclaves.

    I hope he and smfs are wrong, but hope won’t keep us safe.

  18. Oblong is correct (nowadays it isn’t PC to say “right”).
    Until Marine Le Pen is ousted from the Presidency of France by her father, it is nonsense to class anyone in Calais as a refugee needing asylum in Britain.
    There are very many genuine refugees (among hundreds of thousands of economic migrants/asylum shoppers) being treated badly, too often left destitute, by UK bureaucrats which is shameful. I’m not Bill Gates or David Sainsbury so I cannot rescue them by myself but I do contribute a few £ per week to one of the charities that tries to help destitute refugees.
    I do not want to give a penny (whether directly or through my taxes) to thugs in Calais who attack or threaten British lorry drivers..

  19. “But of late Mr Tibi has turned pessimistic. Mrs Merkel’s welcome last year, he thinks, could even turn Germany into a “failed state”. Recently, he spoke with ten young Syrians. “Two of them spoke German, were doing well, and reminded me of myself back then,” he says. “The other eight were telling me that ‘Allah gave us Germany as a refuge, not the Germans’.” Most Syrians and other Muslims, he now thinks, will never integrate, instead retreating into misogynistic, anti-Semitic and anti-democratic worldviews and segregating themselves in radicalised enclaves.”

    If immigration into Germany continues at the current rate and demographic distribution, German men between the ages of 20-34 will be a minority in FOUR years.

    Behold the failed state.

  20. TTG, you baffle me: at the same time as diminishing Britain’s natural geographic advantages you seem to treat the source of the problem merely as a geographic disadvantage. If Britain’s “approximately the least likely to be reached first by those fleeing” is mere geographic accident deserving equalisation vis-à-vis “the most likely places to merit fleeing from” that would seem to exclude non-geographic factors. I’m just puzzled about the lack of refugees from Norway and Iceland.

    And while we’re about the whole ‘equalisation of geographic advantage’ thing, should we expect Saudi et al to simply divvy-up the oil?

  21. I didn’t say anything about equalising the UK’s geographical advantage, I merely pointed out that the current law is easy to support for those that have it. There were a thousands of people trying to flee a warzone on our doorstep then we might think it’s a rubbish law.

    Comparison to natural advantages like climate and resources are a bit duff. The rules on asylum are entirely man made. A different set of rules could be drawn up without tearing apart all notions of territorial sovereignty (not possible with resource rights, so much). And, in some cases, they have been… see various agreements to spread displaced people around the world with various countries agreeing to take certain numbers. Here we’re discussing where an asylum claim should be made. People want to make that claim in the UK because they want to settle here. If there was no link between the place of claim and the place of settlement then the rules on claiming would be entirely defensible.

  22. TTG, I’m still a bit puzzled: in your first comment you explicitly refer to Britain and Ireland’s island geography; if you’re only concerned with man-made laws, why make that a factor in your argument?

    And what is this link between asylum claim and settlement? You seem to be conflating asylum with migration, and it’s precisely because asylum is temporary refuge that the rules are as they are. Of course, if you’re going to change meanings then rules that use the original meaning become hard to defend.

  23. @ Nemo

    Re. your first point.. the laws suit our geography. That’s the point I’m making. It’s not a complicated one.

    Re. your second point.. asylum might be temporary refuge in dictionaries, but in practice is isn’t… both because there’s no end-date on the conditions many people are fleeing and because, even if there were, those that flee and ‘end up’ in Western Europe have no intention of going back. Reality is going to happen whether we like it or not, so whilst you’re entirely correct, I think that is a perfect illustration of why the rules aren’t really working.

  24. TTG, and we’re back to the advantages of geography. You’re right: the advantage of being an island a continent away from a conflict isn’t complicated, in fact it’s so simple as to be vacuous. All those other parties to the conventions under discussion didn’t see their own geographical situations as reason NOT to enjoin. And there’s nothing inherent to the geography of Syria, for instance, to make it a theatre of war.

    So y

  25. Continued:

    So you seem to be saying that if a set of rules happen to work to the advantage of some more than others, in some circumstances, then the rules are a problem. And if the rules don’t suit some people, then the rules are a problem. But this only applies to people and not resources, because the rules regarding people are entirely man-made, whereas the rules regarding resources are…?

    Basically, your point seems to be that rules are bad because reality. But only rules on the movement of people because reasons.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *