[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

Its not on our side of the border though, so responsibility is not equal. We have no jurisdiction on French soil, and the illegal camp is on French soil, not UK soil.

I have to say, with winter approaching fast, if we are concerned about humanitarian issues, we should be looking at our homeless in the UK. They have far less protection, security and facilities available to them than the immigrants on French soil. We actually have no duty what so ever to look after anyone in the French camps.

Incorrect, under the dubs amendment we do.

[bots]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Incorrect, under the dubs amendment we do.

If someone in Australia buys a ticket to come to the UK, appears at Sydney airport for the flight, but doesn't have a visa, he will be told he can't travel, and cheerio.

We are not duty bound to take care of anyone not legally eligible to come to our country. End of.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

If someone in Australia buys a ticket to come to the UK, appears at Sydney airport for the flight, but doesn't have a visa, he will be told he can't travel, and cheerio.

We are not duty bound to take care of anyone not legally eligible to come to our country. End of.

We are legally obliged.

'Lord Dubs, the Labour peer who earlier this year masterminded a political coup forcing the government to promise to give sanctuary to some unaccompanied child refugees, usually comes across as an upbeat figure, not inclined to wallow in despair. Today he seems momentarily overwhelmed by the horrific situation facing about 860 children living here in second-hand camping tents and flimsy wooden shacks. Given the amount of energy he has dedicated to trying to help them, and the complete absence of any progress to date, he has every reason to feel depressed.

“It is a disgrace. A piece of legislation was passed with enormous public support, and the government has done nothing discernible about it,” he says. As a former child refugee himself, brought to Britain from Czechoslovakia on one of the Kindertransport trains in 1939, his sense of anger at the political inaction is particularly acute.'

[bots]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

We are legally obliged.

'Lord Dubs, the Labour peer who earlier this year masterminded a political coup forcing the government to promise to give sanctuary to some unaccompanied child refugees, usually comes across as an upbeat figure, not inclined to wallow in despair. Today he seems momentarily overwhelmed by the horrific situation facing about 860 children living here in second-hand camping tents and flimsy wooden shacks. Given the amount of energy he has dedicated to trying to help them, and the complete absence of any progress to date, he has every reason to feel depressed.

“It is a disgrace. A piece of legislation was passed with enormous public support, and the government has done nothing discernible about it,” he says. As a former child refugee himself, brought to Britain from Czechoslovakia on one of the Kindertransport trains in 1939, his sense of anger at the political inaction is particularly acute.'

the key words there are child and refugee .... or have the last n pages not made that clear

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

the key words there are child and refugee .... or have the last n pages not made that clear

Well yes.... Seeing as that is what I have been discussing, as I said earlier for several pages.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Incorrect, under the dubs amendment we do.

To be precise, The Dubs Amendment applies ONLY to unaccompanied CHILDREN - NOT adults, NOT to children with parents, and especially NOT to SKANKING ADULTS PRETENDING TO BE CHILDREN.

There is now also NO preset number of just how many unaccompanied children we have to take under the Dubs Amendment - that being subject now to the discretion of individual councils within the UK.

So, with respect, it is YOU not BOTS who is 'incorrect'.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

To be precise, The Dubs Amendment applies ONLY to unaccompanied CHILDREN - NOT adults, NOT to children with parents, and especially NOT to SKANKING ADULTS PRETENDING TO BE CHILDREN.

There is now also NO preset number of just how many unaccompanied children we have to take under the Dubs Amendment - that being subject now to the discretion of individual councils within the UK.

So, with respect, it is YOU not BOTS who is 'incorrect'.

I have been addressing the issue in relation to children for the past 4 pages...