So, his entire point is undermining the legitimacy of refugees. Read the phrasing again, in context with highlighting by me:
"whilst with exception to Nigerians and Ugandans fleeing two kinds of crazy (actual refugees), our refugees are coming through France and should be claiming asylum there. And of our refugees? Majority come from Pakistan or Eritrea with Syria in third. No war, no war and war."
He's clearly stating "actual refugrees" as an oppositional class to "our refugees" which includes Eritreans. So, in context he's clearly singling out Eritreans as fakes. I stand by my comment. The last sentence where he says "granted, war isn't always a good indicator" is a disclaimer. It's not a central part of his claim.
I don't think you understand how little I give a shit about petty identity politics; refugees are refugees if they're fleeing war, otherwise they're asylum seekers; one's victim of war and the other politics. It's such a minor difference the only reason I made it was because pretty much everyone has been throwing around the word refugee to the point of uselessness, where everyone who tries to cross the border illegally has become a refugee irregardless of why or where from. I don't know if you're Eritrean or something but I don't see where you "in context" see me "clearly singling out Eritreans as fakes," kek, and everyone's already pointed out better than I could've said what I actually said. What in the bloody hell does "in context" mean to you?
But he's not worth taking seriously. Because there's nothing going on in Uganda compared to Eritrea
Civil war in Uganda?
Look, I don't want to get into oppression olympics over whose suffering is worst because I find that not worth my time.
Granted war status is not what's important, what's important is whether they have reasonable fears for their life should they return, and that's what counts.
I don't know what LW is actually trying to say, but it's definitely not what you think it is.
Have a field day if you want to argue with something that's not there, but as Arx's said that's not the point I was making. If I wanted to say there is no suffering in Africa or the Middle East I'd just say it; and it's clear that's not true.
as part of the asylum seeking process you are supposed to claim asylum at the first safe country you're in; far be it claiming asylum in Greece, Turkey, Italy, Malta or any other country in the Balkans, the majority don't want asylum there they want passage into Germany... our refugees are coming through France and should be claiming asylum there.
How, exactly, does all of what you've brought up change the fact that they should have claimed asylum in France? If they're required to claim asylum in the first peaceful country they pass through, then those coming from France to claim asylum in Britain are indeed violating the terms of the arrangement as written, and Britain is well within their rights to be upset about it.
Yup, the French have been mucking up their end something fierce, and it's not like they don't know what they're doing. The mayor of Calais said Britain should surrender her borders and take down all border restrictions with the European continent or leave the EU in response to illegal border crossing. And then she issued threats to open French borders to allow all the illegal immigrants they've set camps up for to enter Britain. She knows what she's doing, it's deliberate self-sabotage in the hopes the fire burns Dover and not Calais.
You know before mocking Eritrean refugees because you're too ignorant to learn about what's going on in the world, you should pick up a book some time. You're basically one step away from laughing about Jews in the ovens when you dismiss people who are actually experiencing genocide.
Sure got a lot of feels there
I'm being far too polite than I should, but nothing I could say is funnier than you