ChatterBank1 min ago
Has The Trump Administration Got It Right Regarding Their Immigration Policy?
25 Answers
https:/
/// The rule from the departments of Justice and Homeland Security would prohibit migrants who have resided or "transited en route" in a third country from seeking asylum in the US, therefore barring migrants traveling through Mexico from being able to claim asylum and as a result, drastically limit who's eligible for asylum. ///
Pity our government won't act the same over the increasing numbers of asylum seekers crossing the Channel from safe country France.
/// The rule from the departments of Justice and Homeland Security would prohibit migrants who have resided or "transited en route" in a third country from seeking asylum in the US, therefore barring migrants traveling through Mexico from being able to claim asylum and as a result, drastically limit who's eligible for asylum. ///
Pity our government won't act the same over the increasing numbers of asylum seekers crossing the Channel from safe country France.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
This is the ITV news report I referred to at 1050.
162,000 applied for asylum last year and only 13,000 were granted it.
That is a collossal amount. We think we have problems.
https:/
162,000 applied for asylum last year and only 13,000 were granted it.
That is a collossal amount. We think we have problems.
https:/
//OG, Are you not confusing immigrants with asylum seekers?//
No he’s not. I really don’t know how all this comes about:
============================
//Claim: Under the Geneva Convention refugees should seek refuge in the first safe country they come to.//
//Conclusion: Incorrect. The UN Refugee Convention does not make this requirement of refugees, and UK case law supports this interpretation. Refugees can legitimately make a claim for asylum in the UK after passing through other “safe” countries.//
//She [Ms Evans] is also incorrect to say that refugees should seek refuge in the first safe country they come to. Under the UN Refugee Convention, there is no obligation on refugees to do this. Ms Evans is wrong to claim that, under the Geneva Convention, refugees should seek refuge in the first safe country they come to. It contains no obligation “either explicit or implicit” for refugees to claim asylum in the first safe country they reach,..//
------------------
That rather drives a coach and horses through this, then (which is the UN Convention on the status of refugees):
==========
Article 31 - Refugees unlawfully in the country of refuge
1. The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.
=============
That Article thus places two constraints on refugees. The first is that to be lawfully at large they must have come directly from a country where they are in peril. The second is that they must present themselves to the authorities on arrival. If either of those are not complied with they are illegal entrants.
The Article clearly states that refugees only enjoy immunity from action for illegal entry if they come directly from a dangerous country. It has always been well known. More than that, the EU’s own Dublin Agreement stipulates that refugees must be processed in their first country of arrival (well at least it did until the southern countries were being overwhelmed with arrivals, prompting a scheme to “share” the burden). But in any case this Agreement anyway does not trump the UN Convention.
I really don’t know how or why the idea has caught on that refugees are free to roam around, illegally entering various countries until they reach their destination of choice. It simply doesn’t work like that. The UK “case law” that "fullfact" refers to as supporting that claim is mainly based on the European Convention on Human Rights which seems to trump most sensible legislation.
No he’s not. I really don’t know how all this comes about:
============================
//Claim: Under the Geneva Convention refugees should seek refuge in the first safe country they come to.//
//Conclusion: Incorrect. The UN Refugee Convention does not make this requirement of refugees, and UK case law supports this interpretation. Refugees can legitimately make a claim for asylum in the UK after passing through other “safe” countries.//
//She [Ms Evans] is also incorrect to say that refugees should seek refuge in the first safe country they come to. Under the UN Refugee Convention, there is no obligation on refugees to do this. Ms Evans is wrong to claim that, under the Geneva Convention, refugees should seek refuge in the first safe country they come to. It contains no obligation “either explicit or implicit” for refugees to claim asylum in the first safe country they reach,..//
------------------
That rather drives a coach and horses through this, then (which is the UN Convention on the status of refugees):
==========
Article 31 - Refugees unlawfully in the country of refuge
1. The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.
=============
That Article thus places two constraints on refugees. The first is that to be lawfully at large they must have come directly from a country where they are in peril. The second is that they must present themselves to the authorities on arrival. If either of those are not complied with they are illegal entrants.
The Article clearly states that refugees only enjoy immunity from action for illegal entry if they come directly from a dangerous country. It has always been well known. More than that, the EU’s own Dublin Agreement stipulates that refugees must be processed in their first country of arrival (well at least it did until the southern countries were being overwhelmed with arrivals, prompting a scheme to “share” the burden). But in any case this Agreement anyway does not trump the UN Convention.
I really don’t know how or why the idea has caught on that refugees are free to roam around, illegally entering various countries until they reach their destination of choice. It simply doesn’t work like that. The UK “case law” that "fullfact" refers to as supporting that claim is mainly based on the European Convention on Human Rights which seems to trump most sensible legislation.
for what it's worth..migrants are mostly young males, and bums..
ignorant uneducated...with feed me on there faces, but..also have
designer clothes and phones...not bob geldofs feed the world picture.
probably become drug runners, rapists murderers.., but thats ok, as long as they do not live near you, and yours...bless
ignorant uneducated...with feed me on there faces, but..also have
designer clothes and phones...not bob geldofs feed the world picture.
probably become drug runners, rapists murderers.., but thats ok, as long as they do not live near you, and yours...bless
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.