Quizzes & Puzzles38 mins ago
Should These Illegal Migrants Who Are Crossing The Channel To Come To This Country So As To Claim Asylum, Now Be Forced To Claim Asylum While Still In France?
65 Answers
https:/
/// The UK has a legal obligation under what is known as the Dublin Regulation to ensure asylum applications lodged are examined and considered. ///
/// The UK has a legal obligation under what is known as the Dublin Regulation to ensure asylum applications lodged are examined and considered. ///
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.
They are not asylum seekers. They are illegal immigrants. You should claim asylum in the first neutral country you reach not move on to where you think the pickings are richer. If they are returned to where they came from before reaching our shores then maybe those countries would do more to catch the people who are selling the boats and/or encouraging them to travel to the UK. They are making a fortune I presume.
Bakers Dozen, afraid you are mistaken:-
https:/
https:/
"Refugees can legitimately make a claim for asylum in the UK after passing through other “safe” countries."
That's fine, except they are no longer refugees once safe, so the statement is self contradictory. If they can prove they are not safe in the safe country that they are in, then they remain refugees and can go on to the next.
That's fine, except they are no longer refugees once safe, so the statement is self contradictory. If they can prove they are not safe in the safe country that they are in, then they remain refugees and can go on to the next.
Not for the first time that I’ve noticed, Full Fact is a little light on the full facts. It says this:
-----
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.
-----
Article 31 of The United Nations Convention on the Status of Refugees (nothing to do with the Geneva Convention) says this:
-----
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.
-----
Note the term “..coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened…” Those arriving from France have not come from such a place. They are perfectly safe there, albeit less comfortable than they would like. Thus their entry to the UK, under A31, is illegal.
The EU’s Dublin Convention was designed to prevent asylum seekers from lodging multiple applications for their claim across different countries in the EU. Among other things it says that the first nation where a migrant’s finger prints are taken and stored is responsible for processing his asylum claim. Of course those in Calais do not submit themselves to such an indignity and the first country where arrivals in rubber boats are processed is thus usually the UK. In July 2017, the European Court of Justice upheld the Dublin Regulation, declaring that it still stands despite the high influx of 2015, giving EU member states the right to deport migrants to the first country of entry to the EU:
https:/
Of course it is preposterous to allow migrants to roam freely across the Continent heading for their “destination of choice”. They are allegedly fleeing for their safety or to avoid persecution. But that’s exactly what’s happening under the EU’s ridiculous regime, exacerbated by ludicrous Schengen Agreement . Those arriving in the UK from France are illegal migrants under A31 of the UN Convention and are also falling foul of the Dublin Agreement (which was ratified as appropriate by the ECJ). They should be returned to France.
-----
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.
-----
Article 31 of The United Nations Convention on the Status of Refugees (nothing to do with the Geneva Convention) says this:
-----
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.
-----
Note the term “..coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened…” Those arriving from France have not come from such a place. They are perfectly safe there, albeit less comfortable than they would like. Thus their entry to the UK, under A31, is illegal.
The EU’s Dublin Convention was designed to prevent asylum seekers from lodging multiple applications for their claim across different countries in the EU. Among other things it says that the first nation where a migrant’s finger prints are taken and stored is responsible for processing his asylum claim. Of course those in Calais do not submit themselves to such an indignity and the first country where arrivals in rubber boats are processed is thus usually the UK. In July 2017, the European Court of Justice upheld the Dublin Regulation, declaring that it still stands despite the high influx of 2015, giving EU member states the right to deport migrants to the first country of entry to the EU:
https:/
Of course it is preposterous to allow migrants to roam freely across the Continent heading for their “destination of choice”. They are allegedly fleeing for their safety or to avoid persecution. But that’s exactly what’s happening under the EU’s ridiculous regime, exacerbated by ludicrous Schengen Agreement . Those arriving in the UK from France are illegal migrants under A31 of the UN Convention and are also falling foul of the Dublin Agreement (which was ratified as appropriate by the ECJ). They should be returned to France.
//Shouldn't they be spread evenly over all countries, based on the country's ability to accommodate them?//
I don't see why. It's scarcely our fault that we don't lie on the direct migrant routes. Why we should be expected to accommodate people who simply don't like it where they currently are is a little unclear. Perhaps those on the immediate receiving end should either provide facilities for them or opt out of the various treaties that expect them to accommodate them. Giving them the option to simply "spread them evenly" over other nations is hardly likely to encourage them to protect their borders from invasion.
However, if that is the way to deal with it then the UK should receive none. Our housing crisis (which we are continually told about) is such that we have no accommodation.
I don't see why. It's scarcely our fault that we don't lie on the direct migrant routes. Why we should be expected to accommodate people who simply don't like it where they currently are is a little unclear. Perhaps those on the immediate receiving end should either provide facilities for them or opt out of the various treaties that expect them to accommodate them. Giving them the option to simply "spread them evenly" over other nations is hardly likely to encourage them to protect their borders from invasion.
However, if that is the way to deal with it then the UK should receive none. Our housing crisis (which we are continually told about) is such that we have no accommodation.
If the guest country genuinely claims sufficient poverty that it's causing them issues then I can see a reason for other countries to help out by supplying resources. But why make it more difficult for the refugees to return when it's safe by offering to accommodate them a far distance from their homeland ? That's not helpful it simply complicates things. (Especially when the likelihood of a culture clash is greater.)
If we had that much of a crying need we'd have trained our own citizens to do engineering and doctoring, and ensured pay and working conditions were as we in this country expect them.
Besides, if these immigrants are brilliant at engineering and doctoring why doesn't any country before they are in spitting distance of the UK not want them ?
No, we need them to keep wages down, don't we ? And allow our citizens to be unemployed ?
Besides, if these immigrants are brilliant at engineering and doctoring why doesn't any country before they are in spitting distance of the UK not want them ?
No, we need them to keep wages down, don't we ? And allow our citizens to be unemployed ?
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.