Crosswords0 min ago
Mural Painted Over…
Not in N. Ireland but in an asylum centre for little kids.
The smiling Disney characters were apparently too friendly for these solo children.
https:/
The soul of the Conservative Party is really dark and vacuous.
The smiling Disney characters were apparently too friendly for these solo children.
https:/
The soul of the Conservative Party is really dark and vacuous.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Gromit. 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 has already been covered on here today, see https:/
//Who said they were illegal? They were asylum seekers. The word "illegal" was not in the article, but added by you ...//
The centre is in Dover. Those arriving at Dover have been living in France. France is a safe country and there is no reason for them to apply for asylum in the UK. They do not come directly from a country where they are under threat so their entry is illegal.
It is only recently that the UN has decided that A31 of their convention on the treatment of refugees says something that it does not mean, but I've a feeling we've done this once or twice before. But to help me out, explain why anybody living in France needs to seek asylum in the UK. My explanation is that they don't particularly like it where they are and would rather be somewhere else. That's not what asylum is for.
The centre is in Dover. Those arriving at Dover have been living in France. France is a safe country and there is no reason for them to apply for asylum in the UK. They do not come directly from a country where they are under threat so their entry is illegal.
It is only recently that the UN has decided that A31 of their convention on the treatment of refugees says something that it does not mean, but I've a feeling we've done this once or twice before. But to help me out, explain why anybody living in France needs to seek asylum in the UK. My explanation is that they don't particularly like it where they are and would rather be somewhere else. That's not what asylum is for.
NJ: If France is a decent country and therefore nobody from there should be allowed to be considered a bona fide asylum seeker, then where would you consider they should start their journey from? Should they swim here from the middle east? We happen to be on the western end of Europe, so by definition are we excused from accepting any asylum seekers?
//We happen to be on the western end of Europe, so by definition are we excused from accepting any asylum seekers?//
Yes. So is most of Europe. The idea of asylum is that those in peril flee where they are living and seek haven in the first safe country in which they arrive. The idea that they can roam around until they reach the destination of their choice is not the principle at all. That is why A31 makes it clear that governments shall not impose penalties on those “…coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened…”. This indicates that there is a clear distinction in principle between those who arrive directly from a place of danger and those who do not.
The UN (and other bodies such as Amnesty) have seen fit to unilaterally abandon that distinction and place an interpretation on A31 which its text does not support. Quite why the signatories have endured this is not clear. The UN should have presented a fresh text to the signatories for their consideration, but they didn’t.
//I don't need to have a debate about it, NJ. You know the law, and therefore you know I'm right ... by the law.//
Which law or Convention (rather than an interpretation) do you have in mind?
Yes. So is most of Europe. The idea of asylum is that those in peril flee where they are living and seek haven in the first safe country in which they arrive. The idea that they can roam around until they reach the destination of their choice is not the principle at all. That is why A31 makes it clear that governments shall not impose penalties on those “…coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened…”. This indicates that there is a clear distinction in principle between those who arrive directly from a place of danger and those who do not.
The UN (and other bodies such as Amnesty) have seen fit to unilaterally abandon that distinction and place an interpretation on A31 which its text does not support. Quite why the signatories have endured this is not clear. The UN should have presented a fresh text to the signatories for their consideration, but they didn’t.
//I don't need to have a debate about it, NJ. You know the law, and therefore you know I'm right ... by the law.//
Which law or Convention (rather than an interpretation) do you have in mind?
