ChatterBank13 mins ago
Another Tory Lawbreaker
87 Answers
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Geoffrey13. 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.
"never has been, for an asylum seeker to seek asylum in the first "safe country" they enter"
There is an understanding that is a criteria for target nations; but even if it weren't, if they don't seek it there then they are no longer asylum seekers. A further move indicates an attempt to migrate withour asking permission first. Or putting it another way, voluntarily opting to change their status to illegal economic immigrant.
There is an understanding that is a criteria for target nations; but even if it weren't, if they don't seek it there then they are no longer asylum seekers. A further move indicates an attempt to migrate withour asking permission first. Or putting it another way, voluntarily opting to change their status to illegal economic immigrant.
ClareTG0ld, //Well, possibly.//
There's no 'possibly' about it. France is a safe country - as are many of the countries those people used to call home. They were perfectly safe before they paid thousands of pounds for a ticket to cross the English Channel. They are economic migrants - not asylum seekers.
There's no 'possibly' about it. France is a safe country - as are many of the countries those people used to call home. They were perfectly safe before they paid thousands of pounds for a ticket to cross the English Channel. They are economic migrants - not asylum seekers.
//all the usual spiel about asylum claims is neither here nor there.//
Really? In todays Mail.
""Video: EXCLUSIVE Lawyers charging £10,000 to make fake asylum claims: Special investigation exposes staff at immigration law firms briefing clients on how to LIE to the authorities to win the right to stay in Britain.""
https:/
Really? In todays Mail.
""Video: EXCLUSIVE Lawyers charging £10,000 to make fake asylum claims: Special investigation exposes staff at immigration law firms briefing clients on how to LIE to the authorities to win the right to stay in Britain.""
https:/
//Or perhaps the persecution doesn't come from the state, but from some criminal gang that has decided you are a target. In that case, the country may appear safe to almost everybody, but is dangerous to you personally.//
Which, of course, could apply to people in the UK. So by your definition, anybody who feels threatened in the UK (say, by gangs of people in Burnley who prey on an beat up gay people) could legitimately claim asylum in, say, France. France's answer, no doubt, would be to refuse asylum and suggest the applicants contact their local police in the UK.
This is a case of the pernicious "mission creep" that has been allowed to infest the asylum system and brought its original purpose into disrepute. It is not designed to protect people from harm in what are otherwise safe countries. That's the job of the police.
Which, of course, could apply to people in the UK. So by your definition, anybody who feels threatened in the UK (say, by gangs of people in Burnley who prey on an beat up gay people) could legitimately claim asylum in, say, France. France's answer, no doubt, would be to refuse asylum and suggest the applicants contact their local police in the UK.
This is a case of the pernicious "mission creep" that has been allowed to infest the asylum system and brought its original purpose into disrepute. It is not designed to protect people from harm in what are otherwise safe countries. That's the job of the police.
// So by your definition, anybody who feels threatened in the UK (say, by gangs of people in Burnley who prey on an beat up gay people) could legitimately claim asylum in, say, France. //
In a narrow sense, absolutely. The ability to *seek* asylum is a basic human right, and applies to UK citizens as much as to everybody else. The circumstances in which such an asylum claim would make sense, or even be successful, are obviously extremely rare. In that sense, when you say that "France's [or, for that matter] any other country's] answer, no doubt, would be to refuse asylum and suggest the applicants contact their local police in the UK.", I entirely agree, but that's to confuse the outcome with the process. And, again, even to the extent that I'd expect France's decision to be made swiftly, in the time between receiving that application and ejecting it, they'd still be obliged to provide the asylum seeker with food, water, safety, and shelter.
Also, when you say that // It is not designed to protect people from harm in what are otherwise safe countries. That's the job of the police. //, I also agree in the first instance. But where does a person turn to when the police fail, or are in some other sense unable to provide adequate protection? And you'd still have to determine the threshold of safety; one citizen, or one type of citizen, may well be "safe" while another is not. Once again, though, all these are questions that the asylum process is meant to answer. Most asylum claims in the UK end up rejected (https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN01403/SN01403.pdf ), and while the backlog has increased significantly in the last couple of years, you could expect a broadly similar proportion of outstanding claims to be rejected.
// Are you coming across the channel in a boat, yes, then you can forget claiming asylum. //
This also doesn't work. For what are (I hope) obvious reasons, asylum seekers in genuine need often struggle to enter a given country through official channels (essentially, because they might find it difficult to *leave* their home country through official channels), and as a result it's long been recognised that you can't penalise a claim based on the means of arrival.
None of this is to say that we shouldn't take action to address the situation. At a minimum:
1. Employ more decision-makers to deal with the huge backlog of decisions as quickly as possible;
2. Come to a more robust arrangement with France to deal with the small boat arrivals, and in particular to stop those who profit from these dangerous journeys;
3. In the meantime, treat asylum applicants fairly and humanely. This particular appeal, again, concerned children and pregnant women. I don't see at all why it's controversial that they receive proper care while their claim is being heard.
In a narrow sense, absolutely. The ability to *seek* asylum is a basic human right, and applies to UK citizens as much as to everybody else. The circumstances in which such an asylum claim would make sense, or even be successful, are obviously extremely rare. In that sense, when you say that "France's [or, for that matter] any other country's] answer, no doubt, would be to refuse asylum and suggest the applicants contact their local police in the UK.", I entirely agree, but that's to confuse the outcome with the process. And, again, even to the extent that I'd expect France's decision to be made swiftly, in the time between receiving that application and ejecting it, they'd still be obliged to provide the asylum seeker with food, water, safety, and shelter.
Also, when you say that // It is not designed to protect people from harm in what are otherwise safe countries. That's the job of the police. //, I also agree in the first instance. But where does a person turn to when the police fail, or are in some other sense unable to provide adequate protection? And you'd still have to determine the threshold of safety; one citizen, or one type of citizen, may well be "safe" while another is not. Once again, though, all these are questions that the asylum process is meant to answer. Most asylum claims in the UK end up rejected (https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN01403/SN01403.pdf ), and while the backlog has increased significantly in the last couple of years, you could expect a broadly similar proportion of outstanding claims to be rejected.
// Are you coming across the channel in a boat, yes, then you can forget claiming asylum. //
This also doesn't work. For what are (I hope) obvious reasons, asylum seekers in genuine need often struggle to enter a given country through official channels (essentially, because they might find it difficult to *leave* their home country through official channels), and as a result it's long been recognised that you can't penalise a claim based on the means of arrival.
None of this is to say that we shouldn't take action to address the situation. At a minimum:
1. Employ more decision-makers to deal with the huge backlog of decisions as quickly as possible;
2. Come to a more robust arrangement with France to deal with the small boat arrivals, and in particular to stop those who profit from these dangerous journeys;
3. In the meantime, treat asylum applicants fairly and humanely. This particular appeal, again, concerned children and pregnant women. I don't see at all why it's controversial that they receive proper care while their claim is being heard.
That link broke because of bad spacing, here it is again:
https:/
https:/
One final point is that this decision is extremely narrow: the Government has lost on points that appear to deal with the interpretation of existing UK law only ( Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 , Asylum Support Regulations 2000 ); and separate Human Rights claims were rejected.
https:/
https:/
// If there is a problem the Government should change the law and get shot of the chancers. //
This is *entirely* about what happens while the claim is being processed, ie before they've been determined to be "chancers" or not. I shouldn't have to repeat that multiple times.
Also, change the law to what exactly? "Young children are no longer entitled to food while their asylum claims are processed"?! What is wrong with people that this is taken seriously?
I agree that the backlog needs to be resolved; it's in the interests of those genuine asylum seekers that (a) their claims are heard as quickly as possible, and (b) that any claims that ought to be rejected are also resolved as quickly as possible, in order to reduce the pressure on the system. This decision is not about that. At all.
This is *entirely* about what happens while the claim is being processed, ie before they've been determined to be "chancers" or not. I shouldn't have to repeat that multiple times.
Also, change the law to what exactly? "Young children are no longer entitled to food while their asylum claims are processed"?! What is wrong with people that this is taken seriously?
I agree that the backlog needs to be resolved; it's in the interests of those genuine asylum seekers that (a) their claims are heard as quickly as possible, and (b) that any claims that ought to be rejected are also resolved as quickly as possible, in order to reduce the pressure on the system. This decision is not about that. At all.
Most asylum applications ultimately come from Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Turkey, and most recently Ukraine. So at least there's little dispute that the "starting point" is not safe in those cases. Against that we also have the increasing number from Albania, and how to handle those cases is more subtle (although, according to the source above, all decisions reached on Albanian asylum claims made in 2022 were rejected for one reason or another).
It's true that most of those applicants who make it to the UK will have passed through at least one other country before getting here. However, by that logic, the UK presumably ought to receive no asylum applications at all, or at least not more than a handful: again, because getting on an official flight when you are fleeing persecution is, to say the least, problematic, this is simply not reasonable.
It's also unreasonable because these applicants still have to go *somewhere*; despite the large number of migrant boat arrivals lately, France still receives significantly more asylum claims than the UK does (about 130,000 to about 90,000, not including Ukrainian figures).
It's true that most of those applicants who make it to the UK will have passed through at least one other country before getting here. However, by that logic, the UK presumably ought to receive no asylum applications at all, or at least not more than a handful: again, because getting on an official flight when you are fleeing persecution is, to say the least, problematic, this is simply not reasonable.
It's also unreasonable because these applicants still have to go *somewhere*; despite the large number of migrant boat arrivals lately, France still receives significantly more asylum claims than the UK does (about 130,000 to about 90,000, not including Ukrainian figures).
As to sending people to Rwanda specifically:
1. For now at least, this is unlawful (I would not necessarily be surprised if the Government wins on appeal to the Supreme Court -- see my previous comments on this point -- but we'll see).
2. Even assuming it were found lawful, it amounts to barely a couple of hundred people sent there, so the alleged deterrent effect is both minimal and temporary;
3. It also makes arguably too many demands of the arrivals, who can hardly be expected to know the full details of the UK's immigration policy (and some will undoubtedly have been lied to).
To the extent that the rwanda policy dealt with anything, it was by providing some people in the UK with the false impression that this Government was doing something about migrant boats, and (b) giving the Government something to campaign about when they inevitably got taken to Court over it. It doesn't solve anything, it won't deter anyone, and it doesn't even begin to address the root of the crisis (ie, why people want to leave these countries in the first place).
1. For now at least, this is unlawful (I would not necessarily be surprised if the Government wins on appeal to the Supreme Court -- see my previous comments on this point -- but we'll see).
2. Even assuming it were found lawful, it amounts to barely a couple of hundred people sent there, so the alleged deterrent effect is both minimal and temporary;
3. It also makes arguably too many demands of the arrivals, who can hardly be expected to know the full details of the UK's immigration policy (and some will undoubtedly have been lied to).
To the extent that the rwanda policy dealt with anything, it was by providing some people in the UK with the false impression that this Government was doing something about migrant boats, and (b) giving the Government something to campaign about when they inevitably got taken to Court over it. It doesn't solve anything, it won't deter anyone, and it doesn't even begin to address the root of the crisis (ie, why people want to leave these countries in the first place).
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles20 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles21 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles28 mins ago
Sunday Telegraph Prize Crossword Sunday...
Crosswords165 mins ago
Which Is Cheaper Asda Or Morrisons...
How it Works177 mins ago
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.