Another Tory Lawbreaker

[Geoffrey13]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jul/24/suella-braverman-acted-unlawfully-over-asylum-seekers-judge-rules#:~:text=Immigration%20and%20asylum-,Suella%20Braverman%20broke%20law%20by%20denying%20asylum,3%20a%20week%2C%20judge%20rules&text=The%20home%20secretary%20acted%20unlawfully,women%2C%20a%20judge%20has%20ruled.

[Peter Pedant]

surely it would be news-ier if the headline were
Tory obeys law shock

[bobbinwales]

Am no fan of her gang.
But most of us get where she was coming from and maybe it's a law that needs reviewing

[Old_Geezer]

Before they work that out they need first to properly define an asylum seeker, and it sure ain't one who self identifies as an asylum seeker if asked.

[Bobbisox1]

Not many women or children I’ve seen, usually fit healthy young men

[ToraToraTora]

Perlease! looks like hymie and Gulliver have a new play mate!

[gulliver1]

Oh dear someones had his toe trodden on.

[ClareTG0ld]

// ... they need first to properly define an asylum seeker, and it sure ain't one who self identifies as an asylum seeker if asked. //

In order to be an asylum seeker, you need to do three things:

1. Leave your home country;
2. Go to another country;
3. Request asylum in that country.

That's it. It may well be that some asylum claims are ultimately without merit, but the status of asylum seeker itself has nothing to do with that. Also, since the logical extension of "innocent until proven guilty" is "genuine asylum claim until it's dismissed", then it's incumbent on the country in which the asylum request is being processed to provide some minimum amount of care while that's ongoing -- that is, to provide food, water, shelter, and safety. I'd have thought that would be particularly uncontroversial when the asylum seeker is a pregnant woman or a young child. Even if, as bobbisox asserts, there aren't many such people in the asylum system, there are still *some*. And this kind of ill-treatment is unlawful, and more to the point, wholly unethical.

[gulliver1]

08.57 Are they staying at the Travellers Rest then Bobbisox ?.

[ToraToraTora]

that's all we need another Trollsketeer!

[Old_Geezer]

That probably why there's aneed for a proper definition Clare. Just asking for asylum doesn't mean you are really seeking asylum. If you arrived from a safe country then it's crystal clear that you are not.

[ClareTG0ld]

"If you arrived from a safe country then it's crystal clear that you are not."

That's what the processing period is for, though: it sorts the genuine from the bogus.

[naomi24]

I agree, OG. No one coming from a safe country is fleeing war or persecution.

[Zacs-Master]

All the AB trolls would be posting something like ‘Tories give asylum seekers even more money’ if the £3 had been granted.

[ClareTG0ld]

// No one coming from a safe country is fleeing war or persecution. //

What counts as a "safe country"? This isn't something that there's really a neat list for. Clearly, countries in which there's an ongoing war are unsafe by any sensible definition, but that's a far too narrow definition in practice. For example, there may be laws that persecute a particular minority group, which make it unsafe for those in that minority. 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.

All of this is what the asylum processing claim is designed to resolve. Disallowing asylum claims after a proper assessment, finding that the circumstances don't count as sufficiently unsafe, is perfectly proper. Disallowing claims immediately on request, without even bothering to evaluate their merit, is not. And, in the meantime, while the claim is being processed, the processing State has a minimum duty of care.

[naomi24]

//What counts as a "safe country"? //

France.

[Zacs-Master]

Or even the country they came from in some cases.

[ClareTG0ld]

Well, possibly. But, firstly, there's no requirement, and never has been, for an asylum seeker to seek asylum in the first "safe country" they enter; and secondly, again, to the extent that this may affect the decision on the asylum claim, that's a matter for *after* it's been processed, and not during that period.

Bearing in mind that this decision specifically relates to the care given to young children and pregnant women, all the usual spiel about asylum claims is neither here nor there.

[ToraToraTora]

ctg: "Well, possibly. But, firstly, there's no requirement, and never has been, for an asylum seeker to seek asylum in the first "safe country" they enter; and secondly, again, to the extent that this may affect the decision on the asylum claim, that's a matter for *after* it's been processed, and not during that period. " - well yes but you asked: //What counts as a "safe country"? // - France the answer,
99.9% of ours come from France, that is a safe country.

[gulliver1]

France is probably a safer Country, than the one they are trying to get to.

[retrocop]

//In order to be an asylum seeker, you need to do three things:

1. Leave your home country;
2. Go to another country;
3. Request asylum in that country.//

Wrong
Part 1 and 2 are correct
Part 3 .having done 1 & 2 you seek out a thoroughly bent and corrupt solicitor who manipulates the system just as his client has done.

Lol The Tories are breaking the law.???? Is this a joke?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12333013/Immigration-law-firms-LIE-authorities-win-asylum.html