Transferring Emails To External Hard...
Technology3 mins ago
Can Anyone Explain This Bizarre Asylum Case?
I cannot supply a link as protocol demands on the News section because I can't find it.
I have just watched a report on ITV News at 10 about a Syrian illegal immigrant who has managed to reach the UK. Allegedly a professional football player.
He has admitted he paid people smugglers all his money and was conveyed by boat to Greece from Syria.
Once in Greece he admits to walking almost all the way to Calais through European countries.
He is free as a bird and was happily being interviewed by ITV news on the South Bank near Parliament.
Apparently his asylum appeal is being considered which,it is said,may take a while.
I thought I knew a little of the asylum law and the responsibilities and conditions of the applicants as when to claim it.
Please,someone,kindly explain just how the H.O. are considering this asylum application.
By his own admission he has walked through at least 5 European countries so why is his application being entertained here especially as he is illegally here..I know we are a soft touch but this seems totally wrong unless Liverpool F.C. want to sign him up.
I have just watched a report on ITV News at 10 about a Syrian illegal immigrant who has managed to reach the UK. Allegedly a professional football player.
He has admitted he paid people smugglers all his money and was conveyed by boat to Greece from Syria.
Once in Greece he admits to walking almost all the way to Calais through European countries.
He is free as a bird and was happily being interviewed by ITV news on the South Bank near Parliament.
Apparently his asylum appeal is being considered which,it is said,may take a while.
I thought I knew a little of the asylum law and the responsibilities and conditions of the applicants as when to claim it.
Please,someone,kindly explain just how the H.O. are considering this asylum application.
By his own admission he has walked through at least 5 European countries so why is his application being entertained here especially as he is illegally here..I know we are a soft touch but this seems totally wrong unless Liverpool F.C. want to sign him up.
Answers
From the information provided by Buenchico and Gromit it is quite clear (as I have pointed out in the past) that the EU “rules” on asylum applications and those which really govern them (Article 39, I think without looking it up) of the UN convention on refuges) are at odds. Gromit says this: “Failure to seek asylum at the point of entry to the EU does not...
13:10 Fri 17th Jul 2015
Economic hardship is one of those poorly defined phrases which mean different things to different people.
Here's a piece about the rise of that "dollar a day" benchmark
http://
Sorry, Svejk: it's the beeb again.
Here's a piece about the rise of that "dollar a day" benchmark
http://
Sorry, Svejk: it's the beeb again.
Hypognosis
/// The criterion is merely "fear of persecution", never evidence of persecution.
I would fear persecution in my own country (the UK) - it's a natural thing to fear. If it is such a universal fear, how can it be made into the sole entry criterion? ///
As a UK citizen, you just try to claim asylum in any other country?
/// The criterion is merely "fear of persecution", never evidence of persecution.
I would fear persecution in my own country (the UK) - it's a natural thing to fear. If it is such a universal fear, how can it be made into the sole entry criterion? ///
As a UK citizen, you just try to claim asylum in any other country?
From the information provided by Buenchico and Gromit it is quite clear (as I have pointed out in the past) that the EU “rules” on asylum applications and those which really govern them (Article 39, I think without looking it up) of the UN convention on refuges) are at odds. Gromit says this:
“Failure to seek asylum at the point of entry to the EU does not affect the claim of someone who gets to the UK and applies for asylum. The asylum is investigated purely on merit of the individual case, and is not disqualified because they could have applied elsewhere.”
‘Chico quoted this:
“Under the 'common policy' created by EU Council Directive 2004/83/EC, an application for asylum in the UK has to be treated in exactly the same way as it would be in (say) Greece. That means that the applicant has the right to remain in the EU member state where his/her application is lodged until such time as a determination upon that application is reached”
The UN Convention (or Protocol, can’t remember which it is) says quite clearly that refugees have an obligation to present themselves to the authorities in the first safe country they arrive in. It goes further to say that the right to asylum is jeopardised if this is not done. Here’s an extract from an article in the Guardian (not normally known for putting an anti-refugee slant on their articles):
“There is no obligation under the refugee convention or any other instrument of international law that requires refugees to seek asylum in any particular country. There has, however, been a longstanding "first country of asylum" principle in international law by which countries are expected to take refugees fleeing from persecution in a neighbouring state. This principle has developed so that, in practice, an asylum seeker who had the opportunity to claim asylum in another country is liable to be returned there in order for his or her claim to be determined.”
France (from where presumably this individual travelled to the UK) is a safe country. There was no need for him to leave there to ensure his safety and security. It is quite clear why the EU directive and the Dublin Agreement have been framed so clearly to contravene UN and international rules. It is because the Euromaniacs press on regardless of each individual nation’s obligations with the notion that the EU is one nation state. This means there is nothing to prevent an asylum seeker roaming over the continent until they reach their destination of choice. It also means that when they do finally lodge a claim they do not forfeit the right to asylum under the Convention (which in reality, they have) and they cannot be returned to (say) France from the UK.
“Getting out of the EU is a red herring in this instance.”
This is incorrect. If we were not an EU member we would bound neither by EU Council Directive 2004/83/EC nor the Dublin Agreement and could return those intercepted at Dover immediately to France. The UN agreements are signed by sovereign states. The EU is not a sovereign state and the rules it has introduced to be followed by its member states contravene the international agreements. People need to wake up and smell the coffee.
If anyone is interested in (or doubts) the content of the UN document 'll try to find it (though it has been cited on AB before).
“Failure to seek asylum at the point of entry to the EU does not affect the claim of someone who gets to the UK and applies for asylum. The asylum is investigated purely on merit of the individual case, and is not disqualified because they could have applied elsewhere.”
‘Chico quoted this:
“Under the 'common policy' created by EU Council Directive 2004/83/EC, an application for asylum in the UK has to be treated in exactly the same way as it would be in (say) Greece. That means that the applicant has the right to remain in the EU member state where his/her application is lodged until such time as a determination upon that application is reached”
The UN Convention (or Protocol, can’t remember which it is) says quite clearly that refugees have an obligation to present themselves to the authorities in the first safe country they arrive in. It goes further to say that the right to asylum is jeopardised if this is not done. Here’s an extract from an article in the Guardian (not normally known for putting an anti-refugee slant on their articles):
“There is no obligation under the refugee convention or any other instrument of international law that requires refugees to seek asylum in any particular country. There has, however, been a longstanding "first country of asylum" principle in international law by which countries are expected to take refugees fleeing from persecution in a neighbouring state. This principle has developed so that, in practice, an asylum seeker who had the opportunity to claim asylum in another country is liable to be returned there in order for his or her claim to be determined.”
France (from where presumably this individual travelled to the UK) is a safe country. There was no need for him to leave there to ensure his safety and security. It is quite clear why the EU directive and the Dublin Agreement have been framed so clearly to contravene UN and international rules. It is because the Euromaniacs press on regardless of each individual nation’s obligations with the notion that the EU is one nation state. This means there is nothing to prevent an asylum seeker roaming over the continent until they reach their destination of choice. It also means that when they do finally lodge a claim they do not forfeit the right to asylum under the Convention (which in reality, they have) and they cannot be returned to (say) France from the UK.
“Getting out of the EU is a red herring in this instance.”
This is incorrect. If we were not an EU member we would bound neither by EU Council Directive 2004/83/EC nor the Dublin Agreement and could return those intercepted at Dover immediately to France. The UN agreements are signed by sovereign states. The EU is not a sovereign state and the rules it has introduced to be followed by its member states contravene the international agreements. People need to wake up and smell the coffee.
If anyone is interested in (or doubts) the content of the UN document 'll try to find it (though it has been cited on AB before).
@AOG
//As a UK citizen, you just try to claim asylum in any other country? //
Schengen agreement (and EU membership) means UK citizens could move anywhere within the EU *without having to claim asylum*.
If UK exits the EU, an asylum claim probably would be necessary but free movement under Schengen, again, after that.
All hypothetical of course. I hope I'd have the guts to stick around and fight to restore stability if our country descended into civil war.
//As a UK citizen, you just try to claim asylum in any other country? //
Schengen agreement (and EU membership) means UK citizens could move anywhere within the EU *without having to claim asylum*.
If UK exits the EU, an asylum claim probably would be necessary but free movement under Schengen, again, after that.
All hypothetical of course. I hope I'd have the guts to stick around and fight to restore stability if our country descended into civil war.
Just to avoid any confusion among our readers, EU membership confers the right, on citizens of EU nations only, the right to settle and/or work in any EU nation.
The Schengen Agreement provides freedom of movement, with no border controls, to ANYBODY who finds themselves in an EU nation. This agreement, which was framed with the best intentions but against which many warnings were provided, affords illegal immigrants and asylum seekers the freedom to roam across mainland Europe (simply because there are no border controls). Hence those who are landed by HMS Bulwark in Lampedusa are able to swiftly travel northwards to their destination of choice.
Should the UK exit the EU there is no reason to believe that travelling to and settling in Europe would suddenly come to an end or become insurmountably difficult. After all, people did so before the EU came into being. It is certain that an asylum claim would not be necessary in order to settle and even if it were it would be very unlikely to succeed as it may prove difficult to show that one is fleeing from persecution or threats to one's safety in the UK.
The Schengen Agreement provides freedom of movement, with no border controls, to ANYBODY who finds themselves in an EU nation. This agreement, which was framed with the best intentions but against which many warnings were provided, affords illegal immigrants and asylum seekers the freedom to roam across mainland Europe (simply because there are no border controls). Hence those who are landed by HMS Bulwark in Lampedusa are able to swiftly travel northwards to their destination of choice.
Should the UK exit the EU there is no reason to believe that travelling to and settling in Europe would suddenly come to an end or become insurmountably difficult. After all, people did so before the EU came into being. It is certain that an asylum claim would not be necessary in order to settle and even if it were it would be very unlikely to succeed as it may prove difficult to show that one is fleeing from persecution or threats to one's safety in the UK.
No.
The UK tried doing that and it was ruled out of order because they had not committed any offence. Arriving "sans papiers" is not illegal and must not jeopardise an asylum application. Strictly speaking the term "illegal immigrant" when used for those who intend to claim asylum is incorrect. Only when their cases have been determined and they have been refused permission to stay can they be detained.
Good, innit !!!
The UK tried doing that and it was ruled out of order because they had not committed any offence. Arriving "sans papiers" is not illegal and must not jeopardise an asylum application. Strictly speaking the term "illegal immigrant" when used for those who intend to claim asylum is incorrect. Only when their cases have been determined and they have been refused permission to stay can they be detained.
Good, innit !!!
Yes but we'd also have to repeal the 1998 Human Rights Act and withdraw as a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights, retro. Without both those measures those arriving "without papers" (I'll resist the temptation to say "illegally") would still be entitled to stay under one or more of the most popular Articles.
i'm willing to bet that even if the chunnel were filled with concrete and coastal defences were re-enacted, the way incomers without documentation would be treated won't change.
ie, patted on head, handed a train ticket to east croydon and a map of the location of lunar house. (how many bother to follow the directions?)
ie, patted on head, handed a train ticket to east croydon and a map of the location of lunar house. (how many bother to follow the directions?)
I suggest a portcullis over the chunnel entrance - to be raised only when a train goes through!
OK, facetious, but we are being invaded and the law does not seem to help at all. This is the simple reason why we have to leave the E.U., no ifs, no buts. There are many other reasons to regain autonomy, but none is quite so pressing.
OK, facetious, but we are being invaded and the law does not seem to help at all. This is the simple reason why we have to leave the E.U., no ifs, no buts. There are many other reasons to regain autonomy, but none is quite so pressing.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank6 mins ago
Technology7 mins ago
Food Or Drink - Clue A Painful Hip
Food & Drink11 mins ago
ChatterBank21 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.