Priti pointless

[JohnD]

kinda is

you consider the 1967 protocol to be a law?

What are the penalties on a country for non-compliance?

So a refugee is
"owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it."

 

[motorbiking]

amnesty international seem to disagree:

4. There is no legal requirement for a refugee to claim asylum in any particular country
Neither the 1951 Refugee Convention nor EU law requires a refugee to claim asylum in one country rather than another.

There is no rule requiring refugees to claim in the first safe country in which they arrive.

The EU does run a system – called the Dublin Regulations – which allows one EU country to require another to accept responsibility for an asylum claim where certain conditions apply.

The relevant conditions include that the person is shown to have previously entered that other EU country or made a claim there. This is supposed to share responsibility for asylum claims more equitably among EU countries and discourage people moving on from one EU country to another. But it doesn’t work.

It is clear the system greatly benefits countries like the UK and is very unfair to countries like Greece and Italy. That’s part of the reason Germany has just suspended the Dublin Regulations when dealing with people fleeing from Syria.

https://www.amnesty.org.uk/truth-about-refugees

as does a lawyer:



landmark case:
In the landmark case of R v Uxbridge Magistrates Court (ex parte Adimi) [1999] Imm AR 560 Lord Justice Simon Brown held that refugees did not have to claim asylum in countries through which they pass to reach safety in order to be protected by Article 31:

… I am persuaded by the applicants’ contrary submission, drawing as it does on the travaux préparatoires, various Conclusions adopted by UNHCR’s Executive Committee (‘ExCom’), and the writings of well-respected academics and commentators (most notably Professor Guy Goodwin-Gill, Atle Grahl-Madsen, Professor James Hathaway, & Dr Paul Weis), that some element of choice is indeed open to refugees as to where they may properly claim asylum.

As confirmed by Adimi, nothing in the Refugee Convention suggests that status as a refugee is dependent on the individual making a claim for asylum in the first safe country in which he or she arrives. To put it another way, there is no legal obligation on refugees to claim asylum in safe countries and if they decline to do so it does not disqualify them from refugee status in any way.


Article by Nick Nason: a lawyer at Edgewater Legal, simplifying immigration law for individuals and businesses.

https://www.freemovement.org.uk/refugees-claim-asylum-upon-arrival-first-safe-country/

They aren’t disagreeing with me. Probably because the text I quoted is directly from the convention.

You may pass through, but if you are challenged and do not present, then you are exposed and if you stop on route for a little camp in france etc. You also aren’t protected.

 

[ellal]

Has anyone got a definitive definition of a 'safe country'?

 

[noseall]

Has anyone got a definitive definition of a 'safe country'?

North of Essex

 

[Captain Nemesis]

We also have the Dublin convention for EU.

No, we voted not to have that any more.

 

[Captain Nemesis]

I was reading an interesting article earlier of a refugee from the first Afghan war with Americans in the 80's 90s.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...refugee-britain-afghanistan-asylum-uk-taliban

The story was quite harrowing, and then when they landed in the UK they had quite the adjustment to make.

I finished the article with mixed views still, because I genuinely feel sorry for them and what they have to go through, but then at the same time even though they ended up having what ultimately transpired as a good life, good education etc etc eventually they still seemed to see the UK with contempt, at no point did they express any positivity towards what they were able to achieve and the security they had in the UK.

Positivity towards the police doing nothing to the perpetrators of a physical attack on them with a weapon on the grounds that the attackers were young and stupid?

OK.

Maybe it was my interpretation of what was written.

Yup.

 

[JohnD]

... Probably because the text I quoted is directly from the convention...

and, in the Protocol that superceded the convention, can you quote anything that says a refugee is disqualified if they pass through a third country?

waiting in eager anticipation....

 

[JohnD]

We also have the Dublin convention for EU.

When did you manage to forget about the brexit resignation from the EU?

 

[sxturbo]

Positivity towards the police doing nothing to the perpetrators of a physical attack on them with a weapon on the grounds that the attackers were young and stupid?

OK.

i did mention this,

there wasn't evidence to charge them so they couldn't do anything, it wasn't that they didn't care or didn't try, but you cant convict people without evidence, it was shameful what happened to them from this group of lads, things were also very different in the early 90's, i remember racism wasn't really taken seriously until the steven lawrence murder in the mid 90's, not that this is an excuse, and this wasn't the case for the whole time they lived here.

they could have stayed in Afghanistan and either got blown up, murdered or forced to marry a Taliban fighter, the article alluded to all the things that was terrible back in there home country,

i think the biggest issue, to which was alluded to in the story was that they had in their minds a false image of what life in the UK would be, it seemed like they thought they would just waltz in and get everything given to them, no questions asked, live in a nice area, everyone would speak their language, there wouldn't be so many white people etc etc.

 

[Captain Nemesis]

I think the biggest issue, to which was alluded to in the story was that ... it seemed like they thought they would just waltz in and get everything given to them, no questions asked, live in a nice area, everyone would speak their language, there wouldn't be so many white people etc etc.

No - none of that was suggested in the article - youre just inventing things.

 

[sxturbo]

i think the biggest issue, to which was alluded to in the story was that... it seemed like they thought they would just waltz in and get everything given to them, no questions asked, live in a nice area, everyone would speak their language, there wouldn't be so many white people etc etc.

No - none of that was suggested in the article - youre just inventing things.

if you are going to quote, quote the whole sentence, not just cut the bits out to suit your own narrative

i think the biggest issue, to which was alluded to in the story was that they had in their minds a false image of what life in the UK would be, it seemed like they thought they would just waltz in and get everything given to them, no questions asked, live in a nice area, everyone would speak their language, there wouldn't be so many white people etc etc.

 

[Captain Nemesis]

I cut that out not to suit any narrative, but to simplify. They may have had a false image of what life would be like - that sort of thing is common amongst all people who relocate to other countries.

What matters are your claims that "they thought they would just waltz in and get everything given to them, no questions asked, live in a nice area, everyone would speak their language, there wouldn't be so many white people etc etc."

 

[motorbiking]

Does anyone think the governments proposals to make it illegal

and, in the Protocol that superceded the convention, can you quote anything that says a refugee is disqualified if they pass through a third country?

waiting in eager anticipation....

where have I said that is the case?

They must arrive directly and may pass through other safe countries in transit. There are very few refugees arriving by illegal boat, I doubt many genuine refugees could afford the passage being charged. Not to mention that they seem to camp many weeks in the safety of France before attempting to cross.

 

[JohnD]

where have I said that is the case?

i see you've altered your previous post.

 

[JohnD]

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.

Passing through Europe with a lengthy stop over in France et al, is not "coming directly from" though there is case law that gives some flexibility.