UK to Rwanda asylum plan ruled unlawful

The current government, the typical rightwingers, all persist in dog whistle rhetoric over asylum seekers, without any thought of resolving the underlying cause of migration. There only argument is not in my back yard.
Their claims of increased crime, etc are produced by the very policies, practices and processes of the government towards asylum seekers.

"Brutal measures to “crack down” on “uncontrolled” and “illegal flows” of people across the Mediterranean Sea and English Channel generate a steady stream of headlines and opinion pieces as part of an enduring moral panic over migration. Scholars and activists have warned that the violent rhetoric of the far-right has slowly seeped into mainstream public discourses, as exemplified by controversial statements from British Home Secretary Suella Braverman about her “dream” of seeing the picture of a plane carrying asylum-seekers to Rwanda on the front-page of The Telegraph, or her statement that tensions over migrants being hosted in British hotels is “understandable” as violent protests erupted in Merseyside."

Government are now crimninalising those they descdribe as activists, those displaying human kindness towards vulnerable people.
To provide undocumented migrants with basic accomodation is a criminal offence. But it is a basic human right.

Conservative Deputy Chairman Lee Anderson accused charities of “fuelling” migrants’ desire to cross the Channel. Such charities, he claimed, were “just as bad as people smugglers”.
 
Sponsored Links
It is judicial precedent, no one "decides" what is case law. And it can change.
Decided case law = Judicial precedent. A judge or 3 with the appropriate authority decides. This is the term used.
Courts with the power to create case law are typically court of appeal or above. You're welcome.
 
Decided case law = Judicial precedent. A judge or 3 with the appropriate authority decides. This is the term used.
Courts with the power to create case law are typically court of appeal or above. You're welcome.
The UN Refugee Convention still does not insist that refugees seek asylum in their first country of safety.
It's a right wing and incorrect trope promoted by right wingers who ought to know, and probaly do know, it's wrong.
The UK has interpreted the UN Refugee Convention in its domestic law. It does not hold as an international principle.

In fact the proposal to fly asylum seekers to another country flies in the face of the claim that asylum seekers should seek asylum in their first safe country.
If the UK, a safe country, then flies the asylum seekers to another country, especially one seen as unsafe, it directly contravenes the UN Convention.

If the UK routinely imprisons asylum seekers for seeking asylum it would render the UK an unsafe country.
"International law clearly states that immigration detention should only be used as a last resort, and never for children,..."
 
Last edited:
Sponsored Links
Nothing stops a person from claiming asylum in any safe country. That is a safe and legal alternative to illegally crossing the channel and risking prosecution. Asylum seekers are not exempt from Prosecution of all illegal acts, the scope is very limited.

The UN convention does not give a person a right to choose where they claim asylum. It simply does not require them to claim it the first safe country. if they stop in a safe country for more than a transient period the right to claim elsewhere is damaged.

Of course the illegal immigrants know this, so they throw their documents in the sea on the way and often pretend to have come from somewhere completely different.
 
That is a safe and legal alternative to illegally crossing the channel and risking prosecution.
Not if they want to claim asylum in UK.
If UK routinely imprisons asylum seekers for seeking asylum it is not longer a safe country.
 
The UN convention does not give a person a right to choose where they claim asylum. It simply does not require them to claim it the first safe country. if they stop in a safe country for more than a transient period the right to claim elsewhere is damaged.
Only if their presence in that country is registered. I.e. if they claim asylum in that country.
That refers back to the defunct (for the UK) Dublin Agreement.

Only UK domestic law sugests that their claim may be damaged.
That is refuted by UN

"B. Safe Country of Asylum
...
12. Application of the "safe-country" concept ... It was, recognized though, that asylum should not be refused solely on the grounds that it could have been sought elsewhere.
 
Last edited:
Nothing stops a person from claiming asylum in any safe country. That is a safe and legal alternative to illegally crossing the channel and risking prosecution. Asylum seekers are not exempt from Prosecution of all illegal acts, the scope is very limited.

The UN convention does not give a person a right to choose where they claim asylum. It simply does not require them to claim it the first safe country. if they stop in a safe country for more than a transient period the right to claim elsewhere is damaged.

Of course the illegal immigrants know this, so they throw their documents in the sea on the way and often pretend to have come from somewhere completely different.
More right-wing trope.
If they have any documents those documents will be needed to prove their claim.

When I escaped my hoause fire, I didn't or couldn't retrieve any documents.
 
they don't have the right to choose.
Under the UN Refugee Charter, there is no obligation placed on them to seek asylum in their first safe country. Therefore they are free to choose, despite the persitient and incorrect claims of the typical right-wingers.
I don't have a right to travel on a train, but I am free to seek do so if I wish to.
 
Under the UN Refugee Charter, there is no obligation placed on them to seek asylum in their first safe country. Therefore they are free to choose, despite the persitient and incorrect claims of the typical right-wingers.
I don't have a right to travel on a train, but I am free to seek do so if I wish to.
First sentence correct, second sentence incorrect, last sentence irrelevant.
 
Sponsored Links
Back
Top