Refugees / Asylum seekers crossing the channel
Discussion
Mrr T said:
Murph7355 said:
Mrr T said:
If you mean this article then I did.
https://www.freemovement.org.uk/are-refugees-oblig...
Let me quote.
"Firstly, there is no obligation in the Refugee Convention, either explicit or implicit, to claim asylum in the first safe country reached by a refugees."
No. This:https://www.freemovement.org.uk/are-refugees-oblig...
Let me quote.
"Firstly, there is no obligation in the Refugee Convention, either explicit or implicit, to claim asylum in the first safe country reached by a refugees."
Fullfact said:
Although it’s certainly true that crossing the Channel without authorisation isn’t a legal way to enter the UK, Article 31 of the UN Refugee Convention states that refugees cannot be penalised for entering the country illegally to claim asylum if they are “coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened” provided they “present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence”.
A lot depends here on how to interpret which country people are “coming directly from”. It could be argued, for instance, that as the people crossing the channel are coming directly from France—which is not the country they initially fled—they don’t have the right to claim asylum in the UK.
However, in 1999 a UK judge ruled (http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/1999/765.html) that “some element of choice is indeed open to refugees as to where they may properly claim asylum.” The judge specified that “any merely short term stopover en route” to another country should not forfeit the individual’s right to claim refugee status elsewhere.
This means people can legitimately make a claim for asylum in the UK after passing through other “safe” countries.
ie if they aren't “coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened” then the same convention you quote allows for refugees to be "penalised" - I guess what that penalty is, is also open to definition. But deportation would seem to be what was minded in the circumstances.A lot depends here on how to interpret which country people are “coming directly from”. It could be argued, for instance, that as the people crossing the channel are coming directly from France—which is not the country they initially fled—they don’t have the right to claim asylum in the UK.
However, in 1999 a UK judge ruled (http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/1999/765.html) that “some element of choice is indeed open to refugees as to where they may properly claim asylum.” The judge specified that “any merely short term stopover en route” to another country should not forfeit the individual’s right to claim refugee status elsewhere.
This means people can legitimately make a claim for asylum in the UK after passing through other “safe” countries.
As I said, the convention is ambiguous. A UK judge interpreted it one way. If our law is now changed to better define that, then all bets are off.
To be fair to whoever drafted the convention, they will not have considered the current circumstances and, I would think, would never have envisaged people ("refugees") would take the piss with it. After all, what it was clearly designed to do is protecting people in grave circumstances who would be grateful of any safe harbour. And in that it was well intended.
People then get involved and mess it up. It needs to be revisited.
(a) “Coming directly ”
17. The respondents accept that a literal construction of “directly” would contravene the clear purpose of the Article and they accordingly accept that this condition can be satisfied even if the refugee passes through intermediate countries on his way to the United Kingdom. But that is only so, they argue, provided that he could not reasonably have been expected to seek protection in any such intermediate country and this will not be the case unless he has actually needed, rather than merely desired, to come to the United Kingdom. In short it is the respondents’ contention that Article 31 allows the refugee no element of choice as to where he should claim asylum. He must claim it where first he may: only considerations of continuing safety would justify impunity for further travel.
18. For my part I would reject this argument. Rather 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 and Dr Paul Weis), that some element of choice is indeed open to refugees as to where they may properly claim asylum. I conclude that any merely short term stopover en route to such intended sanctuary cannot forfeit the protection of the Article, and that the main touchstones by which exclusion from protection should be judged are the length of stay in the intermediate country, the reasons for delaying there (even a substantial delay in an unsafe third country would be reasonable were the time spent trying to acquire the means of travelling on), and whether or not the refugee sought or found there protection de jure or de facto from the persecution they were fleeing.
19. It is worth quoting in this regard the UNHCR‘s own Guidelines with regard to the Detention of Asylum Seekers:
"The expression ‘coming directly’ in Article 31(1) covers the situation of a person who enters the country in which asylum is sought directly from the country of origin, or from another country where his protection, safety and security could not be assured. It is understood that this term also covers a person who transits an intermediate country for a short period of time without having applied for, or received, asylum there. No strict time limit can be applied to the concept ‘coming directly’ and each case must be judged on its merits."
20. Having regard to Article 35(1) of the Convention, it seems to me that such Guidelines should be accorded considerable weight. Article 35(1) provides:
"The contracting States undertake to cooperate with the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, ... in the exercise of its functions and shall in particular facilitate its duty of supervising the application of the provisions of this Convention."
So the judges view is based on the convention. Since legislation cannot amend a treaty then any attempt at changing the law will not work.
Mrr T said:
It's actually worth looking at the judgement.
...
So the judges view is based on the convention. Since legislation cannot amend a treaty then any attempt at changing the law will not work.
I did....
So the judges view is based on the convention. Since legislation cannot amend a treaty then any attempt at changing the law will not work.
The judge's view is based on their own interpretation of the words. (Yes, I accept that their interpretation is "worth" more than mine as things stand. But I'm not sure they're in line with general opinion in the country).
The bit of the convention you are referring to is not clear on this point at all, and I would suggest that the original author probably didn't think they needed to be. After all, if you are getting out of Dodge for fear of your life, the second you hit a country where you will be "safe" you would logically stop and then do this bit - "...provided they “present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence”". You wouldn't carry on going through multiple countries illegally, and risk a crossing of one of the busiest shipping lanes on a lilo.
(With the "present themselves without delay....<to> show good cause for illegal entry..." I really, really struggle with the judge's interpretation tbh...unless they didn't enter France illegally. In which case they can and should be returned straight back).
Moreover, why would you risk not coming across a grandfatherly type judge who reads that bit of the convention and instead getting a curmudgeonly Northerner doing the interpretation?
Like I said, my view is that the government will be looking very closely at this. It makes absolute sense to do so and I think the majority of people in this country would support it. I also think it is for the benefit of people who legitimately need our help. And that should be the primary objective.
Australia's points system has nothing to do with refugees, and isn't used when deciding who can stay or not, in that respect. Any comparison to it is entirely meaningless.
They used to house refugees arriving by boat on Papa new Guinea in camps, although I'm not sure if that still happens. Due to the difficulties and distance they get fewer middle Eastern or African refugees but do get some from China or parts of Asia, most of whom arrive by plane rather than boats.
They used to house refugees arriving by boat on Papa new Guinea in camps, although I'm not sure if that still happens. Due to the difficulties and distance they get fewer middle Eastern or African refugees but do get some from China or parts of Asia, most of whom arrive by plane rather than boats.
Murph7355 said:
Moreover, why would you risk not coming across a grandfatherly type judge who reads that bit of the convention and instead getting a curmudgeonly Northerner doing the interpretation?
It's not down to individual judges in every case to interpret the wording, that has already been done and a precedent set with regards to how it is to be read. All the judges in the individual appeal cases will decide is has the law been applied correctly? There may be a little lee way, but the principal you're trying to argue is not what the judge is looking at. Unknown_User said:
Oh my days.....
I have highlighted the relevant bits.
I wasn't presuming anything and my response was to the comment about asylum seekers by the poster "coolg". Your reference to the Nazi's is wide of the mark and quite contemptuous.
What mustn't happen IMO is the blurring of lines when it comes to refugees and economic migrants.
Okay, I misinterpreted your words, but saying that we mustn’t divide refugees into “useful” and “not useful” does veer toward these ones good, let ‘em in, and these ones bad, we don’t want them, so even if I can’t be forgiven for alluding to WW2 camps, perhaps you can follow my reasoning, and I don’t think that I was being contemptuous.I have highlighted the relevant bits.
I wasn't presuming anything and my response was to the comment about asylum seekers by the poster "coolg". Your reference to the Nazi's is wide of the mark and quite contemptuous.
What mustn't happen IMO is the blurring of lines when it comes to refugees and economic migrants.
If you can be magnanimous toward me for my mistake, I’ll turn a blind eye to your superfluous apostrophe (again) in Nazi’s.
Frank7 said:
Unknown_User said:
Oh my days.....
I have highlighted the relevant bits.
I wasn't presuming anything and my response was to the comment about asylum seekers by the poster "coolg". Your reference to the Nazi's is wide of the mark and quite contemptuous.
What mustn't happen IMO is the blurring of lines when it comes to refugees and economic migrants.
Okay, I misinterpreted your words, but saying that we mustn’t divide refugees into “useful” and “not useful” does veer toward these ones good, let ‘em in, and these ones bad, we don’t want them, so even if I can’t be forgiven for alluding to WW2 camps, perhaps you can follow my reasoning, and I don’t think that I was being contemptuous.I have highlighted the relevant bits.
I wasn't presuming anything and my response was to the comment about asylum seekers by the poster "coolg". Your reference to the Nazi's is wide of the mark and quite contemptuous.
What mustn't happen IMO is the blurring of lines when it comes to refugees and economic migrants.
If you can be magnanimous toward me for my mistake, I’ll turn a blind eye to your superfluous apostrophe (again) in Nazi’s.
One is a violent young man who has outdated views of women's role in society, who is fleeing a violent war torn **** hole.
I will take the Doctor you can take the other ???
Frank7 said:
Okay, I misinterpreted your words, but saying that we mustn’t divide refugees into “useful” and “not useful” does veer toward these ones good, let ‘em in, and these ones bad, we don’t want them, so even if I can’t be forgiven for alluding to WW2 camps, perhaps you can follow my reasoning, and I don’t think that I was being contemptuous.
If you can be magnanimous toward me for my mistake, I’ll turn a blind eye to your superfluous apostrophe (again) in Nazi’s.
I always enjoy your posts Frank7 so please accept my withdrawal of the accusation of contemptuousness!If you can be magnanimous toward me for my mistake, I’ll turn a blind eye to your superfluous apostrophe (again) in Nazi’s.
Murph7355 said:
I did.
The judge's view is based on their own interpretation of the words. (Yes, I accept that their interpretation is "worth" more than mine as things stand. But I'm not sure they're in line with general opinion in the country).
The bit of the convention you are referring to is not clear on this point at all, and I would suggest that the original author probably didn't think they needed to be. After all, if you are getting out of Dodge for fear of your life, the second you hit a country where you will be "safe" you would logically stop and then do this bit - "...provided they “present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence”". You wouldn't carry on going through multiple countries illegally, and risk a crossing of one of the busiest shipping lanes on a lilo.
(With the "present themselves without delay....<to> show good cause for illegal entry..." I really, really struggle with the judge's interpretation tbh...unless they didn't enter France illegally. In which case they can and should be returned straight back).
Moreover, why would you risk not coming across a grandfatherly type judge who reads that bit of the convention and instead getting a curmudgeonly Northerner doing the interpretation?
Like I said, my view is that the government will be looking very closely at this. It makes absolute sense to do so and I think the majority of people in this country would support it. I also think it is for the benefit of people who legitimately need our help. And that should be the primary objective.
Judges do not judge based on the opinion of the country, judgement is based on what is written and any relevant commentary from say the UN. The judge's view is based on their own interpretation of the words. (Yes, I accept that their interpretation is "worth" more than mine as things stand. But I'm not sure they're in line with general opinion in the country).
The bit of the convention you are referring to is not clear on this point at all, and I would suggest that the original author probably didn't think they needed to be. After all, if you are getting out of Dodge for fear of your life, the second you hit a country where you will be "safe" you would logically stop and then do this bit - "...provided they “present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence”". You wouldn't carry on going through multiple countries illegally, and risk a crossing of one of the busiest shipping lanes on a lilo.
(With the "present themselves without delay....<to> show good cause for illegal entry..." I really, really struggle with the judge's interpretation tbh...unless they didn't enter France illegally. In which case they can and should be returned straight back).
Moreover, why would you risk not coming across a grandfatherly type judge who reads that bit of the convention and instead getting a curmudgeonly Northerner doing the interpretation?
Like I said, my view is that the government will be looking very closely at this. It makes absolute sense to do so and I think the majority of people in this country would support it. I also think it is for the benefit of people who legitimately need our help. And that should be the primary objective.
I have read other pertinent arguments which the judge did not consider. Firstly if there is a first safe country rule then why did many signatory consider signing something which had no impact on them since they did not share a border with a unsafe country? Second it would create an impossible position for a refugee who was refused asylum in a country because they passed through a safe country but the safe country was under no legal obligation to take them back.
Based on that it's difficult to thing the government believe there was a first safe country rule.
Unknown_User said:
Frank7 said:
Okay, I misinterpreted your words, but saying that we mustn’t divide refugees into “useful” and “not useful” does veer toward these ones good, let ‘em in, and these ones bad, we don’t want them, so even if I can’t be forgiven for alluding to WW2 camps, perhaps you can follow my reasoning, and I don’t think that I was being contemptuous.
If you can be magnanimous toward me for my mistake, I’ll turn a blind eye to your superfluous apostrophe (again) in Nazi’s.
I always enjoy your posts Frank7 so please accept my withdrawal of the accusation of contemptuousness!If you can be magnanimous toward me for my mistake, I’ll turn a blind eye to your superfluous apostrophe (again) in Nazi’s.
Mrr T said:
Judges do not judge based on the opinion of the country, judgement is based on what is written and any relevant commentary from say the UN.
I have read other pertinent arguments which the judge did not consider. Firstly if there is a first safe country rule then why did many signatory consider signing something which had no impact on them since they did not share a border with a unsafe country? Second it would create an impossible position for a refugee who was refused asylum in a country because they passed through a safe country but the safe country was under no legal obligation to take them back.
Based on that it's difficult to thing the government believe there was a first safe country rule.
The judge made an interpretation of an ambiguous piece of wording. Full fact notes that. That it now sets a legal precedent is fine here. Until the law is changed. No? I have read other pertinent arguments which the judge did not consider. Firstly if there is a first safe country rule then why did many signatory consider signing something which had no impact on them since they did not share a border with a unsafe country? Second it would create an impossible position for a refugee who was refused asylum in a country because they passed through a safe country but the safe country was under no legal obligation to take them back.
Based on that it's difficult to thing the government believe there was a first safe country rule.
I get that he doesn't need to worry about what the country thinks...if it were 100% black and white, more so. Otherwise you risk the law being thought of as an ass (judges may not have to worry about that either, but when setting precedents against ambiguous texts it might be better if they did
). On your firstly...
Because the global dynamic can change. You may not have a border with an "unsafe" place today, but tomorrow? Also, because it was the "right" thing to do irrespective of whether you felt a refugee might cross your border - hard to ask others to sign up if you can't be bothered yourself and today it doesn't even impact you....?
On your secondly....
So if a "safe" country has no legal obligation beyond signing up to the convention, why do we find ourselves in this position? Or are you referring to "safe" non-signatories?
If the former, then it is evidently a position that can be adjusted via a change in law.
If the latter... Well as of today that doesn't apply as France are signatories. No?
None of which alters the fact that the convention was not written nor designed for economic migration. Had economic migration been explicitly included in that 70yr old text, how many countries do you think would have signed up? I'm guessing not very many!
Unknown_User said:
An asylum seeker is welcome to refuge in the UK be they a doctor or a labourer. To suggest we start sorting refugee's into 'useful' or 'not useful' groups is beyond abhorrent.
How do you feel about the Australian points system?Do you have an opinion on Sweden's migrant crime & violence epidemic or Germany's problems due to mass immigration of those that the abhorrent might describe as 'not useful'?
Merkel's "all welcome" message somehow morphed into a suggestion that other European countries should take a share; this doesn't suggest that previous events went well.
Asylum seekers?
More like migrants looking for the best handouts - these people have paid out tens of thouands of pounds to get across Europe and still have as much as £10,000 to buy a place on a boat bringing illegals into the UK. We have actually had uber liberal lawyers moaning on camera that these migrants have sold all their possessions and borrowed heavily to get into Britian illegally and because of that we should give them a free council house and benefits. Time to deport the uber liberal lawyers along with the illegals.
More like migrants looking for the best handouts - these people have paid out tens of thouands of pounds to get across Europe and still have as much as £10,000 to buy a place on a boat bringing illegals into the UK. We have actually had uber liberal lawyers moaning on camera that these migrants have sold all their possessions and borrowed heavily to get into Britian illegally and because of that we should give them a free council house and benefits. Time to deport the uber liberal lawyers along with the illegals.
jim barin said:
Asylum seekers?
More like migrants looking for the best handouts - these people have paid out tens of thouands of pounds to get across Europe and still have as much as £10,000 to buy a place on a boat bringing illegals into the UK. We have actually had uber liberal lawyers moaning on camera that these migrants have sold all their possessions and borrowed heavily to get into Britian illegally and because of that we should give them a free council house and benefits. Time to deport the uber liberal lawyers along with the illegals.
How does an illegal immigrant get a council house and benifits. More like migrants looking for the best handouts - these people have paid out tens of thouands of pounds to get across Europe and still have as much as £10,000 to buy a place on a boat bringing illegals into the UK. We have actually had uber liberal lawyers moaning on camera that these migrants have sold all their possessions and borrowed heavily to get into Britian illegally and because of that we should give them a free council house and benefits. Time to deport the uber liberal lawyers along with the illegals.
Your answer can't include , because the Dailymail told me.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff