|
|
Post by sheepy on Aug 14, 2023 6:53:29 GMT
There you go as announced by the refugee council, again.
Migrant
Someone who has moved to another country for other reasons, such as to find work.
|
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Aug 14, 2023 7:27:31 GMT
No it doesn't. it ignores the fact that if they have been refused asylum in a safe country then they are free to try elsewhere, which ones have been refused? You added that condition I did not. They have not been refused asylum in a safe country. They have not applied for asylum in another country, neither do they need to apply for asylum in any given country or the 1st 2nd 3rd 4th or 5th country they pass through. If they have crossed a border from an unsafe country to a safe signatory, they can't be refused asylum in that it would be illegal to send them back or refuse them stay and they have a watertight case (while the country is unsafe). These people do not have an extended and permanent right to breach any national border they feel like breaching. This idiotic and unworkable notion does not appear at all in the contention and seems to be entirely a fabrication of open borders activists. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Aug 14, 2023 7:47:27 GMT
You're babbling again. Your words: Who is talking in riddles, if a 100,000 migrants cross the channel they must have skills needed not be without documentation and then say they are refugees, it ain't rocket science, it is sorting out who is who, which obviously you are in no way capable of.You claimed it was easy not me. Can't you even remember what you said yourself?
LOL before that Einstein I told you the difference between a migrant and a refugee, it ain't rocket science, unless of course you are some dim-witted voter voting for your own demise. Hardly my fault that you cannot compute that now is it? No, you're the clever one able to tell a migrant from an asylum seeker without even meeting them. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Aug 14, 2023 7:50:06 GMT
You added that condition I did not. They have not been refused asylum in a safe country. They have not applied for asylum in another country, neither do they need to apply for asylum in any given country or the 1st 2nd 3rd 4th or 5th country they pass through. If they have crossed a border from an unsafe country to a safe signatory, they can't be refused asylum in that it would be illegal to send them back or refuse them stay and they have a watertight case (while the country is unsafe). These people do not have an extended and permanent right to breach any national border they feel like breaching. This idiotic and unworkable notion does not appear at all in the contention and seems to be entirely a fabrication of open borders activists. The law is quire clear. There is no legal duty or obligation on the asylum seeker to claim and remain in the first safe country and an asylum seeker who moves on is not breaking the law by doing so or disqualifying themselves from refugee status. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Aug 14, 2023 7:55:14 GMT
If they have crossed a border from an unsafe country to a safe signatory, they can't be refused asylum in that it would be illegal to send them back or refuse them stay and they have a watertight case (while the country is unsafe). These people do not have an extended and permanent right to breach any national border they feel like breaching. This idiotic and unworkable notion does not appear at all in the contention and seems to be entirely a fabrication of open borders activists. The law is quire clear. There is no legal duty or obligation on the asylum seeker to claim and remain in the first safe country I never said there was. Just because they have no legal obligation to claim, doesn't mean they have the right to cross any border that takes their fancy. The conflation between the two has confused many people on this board. In any case, lets not talk about legalities because that's so morally dreary. Would you agree that not presenting yourself to the authorities in the first safe country you arrive in is a good indicator that you are not being entirely honest? |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Aug 14, 2023 8:15:42 GMT
If they have crossed a border from an unsafe country to a safe signatory, they can't be refused asylum in that it would be illegal to send them back or refuse them stay and they have a watertight case (while the country is unsafe). These people do not have an extended and permanent right to breach any national border they feel like breaching. This idiotic and unworkable notion does not appear at all in the contention and seems to be entirely a fabrication of open borders activists. The law is quire clear. There is no legal duty or obligation on the asylum seeker to claim and remain in the first safe country and an asylum seeker who moves on is not breaking the law by doing so or disqualifying themselves from refugee status. The law is quite clear: It is against the law for someone to pay a criminal to get them from safe country 'A' to safe country 'B'. The law is also quite clear that any country with sea border can stop any person or vessel entering their territorial waters if they so choose. The only reason this weak government aren't stopping the illegal invasion from the EU is because Sunak is a centrist and a globalist who is more concerned about not upsetting the EU than he is about the UK electorate. But with an election around the corner his EU appeasing may soon change. We'll see. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Aug 14, 2023 8:19:51 GMT
The gas lighting on this issue from the open borders crowd has been pretty relentless
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Aug 14, 2023 8:31:28 GMT
Per Zany: "The law is quire clear. There is no legal duty or obligation on the asylum seeker to claim and remain in the first safe country and an asylum seeker who moves on is not breaking the law by doing so or disqualifying themselves from refugee status. " There is no duty or obligation on an asylum seeker to do so, but if he doesn't that is likely to have repercussions on the admissibility of any later claim he makes in the UK. Since June 2022 the Nationality and Borders Act has given the Home Secretary powers to declare an asylum claim to be inadmissible in the UK if the claimant has a 'connection' to a safe third country. Connection is fully spelled out in the Act but it can entail simply passing through. I've already provided Zany with a link to the Inadmissibility process but he obviously hasn't read it since he's still spouting his traditional rubbish. Anyway, here's another one, perhaps he'll pay a little more attention this time: commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9724/ |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Aug 14, 2023 12:11:43 GMT
Dan, as you know the legislation you quote is relatively new and has yet to be tested as far as I know in UK courts. Given that it appears to conflict with international law embedded into UK law, it is far from certain whether it will survive contact with the courts. Even then it can only disallow an asylum claim if the safe third country they have passed through agrees to take them back (eg France - they will not) or a third country can be found (currently only Rwanda). I believe Rwanda is limited to a handful of complainants.
Yet again our Government has sought to legislate with full attention on tabloid headlines and zero attention to a practical solution. With an election around the corner more posturing can be expected and little practical solutions.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Aug 14, 2023 14:17:00 GMT
dappy: As I understand it (I think the actual figures are quoted in the HoC briefing) around 20,000 asylum claimants have received a Notice of Potential Inadmissibility since the Act came into effect. Of those around 100 have gone onto the next stage, a Declaration of Inadmissibility. As far as I'm none of these claims are being processed and all are currently still parked in the backlog. You are correct that nothing is going to happen until the Supreme Court rules on Rwanda.
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Aug 14, 2023 14:40:58 GMT
If they have crossed a border from an unsafe country to a safe signatory, they can't be refused asylum in that it would be illegal to send them back or refuse them stay and they have a watertight case (while the country is unsafe). These people do not have an extended and permanent right to breach any national border they feel like breaching. This idiotic and unworkable notion does not appear at all in the contention and seems to be entirely a fabrication of open borders activists. The law is quire clear. There is no legal duty or obligation on the asylum seeker to claim and remain in the first safe country and an asylum seeker who moves on is not breaking the law by doing so or disqualifying themselves from refugee status. The link I believe you used also says It is recognised in the 1951 Convention that people fleeing persecution may have to use irregular means in order to escape and claim asylum in another country – there is no legal way to travel to the UK for the specific purpose of seeking asylum.. The Convention also gives asylum seekers a responsibility to obey the laws within any receiving country he finds himself in |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Aug 14, 2023 15:02:01 GMT
dappy : As I understand it (I think the actual figures are quoted in the HoC briefing) around 20,000 asylum claimants have received a Notice of Potential Inadmissibility since the Act came into effect. Of those around 100 have gone onto the next stage, a Declaration of Inadmissibility. As far as I'm none of these claims are being processed and all are currently still parked in the backlog. You are correct that nothing is going to happen until the Supreme Court rules on Rwanda. So what will happen now. France will not take them back. Rwanda couldn't accommodate anything like that many. meanwhile we have to accommodate them with seemingly no effort being made to establish whether or not they entitled to asylum and hence begin to get them off the backlog. Fucking ridiculous. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Aug 14, 2023 15:03:31 GMT
dappy : As I understand it (I think the actual figures are quoted in the HoC briefing) around 20,000 asylum claimants have received a Notice of Potential Inadmissibility since the Act came into effect. Of those around 100 have gone onto the next stage, a Declaration of Inadmissibility. As far as I'm none of these claims are being processed and all are currently still parked in the backlog. You are correct that nothing is going to happen until the Supreme Court rules on Rwanda. So what will happen now. France will not take them back. Rwanda couldn't accommodate anything like that many. meanwhile we have to accommodate them with seemingly no effort being made to establish whether or not they entitled to asylum and hence begin to get them off the backlog. Fucking ridiculous. Get them off the backlog? What for? |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Aug 14, 2023 15:07:11 GMT
I think dappy believes we owe them a better life.
|
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Aug 14, 2023 15:18:16 GMT
I think once people are here and have claimed asylum and hence we now have to accommodate them until either their claim has been determined or they have left the country and given there is no realistic prospect of forcing that number of people to leave the country, it makes quite a lot of sense to start determining their claim
|
|
