By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
That is a gracious post and as I said I think there is room for different views here. However, if the key document is the 1951 Refugee Convention (and 1967 then you get to the controversy about Article 31, which most originally understood to mean that asylum seekers are only exempt from penalties for illegal entry when they come directly from a country where they were at risk of persecution. In essence this has been diluted over the years by judgements that have opened up various loopholes as to why "coming directly" does not necessarily mean coming to the first safe country. However, whatever the content of this discourse about the meaning of the 1951 Convention, there is nothing in it about a right to claim asylum in the country of the asylum seeker's choice. Some of the UK's own immigration legislation (e,g. Section 31 Immigration and Asylum Act 1999) incorporates this notion of first safe country, although again various court judgements have watered this down. This allows the NGOs to say the idea means very little. So overall current majority legal opinion will point to all kinds of reasons why claiming asylum in places other than the first safe country is allowable, but stops short of saying that persons can travel around unrestricted until they find their preferred destination country.
Article 31 says:
1. 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. 2. The Contracting States shall not apply to the movements of such refugees restrictions other than those which are necessary and such restrictions shall only be applied until their status in the country is regularized or they obtain admission into another country. The Contracting States shall allow such refugees a reasonable period and all the necessary facilities to obtain admission into another country.
And at the risk of boring other posters further, there’s an additional opposition that’s around the spirit of the convention and the application of it.
It sounds woolly I know, but still holds water when it comes to the application of the associated laws and the legal challenges that stem from them.
Fact of the matter (in my eyes) is that the Tory legislation was never going to be workable and was such a waste of time and money.
Lots coming out last night that the Germans have been misrepresented over Rwanda so we’ll see.
The government's argument is about deterrent effect rather than overseas processing for all arrivals, and i suppose one would have to say that whether this will work is an empirical question. The situation with Albanians, where the number of arrivals is sharply down this year, might give a clue. Last year about a quarter of cross channel arrivals (or around 10.000 persons) were Albanians. Since the agreement took effect in December 2022, the UK government returned around 1000 and that seems enough to stem the inward flow. The 1000 returns includes illegal arrivals by all routes - which came to about 16000 in 2022.
[Post edited 16 Nov 2023 10:15]
It is an empirical question because the deterrent doesn’t actually exist.
As I said earlier, I have no problem at all with the principle of off shore processing, it just needs a government capable of doing it both correctly and legally.
Leaving the EHCR to enact the daft Tory plan is the definition of using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
If we didn’t have such an adversarial political system, labour could have thrown their weight around shaping reasonable policy. Sadly the two main parties seem incapable of playing nicely with each other.
One of the reasons i voted Labour (this time) is that we need a collective European response to this. I didn’t think we’d get that from the Tories as a I think there’s one more lurch to the right for them to try and attract Reform voters.
Once they’ve got that out of their system an revert to one nation type conservatism, they’ll become a more sensible political choice.
8 more deaths and 801 illegal's crossed yesterday! Smash the gangs apparentley! Get ready for tax rises and O.A.P fuel allowance cuts to pay for this folks!
Sir Keir is said to be wanting to know more about the Albanian option (another version of off-shore, outside the EU processing). Presumably. the Rwanda arrangement could have been adapted to be more similar to the Italian deal with Albania.
Sir Keir is said to be wanting to know more about the Albanian option (another version of off-shore, outside the EU processing). Presumably. the Rwanda arrangement could have been adapted to be more similar to the Italian deal with Albania.
Could this be a ruse to satisfy Labour’s obsession with “safe and legal routes” which is nothing more than opening the gates even wider? All comers welcome? 3:00s in video.
QUOTE:.... "Also will those that arrive in Italy and get sent to Albania, BUT want to end up in the U.K, will they be fast tracked directly into the U.K part of any Albanian camp system? Are we forming an easy and legal route from Italy via Albania, through the EU directly into the U.K via the back door?".... END OF QUOTE
This is what happens when ideological dogma takes precedent over common sense.
My concerns and predictions (along with others) during Pikey Pauls thread, have by means of the passage of time been proven to be both justified and 100% correct.
It's not as if it takes much talent or psychic ability to look into the future to predict the bleeding-bloody-obvious!
Bizarrely the crackpots who wanted over population at any cost perceived themselves to be morally and intellectually superior to others, whom were just expressing genuine and justifiable concerns.
The WOKE brigade lost whilst the ‘gammon’ won, because there is no greater “proof of the pudding” evidence than having “the chickens come home to roost”.
Meanwhile the U.S.A is well and truly being subjected to something that is not right, and on an alarming level. Similar-ish in certain instances to what's been going on elsewhere in other countries.
Sort of draws a parallel to some things that have happened and are happening in Europe? Something orchestrated and sinister that's being engineered and deliberately allowed, where laws help facilitate a catastrophe (ECHR etc) whilst completely ignoring the concerns of the many? And of course all paid for by the taxpayer!!!!
UK is a welfare state. Our obligation under refugee law is to proved a roof warmth safety and food. It is not to provide universal health care for life, social benefits and freedom schooling. Starmer is now looking at the Italian findings where the boat people are sent to Albania. They need the money and the trading abilities of the new comers in n setting up businesses etc.
The Rwanda scheme worked to a certain extent in unexpected ways. Many legged it to RoI as a better option than ( potentially) Rwanda.
I favour a 2nd class citizenship where illegal immigrants work in unpopular UK jobs for up to 5 year to earn the rights that my ancestors fought for and theirs did not. Muslim states are rarely democratic. Turks who were given democracy have voted for a Muslim dictator because the liberals had a tendency to be corrupt. The concept was that a pious religious man would not be concerned with money. Nonsense of course.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
