*** Official Putin Started Shootin' Thread ***

[Poopadoop]

Are you sure about that? I suspect their refugee status changes when they reach their first safe country. I think international law states that refugees are the responsibility of the first safe country they arrive in. Prove me wrong, I can't be arsed to dig.

Yes I'm sure. I just read it today, and I've seen it before as well. I'm sure you can use your google machine just as well as I can.

[OngBonga]

https://fullfact.org/immigration/ref...-safe-country/

Not sure this is proof, but this is what I'm reading.

Refugees are not obligated to apply for asylum in the first safe country they enter. However, the UK is not obligated to consider asylum application even if they are in the UK.

That said, there is some UK domestic law which allows the government to refuse to consider an asylum application if it is judged that the person could have claimed asylum elsewhere.

Also

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”.

Article 31 doesn't apply because they are not fleeing for their lives or freedom from France.

And none of this article deals with the problem of boats arriving at the English coast.

Those that succeed in getting here like this, well they're here, we have to take care of them, but we should be discouraging this method of arrival because it's extremely dangerous and unnecessary. There are better ways to apply for asylum in the UK.

[Poopadoop]

https://fullfact.org/immigration/ref...-safe-country/

Not sure this is proof, but this is what I'm reading.

Refugees are not obligated to apply for asylum in the first safe country they enter. However, the UK is not obligated to consider asylum application even if they are in the UK.



Also



Article 31 doesn't apply because they are not fleeing for their lives or freedom from France.

And none of this article deals with the problem of boats arriving at the English coast.

Those that succeed in getting here like this, well they're here, we have to take care of them, but we should be discouraging this method of arrival because it's extremely dangerous and unnecessary. There are better ways to apply for asylum in the UK.

You left off the bit after your second quotation there:

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 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. Once in the UK it is then up to the authorities to review that application.

Also, you don't know if Article 31 applies or not because you can't know that they are safe where they are. That's what the asylum application process is for.

[OngBonga]

They can't apply for asylum in the USA until they are physically in the USA.

Sure they can. I've just read an article that makes it clear people can apply for asylum for the UK from outside of the UK.

If they chose to go to the USA, that's not the same as us "sending" them.

By "send" I mean "transport". No need to be nitpicky.

What if there's a large number of them trying to do it all the time? What if they're setting off in the middle of the night? Should we turn our beaches into an armed camp to stop them, or is it enough that we just stop the ones we can catch?

What do you think we should do? Fuck all? Just leave them to it? Have a nice cup of tea and watch?

Is patrolling the waters going to stop 100% of them from getting out to sea?

No.

And btw, do you think France just emptied the English channel of any French ships? Or do you think that they patrol it, but if they see a dinghy crossing they wave it through?

The Channel is one of the busiest shipping lanes in the world. It's not the Atlantic Ocean. They should monitor their coats.

Can they stop everything? No. But they should be doing everything they can to stop as many as possible.

[OngBonga]

I might be just reading it in the wrong context.

[OngBonga]

Also, you don't know if Article 31 applies or not because you can't know that they are safe where they are.

Of course you can. This refers to the country they are coming from, not if some random guy just tried to rob them.

France is a safe country. Some people still get robbed there.

[Poopadoop]

Of course you can. This refers to the country they are coming from, not if some random guy just tried to rob them.

France is a safe country. Some people still get robbed there.

From the same article you quoted above:

For example, the European Court of Human Rights has previously found an EU country (Greece) to pose a risk to an Afghan refugee, therefore upholding the refugee’s right to seek asylum elsewhere (Belgium).