|
Post by iancransonsknees on Apr 24, 2024 7:53:44 GMT
Or the French police could have stopped them in the 1st place From the report yesterday the local gendarmerie did try to stop them but were met by men with sticks and firecrackers. www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-68882577Not like the French police to back down from the chance of a ruck usually.
|
|
|
Post by felonious on Apr 24, 2024 8:28:04 GMT
Not like the French police to back down from the chance of a ruck usually. Fortunately none of the migrants were wearing Liverpool shirts.
|
|
|
Post by thisisouryear on Apr 24, 2024 8:41:04 GMT
Thought it'd be something along those lines, they haven't got the reputation they have for nowt 😂 Or the French police could have stopped them in the 1st place Let's say these people wanted to jump in boats and go to Ireland. Would you want our police to stop them and keep them here?
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Apr 24, 2024 8:46:51 GMT
Or the French police could have stopped them in the 1st place Let's say these people wanted to jump in boats and go to Ireland. Would you want our police to stop them and keep them here? Stop paying them for the charade they're performing them. No doubt that cash greases some political wheels, and is just another way for the corrupt people who run out countries to Syphon it off for themselves.
|
|
|
Post by phileetin on Apr 24, 2024 8:55:29 GMT
why dont they put a couple of bullets into the boats?
|
|
|
Post by phileetin on Apr 24, 2024 9:01:39 GMT
let em all in , they'll head for london anyway . Then fucked off to deprived areas like Stoke on Trent spence said in an earlier post that london's health and social care would fall apart without them .
so perhaps the uhnm will improve as a result ?
got to be better than the current lot who apparently spend a lot of time hanging up flags ?
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Apr 24, 2024 9:09:48 GMT
Then fucked off to deprived areas like Stoke on Trent spence said in an earlier post that london's health and social care would fall apart without them .
Quote me on that then.
Oh that's right, you can't because you're a liar phil.
|
|
|
Post by thisisouryear on Apr 24, 2024 9:12:44 GMT
Let's say these people wanted to jump in boats and go to Ireland. Would you want our police to stop them and keep them here? Stop paying them for the charade they're performing them. No doubt that cash greases some political wheels, and is just another way for the corrupt people who run out countries to Syphon it off for themselves. It's just another way of passing money around, the Rwanda deal will be the same. These Tories are only interested in making money for themselves and their donors. The government could easily turn around and say if you come here you get nothing, no benefits, no housing, no free meals or vouchers you get zip. They could put them back of the queue for everything. Why if they want to stop them coming here do they give them loads of freebies? Why not just stop those or reduce them to levels that making them less appealing? The government want them to come here. Getting rid of a couple of hundred to make it look like they are doing something is just a nessesary evil
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Apr 24, 2024 9:16:39 GMT
Or the French police could have stopped them in the 1st place Let's say these people wanted to jump in boats and go to Ireland. Would you want our police to stop them and keep them here?
Exactly.
|
|
|
Post by knype on Apr 24, 2024 9:31:19 GMT
Or the French police could have stopped them in the 1st place Let's say these people wanted to jump in boats and go to Ireland. Would you want our police to stop them and keep them here? How did they get here in the 1st place? Stop that, then you stop them trying to goto Ireland
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Apr 24, 2024 9:46:27 GMT
Let's say these people wanted to jump in boats and go to Ireland. Would you want our police to stop them and keep them here? How did they get here in the 1st place? Stop that, then you stop them trying to goto Ireland
You're completely missing the point he is making.
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Apr 24, 2024 10:02:11 GMT
Stop paying them for the charade they're performing them. No doubt that cash greases some political wheels, and is just another way for the corrupt people who run out countries to Syphon it off for themselves. It's just another way of passing money around, the Rwanda deal will be the same. These Tories are only interested in making money for themselves and their donors. The government could easily turn around and say if you come here you get nothing, no benefits, no housing, no free meals or vouchers you get zip.They could put them back of the queue for everything. Why if they want to stop them coming here do they give them loads of freebies? Why not just stop those or reduce them to levels that making them less appealing? The government want them to come here. Getting rid of a couple of hundred to make it look like they are doing something is just a nessesary evil This is one of the most inhumane and ill informed comments I've seen Irregular migrants, defined narrowly as those in the UK without legal residence, are not permitted to work in the UK, claim benefits, or access some public services, such as university education, social housing, and most healthcare. migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/irregular-migration-in-the-uk/#:~:text=Irregular%20migrants%2C%20defined%20narrowly%20as,social%20housing%2C%20and%20most%20healthcare. Section 95 support includes housing and/or £49.18 per week for each person in self-catered accommodation. For people in accommodation that is catered (this means food is provided), they receive £8.86 allowance per week righttoremain.org.uk/toolkit/asylum-support/Ukrainian Migrants on the other hand don't need a Visa are allowed to work and have access to all Benefits, Healthcare and supports same as a UK Citizen ukrainianrefugeehelp.co.uk/benefits/I guess there are different types of Migrants
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Apr 24, 2024 10:41:05 GMT
Just to bring me up to date. ( save me Googling it, our posters will know the answer).....
Just checking if things have changed at all since I last looked. What is the current policy ( or legal position) on a person being accepted into the UK.....I'm simply asking for clarification on the grounds for being accepted in the country....is the basis for acceptance....." seeking asylum" whilst " wanting a better life( economically) is not acceptable?
Second question, Is a country " obliged" to give every genuine asylum seeker asylum? Has the asylum seeker got the " right" to choose the country in which they hope to have asylum?
|
|
|
Post by thisisouryear on Apr 24, 2024 11:02:35 GMT
It's just another way of passing money around, the Rwanda deal will be the same. These Tories are only interested in making money for themselves and their donors. The government could easily turn around and say if you come here you get nothing, no benefits, no housing, no free meals or vouchers you get zip.They could put them back of the queue for everything. Why if they want to stop them coming here do they give them loads of freebies? Why not just stop those or reduce them to levels that making them less appealing? The government want them to come here. Getting rid of a couple of hundred to make it look like they are doing something is just a nessesary evil This is one of the most inhumane and ill informed comments I've seen Irregular migrants, defined narrowly as those in the UK without legal residence, are not permitted to work in the UK, claim benefits, or access some public services, such as university education, social housing, and most healthcare. migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/irregular-migration-in-the-uk/#:~:text=Irregular%20migrants%2C%20defined%20narrowly%20as,social%20housing%2C%20and%20most%20healthcare. Section 95 support includes housing and/or £49.18 per week for each person in self-catered accommodation. For people in accommodation that is catered (this means food is provided), they receive £8.86 allowance per week righttoremain.org.uk/toolkit/asylum-support/Ukrainian Migrants on the other hand don't need a Visa are allowed to work and have access to all Benefits, Healthcare and supports same as a UK Citizen ukrainianrefugeehelp.co.uk/benefits/I guess there are different types of Migrants It's meant to be a deterrent, it's a bit extreme but the language from our government is extreme. Point is we shouldn't be making it look like a great opportunity coming to the UK. We want to stop people coming here so we should offer them less and make it less appealing. As admirable as it is we can't take everyone in it's just not possible. We aren't equipped to keep taking people in. All that's gonna happen is wages will be driven down, the standard of our services will be driven down and the billionaires will make more and more profit whilst people get poorer and poorer. When it comes to the wrong type of person coming here maybe there is. A lot of people maybe even a majority of the country don't like Muslims coming here because they don't trust them, they make them feel unsafe and they have done very little to try and earn the people's trust. I don't think people feel as angry towards any other religion to be honest.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Apr 24, 2024 11:10:00 GMT
|
|
|
Post by cvillestokie on Apr 24, 2024 11:18:15 GMT
This is one of the most inhumane and ill informed comments I've seen Irregular migrants, defined narrowly as those in the UK without legal residence, are not permitted to work in the UK, claim benefits, or access some public services, such as university education, social housing, and most healthcare. migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/irregular-migration-in-the-uk/#:~:text=Irregular%20migrants%2C%20defined%20narrowly%20as,social%20housing%2C%20and%20most%20healthcare. Section 95 support includes housing and/or £49.18 per week for each person in self-catered accommodation. For people in accommodation that is catered (this means food is provided), they receive £8.86 allowance per week righttoremain.org.uk/toolkit/asylum-support/Ukrainian Migrants on the other hand don't need a Visa are allowed to work and have access to all Benefits, Healthcare and supports same as a UK Citizen ukrainianrefugeehelp.co.uk/benefits/I guess there are different types of Migrants It's meant to be a deterrent, it's a bit extreme but the language from our government is extreme. Point is we shouldn't be making it look like a great opportunity coming to the UK. We want to stop people coming here so we should offer them less and make it less appealing. As admirable as it is we can't take everyone in it's just not possible. We aren't equipped to keep taking people in. All that's gonna happen is wages will be driven down, the standard of our services will be driven down and the billionaires will make more and more profit whilst people get poorer and poorer. When it comes to the wrong type of person coming here maybe there is. A lot of people maybe even a majority of the country don't like Muslims coming here because they don't trust them, they make them feel unsafe and they have done very little to try and earn the people's trust. I don't think people feel as angry towards any other religion to be honest. If only we could stop helping to fuck up countries like Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq while also aiding Israel in their quest to create another migrant crisis (assuming there’ll be any left). Perhaps then, there wouldn’t be a migrant crisis.
|
|
|
Post by phileetin on Apr 24, 2024 11:57:19 GMT
spence said in an earlier post that london's health and social care would fall apart without them .
Quote me on that then.
Oh that's right, you can't because you're a liar phil.
i'm not a liar
i'm pretty sure it was you
can't remember the thread probably nhs but cud've been immigrant , or brexit related
summat about someones relative ( yours ? ) receiving excellent teatment from immigrant nhs workers ... that was the jist anyway ... nhs would fall apart without them
not saying it wouldn't by the way , but saying that , i've heard some terrible things and experienced some dodgy treatment from " immigrant types " who may not be as qualified as it says on the label.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Apr 24, 2024 12:23:20 GMT
Quote me on that then.
Oh that's right, you can't because you're a liar phil.
i'm not a liar
i'm pretty sure it was you
can't remember the thread probably nhs but cud've been immigrant , or brexit related
summat about someones relative ( yours ? ) receiving excellent teatment from immigrant nhs workers ... that was the jist anyway ... nhs would fall apart without them
not saying it wouldn't by the way , but saying that , i've heard some terrible things and experienced some dodgy treatment from " immigrant types " who may not be as qualified as it says on the label.
So you're not even sure it was me and you can definitely claim that you're not a liar ... jesus listen to yourself?
And you're not even sure what thread it was on?
Well the thread we are currently on is the uncontrolled immigration thread and the post you replied to was Badge replying to your suggestion of letting them all in.
There is a huge difference between controlled immigration and uncontrolled immigration, although I recognise, that you probably don't understand the difference between the two but hey, that's hardly my fault.
So I didn't say that without uncontrolled immigration that the NHS would collapse but rather, that if we didn't have immigration at all, then the NHS would collapse and it would - it's a demonstrable fact.
As for your last comment ... blimey phil.
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Apr 24, 2024 13:02:23 GMT
|
|
|
Post by thisisouryear on Apr 24, 2024 14:06:59 GMT
It's meant to be a deterrent, it's a bit extreme but the language from our government is extreme. Point is we shouldn't be making it look like a great opportunity coming to the UK. We want to stop people coming here so we should offer them less and make it less appealing. As admirable as it is we can't take everyone in it's just not possible. We aren't equipped to keep taking people in. All that's gonna happen is wages will be driven down, the standard of our services will be driven down and the billionaires will make more and more profit whilst people get poorer and poorer. When it comes to the wrong type of person coming here maybe there is. A lot of people maybe even a majority of the country don't like Muslims coming here because they don't trust them, they make them feel unsafe and they have done very little to try and earn the people's trust. I don't think people feel as angry towards any other religion to be honest. If only we could stop helping to fuck up countries like Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq while also aiding Israel in their quest to create another migrant crisis (assuming there’ll be any left). Perhaps then, there wouldn’t be a migrant crisis. I agree, we get involved in these wars with no long term plan. We haven't gone into those countries and made them better we have made them a much worse place to live and the migrant crisis is largely a problem we caused. We turned our backs on the people that wanted to create change (Trump partly responsible also) by pulling out and not seeing the job through whilst cowering to country's like Iran letting them support terror groups without any consequences. We should have either seen these wars through or not got involved at all. Unfortunately we don't know what's really going on in the world, we don't have that intelligence given too us about what threats we face but you have to hope that when politicians do get involved they are at least doing it because it's necessary. We can't assume by letting those countries go about there business frees us from any threats it's probably a lot more complicated than what we are allowed to see. What we can do though is call out genocide when we see it rather than continue to support countries that are going too far in the name of defending themselves whether they are an ally or not. If we want the moral high ground we should be braver and hold each and every country to a higher standard ally or not.
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Apr 24, 2024 15:29:43 GMT
Just to bring me up to date. ( save me Googling it, our posters will know the answer)..... Just checking if things have changed at all since I last looked. What is the current policy ( or legal position) on a person being accepted into the UK.....I'm simply asking for clarification on the grounds for being accepted in the country....is the basis for acceptance....." seeking asylum" whilst " wanting a better life( economically) is not acceptable? Second question, Is a country " obliged" to give every genuine asylum seeker asylum? Has the asylum seeker got the " right" to choose the country in which they hope to have asylum? Fear of persecution due to race, religion, sexual orientation or political views are the only legitimate reasons to be granted Refugee Status in UK A Country is obliged to consider an Asylum Seekers Application under International Law ECHR and UK Law Human Rights Act 1998 both text are exactly the same. The latter is integral to the Good Friday Agreement Under both of these Laws an Asylum Seeker has the right to make an Asylum Application at the first safe Country they feel safe not necessarily the first safe Country. If an Asylum Seeker makes an Application say in Italy irrespective of the outcome it would be grounds for refusal and return if they later made an Asylum Application in UK. All Asylum Applicants are fingerprinted when they make an application in any EU Country and they are stored centrally on Eurodac. Unfortunately since leaving EU UK no longer has access to Eurodac so has no way of knowing if an Asylum Seeker has already made an application and could therefore be returned. In addition to Migrants EU Citizens can make Visa applications but like Eurodac as a result of Brexit UK doesn't have access to Europol to see if a Visa applicant has a criminal record.
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Apr 24, 2024 16:52:27 GMT
Just to bring me up to date. ( save me Googling it, our posters will know the answer)..... Just checking if things have changed at all since I last looked. What is the current policy ( or legal position) on a person being accepted into the UK.....I'm simply asking for clarification on the grounds for being accepted in the country....is the basis for acceptance....." seeking asylum" whilst " wanting a better life( economically) is not acceptable? Second question, Is a country " obliged" to give every genuine asylum seeker asylum? Has the asylum seeker got the " right" to choose the country in which they hope to have asylum? Fear of persecution due to race, religion, sexual orientation or political views are the only legitimate reasons to be granted Refugee Status in UK A Country is obliged to consider an Asylum Seekers Application under International Law ECHR and UK Law Human Rights Act 1998 both text are exactly the same. The latter is integral to the Good Friday Agreement Under both of these Laws an Asylum Seeker has the right to make an Asylum Application at the first safe Country they feel safe not necessarily the first safe Country. If an Asylum Seeker makes an Application say in Italy irrespective of the outcome it would be grounds for refusal and return if they later made an Asylum Application in UK. All Asylum Applicants are fingerprinted when they make an application in any EU Country and they are stored centrally on Eurodac. Unfortunately since leaving EU UK no longer has access to Eurodac so has no way of knowing if an Asylum Seeker has already made an application and could therefore be returned. In addition to Migrants EU Citizens can make Visa applications but like Eurodac as a result of Brexit UK doesn't have access to Europol to see if a Visa applicant has a criminal record. France must be genuinely awful then if they don't feel safe enough to apply for asylum there? They need a UN Special Rapporteur to write a strongly worded statement about their society and condemn the populous. That'll make them think twice.
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Apr 24, 2024 17:37:46 GMT
Just to bring me up to date. ( save me Googling it, our posters will know the answer)..... Just checking if things have changed at all since I last looked. What is the current policy ( or legal position) on a person being accepted into the UK.....I'm simply asking for clarification on the grounds for being accepted in the country....is the basis for acceptance....." seeking asylum" whilst " wanting a better life( economically) is not acceptable? Second question, Is a country " obliged" to give every genuine asylum seeker asylum? Has the asylum seeker got the " right" to choose the country in which they hope to have asylum? Fear of persecution due to race, religion, sexual orientation or political views are the only legitimate reasons to be granted Refugee Status in UK A Country is obliged to consider an Asylum Seekers Application under International Law ECHR and UK Law Human Rights Act 1998 both text are exactly the same. The latter is integral to the Good Friday Agreement Under both of these Laws an Asylum Seeker has the right to make an Asylum Application at the first safe Country they feel safe not necessarily the first safe Country. If an Asylum Seeker makes an Application say in Italy irrespective of the outcome it would be grounds for refusal and return if they later made an Asylum Application in UK. All Asylum Applicants are fingerprinted when they make an application in any EU Country and they are stored centrally on Eurodac. Unfortunately since leaving EU UK no longer has access to Eurodac so has no way of knowing if an Asylum Seeker has already made an application and could therefore be returned. In addition to Migrants EU Citizens can make Visa applications but like Eurodac as a result of Brexit UK doesn't have access to Europol to see if a Visa applicant has a criminal record. Thanks for trying to answer my question Wannabee, I knew you would! I'm not sure you have answered it though. I'm not asking who has a right to claim asylum or what the post Brexit arrangements with the EU are. I'm asking ' what are the grounds for making the decision?" and " Is a country obliged to accept every genuine asylum seeker ?"......would you mind having another go, but pretend the country is the USA or Germany, not the Uk
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Apr 24, 2024 18:15:48 GMT
Fear of persecution due to race, religion, sexual orientation or political views are the only legitimate reasons to be granted Refugee Status in UK A Country is obliged to consider an Asylum Seekers Application under International Law ECHR and UK Law Human Rights Act 1998 both text are exactly the same. The latter is integral to the Good Friday Agreement Under both of these Laws an Asylum Seeker has the right to make an Asylum Application at the first safe Country they feel safe not necessarily the first safe Country. If an Asylum Seeker makes an Application say in Italy irrespective of the outcome it would be grounds for refusal and return if they later made an Asylum Application in UK. All Asylum Applicants are fingerprinted when they make an application in any EU Country and they are stored centrally on Eurodac. Unfortunately since leaving EU UK no longer has access to Eurodac so has no way of knowing if an Asylum Seeker has already made an application and could therefore be returned. In addition to Migrants EU Citizens can make Visa applications but like Eurodac as a result of Brexit UK doesn't have access to Europol to see if a Visa applicant has a criminal record. Thanks for trying to answer my question Wannabee, I knew you would! I'm not sure you have answered it though. I'm not asking who has a right to claim asylum or what the post Brexit arrangements with the EU are. I'm asking ' what are the grounds for making the decision?" and " Is a country obliged to accept every genuine asylum seeker ?"......would you mind having another go, but pretend the country is the USA or Germany, not the Uk If a US Citizen got off the Plane at Heathrow and claimed Asylum for any of the reasons listed in the first paragraph of my previous post UK would be obliged to review his application
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Apr 24, 2024 18:25:31 GMT
Fear of persecution due to race, religion, sexual orientation or political views are the only legitimate reasons to be granted Refugee Status in UK A Country is obliged to consider an Asylum Seekers Application under International Law ECHR and UK Law Human Rights Act 1998 both text are exactly the same. The latter is integral to the Good Friday Agreement Under both of these Laws an Asylum Seeker has the right to make an Asylum Application at the first safe Country they feel safe not necessarily the first safe Country. If an Asylum Seeker makes an Application say in Italy irrespective of the outcome it would be grounds for refusal and return if they later made an Asylum Application in UK. All Asylum Applicants are fingerprinted when they make an application in any EU Country and they are stored centrally on Eurodac. Unfortunately since leaving EU UK no longer has access to Eurodac so has no way of knowing if an Asylum Seeker has already made an application and could therefore be returned. In addition to Migrants EU Citizens can make Visa applications but like Eurodac as a result of Brexit UK doesn't have access to Europol to see if a Visa applicant has a criminal record. France must be genuinely awful then if they don't feel safe enough to apply for asylum there? They need a UN Special Rapporteur to write a strongly worded statement about their society and condemn the populous. That'll make them think twice. I don't think it's as bad as that. In 2023 France received 142,500 Asylum Applications In 2023 UK received 84,435 Asylum Applications or just under 60% of France There are all sorts of reasons Asylum Seekers want to claim Asylum in a particular Country, Language, Family ties, Colonial ties etc
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Apr 24, 2024 18:25:37 GMT
Thanks for trying to answer my question Wannabee, I knew you would! I'm not sure you have answered it though. I'm not asking who has a right to claim asylum or what the post Brexit arrangements with the EU are. I'm asking ' what are the grounds for making the decision?" and " Is a country obliged to accept every genuine asylum seeker ?"......would you mind having another go, but pretend the country is the USA or Germany, not the Uk If a US Citizen got off the Plane at Heathrow and claimed Asylum for any of the reasons listed in the first paragraph of my previous post UK would be obliged to review his application Apologies Wannabee, I'm not explaining myself very well. I guess any country would be obliged to review any person's claim for asylum , if that person makes it to that country. I'm asking , if an Asylum Application seems legitimate, meets the criteria, is that country obliged to accept the asylum seeker ( and WHO decides if they are obliged to do so(( and I realise there is international guidance)).....And ( using your example), ( a slightly different question) if the UK rejects ( legitimately) an asylum seeker from the USA, are the USA obliged to take the applicant back?
|
|
|
Post by Davef on Apr 24, 2024 18:42:14 GMT
So nothing to do with him then? Not his fault in the slightest?
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Apr 24, 2024 18:45:26 GMT
So nothing to do with him then? Not his fault in the slightest?
Absolutely Dave ... the utter gall of the man, how stupid does he actually think people are?
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Apr 24, 2024 18:49:02 GMT
If a US Citizen got off the Plane at Heathrow and claimed Asylum for any of the reasons listed in the first paragraph of my previous post UK would be obliged to review his application Apologies Wannabee, I'm not explaining myself very well. I guess any country would be obliged to review any person's claim for asylum , if that person makes it to that country. I'm asking , if an Asylum Application seems legitimate, meets the criteria, is that country obliged to accept the asylum seeker ( and WHO decides if they are obliged to do so(( and I realise there is international guidance)).....And ( using your example), ( a slightly different question) if the UK rejects ( legitimately) an asylum seeker from the USA, are the USA obliged to take the applicant back? Yes, if an Asylum seeker from any Country seeks protection in UK and that claim is proved to be genuine based on the criteria then Yes again UK is obliged to give them Leave to Remain. That is if UK wants to abide by its Treaty Obligations under UNHCR Yes in this case the US would be obliged to accept back the failed Asylum Seeker I know you haven't asked but I'll expand. The problem becomes when an Asylum Seeker Application from someone say from Afghanistan or Syria etc fails there is no way the UK would send them back because most likely by seeking Asylum they have put themselves in danger. I'm quite convinced that this will be one of the challenges we will se in UK Courts when individuals are identified for deportation to Rwanda UK has changed the law to say if you come to UK by "irregular" means i.e. by Boat we declare you are illegal and won't even review an application from you to see if you have a legitimate claim. From the Rwanda side the challenge will be based on Refoulment which is sending an Asylum Seeker back to where they came from knowing they will be in danger. This is precisely what happened when Israel offshored Asylum Seekers to Rwanda and the scheme collapsed Hope I've answered your question finally
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Apr 24, 2024 19:00:06 GMT
Apologies Wannabee, I'm not explaining myself very well. I guess any country would be obliged to review any person's claim for asylum , if that person makes it to that country. I'm asking , if an Asylum Application seems legitimate, meets the criteria, is that country obliged to accept the asylum seeker ( and WHO decides if they are obliged to do so(( and I realise there is international guidance)).....And ( using your example), ( a slightly different question) if the UK rejects ( legitimately) an asylum seeker from the USA, are the USA obliged to take the applicant back? Yes, if an Asylum seeker from any Country seeks protection in UK and that claim is proved to be genuine based on the criteria then Yes again UK is obliged to give them Leave to Remain. That is if UK wants to abide by its Treaty Obligations under UNHCR Yes in this case the US would be obliged to accept back the failed Asylum Seeker I know you haven't asked but I'll expand. The problem becomes when an Asylum Seeker Application from someone say from Afghanistan or Syria etc fails there is no way the UK would send them back because most likely by seeking Asylum they have put themselves in danger. I'm quite convinced that this will be one of the challenges we will se in UK Courts when individuals are identified for deportation to Rwanda UK has changed the law to say if you come to UK by "irregular" means i.e. by Boat we declare you are illegal and won't even review an application from you to see if you have a legitimate claim. From the Rwanda side the challenge will be based on Refoulment which is sending an Asylum Seeker back to where they came from knowing they will be in danger. This is precisely what happened when Israel offshored Asylum Seekers to Rwanda and the scheme collapsed Hope I've answered your question finally Thanks Wannabee I don't support the Rwanda thing at all, the whole concept seems ridiculous to me. But on your last paragraph, the policy on " irregular " means, where is thst laid out?( I AM NOT DOUBTING YOU.....I just want to read it)...Also ( not judt for the Uk) if the " original" country refuses to take the person back, what then? As an aside , suppsing an " accepting" country says " We are really sympathetic with your case, which we believe is genuine, but unfortunately for our domestic reasons, we don't think we can do anymore ( irrespective of whether anyone thinks differently) what then? Also what is the situation with a clear bogus claim , if the originating country refuses to take the asylum seeker back?
|
|