|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Nov 9, 2024 21:44:01 GMT
Yeah I know. I’m just making the point that there is often confusion between illegal immigrants and asylum seekers in the UK and that the terms are often used interchangeably. There aren’t many safe routes in to the UK so many people have to enter the UK illegally before claiming asylum. Of course, those who enter or stay in the UK without legal permission and don’t claim asylum should be returned.Those individuals who have fled their home countries due to persecution or fear of persecution and are seeking protection in the UK, who enter the UK illegally to claim asylum should be allowed to claim asylum. Both groups tend to arrive in the UK through illegal means, such as crossing the Channel in small boats. I’m just making the point, that’s all 😊 France is also a safe country so not sure why they need to cross the channel and risk their lives doing so if their reason for coming here is to escape persecution. They wouldn't be persecuted in France would they? No, but leave voters voted to rip up our returns agreement to EU nations. So we can’t send them back to France anymore. |
|
|
|
Post by middleoftheboothen on Nov 9, 2024 21:59:22 GMT
France is also a safe country so not sure why they need to cross the channel and risk their lives doing so if their reason for coming here is to escape persecution. They wouldn't be persecuted in France would they? No, but leave voters voted to rip up our returns agreement to EU nations. So we can’t send them back to France anymore. If the reason is that they are fleeing persecution then why not stop in one of the countless countries they pass through before they arrive here? If they are being persecuted in their homeland then I don't blame them at all for fleeing there but why cross the channel when they are already in a safe country in France? |
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Nov 9, 2024 22:12:28 GMT
No, but leave voters voted to rip up our returns agreement to EU nations. So we can’t send them back to France anymore. If the reason is that they are fleeing persecution then why not stop in one of the countless countries they pass through before they arrive here? If they are being persecuted in their homeland then I don't blame them at all for fleeing there but why cross the channel when they are already in a safe country in France? Maybe they speak English and not French. Maybe they have friends or family here. We take fewer asylum seekers than France and Germany. I just found out from a French friend that when he came here under the Blair government, he was given a free course to learn English as a foreign language. The Tories then cut it. We should definitely reintroduce that to help those who come here integrate better. |
|
|
|
Post by middleoftheboothen on Nov 9, 2024 22:13:33 GMT
If the reason is that they are fleeing persecution then why not stop in one of the countless countries they pass through before they arrive here? If they are being persecuted in their homeland then I don't blame them at all for fleeing there but why cross the channel when they are already in a safe country in France? Maybe they speak English and not French. Maybe they have friends or family here. We take fewer asylum seekers than France and Germany. I just found out from a French friend that when he came here under the Blair government, he was given a free course to learn English as a foreign language. The Tories then cut it. We should definitely reintroduce that to help those who come here integrate better. Maybe 😁 |
|
|
|
Post by musik on Nov 10, 2024 2:03:27 GMT
Maybe they speak English and not French. Maybe they have friends or family here. We take fewer asylum seekers than France and Germany. I just found out from a French friend that when he came here under the Blair government, he was given a free course to learn English as a foreign language. The Tories then cut it. We should definitely reintroduce that to help those who come here integrate better. Maybe 😁 Swedish government have lately seriously thought about re-introducing the Liberals old idea to only accept people who already knows how to speak Swedish fluently. |
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Nov 10, 2024 2:30:46 GMT
Literally no-one is suggesting what these men did is ok on the grounds it is considered appropriate in their culture or that we should change the law to accommodate practices that we consider morally reprehensible. There's a long history of child sexual abuse in the British public school system and the Catholic church and while some people in those communities have turned a blind eye we haven't changed the law to accommodate their behaviour on the grounds it's culturally acceptable in those communities. Or are you saying those instances of child sexual abuse are OK because they are only abusing children from within their own community? |
|
|
|
Post by probably on Nov 10, 2024 7:50:07 GMT
Literally no-one is suggesting what these men did is ok on the grounds it is considered appropriate in their culture or that we should change the law to accommodate practices that we consider morally reprehensible. There's a long history of child sexual abuse in the British public school system and the Catholic church and while some people in those communities have turned a blind eye we haven't changed the law to accommodate their behaviour on the grounds it's culturally acceptable in those communities. Or are you saying those instances of child sexual abuse are OK because they are only abusing children from within their own community? I agree - although I'd also add the Church of England along with the Catholic Church. Church of England Abuse 1
Church of England Abuse 2 |
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Nov 10, 2024 8:18:05 GMT
Literally no-one is suggesting what these men did is ok on the grounds it is considered appropriate in their culture or that we should change the law to accommodate practices that we consider morally reprehensible. There's a long history of child sexual abuse in the British public school system and the Catholic church and while some people in those communities have turned a blind eye we haven't changed the law to accommodate their behaviour on the grounds it's culturally acceptable in those communities. Or are you saying those instances of child sexual abuse are OK because they are only abusing children from within their own community? I agree - although I'd also add the Church of England along with the Catholic Church. Church of England Abuse 1
Church of England Abuse 2Yes exactly. The thing is there is a history of groups of men ganging together to abuse women and children. It's an ongoing problem and male Pakistani grooming gangs are just another example that needs addressing. The idea that this is a new problem or that it is only a problem in certain cultures or that immigration is the root cause of the problem is nonsense. The common "culture" is a perverse form of masculinity tat crosses all national, ethnic, cultural and religious boundaries. |
|
|
|
Post by musik on Nov 10, 2024 9:28:55 GMT
If the reason is that they are fleeing persecution then why not stop in one of the countless countries they pass through before they arrive here? If they are being persecuted in their homeland then I don't blame them at all for fleeing there but why cross the channel when they are already in a safe country in France? Maybe they speak English and not French. Maybe they have friends or family here. We take fewer asylum seekers than France and Germany. I just found out from a French friend that when he came here under the Blair government, he was given a free course to learn English as a foreign language. The Tories then cut it. We should definitely reintroduce that to help those who come here integrate better. A free course??? Here they get paid if they are arsed to learn Swedish. Many of them aren't anyway. Therefore our government have recently thought about re-introducing the Liberals old idea of only accepting immigrants at the border who already speak Swedish fluently to keep the numbers down. |
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Nov 10, 2024 9:46:40 GMT
Yes exactly. The thing is there is a history of groups of men ganging together to abuse women and children. It's an ongoing problem and male Pakistani grooming gangs are just another example that needs addressing. The idea that this is a new problem or that it is only a problem in certain cultures or that immigration is the root cause of the problem is nonsense. The common "culture" is a perverse form of masculinity tat crosses all national, ethnic, cultural and religious boundaries. Let’s face it. It is predominantly a male problem. What is wrong with men who think they can do these types of things? |
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Nov 10, 2024 18:51:16 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Nov 11, 2024 2:46:51 GMT
I have to remind you that this is the GCE A Level thread for Racial Stereotyping And Advanced Xenophobia. C- Could do better. 1 You failed to mention how it is essential to cram immigrants in so as to allow the indigenous population to maintain an unoccupied home in Cornwall while at the same time blaming immigrants for the housing crisis. The inability to think logically is a pre requisite for this course. 2 Provide a YouTube link to one of our tutors selling quack dietary products. Exploiting the gullible provides a key funding stream for this course. 3 For no good reason raise the issue of Pakistani grooming gangs. It is essential to keep mentioning this association so as to maintain the demonisation programme. Please repeat the module on "The Art and Craft of Mud Slinging". |
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Nov 11, 2024 8:50:45 GMT
Are they illegal? Or is it that their claims haven’t been processed yet? If they are unvetted, how do you know they are from countries that don’t share our values? And they cannot be illegal if they are unvetted as they only become illegal once an asylum claim is rejected and they remain here. Why is it relevant that they are being temporarily housed close to two girls schools? Have they entered the country illegally? |
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Nov 11, 2024 9:09:39 GMT
Are they illegal? Or is it that their claims haven’t been processed yet? If they are unvetted, how do you know they are from countries that don’t share our values? And they cannot be illegal if they are unvetted as they only become illegal once an asylum claim is rejected and they remain here. Why is it relevant that they are being temporarily housed close to two girls schools? Have they entered the country illegally? Not if they are claiming asylum. One of Braverman’s immigration bills failed and was deemed unlawful because it sought to override international laws which we have signed up to. It aimed to make all those entering the country without a visa or through a valid route as unlawful. Braverman’s law was declared unlawful and one of the main reasons why was because there are no alternative routes to apply for asylum here for those people. It is one of the reasons creating safe routes to apply for asylum from overseas is so sensible, because it would mean we could render all coming on small boats as coming unlawfully and then deport them instantly. Why come on a boat when your claim to come could be done safely from overseas? So only those crossing on small boats who are not seeking asylum are entering illegally. |
|
|
|
Post by RipRoaringPotter on Nov 11, 2024 9:20:13 GMT
Have they entered the country illegally? Not if they are claiming asylum. One of Braverman’s immigration bills failed and was deemed unlawful because it sought to override international laws which we have signed up to. It aimed to make all those entering the country without a visa or through a valid route as unlawful. Braverman’s law was declared unlawful and one of the main reasons why was because there are no alternative routes to apply for asylum here for those people. It is one of the reasons creating safe routes to apply for asylum from overseas is so sensible, because it would mean we could render all coming on small boats as coming unlawfully and then deport them instantly. Why come on a boat when your claim to come could be done safely from overseas? So only those crossing on small boats who are not seeking asylum are entering illegally. That seems a reasonable, well-educated explanation of how the law works. I look forward to another 88 pages of people calling these people illegal immigrants and saying that they came to the country illegally. |
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Nov 11, 2024 9:27:01 GMT
Have they entered the country illegally? Not if they are claiming asylum. One of Braverman’s immigration bills failed and was deemed unlawful because it sought to override international laws which we have signed up to. It aimed to make all those entering the country without a visa or through a valid route as unlawful. Braverman’s law was declared unlawful and one of the main reasons why was because there are no alternative routes to apply for asylum here for those people. It is one of the reasons creating safe routes to apply for asylum from overseas is so sensible, because it would mean we could render all coming on small boats as coming unlawfully and then deport them instantly. Why come on a boat when your claim to come could be done safely from overseas? So only those crossing on small boats who are not seeking asylum are entering illegally. Do you mean the 2023 'illegal migration bill' which surely means 'illegal' ? They have passed through safe countries haven't they? |
|
|
|
Post by Ariel Manto on Nov 11, 2024 10:24:36 GMT
Not if they are claiming asylum. One of Braverman’s immigration bills failed and was deemed unlawful because it sought to override international laws which we have signed up to. It aimed to make all those entering the country without a visa or through a valid route as unlawful. Braverman’s law was declared unlawful and one of the main reasons why was because there are no alternative routes to apply for asylum here for those people. It is one of the reasons creating safe routes to apply for asylum from overseas is so sensible, because it would mean we could render all coming on small boats as coming unlawfully and then deport them instantly. Why come on a boat when your claim to come could be done safely from overseas? So only those crossing on small boats who are not seeking asylum are entering illegally. Do you mean the 2023 'illegal migration bill' which surely means 'illegal' ? They have passed through safe countries haven't they? Crikey this argument is so cyclical on here. It's like everyone has collective amnesia (followed by bouts of narcissism for some) about what's already been said. And said again. And then said again. The main reasons people want to come to the UK to claim asylum rather than France and Germany (for example) are family and language. Family and community links apply as many have family members or established communities in the UK. In addition, language is a huge factor as many speak only English as a second language (as opposed to French or German, by way of example) which makes integration, navigating the asylum system, and in the future obtaining a job with prospects easier compared to other European countries. As an aside, under the 1951 Refugee Convention, individuals cannot be forced to claim asylum in the first "safe" country they enter. The only historic check on this was that the UK used to have domestic laws (such as the Dublin Regulation) which could force asylum seekers to be returned to the first EU country they entered if certain conditions were met. However, after the shot in the foot for the political right wing in the UK that was the glorious Brexit Revolution of January 2021, the UK is no longer part of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS) which includes the Dublin Regulation, so the UK no longer has any legal grounds to return asylum seekers to the first EU "safe" country they entered. |
|
|
|
Post by Davef on Nov 11, 2024 10:41:21 GMT
As an aside, under the 1951 Refugee Convention, individuals cannot be forced to claim asylum in the first "safe" country they enter. The only historic check on this was that the UK used to have domestic laws (such as the Dublin Regulation) which could force asylum seekers to be returned to the first EU country they entered if certain conditions were met. However, after the shot in the foot for the political right wing in the UK that was the glorious Brexit Revolution of January 2021, the UK is no longer part of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS) which includes the Dublin Regulation, so the UK no longer has any legal grounds to return asylum seekers to the first EU "safe" country they entered. It would seem that had we remained in the EU we would still have problems removing failed asylum seekers. |
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Nov 11, 2024 11:03:04 GMT
Not if they are claiming asylum. One of Braverman’s immigration bills failed and was deemed unlawful because it sought to override international laws which we have signed up to. It aimed to make all those entering the country without a visa or through a valid route as unlawful. Braverman’s law was declared unlawful and one of the main reasons why was because there are no alternative routes to apply for asylum here for those people. It is one of the reasons creating safe routes to apply for asylum from overseas is so sensible, because it would mean we could render all coming on small boats as coming unlawfully and then deport them instantly. Why come on a boat when your claim to come could be done safely from overseas? So only those crossing on small boats who are not seeking asylum are entering illegally. Do you mean the 2023 'illegal migration bill' which surely means 'illegal' ? They have passed through safe countries haven't they? It's all a fiction of the last Government Under the Illegal Immigration Act 2023 anyone who enters UK without proper authorisation is illegal. Under UK Human Rights Act 1998 which complies with ECHR it is not illegal to seek Asylum and there is no obligation to seek Asylumin the first "safe" Country. The last Government decided not to process any Asylum claims when the Illegal Migration Act passed in July 2023 therefore people who arrived in small boats had only a Limbo Status. It could only be proved they were illegal by processing an Asylum claim. If the Asylum claim was approved they became Refugees (about 75% are approved) If the Asylum claim was denied they could be removed.... but to where? After Brexit there was no rejected asylum claim returns agreement with EU. The Illegal Migration Act declared that anyone entering UK by "irregular" means was illegal and therefore they would not process a claim for Asylum. It charged the Home Secretary to return Citizens from EU 27 member states, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Switzerland or Albania. Anyone else would have to be removed to a safe third country Rwanda. The Act also provided that these "irregular" visitors must be provided with "Contingency Accommodation" I.e. Hotels. In November 2023 the Supreme Court ruled that the Illegal Migration Act was unlawful because Rwanda wasn't a safe Country. In April 2024 the Government passed the Rwanda Act declaring Rwanda a safe Country. Between July 2023 when the Illegal Immigration Act was passed and July 3rd about 50K "irregular" visitors arrived and were given "contingency Accommodation". Not One "irregular" visitor was removed although 4 "irregulars" volunteered and were paid to go to Rwanda. In total the "Rwanda Sham Scheme" has cost about £700M and only 2 Home Secretaries and 4 volunteers have gone to Rwanda When Labour won the GE on 4th July is stopped this fictitious nonsense. |
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Nov 11, 2024 11:21:37 GMT
Do you mean the 2023 'illegal migration bill' which surely means 'illegal' ? They have passed through safe countries haven't they? Crikey this argument is so cyclical on here. It's like everyone has collective amnesia (followed by bouts of narcissism for some) about what's already been said. And said again. And then said again. The main reasons people want to come to the UK to claim asylum rather than France and Germany (for example) are family and language. Family and community links apply as many have family members or established communities in the UK. In addition, language is a huge factor as many speak only English as a second language (as opposed to French or German, by way of example) which makes integration, navigating the asylum system, and in the future obtaining a job with prospects easier compared to other European countries. As an aside, under the 1951 Refugee Convention, individuals cannot be forced to claim asylum in the first "safe" country they enter. The only historic check on this was that the UK used to have domestic laws (such as the Dublin Regulation) which could force asylum seekers to be returned to the first EU country they entered if certain conditions were met. However, after the shot in the foot for the political right wing in the UK that was the glorious Brexit Revolution of January 2021, the UK is no longer part of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS) which includes the Dublin Regulation, so the UK no longer has any legal grounds to return asylum seekers to the first EU "safe" country they entered. Loving the CEAS position. So effectively the people who voted for BREXIT on the grounds we could better control immigration now find we are actually in a worse position to control immigration. A plan so cunning even Baldrick would have had second thoughts. |
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Nov 11, 2024 11:49:40 GMT
As an aside, under the 1951 Refugee Convention, individuals cannot be forced to claim asylum in the first "safe" country they enter. The only historic check on this was that the UK used to have domestic laws (such as the Dublin Regulation) which could force asylum seekers to be returned to the first EU country they entered if certain conditions were met. However, after the shot in the foot for the political right wing in the UK that was the glorious Brexit Revolution of January 2021, the UK is no longer part of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS) which includes the Dublin Regulation, so the UK no longer has any legal grounds to return asylum seekers to the first EU "safe" country they entered. It would seem that had we remained in the EU we would still have problems removing failed asylum seekers. I think you may be conflating two issues (but someone can tell me if my understanding is wrong). The Dublin Agreement in theory meant we could send anyone coming here from a safe EU country without processing their claim back to that safe EU country. The theory being that the asylum seekers should have sought asylum in the first safe country they got to. Leave voters voted to end our ability to do that for some idiotic reason! Your link is about the difficulties in sending asylum seekers whose claims have been rejected back to wherever they came from. Two different issues. |
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Nov 11, 2024 11:51:26 GMT
Crikey this argument is so cyclical on here. It's like everyone has collective amnesia (followed by bouts of narcissism for some) about what's already been said. And said again. And then said again. The main reasons people want to come to the UK to claim asylum rather than France and Germany (for example) are family and language. Family and community links apply as many have family members or established communities in the UK. In addition, language is a huge factor as many speak only English as a second language (as opposed to French or German, by way of example) which makes integration, navigating the asylum system, and in the future obtaining a job with prospects easier compared to other European countries. As an aside, under the 1951 Refugee Convention, individuals cannot be forced to claim asylum in the first "safe" country they enter. The only historic check on this was that the UK used to have domestic laws (such as the Dublin Regulation) which could force asylum seekers to be returned to the first EU country they entered if certain conditions were met. However, after the shot in the foot for the political right wing in the UK that was the glorious Brexit Revolution of January 2021, the UK is no longer part of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS) which includes the Dublin Regulation, so the UK no longer has any legal grounds to return asylum seekers to the first EU "safe" country they entered. Loving the CEAS position. So effectively the people who voted for BREXIT on the grounds we could better control immigration now find we are actually in a worse position to control immigration. A plan so cunning even Baldrick would have had second thoughts. It is even better than that. As leave voters are insistent they didn’t vote blindly and knew exactly what they voted for, they knowingly voted to rip up the dublin regulation! |
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Nov 11, 2024 12:01:20 GMT
Crikey this argument is so cyclical on here. It's like everyone has collective amnesia (followed by bouts of narcissism for some) about what's already been said. And said again. And then said again. The main reasons people want to come to the UK to claim asylum rather than France and Germany (for example) are family and language. Family and community links apply as many have family members or established communities in the UK. In addition, language is a huge factor as many speak only English as a second language (as opposed to French or German, by way of example) which makes integration, navigating the asylum system, and in the future obtaining a job with prospects easier compared to other European countries. As an aside, under the 1951 Refugee Convention, individuals cannot be forced to claim asylum in the first "safe" country they enter. The only historic check on this was that the UK used to have domestic laws (such as the Dublin Regulation) which could force asylum seekers to be returned to the first EU country they entered if certain conditions were met. However, after the shot in the foot for the political right wing in the UK that was the glorious Brexit Revolution of January 2021, the UK is no longer part of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS) which includes the Dublin Regulation, so the UK no longer has any legal grounds to return asylum seekers to the first EU "safe" country they entered. Loving the CEAS position. So effectively the people who voted for BREXIT on the grounds we could better control immigration now find we are actually in a worse position to control immigration. A plan so cunning even Baldrick would have had second thoughts. To compound the farce every Asylum Seeker who makes an application in an EU Country is fingerprinted and it remains on a central database. When UK left EU as a third Country it no longer has access to that database so UK has no idea if a previous asylum application has been made. Even worse UK Law Enforcement and Border Control have only very limited access to the Europol, Eurojust and SIS 11 Databases which monitors criminal activities across the Schengen area. How they assess Visa Applications or "Tourist's" showing up is anybodies guess. The last and current Government are trying to regain access to these databases and latest indicators from Home Office is that at best it might be possible by 2027/28 ONLY if UK Law updates in line with GDPR. Does anyone remember Jacob Rich-Snob saying he was going to burn all GDPR legislation? So UK has regained its "Sovereignty" to follow EU Rules |
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Nov 11, 2024 12:23:08 GMT
Loving the CEAS position. So effectively the people who voted for BREXIT on the grounds we could better control immigration now find we are actually in a worse position to control immigration. A plan so cunning even Baldrick would have had second thoughts. To compound the farce every Asylum Seeker who makes an application in an EU Country is fingerprinted and it remains on a central database. When UK left EU as a third Country it no longer has access to that database so UK has no idea if a previous asylum application has been made. Even worse UK Law Enforcement and Border Control have only very limited access to the Europol, Eurojust and SIS 11 Databases which monitors criminal activities across the Schengen area. How they assess Visa Applications or "Tourist's" showing up is anybodies guess. The last and current Government are trying to regain access to these databases and latest indicators from Home Office is that at best it might be possible by 2027/28 ONLY if UK Law updates in line with GDPR. Does anyone remember Jacob Rich-Snob saying he was going to burn all GDPR legislation? So UK has regained its "Sovereignty" to follow EU Rules The voting blind approach of leave voters has been a complete disaster when it comes to immigration. |
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Nov 11, 2024 12:59:39 GMT
I think you may be conflating two issues (but someone can tell me if my understanding is wrong). The Dublin Agreement in theory meant we could send anyone coming here from a safe EU country without processing their claim back to that safe EU country. The theory being that the asylum seekers should have sought asylum in the first safe country they got to. Leave voters voted to end our ability to do that for some idiotic reason! Your link is about the difficulties in sending asylum seekers whose claims have been rejected back to wherever they came from. Two different issues. This is not correct Oggy The Dublin Regulation was that if an Asylum Seeker had made an Asylum Application in another EU Country, let's say Italy, and then made another Asylum Application in UK, then UK could send that Asylum Seeker back to Italy. This of course was dependant on having access to Database I talk about above. There is no obligation under International Law that an Asylum Seeker should make an Asylum Application in the first Safe Country. |
|
|
|
Post by Ariel Manto on Nov 11, 2024 14:10:55 GMT
Crikey this argument is so cyclical on here. It's like everyone has collective amnesia (followed by bouts of narcissism for some) about what's already been said. And said again. And then said again. The main reasons people want to come to the UK to claim asylum rather than France and Germany (for example) are family and language. Family and community links apply as many have family members or established communities in the UK. In addition, language is a huge factor as many speak only English as a second language (as opposed to French or German, by way of example) which makes integration, navigating the asylum system, and in the future obtaining a job with prospects easier compared to other European countries. As an aside, under the 1951 Refugee Convention, individuals cannot be forced to claim asylum in the first "safe" country they enter. The only historic check on this was that the UK used to have domestic laws (such as the Dublin Regulation) which could force asylum seekers to be returned to the first EU country they entered if certain conditions were met. However, after the shot in the foot for the political right wing in the UK that was the glorious Brexit Revolution of January 2021, the UK is no longer part of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS) which includes the Dublin Regulation, so the UK no longer has any legal grounds to return asylum seekers to the first EU "safe" country they entered. Loving the CEAS position. So effectively the people who voted for BREXIT on the grounds we could better control immigration now find we are actually in a worse position to control immigration. A plan so cunning even Baldrick would have had second thoughts. Yep, in a nutshell they shot their own cocks off! |
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Nov 11, 2024 14:23:13 GMT
I think you may be conflating two issues (but someone can tell me if my understanding is wrong). The Dublin Agreement in theory meant we could send anyone coming here from a safe EU country without processing their claim back to that safe EU country. The theory being that the asylum seekers should have sought asylum in the first safe country they got to. Leave voters voted to end our ability to do that for some idiotic reason! Your link is about the difficulties in sending asylum seekers whose claims have been rejected back to wherever they came from. Two different issues. This is not correct Oggy The Dublin Regulation was that if an Asylum Seeker had made an Asylum Application in another EU Country, let's say Italy, and then made another Asylum Application in UK, then UK could send that Asylum Seeker back to Italy. This of course was dependant on having access to Database I talk about above. There is no obligation under International Law that an Asylum Seeker should make an Asylum Application in the first Safe Country. I knew someone would correct me where I am wrong! |
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Nov 11, 2024 14:38:57 GMT
This is not correct Oggy The Dublin Regulation was that if an Asylum Seeker had made an Asylum Application in another EU Country, let's say Italy, and then made another Asylum Application in UK, then UK could send that Asylum Seeker back to Italy. This of course was dependant on having access to Database I talk about above. There is no obligation under International Law that an Asylum Seeker should make an Asylum Application in the first Safe Country. I knew someone would correct me where I am wrong!  Oggy you're a tease. You know full well that there'd be at least half a dozen posters waiting to pounce on your mistake. They live for it. |
|
|
|
Post by Ariel Manto on Nov 11, 2024 14:41:23 GMT
I knew someone would correct me where I am wrong! Oggy you're a tease. You know full well that there'd be at least half a dozen posters waiting to pounce on your mistake. They live for it. Anyone in particular you have in mind? 😉😂 |
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Nov 11, 2024 14:43:22 GMT
View AttachmentOggy you're a tease. You know full well that there'd be at least half a dozen posters waiting to pounce on your mistake. They live for it. Anyone in particular you have in mind? 😉😂  |
|
