Why Would Anyone Have A Leasehold?
Society & Culture3 mins ago
How Can We Stop Immigrants To Europe Trying To Cross The Channel?
Several people including two children and possibly a baby have died attempting to cross the channel from France to the UK. The question is why, when these people are already in Europe and safe, are they so eager to get here? Of course healthcare here is free, but additionally as I understand it benefits in the UK may not be quite as generous as those in some of the other European countries but they are easier and quicker to access, so would bringing our benefits system into line with that of France/Germany etc., have the desired effect - and the added bonus of putting the traffickers, some of whom are alleged to be earning $15,000 a night - exactly where they should be .... out of business?
https:/
https:/
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by naomi24. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Atheist
\\Webbo; I thought that if you entered a country and asked for asylum, then your case would be considered in the light of national and international law. Can you explain what are the correct channels?//
they are also meant to present themselves to authorities on entering the first safe country, this stops them making multiple claims in different countries after failing in one
\\Webbo; I thought that if you entered a country and asked for asylum, then your case would be considered in the light of national and international law. Can you explain what are the correct channels?//
they are also meant to present themselves to authorities on entering the first safe country, this stops them making multiple claims in different countries after failing in one
I leave legal considerations to the law. If the law is in conflict with how things clearly should be defined then that's an issue for the politicians to sort out, not just sit back and accept flawed law.
I'm not commenting on the complexities of law, but referring to what is correct. There is no present risk from France therefore it follows that one can not flee from it claiming a need for asylum. And none of those attempting the crossing can show permission to enter the UK, as otherwise they'd not be trying to sneak in.
I'm not commenting on the complexities of law, but referring to what is correct. There is no present risk from France therefore it follows that one can not flee from it claiming a need for asylum. And none of those attempting the crossing can show permission to enter the UK, as otherwise they'd not be trying to sneak in.
webbo; so if they request asylum in France and are refused, they can't then ask for asylum in UK? What I heard on Radio 4 was that only a tiny percentage of asylum seekers try for UK asylum, and that most apply in France. If that 'tiny percentage' haven't applied in France or another country, then they should be allowed to apply to the UK govt. If they do apply, then they are asylum seekers, not 'illegals' Any further info from you would be appreciated.
"have already tried to find asylum in France"
They are in France, they are being allowed to stay there. That's as good a definition of being out of peril, and thus finding asylum, as any. France aren't going to permit those who may want to harm them to do so. Therefore they have the protection they sought.
They are in France, they are being allowed to stay there. That's as good a definition of being out of peril, and thus finding asylum, as any. France aren't going to permit those who may want to harm them to do so. Therefore they have the protection they sought.
Somebody who at least knows what she's talking about ...
https:/
Example: "A lot of [these] people have a legal right to asylum in the UK but don't have a means to access that right".
https:/
Example: "A lot of [these] people have a legal right to asylum in the UK but don't have a means to access that right".
//webbo; I think they are asylum seekers.//
//I'd welcome some enlightenment//
An extract from United Nations “Convention and protocol relating to the status of refugees”:
Article 31: Refugees unlawfully in the country of refuge”
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."
Note “…coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened…”. People travelling from France do not generally hail “…from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1.” Article One describes the circumstances under which a person may apply for asylum (coming from a place where their life is threatened or they may suffer persecution, generally) and also provides a number of exceptions, some of which apply to those resident in France. I can’t be bothered to cite all those passages – you can easily look it up.
In general, the asylum principles are designed to allow somebody living in a territory where they fear for their life or are fearful of persecution to apply to another country for refuge. People living in France do not, in general, fear for their life or persecution in the sense envisaged by the Convention. Asylum is not designed for people who simply don’t like it where they currently are and who fancy their chances elsewhere. The UK is the 2destination of choice" for he rubber boat people. It is not a choice they should have but the UK government is complicit in leading them to believe that it is.
//I'd welcome some enlightenment//
An extract from United Nations “Convention and protocol relating to the status of refugees”:
Article 31: Refugees unlawfully in the country of refuge”
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."
Note “…coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened…”. People travelling from France do not generally hail “…from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1.” Article One describes the circumstances under which a person may apply for asylum (coming from a place where their life is threatened or they may suffer persecution, generally) and also provides a number of exceptions, some of which apply to those resident in France. I can’t be bothered to cite all those passages – you can easily look it up.
In general, the asylum principles are designed to allow somebody living in a territory where they fear for their life or are fearful of persecution to apply to another country for refuge. People living in France do not, in general, fear for their life or persecution in the sense envisaged by the Convention. Asylum is not designed for people who simply don’t like it where they currently are and who fancy their chances elsewhere. The UK is the 2destination of choice" for he rubber boat people. It is not a choice they should have but the UK government is complicit in leading them to believe that it is.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.