Crosswords1 min ago
Another Tory Lawbreaker
87 Answers
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Geoffrey13. 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.
// ... they need first to properly define an asylum seeker, and it sure ain't one who self identifies as an asylum seeker if asked. //
In order to be an asylum seeker, you need to do three things:
1. Leave your home country;
2. Go to another country;
3. Request asylum in that country.
That's it. It may well be that some asylum claims are ultimately without merit, but the status of asylum seeker itself has nothing to do with that. Also, since the logical extension of "innocent until proven guilty" is "genuine asylum claim until it's dismissed", then it's incumbent on the country in which the asylum request is being processed to provide some minimum amount of care while that's ongoing -- that is, to provide food, water, shelter, and safety. I'd have thought that would be particularly uncontroversial when the asylum seeker is a pregnant woman or a young child. Even if, as bobbisox asserts, there aren't many such people in the asylum system, there are still *some*. And this kind of ill-treatment is unlawful, and more to the point, wholly unethical.
In order to be an asylum seeker, you need to do three things:
1. Leave your home country;
2. Go to another country;
3. Request asylum in that country.
That's it. It may well be that some asylum claims are ultimately without merit, but the status of asylum seeker itself has nothing to do with that. Also, since the logical extension of "innocent until proven guilty" is "genuine asylum claim until it's dismissed", then it's incumbent on the country in which the asylum request is being processed to provide some minimum amount of care while that's ongoing -- that is, to provide food, water, shelter, and safety. I'd have thought that would be particularly uncontroversial when the asylum seeker is a pregnant woman or a young child. Even if, as bobbisox asserts, there aren't many such people in the asylum system, there are still *some*. And this kind of ill-treatment is unlawful, and more to the point, wholly unethical.
// No one coming from a safe country is fleeing war or persecution. //
What counts as a "safe country"? This isn't something that there's really a neat list for. Clearly, countries in which there's an ongoing war are unsafe by any sensible definition, but that's a far too narrow definition in practice. For example, there may be laws that persecute a particular minority group, which make it unsafe for those in that minority. Or perhaps the persecution doesn't come from the state, but from some criminal gang that has decided you are a target. In that case, the country may appear safe to almost everybody, but is dangerous to you personally.
All of this is what the asylum processing claim is designed to resolve. Disallowing asylum claims after a proper assessment, finding that the circumstances don't count as sufficiently unsafe, is perfectly proper. Disallowing claims immediately on request, without even bothering to evaluate their merit, is not. And, in the meantime, while the claim is being processed, the processing State has a minimum duty of care.
What counts as a "safe country"? This isn't something that there's really a neat list for. Clearly, countries in which there's an ongoing war are unsafe by any sensible definition, but that's a far too narrow definition in practice. For example, there may be laws that persecute a particular minority group, which make it unsafe for those in that minority. Or perhaps the persecution doesn't come from the state, but from some criminal gang that has decided you are a target. In that case, the country may appear safe to almost everybody, but is dangerous to you personally.
All of this is what the asylum processing claim is designed to resolve. Disallowing asylum claims after a proper assessment, finding that the circumstances don't count as sufficiently unsafe, is perfectly proper. Disallowing claims immediately on request, without even bothering to evaluate their merit, is not. And, in the meantime, while the claim is being processed, the processing State has a minimum duty of care.
Well, possibly. But, firstly, there's no requirement, and never has been, for an asylum seeker to seek asylum in the first "safe country" they enter; and secondly, again, to the extent that this may affect the decision on the asylum claim, that's a matter for *after* it's been processed, and not during that period.
Bearing in mind that this decision specifically relates to the care given to young children and pregnant women, all the usual spiel about asylum claims is neither here nor there.
Bearing in mind that this decision specifically relates to the care given to young children and pregnant women, all the usual spiel about asylum claims is neither here nor there.
ctg: "Well, possibly. But, firstly, there's no requirement, and never has been, for an asylum seeker to seek asylum in the first "safe country" they enter; and secondly, again, to the extent that this may affect the decision on the asylum claim, that's a matter for *after* it's been processed, and not during that period. " - well yes but you asked: //What counts as a "safe country"? // - France the answer,
99.9% of ours come from France, that is a safe country.
99.9% of ours come from France, that is a safe country.
//In order to be an asylum seeker, you need to do three things:
1. Leave your home country;
2. Go to another country;
3. Request asylum in that country.//
Wrong
Part 1 and 2 are correct
Part 3 .having done 1 & 2 you seek out a thoroughly bent and corrupt solicitor who manipulates the system just as his client has done.
Lol The Tories are breaking the law.???? Is this a joke?
https:/
1. Leave your home country;
2. Go to another country;
3. Request asylum in that country.//
Wrong
Part 1 and 2 are correct
Part 3 .having done 1 & 2 you seek out a thoroughly bent and corrupt solicitor who manipulates the system just as his client has done.
Lol The Tories are breaking the law.???? Is this a joke?
https:/
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.