Migrants

[Brian Kirby]

Maybe a little fact will help? From Fullfact:

 

One "cannot know whether the people trying to cross the channel in recent months would be recognised as refugees. This is to be determined by immigration officials in whichever country reviews their asylum applications."

 

It "is also incorrect to say that refugees should seek refuge in the first safe country they come to. Under the UN Refugee Convention, there is no obligation on refugees to do this—an interpretation which is upheld in UK case law. Those trying to cross the Channel can legitimately claim asylum in the UK if they reach it.

 

That said, refugees who arrive in the UK after passing through another EU country can, under certain circumstances, be returned to the first EU country they entered, under an EU law known as the Dublin Regulation.

 

What is a refugee? And what is an asylum seeker?

 

The 1951 UN Refugee Convention (also known as the Geneva Convention) defines what a refugee is, what rights a refugee has, and the responsibilities of states towards refugees.

 

It defines a refugee as someone who “owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion” has fled their own country or (if they have no nationality) country of usual residence, and is unable or unwilling to return to it or seek protection from it.

 

Being recognised as a refugee gives you the right to not to be returned to the country you have fled, as well as a minimum standard of rights and freedoms in a safe country.

 

An asylum seeker is someone who is in need and search of refuge. The right to seek asylum from persecution in other countries is a universal human right, set out in Article 14 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights.

 

Practically speaking, an asylum seeker is someone who has applied for refugee status (or another form of international protection) in another country, and is awaiting a decision on that application. They can only apply once they physically reach the country.

 

In the UK, once an asylum seeker has had their application processed, they may receive permission to stay as a refugee for five years (after which they can apply to settle in the UK). They may also be given “permission to stay for humanitarian reasons” or other reasons, or their application may be rejected in which case, if no appeal is successful, they have to leave the UK unless they face a “real risk” of serious harm in the case of deportation.

 

There is no obligation on refugees to claim asylum in the first safe country they reach.

 

It "is wrong to claim that, under the Geneva Convention, refugees should seek refuge in the first safe country they come to.

 

It contains no obligation “either explicit or implicit” for refugees to claim asylum in the first safe country they reach, according to immigration lawyer Colin Yeo.

 

This means that an asylum seeker can arrive in France (or any other country) before travelling to the UK and still legitimately claim to be a refugee. It is then down to the UK to review that application.

 

It doesn’t matter that these individuals are illegally crossing the channel

 

Are "those seeking to cross the Channel to the UK in small boats …. “illegal migrants”.?

 

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”.

 

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.

 

It also cannot be stated with certainty that these individuals crossing the Channel were safe in France, unless we know more about their backgrounds. 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). There is also previous evidence of asylum seekers and migrants in France not being treated as they should be according to French law.

 

That said, the UK can sometimes return refugees to elsewhere in the EU

 

The UK could, under certain circumstances, send the people crossing the Channel on dinghies back to France or another EU country upon arrival. This is because of an EU law known as the Dublin Regulation.

 

Under the terms of the Dublin Regulation, a refugee should normally have their asylum claim examined in the first EU country they enter. If the claim is accepted, they get refugee status in that country.

 

In practice, this means that upon arrival in the UK asylum seekers will have their fingerprints checked against an EU database known as Eurodac. The database allows immigration officials to see if an asylum seeker has launched an application in any other EU countries, or come into contact with the authorities there, and determine which country should process their claim.

 

There are some cases in which this rule doesn’t apply. For example, if an applicant for asylum has a family member who has already successfully claimed asylum in another EU country, then that country is where their claim should be reviewed. There are a number of further exceptions, including if the applicant is a minor, if several family members claim asylum around the same time, or of the applicant is dependent on the assistance of a parent or family member legally resident in the EU.

 

[teflon2]

Barryd999 - 2020-08-01 5:25 AM

 

fesspark - 2020-07-31 9:03 PM

 

What planet do you live on,?I spent 6 yrs in the commando marines these people are purely financial migrants. they where there when I was in the gulf and when I have spent the last 35 years in europe seeing these people wanting to come to the u.k. for health and financial benefits pee.s me off. if you wish the worlds scroungers to live here?we have them already in the high risk coronavirus areas that are now in lock down My family fought and died to keep this country free but alas the latest migrant figures proves to me they died mostly in Vane. forgive my spelling but this statement from you annoys me, p.s, I am not a racialist just a realist ,fesspark

 

Most of our families fought to keep not just this country free but the entire world, they fought for liberty and freedom for all. WW2 saw people dispersed and refugees everywhere as has war after war after war ever since. People who fought and died in those wars would not want us to turn our backs on those in need. Yes there are economic migrants and chancers just like there have always been but there were eleven million genuine refugees from the Syrian conflict alone. 90% of them ended up in countries outside of the EU, 10% made it to Europe and only a very small percentage ended up here.

 

Those people who died in WW2 did not die in Vain What a ridiculous thing to say, they died for freedom and to rid the world of tyranny, oppression and evil not to turn our backs on those fleeing the same.

 

 

 

Then the common market turned into the EU and we were back to square one. :D

[Bulletguy]

Violet1956 - 2020-08-07 11:56 AM

 

Priti keeps talking about tightening up the rules. Either she is thick or entirely disingenuous, from what I hear she's not the former. It's not the rules that have prevented us returning people to the first European place of safety in which they landed, it's a lack of investment in border controls. The Dublin agreements have resulted more people being returned to the UK than we send back to European Countries, that tells you something does it not? And as Barry has tried to point out on several occasions, Brexit will mean that more unworthy illegal migrants will be staying in the UK once they land here. No wonder the French don't seem to be making a real effort to stop them. Many cannot be returned to their country of origin a. because that is often difficult to establish and/or b. the countries they come from are not co-operating with return processes, many of them being failed states, or they are anitpathetic towards the UK.

 

I think Dave gets it really but he's doing a "Priti".

Patel isn't the brightest bulb in the box. In April she claimed 300,000 34 974,000 people had been tested for Covid in UK. Yes that's the figure she quoted......if you can make any sense out of it!

 

 

She also doesn't know the difference between terrorism and counter-terrorism. Thick as mince and remember, this woman is in the position of Home Secretary. Ever likely MI5 don't trust her. The same woman who entered illegally occupied territory without telling her boss.

 

 

Good luck to those that made it across anyway. At least they will work instead of scrounging off the state as Pelmet has.

[Barryd999]

Brian Kirby - 2020-08-07 3:32 PM

 

Maybe a little fact will help? From Fullfact:

 

One "cannot know whether the people trying to cross the channel in recent months would be recognised as refugees. This is to be determined by immigration officials in whichever country reviews their asylum applications."

 

It "is also incorrect to say that refugees should seek refuge in the first safe country they come to. Under the UN Refugee Convention, there is no obligation on refugees to do this—an interpretation which is upheld in UK case law. Those trying to cross the Channel can legitimately claim asylum in the UK if they reach it.

 

That said, refugees who arrive in the UK after passing through another EU country can, under certain circumstances, be returned to the first EU country they entered, under an EU law known as the Dublin Regulation.

 

What is a refugee? And what is an asylum seeker?

 

The 1951 UN Refugee Convention (also known as the Geneva Convention) defines what a refugee is, what rights a refugee has, and the responsibilities of states towards refugees.

 

It defines a refugee as someone who “owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion” has fled their own country or (if they have no nationality) country of usual residence, and is unable or unwilling to return to it or seek protection from it.

 

Being recognised as a refugee gives you the right to not to be returned to the country you have fled, as well as a minimum standard of rights and freedoms in a safe country.

 

An asylum seeker is someone who is in need and search of refuge. The right to seek asylum from persecution in other countries is a universal human right, set out in Article 14 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights.

 

Practically speaking, an asylum seeker is someone who has applied for refugee status (or another form of international protection) in another country, and is awaiting a decision on that application. They can only apply once they physically reach the country.

 

In the UK, once an asylum seeker has had their application processed, they may receive permission to stay as a refugee for five years (after which they can apply to settle in the UK). They may also be given “permission to stay for humanitarian reasons” or other reasons, or their application may be rejected in which case, if no appeal is successful, they have to leave the UK unless they face a “real risk” of serious harm in the case of deportation.

 

There is no obligation on refugees to claim asylum in the first safe country they reach.

 

It "is wrong to claim that, under the Geneva Convention, refugees should seek refuge in the first safe country they come to.

 

It contains no obligation “either explicit or implicit” for refugees to claim asylum in the first safe country they reach, according to immigration lawyer Colin Yeo.

 

This means that an asylum seeker can arrive in France (or any other country) before travelling to the UK and still legitimately claim to be a refugee. It is then down to the UK to review that application.

 

It doesn’t matter that these individuals are illegally crossing the channel

 

Are "those seeking to cross the Channel to the UK in small boats …. “illegal migrants”.?

 

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”.

 

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.

 

It also cannot be stated with certainty that these individuals crossing the Channel were safe in France, unless we know more about their backgrounds. 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). There is also previous evidence of asylum seekers and migrants in France not being treated as they should be according to French law.

 

That said, the UK can sometimes return refugees to elsewhere in the EU

 

The UK could, under certain circumstances, send the people crossing the Channel on dinghies back to France or another EU country upon arrival. This is because of an EU law known as the Dublin Regulation.

 

Under the terms of the Dublin Regulation, a refugee should normally have their asylum claim examined in the first EU country they enter. If the claim is accepted, they get refugee status in that country.

 

In practice, this means that upon arrival in the UK asylum seekers will have their fingerprints checked against an EU database known as Eurodac. The database allows immigration officials to see if an asylum seeker has launched an application in any other EU countries, or come into contact with the authorities there, and determine which country should process their claim.

 

There are some cases in which this rule doesn’t apply. For example, if an applicant for asylum has a family member who has already successfully claimed asylum in another EU country, then that country is where their claim should be reviewed. There are a number of further exceptions, including if the applicant is a minor, if several family members claim asylum around the same time, or of the applicant is dependent on the assistance of a parent or family member legally resident in the EU.

 

Thanks for posting the facts Brian and dispelling a few myths. So as I said following the transition period not only will there be no Dublin agreement which actually currently allows us to send Migrants back to the country they entered Europe from I presume we wont have access to the Eurodac database so wont be able to check finger prints and previous claims etc. I imagine the French will be rubbing their hands with glee at that prospect and probably the Italians and Greeks. Dinghy sales in France will do good business I bet.

 

Nigel is going to be busy except I bet he isnt. He wont want to broadcast the fact that his Brexit rather than securing our borders has actually made them much weaker. Of course it will be winter by then but come the spring?

[Brian Kirby]

Thanks Barry - not that I expect the facts to make the slightest difference! :-)

 

Nigel? I would expect him to begin saying this wasn't the sort of Brexit he'd wanted, and if he's had his way the Dublin agreement would simply have been copied over into the Brexit agreement! :-D

 

Sadly, the EU has made a complete mess of Schengen. They never paid sufficient attention to the external border, merely relying on whoever had bits of it along their own border to enforce on behalf of all the others. It would have been a big ask at the time, but neither did they make provision for some unexpected event to spark a mass migration flow. They also assumed that migrants of whatever stripe would just be housed temporarily in whose ever territory they landed.

 

Since it is generally the least wealthy countries that have the dodgiest borders (the exception is Finland which is relatively wealthy, but has an 830 mile long border with Russia, and an average population density of only 18.5 per sq km to guard it!).

 

They have never resolved to put in a multi-national border force, and have never resolved how and where migrants should be held until processed, or how the costs should be shared.

 

So the result has been a leaky border, policed to varying standards, and a strong incentive for individual states to shut their eyes and wave the migrants through - so long as they don't want to stay in whichever state.

 

Since those heading for UK more or less have to traverse France to get to the easier sea crossings, that is where they head, and as they want UK what incentive is there (apart from moral) for the French to stop them at their borders and turn them back?

 

I was in favour of Schengen when it was being discussed - until an Immigration Service mate explained the then government's objections, citing the undesirability of various unmentionable EU states effectively being left in charge of the UK border! Even then, I could see the point, and I've since visited said unmentionable state, and seen their border police playing cat-and-mouse with illegals (who should have been intercepted at their, 350 mile distant, nearest external border) trying to hide in trucks waiting to board outgoing ferries at one of their ports, and I remain glad we didn't join! Nice idea, but lost in implementation.

[Guest pelmetman]

Barryd999 - 2020-08-07 10:11 AM

 

pelmetman - 2020-08-07 9:22 AM

 

Barryd999 - 2020-08-07 9:20 AM

 

Hmmm. https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1184429/eu-migrant-crisis-french-police-calais-dunkirk-emmanuel-macron-english-channel-lbc

 

and more recently.

 

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/politics/12132899/french-migrants-crossing-channel-priti-patel/

 

I wonder what it is that has upset the French so much in recent times. They used to be so good at stopping migrants getting to the UK. Cruella says summat must be done and is stamping her feet about it. Best you send em all back Cruella before the 31st December while you still can.

 

Only 146 days until we can tear up the EU migrant rule book ;-) ..........

 

http://daystobrexit.co.uk/

 

And not be allowed to send them back to France. *-) FFS! Its like talking to a Goldfish.

 

What's the point in sending them back to France??? 8-) .........

 

 

[Guest pelmetman]

Brian Kirby - 2020-08-07 3:32 PM

 

Maybe a little fact will help? From Fullfact:

 

One "cannot know whether the people trying to cross the channel in recent months would be recognised as refugees. This is to be determined by immigration officials in whichever country reviews their asylum applications."

 

It "is also incorrect to say that refugees should seek refuge in the first safe country they come to. Under the UN Refugee Convention, there is no obligation on refugees to do this—an interpretation which is upheld in UK case law. Those trying to cross the Channel can legitimately claim asylum in the UK if they reach it.

 

That said, refugees who arrive in the UK after passing through another EU country can, under certain circumstances, be returned to the first EU country they entered, under an EU law known as the Dublin Regulation.

 

What is a refugee? And what is an asylum seeker?

 

The 1951 UN Refugee Convention (also known as the Geneva Convention) defines what a refugee is, what rights a refugee has, and the responsibilities of states towards refugees.

 

It defines a refugee as someone who “owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion” has fled their own country or (if they have no nationality) country of usual residence, and is unable or unwilling to return to it or seek protection from it.

 

Being recognised as a refugee gives you the right to not to be returned to the country you have fled, as well as a minimum standard of rights and freedoms in a safe country.

 

An asylum seeker is someone who is in need and search of refuge. The right to seek asylum from persecution in other countries is a universal human right, set out in Article 14 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights.

 

Practically speaking, an asylum seeker is someone who has applied for refugee status (or another form of international protection) in another country, and is awaiting a decision on that application. They can only apply once they physically reach the country.

 

In the UK, once an asylum seeker has had their application processed, they may receive permission to stay as a refugee for five years (after which they can apply to settle in the UK). They may also be given “permission to stay for humanitarian reasons” or other reasons, or their application may be rejected in which case, if no appeal is successful, they have to leave the UK unless they face a “real risk” of serious harm in the case of deportation.

 

There is no obligation on refugees to claim asylum in the first safe country they reach.

 

It "is wrong to claim that, under the Geneva Convention, refugees should seek refuge in the first safe country they come to.

 

It contains no obligation “either explicit or implicit” for refugees to claim asylum in the first safe country they reach, according to immigration lawyer Colin Yeo.

 

This means that an asylum seeker can arrive in France (or any other country) before travelling to the UK and still legitimately claim to be a refugee. It is then down to the UK to review that application.

 

It doesn’t matter that these individuals are illegally crossing the channel

 

Are "those seeking to cross the Channel to the UK in small boats …. “illegal migrants”.?

 

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”.

 

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.

 

It also cannot be stated with certainty that these individuals crossing the Channel were safe in France, unless we know more about their backgrounds. 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). There is also previous evidence of asylum seekers and migrants in France not being treated as they should be according to French law.

 

That said, the UK can sometimes return refugees to elsewhere in the EU

 

The UK could, under certain circumstances, send the people crossing the Channel on dinghies back to France or another EU country upon arrival. This is because of an EU law known as the Dublin Regulation.

 

Under the terms of the Dublin Regulation, a refugee should normally have their asylum claim examined in the first EU country they enter. If the claim is accepted, they get refugee status in that country.

 

In practice, this means that upon arrival in the UK asylum seekers will have their fingerprints checked against an EU database known as Eurodac. The database allows immigration officials to see if an asylum seeker has launched an application in any other EU countries, or come into contact with the authorities there, and determine which country should process their claim.

 

There are some cases in which this rule doesn’t apply. For example, if an applicant for asylum has a family member who has already successfully claimed asylum in another EU country, then that country is where their claim should be reviewed. There are a number of further exceptions, including if the applicant is a minor, if several family members claim asylum around the same time, or of the applicant is dependent on the assistance of a parent or family member legally resident in the EU.

 

If they open an asylum center in yours and Barry's village ;-) .........

 

Then I'll happly accept these migrants >:-) .........

 

 

[Birdbrain]

Barryd999 - 2020-08-07 5:34 PM

 

Brian Kirby - 2020-08-07 3:32 PM

 

Maybe a little fact will help? From Fullfact:

 

One "cannot know whether the people trying to cross the channel in recent months would be recognised as refugees. This is to be determined by immigration officials in whichever country reviews their asylum applications."

 

It "is also incorrect to say that refugees should seek refuge in the first safe country they come to. Under the UN Refugee Convention, there is no obligation on refugees to do this—an interpretation which is upheld in UK case law. Those trying to cross the Channel can legitimately claim asylum in the UK if they reach it.

 

That said, refugees who arrive in the UK after passing through another EU country can, under certain circumstances, be returned to the first EU country they entered, under an EU law known as the Dublin Regulation.

 

What is a refugee? And what is an asylum seeker?

 

The 1951 UN Refugee Convention (also known as the Geneva Convention) defines what a refugee is, what rights a refugee has, and the responsibilities of states towards refugees.

 

It defines a refugee as someone who “owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion” has fled their own country or (if they have no nationality) country of usual residence, and is unable or unwilling to return to it or seek protection from it.

 

Being recognised as a refugee gives you the right to not to be returned to the country you have fled, as well as a minimum standard of rights and freedoms in a safe country.

 

An asylum seeker is someone who is in need and search of refuge. The right to seek asylum from persecution in other countries is a universal human right, set out in Article 14 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights.

 

Practically speaking, an asylum seeker is someone who has applied for refugee status (or another form of international protection) in another country, and is awaiting a decision on that application. They can only apply once they physically reach the country.

 

In the UK, once an asylum seeker has had their application processed, they may receive permission to stay as a refugee for five years (after which they can apply to settle in the UK). They may also be given “permission to stay for humanitarian reasons” or other reasons, or their application may be rejected in which case, if no appeal is successful, they have to leave the UK unless they face a “real risk” of serious harm in the case of deportation.

 

There is no obligation on refugees to claim asylum in the first safe country they reach.

 

It "is wrong to claim that, under the Geneva Convention, refugees should seek refuge in the first safe country they come to.

 

It contains no obligation “either explicit or implicit” for refugees to claim asylum in the first safe country they reach, according to immigration lawyer Colin Yeo.

 

This means that an asylum seeker can arrive in France (or any other country) before travelling to the UK and still legitimately claim to be a refugee. It is then down to the UK to review that application.

 

It doesn’t matter that these individuals are illegally crossing the channel

 

Are "those seeking to cross the Channel to the UK in small boats …. “illegal migrants”.?

 

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”.

 

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.

 

It also cannot be stated with certainty that these individuals crossing the Channel were safe in France, unless we know more about their backgrounds. 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). There is also previous evidence of asylum seekers and migrants in France not being treated as they should be according to French law.

 

That said, the UK can sometimes return refugees to elsewhere in the EU

 

The UK could, under certain circumstances, send the people crossing the Channel on dinghies back to France or another EU country upon arrival. This is because of an EU law known as the Dublin Regulation.

 

Under the terms of the Dublin Regulation, a refugee should normally have their asylum claim examined in the first EU country they enter. If the claim is accepted, they get refugee status in that country.

 

In practice, this means that upon arrival in the UK asylum seekers will have their fingerprints checked against an EU database known as Eurodac. The database allows immigration officials to see if an asylum seeker has launched an application in any other EU countries, or come into contact with the authorities there, and determine which country should process their claim.

 

There are some cases in which this rule doesn’t apply. For example, if an applicant for asylum has a family member who has already successfully claimed asylum in another EU country, then that country is where their claim should be reviewed. There are a number of further exceptions, including if the applicant is a minor, if several family members claim asylum around the same time, or of the applicant is dependent on the assistance of a parent or family member legally resident in the EU.

 

Thanks for posting the facts Brian and dispelling a few myths. So as I said following the transition period not only will there be no Dublin agreement which actually currently allows us to send Migrants back to the country they entered Europe from I presume we wont have access to the Eurodac database so wont be able to check finger prints and previous claims etc. I imagine the French will be rubbing their hands with glee at that prospect and probably the Italians and Greeks. Dinghy sales in France will do good business I bet.

 

Nigel is going to be busy except I bet he isnt. He wont want to broadcast the fact that his Brexit rather than securing our borders has actually made them much weaker. Of course it will be winter by then but come the spring?

 

We can secure our borders ... Use the military with the required force if needed to repel the invaders ... Simple ... Seem to remember you wanted the military to stop invaders coming to your neck of the woods during lockdown, whats the difference hypocrite ???

[Violet1956]

Birdbrain - 2020-08-07 7:35 PM

 

Barryd999 - 2020-08-07 5:34 PM

 

Brian Kirby - 2020-08-07 3:32 PM

 

Maybe a little fact will help? From Fullfact:

 

One "cannot know whether the people trying to cross the channel in recent months would be recognised as refugees. This is to be determined by immigration officials in whichever country reviews their asylum applications."

 

It "is also incorrect to say that refugees should seek refuge in the first safe country they come to. Under the UN Refugee Convention, there is no obligation on refugees to do this—an interpretation which is upheld in UK case law. Those trying to cross the Channel can legitimately claim asylum in the UK if they reach it.

 

That said, refugees who arrive in the UK after passing through another EU country can, under certain circumstances, be returned to the first EU country they entered, under an EU law known as the Dublin Regulation.

 

What is a refugee? And what is an asylum seeker?

 

The 1951 UN Refugee Convention (also known as the Geneva Convention) defines what a refugee is, what rights a refugee has, and the responsibilities of states towards refugees.

 

It defines a refugee as someone who “owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion” has fled their own country or (if they have no nationality) country of usual residence, and is unable or unwilling to return to it or seek protection from it.

 

Being recognised as a refugee gives you the right to not to be returned to the country you have fled, as well as a minimum standard of rights and freedoms in a safe country.

 

An asylum seeker is someone who is in need and search of refuge. The right to seek asylum from persecution in other countries is a universal human right, set out in Article 14 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights.

 

Practically speaking, an asylum seeker is someone who has applied for refugee status (or another form of international protection) in another country, and is awaiting a decision on that application. They can only apply once they physically reach the country.

 

In the UK, once an asylum seeker has had their application processed, they may receive permission to stay as a refugee for five years (after which they can apply to settle in the UK). They may also be given “permission to stay for humanitarian reasons” or other reasons, or their application may be rejected in which case, if no appeal is successful, they have to leave the UK unless they face a “real risk” of serious harm in the case of deportation.

 

There is no obligation on refugees to claim asylum in the first safe country they reach.

 

It "is wrong to claim that, under the Geneva Convention, refugees should seek refuge in the first safe country they come to.

 

It contains no obligation “either explicit or implicit” for refugees to claim asylum in the first safe country they reach, according to immigration lawyer Colin Yeo.

 

This means that an asylum seeker can arrive in France (or any other country) before travelling to the UK and still legitimately claim to be a refugee. It is then down to the UK to review that application.

 

It doesn’t matter that these individuals are illegally crossing the channel

 

Are "those seeking to cross the Channel to the UK in small boats …. “illegal migrants”.?

 

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”.

 

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.

 

It also cannot be stated with certainty that these individuals crossing the Channel were safe in France, unless we know more about their backgrounds. 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). There is also previous evidence of asylum seekers and migrants in France not being treated as they should be according to French law.

 

That said, the UK can sometimes return refugees to elsewhere in the EU

 

The UK could, under certain circumstances, send the people crossing the Channel on dinghies back to France or another EU country upon arrival. This is because of an EU law known as the Dublin Regulation.

 

Under the terms of the Dublin Regulation, a refugee should normally have their asylum claim examined in the first EU country they enter. If the claim is accepted, they get refugee status in that country.

 

In practice, this means that upon arrival in the UK asylum seekers will have their fingerprints checked against an EU database known as Eurodac. The database allows immigration officials to see if an asylum seeker has launched an application in any other EU countries, or come into contact with the authorities there, and determine which country should process their claim.

 

There are some cases in which this rule doesn’t apply. For example, if an applicant for asylum has a family member who has already successfully claimed asylum in another EU country, then that country is where their claim should be reviewed. There are a number of further exceptions, including if the applicant is a minor, if several family members claim asylum around the same time, or of the applicant is dependent on the assistance of a parent or family member legally resident in the EU.

 

Thanks for posting the facts Brian and dispelling a few myths. So as I said following the transition period not only will there be no Dublin agreement which actually currently allows us to send Migrants back to the country they entered Europe from I presume we wont have access to the Eurodac database so wont be able to check finger prints and previous claims etc. I imagine the French will be rubbing their hands with glee at that prospect and probably the Italians and Greeks. Dinghy sales in France will do good business I bet.

 

Nigel is going to be busy except I bet he isnt. He wont want to broadcast the fact that his Brexit rather than securing our borders has actually made them much weaker. Of course it will be winter by then but come the spring?

 

We can secure our borders ... Use the military with the required force if needed to repel the invaders ... Simple ... Seem to remember you wanted the military to stop invaders coming to your neck of the woods during lockdown, whats the difference hypocrite ???

 

Our military are organs of the state and thus bound by the obligations the state has to determine whether asylum claimants qualify for protection under the Refugee or Human Rights Conventions. That means they do not have the power just to "repel invaders".

[Birdbrain]

Violet1956 - 2020-08-07 8:07 PM

 

Birdbrain - 2020-08-07 7:35 PM

 

Barryd999 - 2020-08-07 5:34 PM

 

Brian Kirby - 2020-08-07 3:32 PM

 

Maybe a little fact will help? From Fullfact:

 

One "cannot know whether the people trying to cross the channel in recent months would be recognised as refugees. This is to be determined by immigration officials in whichever country reviews their asylum applications."

 

It "is also incorrect to say that refugees should seek refuge in the first safe country they come to. Under the UN Refugee Convention, there is no obligation on refugees to do this—an interpretation which is upheld in UK case law. Those trying to cross the Channel can legitimately claim asylum in the UK if they reach it.

 

That said, refugees who arrive in the UK after passing through another EU country can, under certain circumstances, be returned to the first EU country they entered, under an EU law known as the Dublin Regulation.

 

What is a refugee? And what is an asylum seeker?

 

The 1951 UN Refugee Convention (also known as the Geneva Convention) defines what a refugee is, what rights a refugee has, and the responsibilities of states towards refugees.

 

It defines a refugee as someone who “owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion” has fled their own country or (if they have no nationality) country of usual residence, and is unable or unwilling to return to it or seek protection from it.

 

Being recognised as a refugee gives you the right to not to be returned to the country you have fled, as well as a minimum standard of rights and freedoms in a safe country.

 

An asylum seeker is someone who is in need and search of refuge. The right to seek asylum from persecution in other countries is a universal human right, set out in Article 14 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights.

 

Practically speaking, an asylum seeker is someone who has applied for refugee status (or another form of international protection) in another country, and is awaiting a decision on that application. They can only apply once they physically reach the country.

 

In the UK, once an asylum seeker has had their application processed, they may receive permission to stay as a refugee for five years (after which they can apply to settle in the UK). They may also be given “permission to stay for humanitarian reasons” or other reasons, or their application may be rejected in which case, if no appeal is successful, they have to leave the UK unless they face a “real risk” of serious harm in the case of deportation.

 

There is no obligation on refugees to claim asylum in the first safe country they reach.

 

It "is wrong to claim that, under the Geneva Convention, refugees should seek refuge in the first safe country they come to.

 

It contains no obligation “either explicit or implicit” for refugees to claim asylum in the first safe country they reach, according to immigration lawyer Colin Yeo.

 

This means that an asylum seeker can arrive in France (or any other country) before travelling to the UK and still legitimately claim to be a refugee. It is then down to the UK to review that application.

 

It doesn’t matter that these individuals are illegally crossing the channel

 

Are "those seeking to cross the Channel to the UK in small boats …. “illegal migrants”.?

 

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”.

 

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.

 

It also cannot be stated with certainty that these individuals crossing the Channel were safe in France, unless we know more about their backgrounds. 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). There is also previous evidence of asylum seekers and migrants in France not being treated as they should be according to French law.

 

That said, the UK can sometimes return refugees to elsewhere in the EU

 

The UK could, under certain circumstances, send the people crossing the Channel on dinghies back to France or another EU country upon arrival. This is because of an EU law known as the Dublin Regulation.

 

Under the terms of the Dublin Regulation, a refugee should normally have their asylum claim examined in the first EU country they enter. If the claim is accepted, they get refugee status in that country.

 

In practice, this means that upon arrival in the UK asylum seekers will have their fingerprints checked against an EU database known as Eurodac. The database allows immigration officials to see if an asylum seeker has launched an application in any other EU countries, or come into contact with the authorities there, and determine which country should process their claim.

 

There are some cases in which this rule doesn’t apply. For example, if an applicant for asylum has a family member who has already successfully claimed asylum in another EU country, then that country is where their claim should be reviewed. There are a number of further exceptions, including if the applicant is a minor, if several family members claim asylum around the same time, or of the applicant is dependent on the assistance of a parent or family member legally resident in the EU.

 

Thanks for posting the facts Brian and dispelling a few myths. So as I said following the transition period not only will there be no Dublin agreement which actually currently allows us to send Migrants back to the country they entered Europe from I presume we wont have access to the Eurodac database so wont be able to check finger prints and previous claims etc. I imagine the French will be rubbing their hands with glee at that prospect and probably the Italians and Greeks. Dinghy sales in France will do good business I bet.

 

Nigel is going to be busy except I bet he isnt. He wont want to broadcast the fact that his Brexit rather than securing our borders has actually made them much weaker. Of course it will be winter by then but come the spring?

 

We can secure our borders ... Use the military with the required force if needed to repel the invaders ... Simple ... Seem to remember you wanted the military to stop invaders coming to your neck of the woods during lockdown, whats the difference hypocrite ???

 

Our military are organs of the state and thus bound by the obligations the state has to determine whether asylum claimants qualify for protection under the Refugee or Human Rights Conventions. That means they do not have the power just to "repel invaders".

 

As ever you know better than our own Government ... https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8601819/Furious-Priti-Patel-backs-sending-Royal-Navy-tackle-migrant-crisis.html ... They've taken legal advice and turning back these types doesnt break maritime law ... So they can repel the invaders unless you wanna put em up along with Brian and Barry ... Thought not

[Guest pelmetman]

Birdbrain - 2020-08-07 8:27 PM

 

Violet1956 - 2020-08-07 8:07 PM

 

Birdbrain - 2020-08-07 7:35 PM

 

Barryd999 - 2020-08-07 5:34 PM

 

Brian Kirby - 2020-08-07 3:32 PM

 

Maybe a little fact will help? From Fullfact:

 

One "cannot know whether the people trying to cross the channel in recent months would be recognised as refugees. This is to be determined by immigration officials in whichever country reviews their asylum applications."

 

It "is also incorrect to say that refugees should seek refuge in the first safe country they come to. Under the UN Refugee Convention, there is no obligation on refugees to do this—an interpretation which is upheld in UK case law. Those trying to cross the Channel can legitimately claim asylum in the UK if they reach it.

 

That said, refugees who arrive in the UK after passing through another EU country can, under certain circumstances, be returned to the first EU country they entered, under an EU law known as the Dublin Regulation.

 

What is a refugee? And what is an asylum seeker?

 

The 1951 UN Refugee Convention (also known as the Geneva Convention) defines what a refugee is, what rights a refugee has, and the responsibilities of states towards refugees.

 

It defines a refugee as someone who “owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion” has fled their own country or (if they have no nationality) country of usual residence, and is unable or unwilling to return to it or seek protection from it.

 

Being recognised as a refugee gives you the right to not to be returned to the country you have fled, as well as a minimum standard of rights and freedoms in a safe country.

 

An asylum seeker is someone who is in need and search of refuge. The right to seek asylum from persecution in other countries is a universal human right, set out in Article 14 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights.

 

Practically speaking, an asylum seeker is someone who has applied for refugee status (or another form of international protection) in another country, and is awaiting a decision on that application. They can only apply once they physically reach the country.

 

In the UK, once an asylum seeker has had their application processed, they may receive permission to stay as a refugee for five years (after which they can apply to settle in the UK). They may also be given “permission to stay for humanitarian reasons” or other reasons, or their application may be rejected in which case, if no appeal is successful, they have to leave the UK unless they face a “real risk” of serious harm in the case of deportation.

 

There is no obligation on refugees to claim asylum in the first safe country they reach.

 

It "is wrong to claim that, under the Geneva Convention, refugees should seek refuge in the first safe country they come to.

 

It contains no obligation “either explicit or implicit” for refugees to claim asylum in the first safe country they reach, according to immigration lawyer Colin Yeo.

 

This means that an asylum seeker can arrive in France (or any other country) before travelling to the UK and still legitimately claim to be a refugee. It is then down to the UK to review that application.

 

It doesn’t matter that these individuals are illegally crossing the channel

 

Are "those seeking to cross the Channel to the UK in small boats …. “illegal migrants”.?

 

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”.

 

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.

 

It also cannot be stated with certainty that these individuals crossing the Channel were safe in France, unless we know more about their backgrounds. 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). There is also previous evidence of asylum seekers and migrants in France not being treated as they should be according to French law.

 

That said, the UK can sometimes return refugees to elsewhere in the EU

 

The UK could, under certain circumstances, send the people crossing the Channel on dinghies back to France or another EU country upon arrival. This is because of an EU law known as the Dublin Regulation.

 

Under the terms of the Dublin Regulation, a refugee should normally have their asylum claim examined in the first EU country they enter. If the claim is accepted, they get refugee status in that country.

 

In practice, this means that upon arrival in the UK asylum seekers will have their fingerprints checked against an EU database known as Eurodac. The database allows immigration officials to see if an asylum seeker has launched an application in any other EU countries, or come into contact with the authorities there, and determine which country should process their claim.

 

There are some cases in which this rule doesn’t apply. For example, if an applicant for asylum has a family member who has already successfully claimed asylum in another EU country, then that country is where their claim should be reviewed. There are a number of further exceptions, including if the applicant is a minor, if several family members claim asylum around the same time, or of the applicant is dependent on the assistance of a parent or family member legally resident in the EU.

 

Thanks for posting the facts Brian and dispelling a few myths. So as I said following the transition period not only will there be no Dublin agreement which actually currently allows us to send Migrants back to the country they entered Europe from I presume we wont have access to the Eurodac database so wont be able to check finger prints and previous claims etc. I imagine the French will be rubbing their hands with glee at that prospect and probably the Italians and Greeks. Dinghy sales in France will do good business I bet.

 

Nigel is going to be busy except I bet he isnt. He wont want to broadcast the fact that his Brexit rather than securing our borders has actually made them much weaker. Of course it will be winter by then but come the spring?

 

We can secure our borders ... Use the military with the required force if needed to repel the invaders ... Simple ... Seem to remember you wanted the military to stop invaders coming to your neck of the woods during lockdown, whats the difference hypocrite ???

 

Our military are organs of the state and thus bound by the obligations the state has to determine whether asylum claimants qualify for protection under the Refugee or Human Rights Conventions. That means they do not have the power just to "repel invaders".

 

As ever you know better than our own Government ... https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8601819/Furious-Priti-Patel-backs-sending-Royal-Navy-tackle-migrant-crisis.html ... They've taken legal advice and turning back these types doesnt break maritime law ... So they can repel the invaders unless you wanna put em up along with Brian and Barry ... Thought not

 

It's funny what you learn on here ;-) .........

 

I never knew I'd spent 10 years as an organ of the state :D ........

 

 

[Barryd999]

Birdbrain - 2020-08-07 7:35 PM

 

Barryd999 - 2020-08-07 5:34 PM

 

Brian Kirby - 2020-08-07 3:32 PM

 

Maybe a little fact will help? From Fullfact:

 

One "cannot know whether the people trying to cross the channel in recent months would be recognised as refugees. This is to be determined by immigration officials in whichever country reviews their asylum applications."

 

It "is also incorrect to say that refugees should seek refuge in the first safe country they come to. Under the UN Refugee Convention, there is no obligation on refugees to do this—an interpretation which is upheld in UK case law. Those trying to cross the Channel can legitimately claim asylum in the UK if they reach it.

 

That said, refugees who arrive in the UK after passing through another EU country can, under certain circumstances, be returned to the first EU country they entered, under an EU law known as the Dublin Regulation.

 

What is a refugee? And what is an asylum seeker?

 

The 1951 UN Refugee Convention (also known as the Geneva Convention) defines what a refugee is, what rights a refugee has, and the responsibilities of states towards refugees.

 

It defines a refugee as someone who “owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion” has fled their own country or (if they have no nationality) country of usual residence, and is unable or unwilling to return to it or seek protection from it.

 

Being recognised as a refugee gives you the right to not to be returned to the country you have fled, as well as a minimum standard of rights and freedoms in a safe country.

 

An asylum seeker is someone who is in need and search of refuge. The right to seek asylum from persecution in other countries is a universal human right, set out in Article 14 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights.

 

Practically speaking, an asylum seeker is someone who has applied for refugee status (or another form of international protection) in another country, and is awaiting a decision on that application. They can only apply once they physically reach the country.

 

In the UK, once an asylum seeker has had their application processed, they may receive permission to stay as a refugee for five years (after which they can apply to settle in the UK). They may also be given “permission to stay for humanitarian reasons” or other reasons, or their application may be rejected in which case, if no appeal is successful, they have to leave the UK unless they face a “real risk” of serious harm in the case of deportation.

 

There is no obligation on refugees to claim asylum in the first safe country they reach.

 

It "is wrong to claim that, under the Geneva Convention, refugees should seek refuge in the first safe country they come to.

 

It contains no obligation “either explicit or implicit” for refugees to claim asylum in the first safe country they reach, according to immigration lawyer Colin Yeo.

 

This means that an asylum seeker can arrive in France (or any other country) before travelling to the UK and still legitimately claim to be a refugee. It is then down to the UK to review that application.

 

It doesn’t matter that these individuals are illegally crossing the channel

 

Are "those seeking to cross the Channel to the UK in small boats …. “illegal migrants”.?

 

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”.

 

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.

 

It also cannot be stated with certainty that these individuals crossing the Channel were safe in France, unless we know more about their backgrounds. 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). There is also previous evidence of asylum seekers and migrants in France not being treated as they should be according to French law.

 

That said, the UK can sometimes return refugees to elsewhere in the EU

 

The UK could, under certain circumstances, send the people crossing the Channel on dinghies back to France or another EU country upon arrival. This is because of an EU law known as the Dublin Regulation.

 

Under the terms of the Dublin Regulation, a refugee should normally have their asylum claim examined in the first EU country they enter. If the claim is accepted, they get refugee status in that country.

 

In practice, this means that upon arrival in the UK asylum seekers will have their fingerprints checked against an EU database known as Eurodac. The database allows immigration officials to see if an asylum seeker has launched an application in any other EU countries, or come into contact with the authorities there, and determine which country should process their claim.

 

There are some cases in which this rule doesn’t apply. For example, if an applicant for asylum has a family member who has already successfully claimed asylum in another EU country, then that country is where their claim should be reviewed. There are a number of further exceptions, including if the applicant is a minor, if several family members claim asylum around the same time, or of the applicant is dependent on the assistance of a parent or family member legally resident in the EU.

 

Thanks for posting the facts Brian and dispelling a few myths. So as I said following the transition period not only will there be no Dublin agreement which actually currently allows us to send Migrants back to the country they entered Europe from I presume we wont have access to the Eurodac database so wont be able to check finger prints and previous claims etc. I imagine the French will be rubbing their hands with glee at that prospect and probably the Italians and Greeks. Dinghy sales in France will do good business I bet.

 

Nigel is going to be busy except I bet he isnt. He wont want to broadcast the fact that his Brexit rather than securing our borders has actually made them much weaker. Of course it will be winter by then but come the spring?

 

We can secure our borders ... Use the military with the required force if needed to repel the invaders ... Simple ... Seem to remember you wanted the military to stop invaders coming to your neck of the woods during lockdown, whats the difference hypocrite ???

 

LOL! you reap what you sow. What are they going to do? Open fire on them or piss off the French even more who argue you cannot take action against unarmed asylum seekers in little rubber boats in the channel. Cruella is just making it up as she goes along now as she promised in October it would all be sorted by now. Repel the invaders! (lol) if you want to stop a wave of migrants setting sail for Blighty you do that with cooperation with your nearest neighbours, the French, not by pissing them off with your bonkers Brexit and leaving the Dublin agreement and Eurodac.

 

I didnt have to suggest calling in the Military after morons from Teesside decided to come and break the law here in Richmond they were called in anyway.

 

 

[John52]

Birdbrain - 2020-08-07 7:35 PM

Seem to remember you wanted the military to stop invaders coming to your neck of the woods during lockdown, whats the difference

I think thats a fair point - and I made that point to Barry - friends can disagree without falling out, calling names, or changing the subject and altering the facts to public bins.

But really, we are a civilised country, how can we use the military against unarmed unaccompanied children and pregnant women in little rubber boats?

Do you want to ostracise England from the rest of the civilised world completely, rather than stay in the EU and use EU law to return them like we could before we left?

-- or just sort out the black economy so illegals can't disappear into it like the illegal sweatshops spreading the virus in Leicester.

[Birdbrain]

Barryd999 - 2020-08-07 10:10 PM

 

Birdbrain - 2020-08-07 7:35 PM

 

Barryd999 - 2020-08-07 5:34 PM

 

Brian Kirby - 2020-08-07 3:32 PM

 

Maybe a little fact will help? From Fullfact:

 

One "cannot know whether the people trying to cross the channel in recent months would be recognised as refugees. This is to be determined by immigration officials in whichever country reviews their asylum applications."

 

It "is also incorrect to say that refugees should seek refuge in the first safe country they come to. Under the UN Refugee Convention, there is no obligation on refugees to do this—an interpretation which is upheld in UK case law. Those trying to cross the Channel can legitimately claim asylum in the UK if they reach it.

 

That said, refugees who arrive in the UK after passing through another EU country can, under certain circumstances, be returned to the first EU country they entered, under an EU law known as the Dublin Regulation.

 

What is a refugee? And what is an asylum seeker?

 

The 1951 UN Refugee Convention (also known as the Geneva Convention) defines what a refugee is, what rights a refugee has, and the responsibilities of states towards refugees.

 

It defines a refugee as someone who “owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion” has fled their own country or (if they have no nationality) country of usual residence, and is unable or unwilling to return to it or seek protection from it.

 

Being recognised as a refugee gives you the right to not to be returned to the country you have fled, as well as a minimum standard of rights and freedoms in a safe country.

 

An asylum seeker is someone who is in need and search of refuge. The right to seek asylum from persecution in other countries is a universal human right, set out in Article 14 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights.

 

Practically speaking, an asylum seeker is someone who has applied for refugee status (or another form of international protection) in another country, and is awaiting a decision on that application. They can only apply once they physically reach the country.

 

In the UK, once an asylum seeker has had their application processed, they may receive permission to stay as a refugee for five years (after which they can apply to settle in the UK). They may also be given “permission to stay for humanitarian reasons” or other reasons, or their application may be rejected in which case, if no appeal is successful, they have to leave the UK unless they face a “real risk” of serious harm in the case of deportation.

 

There is no obligation on refugees to claim asylum in the first safe country they reach.

 

It "is wrong to claim that, under the Geneva Convention, refugees should seek refuge in the first safe country they come to.

 

It contains no obligation “either explicit or implicit” for refugees to claim asylum in the first safe country they reach, according to immigration lawyer Colin Yeo.

 

This means that an asylum seeker can arrive in France (or any other country) before travelling to the UK and still legitimately claim to be a refugee. It is then down to the UK to review that application.

 

It doesn’t matter that these individuals are illegally crossing the channel

 

Are "those seeking to cross the Channel to the UK in small boats …. “illegal migrants”.?

 

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”.

 

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.

 

It also cannot be stated with certainty that these individuals crossing the Channel were safe in France, unless we know more about their backgrounds. 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). There is also previous evidence of asylum seekers and migrants in France not being treated as they should be according to French law.

 

That said, the UK can sometimes return refugees to elsewhere in the EU

 

The UK could, under certain circumstances, send the people crossing the Channel on dinghies back to France or another EU country upon arrival. This is because of an EU law known as the Dublin Regulation.

 

Under the terms of the Dublin Regulation, a refugee should normally have their asylum claim examined in the first EU country they enter. If the claim is accepted, they get refugee status in that country.

 

In practice, this means that upon arrival in the UK asylum seekers will have their fingerprints checked against an EU database known as Eurodac. The database allows immigration officials to see if an asylum seeker has launched an application in any other EU countries, or come into contact with the authorities there, and determine which country should process their claim.

 

There are some cases in which this rule doesn’t apply. For example, if an applicant for asylum has a family member who has already successfully claimed asylum in another EU country, then that country is where their claim should be reviewed. There are a number of further exceptions, including if the applicant is a minor, if several family members claim asylum around the same time, or of the applicant is dependent on the assistance of a parent or family member legally resident in the EU.

 

Thanks for posting the facts Brian and dispelling a few myths. So as I said following the transition period not only will there be no Dublin agreement which actually currently allows us to send Migrants back to the country they entered Europe from I presume we wont have access to the Eurodac database so wont be able to check finger prints and previous claims etc. I imagine the French will be rubbing their hands with glee at that prospect and probably the Italians and Greeks. Dinghy sales in France will do good business I bet.

 

Nigel is going to be busy except I bet he isnt. He wont want to broadcast the fact that his Brexit rather than securing our borders has actually made them much weaker. Of course it will be winter by then but come the spring?

 

We can secure our borders ... Use the military with the required force if needed to repel the invaders ... Simple ... Seem to remember you wanted the military to stop invaders coming to your neck of the woods during lockdown, whats the difference hypocrite ???

 

LOL! you reap what you sow. What are they going to do? Open fire on them or piss off the French even more who argue you cannot take action against unarmed asylum seekers in little rubber boats in the channel. Cruella is just making it up as she goes along now as she promised in October it would all be sorted by now. Repel the invaders! (lol) if you want to stop a wave of migrants setting sail for Blighty you do that with cooperation with your nearest neighbours, the French, not by pissing them off with your bonkers Brexit and leaving the Dublin agreement and Eurodac.

 

I didnt have to suggest calling in the Military after morons from Teesside decided to come and break the law here in Richmond they were called in anyway.

 

 

Chuckle ... Strange how some who break the law in your eyes are "funny' yet those who just want a day out in the sun breaking the law are "morons" because they dare to do it near you ... Hypocrite ... As for your precious Dublin Agreement you keep banging on about ... https://migrationwatchuk.org/press-release/528/dublin-agreement-on-returning-asylum-seekers-is-almost-completely-useless ... Doesnt work and never did, if you leave your whites only village and ask those who live with what you want if the Dublin Agreement has worked I reckon they'd say no

[Birdbrain]

John52 - 2020-08-08 6:56 AM

 

Birdbrain - 2020-08-07 7:35 PM

Seem to remember you wanted the military to stop invaders coming to your neck of the woods during lockdown, whats the difference

I think thats a fair point - and I made that point to Barry - friends can disagree without falling out, calling names, or changing the subject and altering the facts to public bins.

But really, we are a civilised country, how can we use the military against unarmed unaccompanied children and pregnant women in little rubber boats?

Do you want to ostracise England from the rest of the civilised world completely, rather than stay in the EU and use EU law to return them like we could before we left?

 

Who are the "friends" ???

[John52]

Birdbrain - 2020-08-08 7:00 AM

 

 

Who are the "friends" ???

 

Look is up in a dictionary as its obviously a word you are not familiar with

Makes no difference who they are - they can still disagree, in a civilised manner, without calling names, changing the subject or altering the facts, and stay as friends.

You should try it sometime.

 

[Birdbrain]

John52 - 2020-08-08 7:08 AM

 

Birdbrain - 2020-08-08 7:00 AM

 

 

Who are the "friends" ???

 

Look is up in a dictionary as its obviously a word you are not familiar with

Makes no difference who they are - they can still disagree, in a civilised manner, without calling names, changing the subject or altering the facts, and stay as friends.

You should try it sometime.

 

Who are the "friends" ??? ... Second time of asking

[Barryd999]

Birdbrain - 2020-08-08 6:58 AM

 

Barryd999 - 2020-08-07 10:10 PM

 

Birdbrain - 2020-08-07 7:35 PM

 

Barryd999 - 2020-08-07 5:34 PM

 

Brian Kirby - 2020-08-07 3:32 PM

 

Maybe a little fact will help? From Fullfact:

 

One "cannot know whether the people trying to cross the channel in recent months would be recognised as refugees. This is to be determined by immigration officials in whichever country reviews their asylum applications."

 

It "is also incorrect to say that refugees should seek refuge in the first safe country they come to. Under the UN Refugee Convention, there is no obligation on refugees to do this—an interpretation which is upheld in UK case law. Those trying to cross the Channel can legitimately claim asylum in the UK if they reach it.

 

That said, refugees who arrive in the UK after passing through another EU country can, under certain circumstances, be returned to the first EU country they entered, under an EU law known as the Dublin Regulation.

 

What is a refugee? And what is an asylum seeker?

 

The 1951 UN Refugee Convention (also known as the Geneva Convention) defines what a refugee is, what rights a refugee has, and the responsibilities of states towards refugees.

 

It defines a refugee as someone who “owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion” has fled their own country or (if they have no nationality) country of usual residence, and is unable or unwilling to return to it or seek protection from it.

 

Being recognised as a refugee gives you the right to not to be returned to the country you have fled, as well as a minimum standard of rights and freedoms in a safe country.

 

An asylum seeker is someone who is in need and search of refuge. The right to seek asylum from persecution in other countries is a universal human right, set out in Article 14 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights.

 

Practically speaking, an asylum seeker is someone who has applied for refugee status (or another form of international protection) in another country, and is awaiting a decision on that application. They can only apply once they physically reach the country.

 

In the UK, once an asylum seeker has had their application processed, they may receive permission to stay as a refugee for five years (after which they can apply to settle in the UK). They may also be given “permission to stay for humanitarian reasons” or other reasons, or their application may be rejected in which case, if no appeal is successful, they have to leave the UK unless they face a “real risk” of serious harm in the case of deportation.

 

There is no obligation on refugees to claim asylum in the first safe country they reach.

 

It "is wrong to claim that, under the Geneva Convention, refugees should seek refuge in the first safe country they come to.

 

It contains no obligation “either explicit or implicit” for refugees to claim asylum in the first safe country they reach, according to immigration lawyer Colin Yeo.

 

This means that an asylum seeker can arrive in France (or any other country) before travelling to the UK and still legitimately claim to be a refugee. It is then down to the UK to review that application.

 

It doesn’t matter that these individuals are illegally crossing the channel

 

Are "those seeking to cross the Channel to the UK in small boats …. “illegal migrants”.?

 

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”.

 

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.

 

It also cannot be stated with certainty that these individuals crossing the Channel were safe in France, unless we know more about their backgrounds. 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). There is also previous evidence of asylum seekers and migrants in France not being treated as they should be according to French law.

 

That said, the UK can sometimes return refugees to elsewhere in the EU

 

The UK could, under certain circumstances, send the people crossing the Channel on dinghies back to France or another EU country upon arrival. This is because of an EU law known as the Dublin Regulation.

 

Under the terms of the Dublin Regulation, a refugee should normally have their asylum claim examined in the first EU country they enter. If the claim is accepted, they get refugee status in that country.

 

In practice, this means that upon arrival in the UK asylum seekers will have their fingerprints checked against an EU database known as Eurodac. The database allows immigration officials to see if an asylum seeker has launched an application in any other EU countries, or come into contact with the authorities there, and determine which country should process their claim.

 

There are some cases in which this rule doesn’t apply. For example, if an applicant for asylum has a family member who has already successfully claimed asylum in another EU country, then that country is where their claim should be reviewed. There are a number of further exceptions, including if the applicant is a minor, if several family members claim asylum around the same time, or of the applicant is dependent on the assistance of a parent or family member legally resident in the EU.

 

Thanks for posting the facts Brian and dispelling a few myths. So as I said following the transition period not only will there be no Dublin agreement which actually currently allows us to send Migrants back to the country they entered Europe from I presume we wont have access to the Eurodac database so wont be able to check finger prints and previous claims etc. I imagine the French will be rubbing their hands with glee at that prospect and probably the Italians and Greeks. Dinghy sales in France will do good business I bet.

 

Nigel is going to be busy except I bet he isnt. He wont want to broadcast the fact that his Brexit rather than securing our borders has actually made them much weaker. Of course it will be winter by then but come the spring?

 

We can secure our borders ... Use the military with the required force if needed to repel the invaders ... Simple ... Seem to remember you wanted the military to stop invaders coming to your neck of the woods during lockdown, whats the difference hypocrite ???

 

LOL! you reap what you sow. What are they going to do? Open fire on them or piss off the French even more who argue you cannot take action against unarmed asylum seekers in little rubber boats in the channel. Cruella is just making it up as she goes along now as she promised in October it would all be sorted by now. Repel the invaders! (lol) if you want to stop a wave of migrants setting sail for Blighty you do that with cooperation with your nearest neighbours, the French, not by pissing them off with your bonkers Brexit and leaving the Dublin agreement and Eurodac.

 

I didnt have to suggest calling in the Military after morons from Teesside decided to come and break the law here in Richmond they were called in anyway.

 

 

Chuckle ... Strange how some who break the law in your eyes are "funny' yet those who just want a day out in the sun breaking the law are "morons" because they dare to do it near you ... Hypocrite ... As for your precious Dublin Agreement you keep banging on about ... https://migrationwatchuk.org/press-release/528/dublin-agreement-on-returning-asylum-seekers-is-almost-completely-useless ... Doesnt work and never did, if you leave your whites only village and ask those who live with what you want if the Dublin Agreement has worked I reckon they'd say no

 

Hmm. A link from a right wing lobby pressure group. *-)

 

Those who just wanted a day out in the sun? I would have no problem with that but thats not what it was though was it? They were groups of low life criminals breaking the law, p*ssed and drugged up, stealing, vandalising the place and putting vulnerable residents at risk right in the middle of a pandemic. They would be morons no matter where they did it and it wasnt just here as the news has reported from other popular beauty spots around the country.

 

Whichever way you dress it up, what is apparent here is Brexit and sticking two fingers up at the French and Europe has opened up the flood gates for migrant crossings in the channel. Good luck with sorting that one out as we cut the ties even further on 31st December. No amount of posturing, stamping your feet and sending in Navy warships will change that. Its a prime example of how working together and getting on with your neighbours is the only way to improve things. Send the Navy in if you like but the world will be watching and all they will likely see is the Navy picking them up and bringing them to Dover. I doubt you will see them getting blown out of the water.

[Birdbrain]

Barryd999 - 2020-08-08 7:22 AM

 

Birdbrain - 2020-08-08 6:58 AM

 

Barryd999 - 2020-08-07 10:10 PM

 

Birdbrain - 2020-08-07 7:35 PM

 

Barryd999 - 2020-08-07 5:34 PM

 

Brian Kirby - 2020-08-07 3:32 PM

 

Maybe a little fact will help? From Fullfact:

 

One "cannot know whether the people trying to cross the channel in recent months would be recognised as refugees. This is to be determined by immigration officials in whichever country reviews their asylum applications."

 

It "is also incorrect to say that refugees should seek refuge in the first safe country they come to. Under the UN Refugee Convention, there is no obligation on refugees to do this—an interpretation which is upheld in UK case law. Those trying to cross the Channel can legitimately claim asylum in the UK if they reach it.

 

That said, refugees who arrive in the UK after passing through another EU country can, under certain circumstances, be returned to the first EU country they entered, under an EU law known as the Dublin Regulation.

 

What is a refugee? And what is an asylum seeker?

 

The 1951 UN Refugee Convention (also known as the Geneva Convention) defines what a refugee is, what rights a refugee has, and the responsibilities of states towards refugees.

 

It defines a refugee as someone who “owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion” has fled their own country or (if they have no nationality) country of usual residence, and is unable or unwilling to return to it or seek protection from it.

 

Being recognised as a refugee gives you the right to not to be returned to the country you have fled, as well as a minimum standard of rights and freedoms in a safe country.

 

An asylum seeker is someone who is in need and search of refuge. The right to seek asylum from persecution in other countries is a universal human right, set out in Article 14 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights.

 

Practically speaking, an asylum seeker is someone who has applied for refugee status (or another form of international protection) in another country, and is awaiting a decision on that application. They can only apply once they physically reach the country.

 

In the UK, once an asylum seeker has had their application processed, they may receive permission to stay as a refugee for five years (after which they can apply to settle in the UK). They may also be given “permission to stay for humanitarian reasons” or other reasons, or their application may be rejected in which case, if no appeal is successful, they have to leave the UK unless they face a “real risk” of serious harm in the case of deportation.

 

There is no obligation on refugees to claim asylum in the first safe country they reach.

 

It "is wrong to claim that, under the Geneva Convention, refugees should seek refuge in the first safe country they come to.

 

It contains no obligation “either explicit or implicit” for refugees to claim asylum in the first safe country they reach, according to immigration lawyer Colin Yeo.

 

This means that an asylum seeker can arrive in France (or any other country) before travelling to the UK and still legitimately claim to be a refugee. It is then down to the UK to review that application.

 

It doesn’t matter that these individuals are illegally crossing the channel

 

Are "those seeking to cross the Channel to the UK in small boats …. “illegal migrants”.?

 

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”.

 

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.

 

It also cannot be stated with certainty that these individuals crossing the Channel were safe in France, unless we know more about their backgrounds. 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). There is also previous evidence of asylum seekers and migrants in France not being treated as they should be according to French law.

 

That said, the UK can sometimes return refugees to elsewhere in the EU

 

The UK could, under certain circumstances, send the people crossing the Channel on dinghies back to France or another EU country upon arrival. This is because of an EU law known as the Dublin Regulation.

 

Under the terms of the Dublin Regulation, a refugee should normally have their asylum claim examined in the first EU country they enter. If the claim is accepted, they get refugee status in that country.

 

In practice, this means that upon arrival in the UK asylum seekers will have their fingerprints checked against an EU database known as Eurodac. The database allows immigration officials to see if an asylum seeker has launched an application in any other EU countries, or come into contact with the authorities there, and determine which country should process their claim.

 

There are some cases in which this rule doesn’t apply. For example, if an applicant for asylum has a family member who has already successfully claimed asylum in another EU country, then that country is where their claim should be reviewed. There are a number of further exceptions, including if the applicant is a minor, if several family members claim asylum around the same time, or of the applicant is dependent on the assistance of a parent or family member legally resident in the EU.

 

Thanks for posting the facts Brian and dispelling a few myths. So as I said following the transition period not only will there be no Dublin agreement which actually currently allows us to send Migrants back to the country they entered Europe from I presume we wont have access to the Eurodac database so wont be able to check finger prints and previous claims etc. I imagine the French will be rubbing their hands with glee at that prospect and probably the Italians and Greeks. Dinghy sales in France will do good business I bet.

 

Nigel is going to be busy except I bet he isnt. He wont want to broadcast the fact that his Brexit rather than securing our borders has actually made them much weaker. Of course it will be winter by then but come the spring?

 

We can secure our borders ... Use the military with the required force if needed to repel the invaders ... Simple ... Seem to remember you wanted the military to stop invaders coming to your neck of the woods during lockdown, whats the difference hypocrite ???

 

LOL! you reap what you sow. What are they going to do? Open fire on them or piss off the French even more who argue you cannot take action against unarmed asylum seekers in little rubber boats in the channel. Cruella is just making it up as she goes along now as she promised in October it would all be sorted by now. Repel the invaders! (lol) if you want to stop a wave of migrants setting sail for Blighty you do that with cooperation with your nearest neighbours, the French, not by pissing them off with your bonkers Brexit and leaving the Dublin agreement and Eurodac.

 

I didnt have to suggest calling in the Military after morons from Teesside decided to come and break the law here in Richmond they were called in anyway.

 

 

Chuckle ... Strange how some who break the law in your eyes are "funny' yet those who just want a day out in the sun breaking the law are "morons" because they dare to do it near you ... Hypocrite ... As for your precious Dublin Agreement you keep banging on about ... https://migrationwatchuk.org/press-release/528/dublin-agreement-on-returning-asylum-seekers-is-almost-completely-useless ... Doesnt work and never did, if you leave your whites only village and ask those who live with what you want if the Dublin Agreement has worked I reckon they'd say no

 

Hmm. A link from a right wing lobby pressure group. *-)

 

Those who just wanted a day out in the sun? I would have no problem with that but thats not what it was though was it? They were groups of low life criminals breaking the law, p*ssed and drugged up, stealing, vandalising the place and putting vulnerable residents at risk right in the middle of a pandemic. They would be morons no matter where they did it and it wasnt just here as the news has reported from other popular beauty spots around the country.

 

Whichever way you dress it up, what is apparent here is Brexit and sticking two fingers up at the French and Europe has opened up the flood gates for migrant crossings in the channel. Good luck with sorting that one out as we cut the ties even further on 31st December. No amount of posturing, stamping your feet and sending in Navy warships will change that. Its a prime example of how working together and getting on with your neighbours is the only way to improve things. Send the Navy in if you like but the world will be watching and all they will likely see is the Navy picking them up and bringing them to Dover. I doubt you will see them getting blown out of the water.

 

But you like "low life criminals" who break the law "stealing and vandalising the place" ... You find it "funny" remember , unless of course in your hypocrite way its near you ... You were happy to have the military take to the streets of North Yorkshire with the eyes of the world watching and your happy that thugs rip apart British history yet you aren't happy with the military escorting illegal immigrants away from our shores ... Hypocrite

[John52]

Birdbrain - 2020-08-08 7:13 AM

 

John52 - 2020-08-08 7:08 AM

 

Birdbrain - 2020-08-08 7:00 AM

 

 

Who are the "friends" ???

 

Look is up in a dictionary as its obviously a word you are not familiar with

Makes no difference who they are - they can still disagree, in a civilised manner, without calling names, changing the subject or altering the facts, and stay as friends.

You should try it sometime.

 

Who are the "friends" ??? ... Second time of asking

 

Why are you trying to change the subject again

Umpteenth time of asking

[John52]

Barryd999 - 2020-08-08 7:22 AM

 

They were groups of low life criminals breaking the law, p*ssed and drugged up, stealing, vandalising the place and putting vulnerable residents at risk right in the middle of a pandemic.

 

There are invariably a few bad apples in any large crowd, and there are laws to deal with them.

Might be a few bad apples amongst the migrants.

There certainly are amongst the English crowds who go abroad.

But you can't ban everyone on the basis there might be a few law breakers amongst them.

You just have to separate the law breakers from the good guys, and deal with them separately.

[Birdbrain]

John52 - 2020-08-08 7:45 AM

 

Birdbrain - 2020-08-08 7:13 AM

 

John52 - 2020-08-08 7:08 AM

 

Birdbrain - 2020-08-08 7:00 AM

 

 

Who are the "friends" ???

 

Look is up in a dictionary as its obviously a word you are not familiar with

Makes no difference who they are - they can still disagree, in a civilised manner, without calling names, changing the subject or altering the facts, and stay as friends.

You should try it sometime.

 

Who are the "friends" ??? ... Second time of asking

 

Why are you trying to change the subject again

Umpteenth time of asking

 

You brought sumat about "friends" into the thread remember, if you cant remember look back ... One can only assume you mean "friends" on here because if you dont and you mean "friends" elsewhere your changing the subject again and you dont care for the subject being changed ... So for the 3rd time who are the "friends" ??? It cant be difficult to answer surely ???

[Barryd999]

John52 - 2020-08-08 7:53 AM

 

Barryd999 - 2020-08-08 7:22 AM

 

They were groups of low life criminals breaking the law, p*ssed and drugged up, stealing, vandalising the place and putting vulnerable residents at risk right in the middle of a pandemic.

 

There are invariably a few bad apples in any large crowd, and there are laws to deal with them.

Might be a few bad apples amongst the migrants.

There certainly are amongst the English crowds who go abroad.

But you can't ban everyone on the basis there might be a few law breakers amongst them.

You just have to separate the law breakers from the good guys, and deal with them separately.

 

A few bad apples? Thats not what happened. In both Richmond falls and up at Low Force in upper Teesdale it wasnt just a few bad apples. They took over, broke all the rules on crowds and social distancing, vandalised the place and in upper Teesdale blocked the one road that connects the dale with Cumbria so people couldnt get home and an ambulance could not get to an accident.

 

Its dealt with now and it wont be happening again. We went over this before but it could have been prevented at the time by not going from total lock down to just letting people go and do WTF they liked. It was inevitable that the retards would behave like this.

[Barryd999]

Birdbrain - 2020-08-08 7:31 AM

 

Barryd999 - 2020-08-08 7:22 AM

 

Birdbrain - 2020-08-08 6:58 AM

 

Barryd999 - 2020-08-07 10:10 PM

 

Birdbrain - 2020-08-07 7:35 PM

 

Barryd999 - 2020-08-07 5:34 PM

 

Brian Kirby - 2020-08-07 3:32 PM

 

Maybe a little fact will help? From Fullfact:

 

One "cannot know whether the people trying to cross the channel in recent months would be recognised as refugees. This is to be determined by immigration officials in whichever country reviews their asylum applications."

 

It "is also incorrect to say that refugees should seek refuge in the first safe country they come to. Under the UN Refugee Convention, there is no obligation on refugees to do this—an interpretation which is upheld in UK case law. Those trying to cross the Channel can legitimately claim asylum in the UK if they reach it.

 

That said, refugees who arrive in the UK after passing through another EU country can, under certain circumstances, be returned to the first EU country they entered, under an EU law known as the Dublin Regulation.

 

What is a refugee? And what is an asylum seeker?

 

The 1951 UN Refugee Convention (also known as the Geneva Convention) defines what a refugee is, what rights a refugee has, and the responsibilities of states towards refugees.

 

It defines a refugee as someone who “owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion” has fled their own country or (if they have no nationality) country of usual residence, and is unable or unwilling to return to it or seek protection from it.

 

Being recognised as a refugee gives you the right to not to be returned to the country you have fled, as well as a minimum standard of rights and freedoms in a safe country.

 

An asylum seeker is someone who is in need and search of refuge. The right to seek asylum from persecution in other countries is a universal human right, set out in Article 14 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights.

 

Practically speaking, an asylum seeker is someone who has applied for refugee status (or another form of international protection) in another country, and is awaiting a decision on that application. They can only apply once they physically reach the country.

 

In the UK, once an asylum seeker has had their application processed, they may receive permission to stay as a refugee for five years (after which they can apply to settle in the UK). They may also be given “permission to stay for humanitarian reasons” or other reasons, or their application may be rejected in which case, if no appeal is successful, they have to leave the UK unless they face a “real risk” of serious harm in the case of deportation.

 

There is no obligation on refugees to claim asylum in the first safe country they reach.

 

It "is wrong to claim that, under the Geneva Convention, refugees should seek refuge in the first safe country they come to.

 

It contains no obligation “either explicit or implicit” for refugees to claim asylum in the first safe country they reach, according to immigration lawyer Colin Yeo.

 

This means that an asylum seeker can arrive in France (or any other country) before travelling to the UK and still legitimately claim to be a refugee. It is then down to the UK to review that application.

 

It doesn’t matter that these individuals are illegally crossing the channel

 

Are "those seeking to cross the Channel to the UK in small boats …. “illegal migrants”.?

 

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”.

 

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.

 

It also cannot be stated with certainty that these individuals crossing the Channel were safe in France, unless we know more about their backgrounds. 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). There is also previous evidence of asylum seekers and migrants in France not being treated as they should be according to French law.

 

That said, the UK can sometimes return refugees to elsewhere in the EU

 

The UK could, under certain circumstances, send the people crossing the Channel on dinghies back to France or another EU country upon arrival. This is because of an EU law known as the Dublin Regulation.

 

Under the terms of the Dublin Regulation, a refugee should normally have their asylum claim examined in the first EU country they enter. If the claim is accepted, they get refugee status in that country.

 

In practice, this means that upon arrival in the UK asylum seekers will have their fingerprints checked against an EU database known as Eurodac. The database allows immigration officials to see if an asylum seeker has launched an application in any other EU countries, or come into contact with the authorities there, and determine which country should process their claim.

 

There are some cases in which this rule doesn’t apply. For example, if an applicant for asylum has a family member who has already successfully claimed asylum in another EU country, then that country is where their claim should be reviewed. There are a number of further exceptions, including if the applicant is a minor, if several family members claim asylum around the same time, or of the applicant is dependent on the assistance of a parent or family member legally resident in the EU.

 

Thanks for posting the facts Brian and dispelling a few myths. So as I said following the transition period not only will there be no Dublin agreement which actually currently allows us to send Migrants back to the country they entered Europe from I presume we wont have access to the Eurodac database so wont be able to check finger prints and previous claims etc. I imagine the French will be rubbing their hands with glee at that prospect and probably the Italians and Greeks. Dinghy sales in France will do good business I bet.

 

Nigel is going to be busy except I bet he isnt. He wont want to broadcast the fact that his Brexit rather than securing our borders has actually made them much weaker. Of course it will be winter by then but come the spring?

 

We can secure our borders ... Use the military with the required force if needed to repel the invaders ... Simple ... Seem to remember you wanted the military to stop invaders coming to your neck of the woods during lockdown, whats the difference hypocrite ???

 

LOL! you reap what you sow. What are they going to do? Open fire on them or piss off the French even more who argue you cannot take action against unarmed asylum seekers in little rubber boats in the channel. Cruella is just making it up as she goes along now as she promised in October it would all be sorted by now. Repel the invaders! (lol) if you want to stop a wave of migrants setting sail for Blighty you do that with cooperation with your nearest neighbours, the French, not by pissing them off with your bonkers Brexit and leaving the Dublin agreement and Eurodac.

 

I didnt have to suggest calling in the Military after morons from Teesside decided to come and break the law here in Richmond they were called in anyway.

 

 

Chuckle ... Strange how some who break the law in your eyes are "funny' yet those who just want a day out in the sun breaking the law are "morons" because they dare to do it near you ... Hypocrite ... As for your precious Dublin Agreement you keep banging on about ... https://migrationwatchuk.org/press-release/528/dublin-agreement-on-returning-asylum-seekers-is-almost-completely-useless ... Doesnt work and never did, if you leave your whites only village and ask those who live with what you want if the Dublin Agreement has worked I reckon they'd say no

 

Hmm. A link from a right wing lobby pressure group. *-)

 

Those who just wanted a day out in the sun? I would have no problem with that but thats not what it was though was it? They were groups of low life criminals breaking the law, p*ssed and drugged up, stealing, vandalising the place and putting vulnerable residents at risk right in the middle of a pandemic. They would be morons no matter where they did it and it wasnt just here as the news has reported from other popular beauty spots around the country.

 

Whichever way you dress it up, what is apparent here is Brexit and sticking two fingers up at the French and Europe has opened up the flood gates for migrant crossings in the channel. Good luck with sorting that one out as we cut the ties even further on 31st December. No amount of posturing, stamping your feet and sending in Navy warships will change that. Its a prime example of how working together and getting on with your neighbours is the only way to improve things. Send the Navy in if you like but the world will be watching and all they will likely see is the Navy picking them up and bringing them to Dover. I doubt you will see them getting blown out of the water.

 

But you like "low life criminals" who break the law "stealing and vandalising the place" ... You find it "funny" remember , unless of course in your hypocrite way its near you ... You were happy to have the military take to the streets of North Yorkshire with the eyes of the world watching and your happy that thugs rip apart British history yet you aren't happy with the military escorting illegal immigrants away from our shores ... Hypocrite

 

I never said I wouldnt be happy with our military escorting migrants from our shores I just dont think it will happen because it wont work. The Navy are more about saving lives and protecting people these days. I can just imagine the scene now with the worlds cameras rolling. A load of desperate people in a dangerously over loaded dinghy. Women and Children crying and along comes a fecking war ship. What are they going to do? Run them down, gun them down? Nudge them a bit in the other direction? Are they fcuk. They will just be forced to rescue them. They cant then just pop them on the beach at Calais, the French will just tell them to fcuk off!

 

Flexing your muscles and acting all powerful and hard is pointless. Cooperation is the key and we just dumped all that.

 

[Birdbrain]

Barryd999 - 2020-08-08 8:11 AM

 

Birdbrain - 2020-08-08 7:31 AM

 

Barryd999 - 2020-08-08 7:22 AM

 

Birdbrain - 2020-08-08 6:58 AM

 

Barryd999 - 2020-08-07 10:10 PM

 

Birdbrain - 2020-08-07 7:35 PM

 

Barryd999 - 2020-08-07 5:34 PM

 

Brian Kirby - 2020-08-07 3:32 PM

 

Maybe a little fact will help? From Fullfact:

 

One "cannot know whether the people trying to cross the channel in recent months would be recognised as refugees. This is to be determined by immigration officials in whichever country reviews their asylum applications."

 

It "is also incorrect to say that refugees should seek refuge in the first safe country they come to. Under the UN Refugee Convention, there is no obligation on refugees to do this—an interpretation which is upheld in UK case law. Those trying to cross the Channel can legitimately claim asylum in the UK if they reach it.

 

That said, refugees who arrive in the UK after passing through another EU country can, under certain circumstances, be returned to the first EU country they entered, under an EU law known as the Dublin Regulation.

 

What is a refugee? And what is an asylum seeker?

 

The 1951 UN Refugee Convention (also known as the Geneva Convention) defines what a refugee is, what rights a refugee has, and the responsibilities of states towards refugees.

 

It defines a refugee as someone who “owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion” has fled their own country or (if they have no nationality) country of usual residence, and is unable or unwilling to return to it or seek protection from it.

 

Being recognised as a refugee gives you the right to not to be returned to the country you have fled, as well as a minimum standard of rights and freedoms in a safe country.

 

An asylum seeker is someone who is in need and search of refuge. The right to seek asylum from persecution in other countries is a universal human right, set out in Article 14 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights.

 

Practically speaking, an asylum seeker is someone who has applied for refugee status (or another form of international protection) in another country, and is awaiting a decision on that application. They can only apply once they physically reach the country.

 

In the UK, once an asylum seeker has had their application processed, they may receive permission to stay as a refugee for five years (after which they can apply to settle in the UK). They may also be given “permission to stay for humanitarian reasons” or other reasons, or their application may be rejected in which case, if no appeal is successful, they have to leave the UK unless they face a “real risk” of serious harm in the case of deportation.

 

There is no obligation on refugees to claim asylum in the first safe country they reach.

 

It "is wrong to claim that, under the Geneva Convention, refugees should seek refuge in the first safe country they come to.

 

It contains no obligation “either explicit or implicit” for refugees to claim asylum in the first safe country they reach, according to immigration lawyer Colin Yeo.

 

This means that an asylum seeker can arrive in France (or any other country) before travelling to the UK and still legitimately claim to be a refugee. It is then down to the UK to review that application.

 

It doesn’t matter that these individuals are illegally crossing the channel

 

Are "those seeking to cross the Channel to the UK in small boats …. “illegal migrants”.?

 

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”.

 

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.

 

It also cannot be stated with certainty that these individuals crossing the Channel were safe in France, unless we know more about their backgrounds. 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). There is also previous evidence of asylum seekers and migrants in France not being treated as they should be according to French law.

 

That said, the UK can sometimes return refugees to elsewhere in the EU

 

The UK could, under certain circumstances, send the people crossing the Channel on dinghies back to France or another EU country upon arrival. This is because of an EU law known as the Dublin Regulation.

 

Under the terms of the Dublin Regulation, a refugee should normally have their asylum claim examined in the first EU country they enter. If the claim is accepted, they get refugee status in that country.

 

In practice, this means that upon arrival in the UK asylum seekers will have their fingerprints checked against an EU database known as Eurodac. The database allows immigration officials to see if an asylum seeker has launched an application in any other EU countries, or come into contact with the authorities there, and determine which country should process their claim.

 

There are some cases in which this rule doesn’t apply. For example, if an applicant for asylum has a family member who has already successfully claimed asylum in another EU country, then that country is where their claim should be reviewed. There are a number of further exceptions, including if the applicant is a minor, if several family members claim asylum around the same time, or of the applicant is dependent on the assistance of a parent or family member legally resident in the EU.

 

Thanks for posting the facts Brian and dispelling a few myths. So as I said following the transition period not only will there be no Dublin agreement which actually currently allows us to send Migrants back to the country they entered Europe from I presume we wont have access to the Eurodac database so wont be able to check finger prints and previous claims etc. I imagine the French will be rubbing their hands with glee at that prospect and probably the Italians and Greeks. Dinghy sales in France will do good business I bet.

 

Nigel is going to be busy except I bet he isnt. He wont want to broadcast the fact that his Brexit rather than securing our borders has actually made them much weaker. Of course it will be winter by then but come the spring?

 

We can secure our borders ... Use the military with the required force if needed to repel the invaders ... Simple ... Seem to remember you wanted the military to stop invaders coming to your neck of the woods during lockdown, whats the difference hypocrite ???

 

LOL! you reap what you sow. What are they going to do? Open fire on them or piss off the French even more who argue you cannot take action against unarmed asylum seekers in little rubber boats in the channel. Cruella is just making it up as she goes along now as she promised in October it would all be sorted by now. Repel the invaders! (lol) if you want to stop a wave of migrants setting sail for Blighty you do that with cooperation with your nearest neighbours, the French, not by pissing them off with your bonkers Brexit and leaving the Dublin agreement and Eurodac.

 

I didnt have to suggest calling in the Military after morons from Teesside decided to come and break the law here in Richmond they were called in anyway.

 

 

Chuckle ... Strange how some who break the law in your eyes are "funny' yet those who just want a day out in the sun breaking the law are "morons" because they dare to do it near you ... Hypocrite ... As for your precious Dublin Agreement you keep banging on about ... https://migrationwatchuk.org/press-release/528/dublin-agreement-on-returning-asylum-seekers-is-almost-completely-useless ... Doesnt work and never did, if you leave your whites only village and ask those who live with what you want if the Dublin Agreement has worked I reckon they'd say no

 

Hmm. A link from a right wing lobby pressure group. *-)

 

Those who just wanted a day out in the sun? I would have no problem with that but thats not what it was though was it? They were groups of low life criminals breaking the law, p*ssed and drugged up, stealing, vandalising the place and putting vulnerable residents at risk right in the middle of a pandemic. They would be morons no matter where they did it and it wasnt just here as the news has reported from other popular beauty spots around the country.

 

Whichever way you dress it up, what is apparent here is Brexit and sticking two fingers up at the French and Europe has opened up the flood gates for migrant crossings in the channel. Good luck with sorting that one out as we cut the ties even further on 31st December. No amount of posturing, stamping your feet and sending in Navy warships will change that. Its a prime example of how working together and getting on with your neighbours is the only way to improve things. Send the Navy in if you like but the world will be watching and all they will likely see is the Navy picking them up and bringing them to Dover. I doubt you will see them getting blown out of the water.

 

But you like "low life criminals" who break the law "stealing and vandalising the place" ... You find it "funny" remember , unless of course in your hypocrite way its near you ... You were happy to have the military take to the streets of North Yorkshire with the eyes of the world watching and your happy that thugs rip apart British history yet you aren't happy with the military escorting illegal immigrants away from our shores ... Hypocrite

 

I never said I wouldnt be happy with our military escorting migrants from our shores I just dont think it will happen because it wont work. The Navy are more about saving lives and protecting people these days. I can just imagine the scene now with the worlds cameras rolling. A load of desperate people in a dangerously over loaded dinghy. Women and Children crying and along comes a fecking war ship. What are they going to do? Run them down, gun them down? Nudge them a bit in the other direction? Are they fcuk. They will just be forced to rescue them. They cant then just pop them on the beach at Calais, the French will just tell them to fcuk off!

 

Flexing your muscles and acting all powerful and hard is pointless. Cooperation is the key and we just dumped all that.

 

"war ships" ... You truly believe they'll send out "war ships" ... Lordy ... "Women and children crying and along comes a fecking war ship" Chuckle, they'd be pretty lucky to find a boat out of all the boats so far that had women and children in em ... Why do you need to litter your posts with angry swear words on here BTW ???