Another new Brexit thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ric
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ban-jani said:
www.gov.uk

Claim asylum in the UK

Apply for asylum to stay in the UK as a refugee - eligibility, documents you need, how to apply, screening, asylum interview, help you can get, children
www.gov.uk www.gov.uk
Click to expand...


www.gov.uk

Claim asylum in the UK

Apply for asylum to stay in the UK as a refugee - eligibility, documents you need, how to apply, screening, asylum interview, help you can get, children
www.gov.uk www.gov.uk


You cannot apply for asylum until you get to the UK (See Screening)
 
Ban-jani said:
www.gov.uk

Claim asylum in the UK

Apply for asylum to stay in the UK as a refugee - eligibility, documents you need, how to apply, screening, asylum interview, help you can get, children
www.gov.uk www.gov.uk
Click to expand...

That link doesn't say anything about claiming asylum in the UK from a home or third country. Do you think they are eligible for a legal aid immigration lawyer outside the UK and would be able to obtain one? It's not possible to claim asylum without actually being within the UK.

Somebody entering the UK via an airport may have committed offences related to use of a false passport or visa.
 
Fode N The Hole said:
That link doesn't say anything about claiming asylum in the UK from a home or third country. Do you think they are eligible for a legal aid immigration lawyer outside the UK and would be able to obtain one? It's not possible to claim asylum without actually being within the UK.

Somebody entering the UK via an airport may have committed offences related to use of a false passport or visa.
Click to expand...
The Derby is on, I’ll come back to you.

But no, entering via an illegal route makes you a criminal.
 
AS its half time

Not for asylum in the UK ... the Tories have removed the ability to apply at Embassies and Consulates and state that if you've applied for asylum in another country you will be returned to that country.

There is an EU agreement called the Dublin Agreement that allows an asylum seeker to register in an Eu country (they have to fingerprinted and entered onto the Eu database) if your application in the UK fails you can be returned to the country of registration. However many asylum seekers do not register in the first ''safe'' country because they believe that the UK will just decline them and send them back as a matter of course.
 
Ifwecouldjust....... said:
AS its half time

Not for asylum in the UK ... the Tories have removed the ability to apply at Embassies and Consulates and state that if you've applied for asylum in another country you will be returned to that country.

There is an EU agreement called the Dublin Agreement that allows an asylum seeker to register in an Eu country (they have to fingerprinted and entered onto the Eu database) if your application in the UK fails you can be returned to the country of registration. However many asylum seekers do not register in the first ''safe'' country because they believe that the UK will just decline them and send them back as a matter of course.
Click to expand...
Isn't the general rule that asylum is to protect from repatriation to a country where the individual may come to harm, and if so should (must) be claimed in the first safe country they arrive in?
 
Ban-jani said:
The Derby is on, I’ll come back to you.

But no, entering via an illegal route makes you a criminal.
Click to expand...

I didn't expect a reply when the game was on. Although I did notice your post was ten minutes into the game ;)

It is not as black and white as that. There are statutory defences to immigration offences.

Immigration | The Crown Prosecution Service

www.cps.gov.uk www.cps.gov.uk

It is right there is scrutiny of asylum seekers when they enter the country to determine their eligibility and verify their story. We wouldn't want to be giving a safe haven to war criminals for instance, but all this government is interested in doing is othering people to whip up moral panic for their own cynical political interests. As evidenced by the leaked discussions about wave machines and outposts on St Helena.
 
Last edited:
Ban-jani said:
You’re going to have to highlight which part of that you think makes it legal to enter Britain without a valid visa or passport and that doing so, from France, means automatic asylum.
Click to expand...
Is there genuine confusion between the rights of asylum seekers, economic immigrants, and those with another basis to seek residency (spousal/children etc). Asylum is quite,a specific thing.
 
Fode N The Hole said:
I didn't expect a reply when the game was on. Although I did notice your post was ten minutes into the game ;)

It is not as black and white as that. There are statutory defences to immigration offences.

Immigration | The Crown Prosecution Service

www.cps.gov.uk www.cps.gov.uk

It is right there is scrutiny of asylum seekers when the enter the country to determine their eligibility and verify their story. We wouldn't to be giving a safe haven to war criminals for instance, but all this government is interested in doing is othering people to whip up moral panic for their own cynical political interests. As evidenced by the leaked discussions about wave machines and outposts on St Helena.
Click to expand...
It’s the duty of Her Majesty’s government to stop people entering our country without a visa or passport via the sea.

There’s nothing Nationalist about patrolling your border effectively, it’s what everyone should be doing, otherwise what’s the point? We might as well have total global anarchy.
 
Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese said:
Isn't the general rule that asylum is to protect from repatriation to a country where the individual may come to harm, and if so should (must) be claimed in the first safe country they arrive in?
Click to expand...


No ... under the United Nations Refugee Convention of 1951 (written by the UK) ... an asylum seeker can choose their country of refuge. .. their choice is often based on family or community or even the fact that they speak the language (any one of these will help them find a job) ... In addition no country can hinder the safe passage of an asylum seeker.


Theres also a crossover here with the UN Convention '' laws of the Sea'' which require anyone lost or vulnerable at sea (within territorial waters) to be given aid and transit to a place of safety . (Rules vary for international waters ... but basic concept is to be given aid)

Child refugees also have the right to be reunited with their families ...we previously had an act which allowed Child refugees to be allowed into the UK .... This was called the Dubs Act and has been scrapped by the Tories

www.theguardian.com

Why has the UK ended its 'Dubs' child refugee scheme?

The government is scrapping Britain’s pledge to take in 3,000 unaccompanied child refugees, sparking fury. Will critics be able to force Home Secretary Amber Rudd to rethink and reverse the decision?
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com

If you want to know more ... go here

www.safepassage.org.uk

Safe Passage

www.safepassage.org.uk www.safepassage.org.uk


Currently the UK are breaking or have proposed breaking these UN conventions .

Please don't ever tell me that the Conservative and Unionist Party is not a RASCIST organisation.
 
Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese said:
Is there genuine confusion between the rights of asylum seekers, economic immigrants, and those with another basis to seek residency (spousal/children etc). Asylum is quite,a specific thing.
Click to expand...


Yes ... there is because there is no safe passage for asylum seekers. So they become mixed up with economic migrants. I maintain the position that if we allowed Asylum Seekers to claim refuge at an embassy abroad and to undergo screening there... it would not be unreasonable to assume that everyone crossing the channel was an illegal and should be returned.
 
Ifwecouldjust....... said:
No ... under the United Nations Refugee Convention of 1951 (written by the UK) ... an asylum seeker can choose their country of refuge. .. their choice is often based on family or community or even the fact that they speak the language (any one of these will help them find a job) ... In addition no country can hinder the safe passage of an asylum seeker.


Theres also a crossover here with the UN Convention '' laws of the Sea'' which require anyone lost or vulnerable at sea (within territorial waters) to be given aid and transit to a place of safety . (Rules vary for international waters ... but basic concept is to be given aid)

Child refugees also have the right to be reunited with their families ...we previously had an act which allowed Child refugees to be allowed into the UK .... This was called the Dubs Act and has been scrapped by the Tories

www.theguardian.com

Why has the UK ended its 'Dubs' child refugee scheme?

The government is scrapping Britain’s pledge to take in 3,000 unaccompanied child refugees, sparking fury. Will critics be able to force Home Secretary Amber Rudd to rethink and reverse the decision?
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com

If you want to know more ... go here

www.safepassage.org.uk

Safe Passage

www.safepassage.org.uk www.safepassage.org.uk


Currently the UK are breaking or have proposed breaking these UN conventions .

Please don't ever tell me that the Conservative and Unionist Party is not a RASCIST organisation.
Click to expand...
I won't argue as you seem to know your stuff, but I don't see what this has to do with brexit? - The UN obligations you describe are still there if we leave the EU.
 
Ifwecouldjust....... said:
Yes ... there is because there is no safe passage for asylum seekers. So they become mixed up with economic migrants. I maintain the position that if we allowed Asylum Seekers to claim refuge at an embassy abroad and to undergo screening there... it would not be unreasonable to assume that everyone crossing the channel was an illegal and should be returned.
Click to expand...
Again, probably worthy of discussion in an immigration thread.
 
Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese said:
I won't argue as you seem to know your stuff, but I don't see what this has to do with brexit? - The UN obligations you describe are still there if we leave the EU.
Click to expand...


Take Control of our borders ..... ... ships in the channel protecting our fish .... Patel deporting people who've lived here virtually all their lives ..........all Xenophobic rhetoric .


We signed up to an international agreement (in fact we wrote it) .... if it doesn't suit anymore we should go back to the UN and propose changes or write ourselves out of the convention

but that would require the Conservatives actually doing something other than throwing red meat to the base (how Trumpian)
 
Ban-jani said:
It’s the duty of Her Majesty’s government to stop people entering our country without a visa or passport via the sea.

There’s nothing Nationalist about patrolling your border effectively, it’s what everyone should be doing, otherwise what’s the point? We might as well have total global anarchy.
Click to expand...

There is nothing inherently racist, no. But why make political capital out of it? Why turn this into a bigger issue like the Australians did with their own racist policy to boat people. Why does it matter on the method of entry? An asylum seeker entering via a boat or an airport with the same circumstances that forced them to become a refugee should have the same eligibility. There are fair reasons for patrolling waters for other purposes, e.g. to prevent smuggling of weapons or drugs. I don't think there are any other purposes why you would consider having a wave machine.

www.independent.co.uk

Asylum seekers jailed for steering dinghies across Channel despite ‘not being part of criminal gangs’

Exclusive: Crown Prosecution Service issues new guidance amid questions over whether charges are in the public interest
www.independent.co.uk www.independent.co.uk

It's typical political cynicism to pursue migrants in this way.
 
Fode N The Hole said:
There is nothing inherently racist, no. But why make political capital out of it? Why turn this into a bigger issue like the Australians did with their own racist policy to boat people. Why does it matter on the method of entry? An asylum seeker entering via a boat or an airport with the same circumstances that forced them to become a refugee should have the same eligibility. There are fair reasons for patrolling waters for other purposes, e.g. to prevent smuggling of weapons or drugs. I don't think there are any other purposes why you would consider having a wave machine.

www.independent.co.uk

Asylum seekers jailed for steering dinghies across Channel despite ‘not being part of criminal gangs’

Exclusive: Crown Prosecution Service issues new guidance amid questions over whether charges are in the public interest
www.independent.co.uk www.independent.co.uk

It's typical political cynicism to pursue migrants in this way.
Click to expand...
No it isn’t. I am a remainer, I think leave is bat shit crazy but... we need to patrol our border effectively against those entering illegally.

Stating everyone on Earth should be allowed in is just as extreme as the racists saying no one should be allowed in.

If you haven’t noticed, England is one of the most over populated countries in Europe, I think maybe 2nd?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top