The Conservative Party

[Chippy_boy]

Asylum and human rights law​

Article 14 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights states:

Everyone has the right to seek and enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.

The 1951 UN Convention relating to the Status of Refugees elaborates upon this right. It provides an international meaning of ‘refugee’, which is a person in another country at risk of persecution in her, his or their own country.

The Convention sets out certain basic rights of refugees that are necessary for the enjoyment of asylum. These include the right not to be returned to a place where they are at risk of persecution.

Oh dear, you do want to go there?

EDIT: Seems you are quoting rights of asylum whilst in a country, not the legality/illegality of crossing a border without proper authority to do so. Which was the point I was making. Anyway...

Full Fact, "Although it’s certainly true that crossing the Channel without authorisation isn’t a legal way to enter the UK..."

OHCHR, "States are entitled to exercise jurisdiction at their international borders..."

It seems clear to me that it IS illegal, although that does not absolve a countries obligations once a refugee has actually got here.

 

[burning blue soul]

Funnily enough, same thing happens under Labour so what on earth are we to do?

The only real difference being that Labour are much more efficient and usually manage to fuck things right up, rather more quickly.

So, what you are saying is that this is the best we are going to get? We are actually living our best lives right now?

That's a grim prospect! :(

 

[Saddleworth2]

Oh dear, you do want to go there?

EDIT: Seems you are quoting rights of asylum whilst in a country, not the legality/illegality of crossing a border without proper authority to do so. Which was the point I was making. Anyway...

Full Fact, "Although it’s certainly true that crossing the Channel without authorisation isn’t a legal way to enter the UK..."

OHCHR, "States are entitled to exercise jurisdiction at their international borders..."

It seems clear to me that it IS illegal, although that does not absolve a countries obligations once a refugee has actually got here.

You might have read the full full fact article:

In reference to migrants attempting to cross the Channel to get from France to the UK, Boris Johnson said “If you come illegally, you are an illegal migrant, and I’m afraid the law will treat you as such.”

This is not correct in all cases.

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 who enter the UK by illegal means can legitimately make a claim for asylum, even after passing through other “safe” countries, provided they do so directly after arriving.

We’ve written about the rights of refugees in greater detail here. When Mr Johnson first made his statement on Friday, the Guardian politics liveblog called his statement misleading, after a reader alerted them to our original article.

 

[Dazzle84]

Funnily enough, same thing happens under Labour so what on earth are we to do?

The only real difference being that Labour are much more efficient and usually manage to fuck things right up, rather more quickly.

I'd say the 13 years of the New Labour government from 97 to 2010 left the country in a much better state when compared with the 13 years of conservative led government we're currently experiencing

 

[kaz7]

The camps in france are rank , the guards kick their stuff around and take their food and disease is rife and conditions worse than some prisons , and people wonder why they get on boats to get away from there

Those who have family and sponsers here should be allowed to stay and those who bring their kids with them , give the rest somewhere to stay and for the love of god process the backlog quickly , employ more fucking staff, how difficult is it to get the system working

75% are given leave to stay so they are not all fucking criminals

Grr

 

[The Future’s Blue!]

Oh dear, you do want to go there?

EDIT: Seems you are quoting rights of asylum whilst in a country, not the legality/illegality of crossing a border without proper authority to do so. Which was the point I was making. Anyway...

Full Fact, "Although it’s certainly true that crossing the Channel without authorisation isn’t a legal way to enter the UK..."

OHCHR, "States are entitled to exercise jurisdiction at their international borders..."

It seems clear to me that it IS illegal, although that does not absolve a countries obligations once a refugee has actually got here.

The reality is that the UK government don’t want to accept any asylum seekers other than those that it chooses, and this is done by not allowing access to any procedures which leaves only one route to enter the UK which is by boat due to it being an island. The new bill now even stops this route for genuine asylum seekers who will be detained and deported. The question, where will they be deported to?

So, in short, anybody, apart from those countries that we deem fit, who has asylum seeker/refugee rights under international law, will not be aloud to seek asylum in this country. There is also an outlier to this in that those that we do have agreement with, such as Afghanistan, who cannot move direct from their country as they are already displaced, will also be classed as an illegal immigrant and have all rights removed for the future.

When Johnson said ‘Get out of Afghanistan and make your way here’, that is not an option.

 

[Chippy_boy]

I'd say the 13 years of the New Labour government from 97 to 2010 left the country in a much better state when compared with the 13 years of conservative led government we're currently experiencing

That's probably true, and certainly true if you look at the state of our public services. So Labour spent a lot more and our services were better. Well no shit Sherlock. But they left the economy in a dire straight, with a deficit way out of control and borrowing through the roof. Of course supporters will blame all of that on the crash of 2008 and none of it down to Labour.

Since then the Tories have tried to repair the economic car crash through austerity. (We don't need to debate whether or not that was the right approach, it is what happened). As a result, they spent less on services, so services have got worse. Again, no shit Sherlock. Spend more, services improve; spend less, they get worse.

Whereas Labour had the headwind of the 2008 crash, the Tories have had the quintuple headwinds of Brexit and then COVID, and the war in Ukraine and the energy crisis and finally world-wide interest rates going through the roof. Is it any surprise that given these events the economy has suffered terribly and with it, our ability to fund the public services we'd all like? Well hardly.

 

[Chippy_boy]

The reality is that the UK government don’t want to accept any asylum seekers other than those that it chooses, and this is done by not allowing access to any procedures which leaves only one route to enter the UK which is by boat due to it being an island. The new bill now even stops this route for genuine asylum seekers who will be detained and deported. The question, where will they be deported to?

So, in short, anybody, apart from those countries that we deem fit, who has asylum seeker/refugee rights under international law, will not be aloud to seek asylum in this country. There is also an outlier to this in that those that we do have agreement with, such as Afghanistan, who cannot move direct from their country as they are already displaced, will also be classed as an illegal immigrant and have all rights removed for the future.

When Johnson said ‘Get out of Afghanistan and make your way here’, that is not an option.

I agree. It's an indefensible position IMO.

 

[Chippy_boy]

You might have read the full full fact article:

I did.

 

[Ifwecouldjust.......]

That's probably true, and certainly true if you look at the state of our public services. So Labour spent a lot more and our services were better. Well no shit Sherlock. But they left the economy in a dire straight, with a deficit way out of control and borrowing through the roof. Of course supporters will blame all of that on the crash of 2008 and none of it down to Labour.

Since then the Tories have tried to repair the economic car crash through austerity. (We don't need to debate whether or not that was the right approach, it is what happened). As a result, they spent less on services, so services have got worse. Again, no shit Sherlock. Spend more, services improve; spend less, they get worse.

Whereas Labour had the headwind of the 2008 crash, the Tories have had the quintuple headwinds of Brexit and then COVID, and the war in Ukraine and the energy crisis and finally world-wide interest rates going through the roof. Is it any surprise that given these events the economy has suffered terribly and with it, our ability to fund the public services we'd all like? Well hardly.

Oh dear.....