Refugees without ID documentation

@Roy Bloom - you could read all of Chapter 3 and following the links and stop being dishonest. It's not saying they are from a safe country, rather that they have a connection to a safe country. This is defined in Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (part 4)

If you meet any of the conditions 1-5

Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002

An Act to make provision about nationality, immigration and asylum; to create offences in connection with international traffic in prostitution; to make provision about international projects connected with migration; and for connected purposes.
www.legislation.gov.uk www.legislation.gov.uk

So for the avoidance of doubt.

The UK can deny your claim because you did not apply in the first safe country.

So it's you who are dishonestly misrepresenting the law. Though I suspect it's more of a lack of willingness to understand it.
 
motorbiking said:
The UK can deny your claim because you did not apply in the first safe country.
Click to expand...
There is no legal relevance for this in the UN Convention. The article recognises that.
It is purely in UK domestic law.
As we have seen UK, domestic law is open to challenge under the UK Justice System, ECHR, and UN Conventions.

UK cannot legislate to change reality.
It can try, but it is a waste of resources (which could be better applied elswhere), because it will fail.
 
Roy Bloom said:
There is no legal relevance for this in the UN Convention. The article recognises that.
It is purely in UK domestic law.
As we have seen UK, domestic law is open to challenge under the UK Justice System, ECHR, and UN Conventions.

UK cannot legislate to change reality.
It can try, but it is a waste of resources (which could be better applied elswhere), because it will fail.
Click to expand...
Nobody is legislating to change reality.

For the avoidance of doubt, the UK has legislated to deny your claim because you did not apply in the first safe country. In fact it does it in a way that is entirely compliant with the convention. It does not reject your claim - it rules it inadmissible, this is entirely consistent with the charter.
 
motorbiking said:
it rules it inadmissible
Click to expand...
which is utterly pointless

all it achieves is you then have people in the UK which cant be deported and cant be processed for asylum. Which makes it clear the Tory party are manufacturing a crisis, not solving it

Motorbiking you are advocating a government wheeze that merely increases the number of boat people staying here






the only route for the UK govt is to send them to Rwanda, which currently supreme court said NO and the government are now legislating to change reality
even if UK govt could send them to Rwanda, it only has space for a few hundred
 
Last edited:
If I was being faced with being sent to Rwanda, I'd leave voluntarily or I'd assist in finding a connection to a safe 3rd country.
 
motorbiking said:
If I was being faced with being sent to Rwanda, I'd leave voluntarily or I'd assist in finding a connection to a safe 3rd country.
Click to expand...

ah yes, the Tory line "Rwanda is a deterrent"

have you any evidence other than what you read in the Telegraph that it is a deterrent
 
the refugee convention article 31:

1. The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.


the key words here are "coming directly"

they dont mean not coming through other safe countries.

nowhere does article 31 state you cant come through a safe country.

it seems there is a case to argue that: "It is accepted that ‘coming directly’ includes persons who have briefly transited other ‘safe’ countries en route to the country in which they claim asylum"
 
Amnesty International tell a different story than the one being advocated by the Tory press.
Mind you, with their human rights record i wouldn't like to be sent there so perhaps it will be the hoped for deterrent to migrants coming here - just not for the reasons being advertised.
 
Notch7 said:
ah yes, the Tory line "Rwanda is a deterrent"

have you any evidence other than what you read in the Telegraph that it is a deterrent
Click to expand...
what would you do? I would leave. maybe sneak across to Ireland etc.
 
Notch7 said:
the refugee convention article 31:

1. The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.


the key words here are "coming directly"

they dont mean not coming through other safe countries.

nowhere does article 31 state you cant come through a safe country.

it seems there is a case to argue that: "It is accepted that ‘coming directly’ includes persons who have briefly transited other ‘safe’ countries en route to the country in which they claim asylum"
Click to expand...
The bit you are missing - is that UK law, will rule the claim inadmissible, which completely side steps any of the above. Nobody is being prosecuted for their illegal entry or presence, nobody is subject to penalties. Simply, your claim is inadmissible, not denied.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top