“First safe country”

[noseall]

And if there's a chance for you and the kids to get out but I have to remain, so be it.'

So you'd stay together, unless circumstances dictated you can't stay together.
Gotcha.

 

[motorbiking]

Luckily we have Sir Keir going cap in hand to our neighbours, making agreements with them in an attempt to repair the Brexit damage.

agreements like the "1 in 1 out". Macron must have wet his pants laughing on the way home. or perhaps the extension of fishing rights in exchange for a "commitment to look at things".

Starmer the deal maker.

1 in 1 out had the potential to be a deterrent up until they considered that a person who is currently in France trying to get to the UK has a worse case scenario of being back where he currently is.

 

[Brigadier]

Please stop introducing logic into the argument. You'll upset the liberals on here.

Logic on anything EV upsets you, that's for certain

 

[noseall]

agreements like the "1 in 1 out"

Correct.
Someone has to pick up the batten.

 

[motorbiking]

So you'd stay together, unless circumstances dictated you can't stay together.
Gotcha.

Doesn't quite match the demographics of those who are coming, does it.

 

[MNW67]

It is always useful to go back to basics.

People often flee a country where they are facing genuine persecution and enter a safe neighbouring country. For instance, the millions of Syrians who have fled Turkey. If a tiny proportion of those then decide to move on to the UK, that doesn't mean that they stop being genuine refugees. They still face persecution in their home country. I believe this is where some are getting confused.

 

[ReganAndCarter]

Logic EV

 

[motorbiking]

It is always useful to go back to basics.

People often flee a country where they are facing genuine persecution and enter a safe neighbouring country. For instance, the millions of Syrians who have fled Turkey. If a tiny proportion of those then decide to move on to the UK, that doesn't mean that they stop being genuine refugees. They still face persecution in their home country. I believe this is where some are getting confused.

Nobody seems confused.

You understand that the convention does not give a person such a right?

https://www.unhcr.org/publications/problem-refugees-and-asylum-seekers-who-move-irregular-manner-country-which-they-had

 

[MNW67]

Nobody seems confused.

Many on here make the argument that you can't be a genuine refugee in the scenario I have outlined.

 

[motorbiking]

Many on here make the argument that you can't be a genuine refugee in the scenario I have outlined.

A refugee who has found protection in one safe country, does not have the right to then decide to move on to another safe country of his choice (as per your scenario).

His status as a refugee is unchanged, his right to protection from the subsequent safe country does not exist. People make the argument that a person having found safety in one safe country does not have the right to move on to the next. That is clear. Of course the problem is every country would like the problem to flow to the next, so they may for example tolerate those living safely in their country (but illegally), in the knowledge they intend to move on and be someone else's problem, while at the same time refuse to re-admit them once they've moved on.

From the above:

e) Refugees and asylum-seekers, who have found protection in a particular country, should normally not move from that country in an irregular manner in order to find durable solutions elsewhere but should take advantage of durable solutions available in that country through action taken by governments and UNHCR as recommended in paragraphs (c) and (d) above;

f) Where refugees and asylum-seekers nevertheless move in an irregular manner from a country where they have already found protection, they may be returned to that country if

i) they are protected there against refoulement and

ii) they are permitted to remain there and to be treated in accordance with recognized basic human standards until a durable solution is found for them. Where such return is envisaged, UNHCR may be requested to assist in arrangements for the re-admission and reception of the persons concerned;

 

[MNW67]

A refugee who has found protection in one safe country, does not have the right to then decide to move on to another safe country of his choice (as per your scenario).

His status as a refugee is unchanged, his right to protection from the subsequent safe country does not exist. People make the argument that a person having found safety in one safe country does not have the right to move on to the next. That is clear. Of course the problem is every country would like the problem to flow to the next, so they may for example tolerate those living safely in their country (but illegally), in the knowledge they intend to move on and be someone else's problem, while at the same time refuse to re-admit them once they've moved on.

From the above:

You seem to have taken an obscure document and misunderstood it.

Here is Oxford University's explanation:

Asylum seekers are not obliged to make their asylum claim in the first safe country they arrive in after leaving their country of origin. However, governments are also not obliged to assess an asylum claim if another safe country is willing to do so instead (including a country the applicant passed through). Under an EU law known as the Dublin III Regulation, asylum seekers could, in theory, be transferred to the first EU member state in which they arrived after leaving their origin country. After Brexit, the UK is no longer a part of the Dublin arrangements.

Asylum and refugee resettlement in the UK - Migration Observatory

This briefing sets out key facts and figures, as well as information gaps, relating to migration to the UK, specifically refugees and asylum seekers. It looks at overall numbers, characteristics of asylum seekers, and outcomes of asylum applications.

migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk

 

[motorbiking]

You seem to have taken an obscure document and misunderstood it.

This document that you call obscure is UNHCR Executive Committee Conclusion 58, 1989 which introduced the concept of Safe 3rd Country. Its kinda essential reading if you are going to learn as we go.

A refugee who has found protection in one safe country, does not have the right to then decide to move on to another safe country of his choice (as per your scenario).

Are you arguing the above is incorrect?

 

[MNW67]

Are you arguing the above is incorrect?

I will stick with what Oxford University say. Rather than your interpretation.

 

[motorbiking]

I will stick with what Oxford University say. Rather than your interpretation.

feel free to look stupid then:

see below:

Loading…

www.unhcr.org

These are not my interpretations they are the conclusions of the executive committee of the UNHCR.
read sec 58 its easy to follow.

 

[MNW67]

feel free to look stupid then:

I would rather believe information from the world's top university over your interpretation. And anyway, the document you quoted from a couple of posts above doesn't seem to have any legal status. It just seems to be a wish list of best practice.