“First safe country”

[noseall]

I even gave you a link to the law.

"claimants"

FFS, learn to read your own links boyo.

 

[motorbiking]

"claimants"

FFS, learn to read your own links boyo.

what do you call someone claiming asylum. dummy.

 

[motorbiking]

Thank you. That is not the belief of the vast majority of reform voters

I think (and going back to the original challenge) most people feel it should either be a mechanism where we all take a proportionate burden or each neighbouring country does their bit with funds from others as appropriate.

The idea that coming from a country with a humanitarian crisis somehow gives people a golden Visa to demand asylum wherever they like is the issue most people object to.

It is wholly impractical to "return" them to country B, especially after we left the EU and ****ed off our European neighbours. Foot shoot the ourselves in. That is why the UNCHR document you linked to says offering asylum as a practical way to resolve the issue. I'm grateful we are where we are precisely because we get far fewer than other parts of Europe.

yes - its all down to political will.

If they are here but want to go somewhere else - I wont stop them.

 

[noseall]

what do you call someone claiming asylum

Asylum seekers or asylum claimants?

It seems you are not aware of the difference, I.e.
Asylum seekers are not obliged to make their asylum claim in the first safe country they arrive in after leaving their country of origin.

Stop changing the subject to suit your narrative. No one is discussing those that have already made a claim i.e "a claimant" as stated in your (pointless) UK law post.

 

[motorbiking]

Asylum seekers or asylum claimants?

It seems you are not aware of the difference, I.e.
Asylum seekers are not obliged to make their asylum claim in the first safe country they arrive in after leaving their country of origin.

Stop changing the subject to suit your narrative. No one is discussing those that have already made a claim i.e "a claimant" as stated in your (pointless) UK law post.

There is no such requirement for a claimant to have made a claim in a 3rd safe country, in order for their claim for asylum here to be rejected on the grounds they have links to a safe 3rd country.

In broad terms, asylum claims may be declared inadmissible and not substantively considered in the UK, if the claimant was previously present in or had another connection to a safe third country, where they claimed asylum, or could reasonably be expected to have done so (or, for claims made before 28 June 2022, where exceptional circumstances didn’t prevent such a claim), provided there is a reasonable prospect of removing them in a reasonable time to a safe third country.

Would you like to read some of the many 100s of appeals that refer to links to a safe 3rd country as grounds for dismissal where there was no claim made in the 3rd country?

Here you go boyo. A bit of light reading for you

Inadmissibility: safe third country cases (accessible)

www.gov.uk

 

[blup]

I think (and going back to the original challenge) most people feel it should either be a mechanism where we all take a proportionate burden or each neighbouring country does their bit with funds from others as appropriate.

Turkey has about four million refugees, far more than us, adjoining countries generally tske and burden

The idea that coming from a country with a humanitarian crisis somehow gives people a golden Visa to demand asylum wherever they like is the issue most people object to.

There are clear international and local rules, we don’t have the physical or human infrastructure to cope.

yes - its all down to political will.

If they are here but want to go somewhere else - I wont stop them.

No one disputes that

 

[MNW67]

Would you like to read some of the many 100s of appeals that refer to links to a safe 3rd country as grounds for dismissal where there was no claim made in the 3rd country?

I would find it extremely helpful if you could link to a couple of the rulings or judgments which you believe best demonstrate this aspect.

 

[MNW67]

Never heard of a heads of agreement then. Oh well more learning as we go for you.

I have no idea how that is relevant.

But I will try to explain the broad legal principle.

There are two ways of drawing up a legal document.

One way is that it only includes the things which are specifically mentioned.

The other way is that it includes everything that isn't specifically excluded.

The UN Refugee Convention is an example of the second way of doing this. A state has to accept an asylum application unless it falls into one of the exceptions. There is no exception for having links to a third safe country.

 

[noseall]

There is no such requirement for a claimant to have made a claim in a 3rd safe country, in order for their claim for asylum here to be rejected on the grounds they have links to a safe 3rd country.



Would you like to read some of the many 100s of appeals that refer to links to a safe 3rd country as grounds for dismissal where there was no claim made in the 3rd country?

Here you go boyo. A bit of light reading for you

Inadmissibility: safe third country cases (accessible)

www.gov.uk

Waffle.

 

[motorbiking]

I have no idea how that is relevant.

But I will try to explain the broad legal principle.

There are two ways of drawing up a legal document.

One way is that it only includes the things which are specifically mentioned.

The other way is that it includes everything that isn't specifically excluded.

you're just making it up now.

The UN Refugee Convention is an example of the second way of doing this. A state has to accept an asylum application unless it falls into one of the exceptions. There is no exception for having links to a third safe country.

Firstly, all this would be illegal.

Inadmissibility: safe third country cases (accessible)

www.gov.uk

4) Condition 4 is that—

(a) the claimant was previously present in, and eligible to make a relevant claim to, the safe third State,
(b) it would have been reasonable to expect them to make such a claim, and (c) they failed to do so.

(5) Condition 5 is that, in the claimant’s particular circumstances, it would have been reasonable to expect them to have made a relevant claim to the safe third State (instead of making a claim in the United Kingdom).

Secondly, anyone from a country with some sort of humanitarian crisis would have a golden Visa to pick which ever country gave them the best opportunity.

 

[MNW67]

you're just making it up now.

How do you not fall over more.

 

[MNW67]

Firstly, all this would be illegal.

Has it ever been tested in court.

 

[motorbiking]

Has it ever been tested in court.

yes

 

[noseall]

How do you not fall over more.

Read the link he sent and the sub-link to the lawful text. It says nothing that conters this...

Asylum seekers are not obliged to make their asylum claim in the first safe country they arrive in after leaving their country of origin.

Unconnected vague waffle.

 

[motorbiking]

Read the link he sent and the sub-link to the lawful text. It says nothing that conters this...

Asylum seekers are not obliged to make their asylum claim in the first safe country they arrive in after leaving their country of origin.

Unconnected vague waffle.

not much good if their claim is inadmissible due to connection with a safe 3rd country