It's valid, Javid

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sponsored Links
Oh yes it is.
.
According to gossip.
Additionally Iranians may be subject to persecution in Iran for many reasons.
Religion, economic, sexuality, politics, etc may be valid reasons for fleeing Iran.

Granted this is a very old report.
"CONNIE AGIUS: Iran is a dangerous place to be different. People are persecuted for political views, their race, gender sexuality and religion. " http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2013/s3806975.htm

"Iran as a source country of asylum seekers
... Iran continues to be widely criticised for human rights violations, including the ongoing execution of juvenile offenders, homosexuals and political dissidents." https://www.asyluminsight.com/iran/#.XC0NsvmeTIU

"In 2015, there were approximately 85,000 Iranian refugees, (to Australia)
The majority of asylum seekers from Iran are found to be genuine refugees,
https://www.asyluminsight.com/iran/#.XC0NsvmeTIU
So 200 or so is small beer.

Additionally, many of the refugees may have originated from Iran, but may not be Iranian:
"The great majority of refugees located in Iran, estimated at 951,100, have originated from Afghanistan, with much of this Afghan population having lived in Iran for more than three decades. In addition, the UNHCR estimates around 1.5 to 2 million undocumented Afghans are living in Iran. https://www.asyluminsight.com/iran/#.XC0NsvmeTIU
 
Last edited:
Oh yes it is.

Don't you have an answer as to why its those from Iran - which is not subject to the war-torn narrative that we are fed about the other "migrants" from the "war-torn" countries.

Which would mean they are rejected asylum and sent back - so it's working as it should.
 
My answer would be to escort them to edge of our waters and say off you go, apply properly next time.
So just to make things perfectly clear...

You would be happy to personally escort refugee boats to outside of our territorial waters and cut them loose to drift in the busiest stretch of water in the world?

And would that be at the point of a gun?

Or are you simply an armchair warrior who mouths off whilst expecting others to do your dirty work? ;)
 
Sponsored Links
Sajid eyes his future voters …

thunderbirds_uk.the_hood.jpg
 
As Sir Gal said, the morally and legally correct thing to do is to invest, in:
a) processing these refugees within the legal and moral framework
b) rescue missions to prevent needless loss of life
c) stop whipping up frenzied anti-immigrant prejudice
d) apply a coordinated approach (within the auspices of the UNHCR) to stop and counter the creation, at source, of the need for people to flee persecution, destitution, torture, and prejudice.
 
We've already established that there is no legal or moral requirement for a refugee to register in the first country that they arrive
No, you have tried to 'estsblish' -but been proven wrong :ROFLMAO:

it would not be possible to return refugees:

One aspect of the system is referred to as the Dublin system or the Dublin Regulation. This piece of EU law provides broadly that where an asylum seeker has been fingerprinted in an EU Member State but then moves on to another EU Member State, the asylum seeker can be sent back to the first country to have the asylum claim processed there.

For example, if an asylum seeker reaches Italy, is fingerprinted then travels to the UK and claims asylum, pretty much the first thing the Home Office will do is take fingerprints, check them against the central Eurodac fingerprint database and then if a match is found notify the other country and send the asylum seeker back there pronto.

There are currently several hundred such “Dublin removals” every year from the United Kingdom. It is system that the UK is very happy with, but Italy and Greece rather less so
 
We've already established that there is no legal or moral requirement for a refugee to register in the first country that they arrive.
There may be very valid reasons for a refugee to prefer to register in UK. Family, language, career, qualifications to name just a few.
Iranian students used to and still do come to UK to study. One such university's Iranian student population: "... students from Iran ... In 2016/17 we have 23 Iranian students ... " https://www.southampton.ac.uk/uni-life/international/your-country/middle-east/iran.page
Another uni reports: "30 students from Iran studying at Queen Mary" https://www.qmul.ac.uk/international-students/countries/iran/
Another Uni reports: "53 students from Iran" https://www.manchester.ac.uk/study/international/country-specific-information/iran/

We've also already established that there are no legal or moral basis for forcibly moving refugees, rescued from the sea by UK border force, to any other destination other than the UK.

As Motman states it is a relatively small number, a very relatively small number. compared to 120,000 in 2017 to Italy alone.
As there are already so many refugees in other southern Europe countries, it is hardly surprising if some prefer to travel further.
You seem to believe that just because someone claims asylum in any one country that there is some legal obligation in that country to grant asylum.
These migrants who enter the UK illegally can only be considered refugees if the government considers them refugees, because a lot of them don't claim asylum in the first safe country they enter they have their claims rejected.
The problem is that the British government isn't enforcing it's own rules, to many bogus asylum seekers and bent immigration lawyers are running rings around the system.
The principle of first safe country needs to be applied more rigorously,
 
Prove it.

Clearly they can't otherwise they'd have applied for asylum in France.
Just as I suspected...

A gutless armchair warrior who mouths off and then always dodges a direct question!
 
No, you have tried to 'estsblish' -but been proven wrong :ROFLMAO:

it would not be possible to return refugees:

One aspect of the system is referred to as the Dublin system or the Dublin Regulation. This piece of EU law provides broadly that where an asylum seeker has been fingerprinted in an EU Member State but then moves on to another EU Member State, the asylum seeker can be sent back to the first country to have the asylum claim processed there.

For example, if an asylum seeker reaches Italy, is fingerprinted then travels to the UK and claims asylum, pretty much the first thing the Home Office will do is take fingerprints, check them against the central Eurodac fingerprint database and then if a match is found notify the other country and send the asylum seeker back there pronto.

There are currently several hundred such “Dublin removals” every year from the United Kingdom. It is system that the UK is very happy with, but Italy and Greece rather less so
There is no legal requirement for a refugee to register in the first country of arrival.

Removal of a refugee, by a EU member to another EU member, to the first country of registration can only be expedited with the agreement and cooperation of the 'first country of arrival'. There is no existing database outside of the EU to facilitate such transfers between non-EU countries.
As you demonstrated Germany had sought and agreed a plan with 14 EU countries.
Why was there a need to seek and agree a plan, if there was already a rule?

Additionally, following Brexit, UK may not have access to Eurodac.
 
The principle of first safe country needs to be applied more rigorously,

It isn't and that's the reality. People like Himmy and Elall take it as a great opportunity to grandstand however simply because people will point out clear rules on asylum and immigration.

They both strike me as the kind to tell you what you should be doing to help everyone else but leave the house with zip up pockets.
 
Just as I suspected...

A gutless armchair warrior who mouths off and then always dodges a direct question!

Just as I suspected. No facts, plenty of grandstanding and virtue signalling.

The was no question to answer as long as it was based on a presumption without fact.
 
Totally irrelevant, just like Javid's comment.

Irrelevant how?

Suppose I might stroll on to the American Embassy and say I'm an asylum seeker now and they'll have to let me in because it's all irrelevant anyway.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sponsored Links
Back
Top