I will give you a simple example. Think of an insurance policy. Instead of listing absolutely every possible event that you might be covered for, it says you are covered for some broad areas and then specific things are excluded. That is how the Refugee Convention works.
“First safe country”
- Thread starter Notch7
- Start date
I will give you a simple example. Think of an insurance policy. Instead of listing absolutely every possible event that you might be covered for, it says you are covered for some broad areas and then specific things are excluded. That is how the Refugee Convention works.
Linky?
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 24,799
- Reaction score
- 5,345
- Country
Insurance law has nothing to do with it. Firstly insurance is governed by the legal doctrine of Uberrima fides.. and once you've googled that you'll realise that it makes you look rather clueless.
Utterly irrelevant to the broad legal principle I am trying to walk you through.
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 24,799
- Reaction score
- 5,345
- Country
read the ones I've already provided. or browse the tribunal database using the search feature.
Are you familiar with the Supreme Court ruling on Rwanda? thats not a bad one to read.
Tribunal decisions
You'd probably genuinely find some of the cases interesting (though depressing).
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 24,799
- Reaction score
- 5,345
- Country
It was your example.
Start with one area of research at a time.
Is the safe 3rd country concept being implemented - see the tribunal database for evidence.
Is it legal for a state to define its own rules for asylum admissibility. The answer is yes, but I feel you need to do your own research.
right - I'm off to join the bank holiday traffic
read the ones I've already provided. or brown the tribunal database using the search feature.
Are you familiar with the Supreme Court ruling on Rwanda? thats not a bad one to read.
Tribunal decisions
tribunalsdecisions.service.gov.uk
You'd probably genuinely find some of the cases interesting (though depressing).
Please just for once provide some actual useful information. You claim to know which cases are most relevant. Whereas, I don't. So please, just link to them. I don't remember the Rwanda case covering this point. Which parts do you think are most relevant.
What a sad cop out. When I understand something, I can explain it simply and lucidly and back it up with proper specific links. Not just point to databases etc. The only conclusion I can draw is that you are utterly clueless.
I have realised that you simply cannot follow a basic argument.
Last edited:
Some fall under that. A lot don't. Read your own links.
This however is still just as relevant...
Asylum seekers are not obliged to make their asylum claim in the first safe country they arrive in after leaving their country of origin.
Jog on.
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 24,799
- Reaction score
- 5,345
- Country
Let’s sum up what you have been provided with so far:
Conclusions of the Exco who oversee the convention - you dismissed this as an obscure document.
U.K. legislation giving grounds for refusing a claim as inadmissible - you question if it’s lawful
U.K. guidance to those issuing such decisions identifying among others where a claim can be ruled inadmissible (condition 4 and 5). You’ve ignored this.
An invitation to read the Supreme Court ruling on the decision to remove claimants with inadmissible claims (see above) to a safe 3rd country. You suggest it’s not useful information.
A link to a database full of such cases where you can pick almost any one and find what you need.
I’m not sure where you want to take this argument, but it would be helpful if you did a bit more reading up.
Or would you rather discuss insurance law?
Waffle.
It changes nothing regards 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.
Jog on.
But that doesn't change the Convention. It has no legal status. It is just a wish list of best practice.
It is a controversial and relatively new piece of legislation. I want to read the cases where it has been tested in the courts. You claim there are lots of cases and that you have read them. All I want at this stage is for you to provide me with links to a couple of the specific cases which you claim support your position. So that I can consider the decisions and the arguments being discussed on both sides. I have to say that I actually doubt whether condition 4 and condition 5 have ever actually been used in practice.
Irrelevant if, as I suspect, those conditions have never actually been used in practice.
It is not useful because it addresses a completely different issue. The Supreme Court was looking at whether asylum seekers could be sent to Rwanda to be processed. That is a completely different issue to whether the government can deny asylum claims as being inadmissible. The Rwanda case is utterly unrelated and of zero value here.
I don't want to spend hours on what could well be a wild goose chase when you say you have already read the cases and know which ones are relevant. Please just provide the links to the specific cases which you claim demonstrate your point.
All I want you to provide me with at this stage are links to the specific cases which you claim support your position. I have asked several times now. You claim to have read them. But you deflect and waffle rather than actually providing any links.
You missed the point completely. It was nothing to do with insurance law. I was trying to find a simple way to explain how legal documents are constructed as a way of trying to help you understand.
You basically seem to be attempting a strategy of throwing lots of irrelevant information at the wall in the hope that some of it sticks.
