“First safe country”

[MNW67]

The convention is clear on that

This is the only important one. Can you explain how the convention prevents it. Just a very quick explanation, not a link to the Convention.

 

[motorbiking]

Do you accept that the convention sets out the obligations on a state who has signed up to it?

 

[MNW67]

Do you accept that the convention sets out the obligations on a state who has signed up to it?

I don't want to play games. Please just give a straight forward answer. When I understand things, I can explain them in lucid short paragraphs.

 

[blup]

No obligation to seek asylum in first safe country (difficult in any case if you’re locked in a container, it’s not Greyhound), plus all the practical difficulties of “returning “ them, helped by us taking back control and simultaneously losing it (Dublin 3)
The UNCHR document you (mbk) quote at part 58 (c) contemplates granting asylum in the final country as one practical solution.

 

[motorbiking]

The convention sets out the rights and obligations of those who have signed up to it. Our domestic law is based on the convention and our courts have ruled with that in mind.

If the right or obligation does not exist, it has not been upheld. Because it does not exist.

A person is not obliged to find refuge in the nearest safe country - that does not give them a right, having found safety in country B, to then decide to move to country C.

This is known as having links to a safe 3rd country. It is grounds for C to rule the claim inadmissible. In the example below:

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.

Assumptions:
Syria - unsafe place (country A)
Turkey - safe place. (country B)
UK - also safe place (country C)

A person having fled A to B and found safety, does not have the right to move to C.

 

[MNW67]

The convention sets out the rights and obligations of those who have signed up to it. Our domestic law is based on the convention and our courts have ruled with that in mind.

If the right or obligation does not exist, it has not been upheld. Because it does not exist.

A person is not obliged to find refuge in the nearest safe country - that does not give them a right, having found safety in country B, to then decide to move to country C.

This is known as having links to a safe 3rd country.

This all seems very vague.

I will try to start from first principles.

Presumably, there is a definition in the Convention of what a refugee is and who can apply for asylum. Where in the Convention does it state that somebody does not need to be accepted if they have links to a safe third country.

 

[noseall]

as predicted. Nosenout hasn't a clue.

You mean when you wrongly cited UK laws regarding migrants that have already begun the claims process as opposed to what everyone else is talking about.

 

[motorbiking]

This all seems very vague.

I will try to start from first principles.

Presumably, there is a definition in the Convention of what a refugee is and who can apply for asylum. Where in the Convention does it state that somebody does not need to be accepted if they have links to a safe third country.

Where in any law, contract, treaty etc etc does it normally define things that are not within the scope of the law or contract?

It is a convention that imposes obligations on those who have signed up to the convention. Obligations that are not imposed are not included.

 

[motorbiking]

You mean when you wrongly cited UK laws regarding migrants that have already begun the claims process as opposed to what everyone else is talking about.

You'll be able to show that having links to a safe 3rd country is based on applying for asylum in that country. Good Luck with that.

 

[MNW67]

Where in any law, contract, treaty etc etc does it normally define things that are not within the scope of the law or contract?

It is a convention that imposes obligations on those who have signed up to the convention. Obligations that are not imposed are not included.

You seem to struggle with basic legal principles and have got them totally back to front.

The Convention says:

A refugee is somebody fleeing persecution etc. in their home country.

and

A country must accept an application for asylum from a refugee.

Nowhere in the Convention is this obligation for a country to accept an application qualified by anything that says they don't have to if the applicant has links to a safe third country. This is one of the most basic principles of legal interpretation. If you create an overarching obligation, you need to specify the exceptions. You have managed a fantastic display of reverse logic.

 

[noseall]

You'll be able to show that having links to a safe 3rd country is based on applying for asylum in that country. Good Luck with that.

I'm not interested in your deflective waffle. The Oxford statement is correct 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.

Your other blather is irrelevant.

 

[blup]

A person is not obliged to find refuge in the nearest safe country

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

that does not give them a right, having found safety in country B, to then decide to move to country C.

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.

 

[noseall]

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

And conveniently missed the bit where it says 'exceptions' etc.
He's picked a specific targeted obscure rule, that applies to limited number of migrants, and thinks it's enshrined in UK law, lol.

 

[motorbiking]

You seem to struggle with basic legal principles and have got them totally back to front.

oh here we go again - you are learning as we go and its me who has misunderstood.

I've already provided you with evidence of when the safe 3rd country concept emerged and the domestic law that enshrined it.

The Convention says:


A refugee is somebody fleeing persecution etc. in their home country.

in summary yes

and

A country must accept an application for asylum from a refugee.

So according to you - https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/41/section/80B is a breach of this obligation.

Nowhere in the Convention is this obligation for a country to accept an application qualified by anything that says they don't have to if the applicant has links to a safe third country. This is one of the most basic principles of legal interpretation. If you create an overarching obligation, you need to specify the exceptions. You have managed a fantastic display of reverse logic.

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

 

[motorbiking]

And conveniently missed the bit where it says 'exceptions' etc.
He's picked a specific targeted obscure rule, that applies to limited number of migrants, and thinks it's enshrined in UK law, lol.

I even gave you a link to the law.