What you wrote is confused and contradicts itself.
this is what you wrote:
"
Within the EU the Dublin Declaration says states can return people to safe states from which they have come - though it's woolly.
The EU can say we've left so it doesn't apply, but then the EU is the last "place" the people came from. Therefore asylum could be refused on the basis that the EU is safe. In other words you can't claim to have nowhere else to go if you've just come from a safe place"
what do you mean by this...it makes no sense.
You cant state that asylum seekers dont need to claim in their first safe country and go on to then claim UK can refuse asylum because they came from the EU which is a safe place
it cant be both, which is it?
You are assuming that because you don't understanding something (which you misquote ) it makes no sense.
Ha! Is that what you told your schoolteachers?
Don't be silly. "Silly" is far too polite.
"Which is it"?
Neither. That's too simpllstic. It's a dispute. There are arguments and counter arguments. It can be reasonably argued that the EU can't hold us to more forgiving acceptance obligations that are granted by their Dublin declaration. Which, I thought would be obvious, and has legal precendent as a principle, is why the Dd is very relevant even though it doesn't apply to the UK.
Equally we don't have to agree with that declaration or be bound by it. UK law (as cited) now has caselaw which is bad caselaw- it attempts to make a declaration of right(s) for all eventualities, but only covers some so it's likely to be challenged.
The first safe country a migrant arrives in, is a valid place to claim asylum and be granted refugee status. There's no question about that one. He will however, be arrested when he arrives in it, and any subsequent country, because his entry is illegal. You can't just wander across borders.
As with Poland, a country can refuse entry to someone who wanders into it. If a guy jumps the barbed wire, what happens? The response isn't "OK fine we'll process you," though some would like it to be so, he's sent back without anyone relevant getting up in arms about it - despite Angie's unfounded pronouncements.
If our wandering man gets into a third country, that country can object to the second for not stopping its illegals, and so on.
The more recent statements about what should be done with migrants (Dublin 3, the UK case), go into the problems of one country being overwhelmed, the migrant's wishes, and so on, but nothing is rigid. Further, they don't match the infrastructure that exists so the suggested theoretical procedures, can't happen.
