Question for those that think asylum seekers should have to settle in the closest safe country

Imagine a hypothetical situation where the UK was under attack and was no longer a safe place to live. Would you accept that you now have to live in Ireland? All 70 million brits all now have to move there and there’s no choice in the matter.

Do you think Ireland can handle that many new people?

What if you have family members in Spain, USA, Australia, Canada, should you be allowed to go and move to their country?

 

That's hurt my eyes

 

Fixed it! Tapatalk on mobile isn’t happy at the min, not sure why…

 

The rules are that you should present at the first safe country. It doesn’t really seem to be enforced though.

For the UK would mean you could travel directly anywhere, but not through anywhere else on the way.

 

The First Safe Country point is a myth perpetuated by the usual sources...

https://freemovement.org.uk/are-ref...,disqualifying themselves from refugee status.

 

Myth’s a bit strong. Even the article you link to says that’s the expectation under the Dublin Convention

 

No there isn't. This is simply incorrect.

https://fullfact.org/immigration/refugees-first-safe-country/

 

Now you’re conflating the Geneva/UN Refugee Conventions and the Dublin Convention.

Bonus: Again the article you cite says UK law permits the UK to refuse the application of any applicant that could reasonably have been expected to make a claim elsewhere.

 

I can link Amnesty International too if you like.

Whatever the source, the point remains the same. There is no law that states Regugees must claim asylum in the "First Safe Country".

 

Specifically because of World War 2. When countries went from "first safe country" to bloody dangerous invaded and occupied by the evil people that the refugees were fleeing from in a matter of days/weeks. And we, shamefully, refused to take a number of Jewish refugees and returned them to their deaths.

The UN Convention states that a refugee/asylum seeker must travel directly to the country where they claim asylum. This does not specify the means of transport and walking is just as valid as flying first class. Legal precedence means that it is taken that a person has not claimed asylum in another country on the way - although they can pause their journey to rest/recover. So someone fleeing Palestine can pause at a camp in Lebanon (perhaps to wait for a family member/friend) then continue their journey to a country where they wish to claim asylum.

Roughly 80-90% of refugees end up staying in camps in the nearest neighbouring countries - so relatively poor places like Turkey, Colombia, Uganda and Pakistan have the largest numbers. Of the remainder - usually young males who are stronger and fitter - who end up making the journey, we (UK) get around 10% of those that enter Europe. Some Middle Eastern countries (Saudi Arabia for one) don't subscribe to the refugee convention, but are currently hosting millions who they exploit as low-paid immigrant workers.

 

Do you think people who have been refused asylum muliple times in european countries should be able to come here and have another go?

 

But not necessarily stay there. You can apply for asylum anywhere you choose.

 

Stop posting facts. Immigrants bad.

 

As I posted, if someone applies for asylum in another country, it precludes them applying for asylum here unless they can present special circumstances - with evidence - as to why they should be reconsidered here. However, the Tories have broken the asylum system to the extent that instead of just taking a few days to identify someone and deporting them (there are also issues with access to various EU databases due to Brexit) it now takes months if not years.

 

Hadn't the bloke who attacked the woman and child in London with acid had his asylum claim rejected twice and got it granted at the 3rd attempt and was also a convicted sex offender?

 

Indeed, I hope all those people who enabled him to stay in the country, despite his conviction, are proud of themselves.

 

89% of all sex offenders in UK are white - and the vast majority are either close to the family or related to the victim (I can't find the figure for the UK, but in the USA its 93%).

There are always exceptions, but if the asylum system hadn't been underfunded through political choice he probably wouldn't have been granted asylum.

 

It's hardly relevant to the case I mentioned the bloke had to failed asylum claims and in this time was convicted of a sex offence. He got his asylum granted 3rd time lucky. How many chances do you get to claim asylum? The bloke apparently spoke very little English so why he travelled all the way from afgan to here alone is odd.

 

And again, the Tories have underfunded the asylum system so that it fails and they can tell us the only option is to remove our human rights. The case you cite was deliberately made to incite an element of society to think that asylum seekers = bad. I don't mean that particular individual, but the backlog is so large that one (or more) of them, somewhere will commit serious crimes and give the politicians the headlines they want to put forward their case.

The actual crime rate among immigrants (of all types) is far lower than the crime rates among the "native" population - however, there are always bad apples who would be identified and deported by a working asylum system.

 

The case I mentioned wasn't deliberately done to make asylum seekers look bad as you put it. The bloke threw acid all over a woman and her child. He should have never been in the country the system did fail the u.k as how many times can you re appeal after been denied asylum and even after he had committed crimes. The bloke travelled 2 continents to be here and spoke little to no English.