mercalia wrote:I think your idea of asylum shopping is perverse - asylum shopping is picking and choosing? going for the best deal, which the EU idea of first safe haven is supposed to stop?
I think that's an attempt to redefine asylum shopping - asylum shopping is obtaining asylum from several countries and picking the one you like best, such as a refugee in one country applying for asylum in further countries. It is not simply heading for a country where you feel safe, rather than stopping in the first country that is on some bureaucrat's list as safe.
Giving asylum is ultimately an act of CHARITY and not some god given human right?
As others have pointed out, it is indeed a human right. I find the reluctance of some to honour this human right rather distasteful, some sort of wish to rewind back to before WW2.
Freddie actually got the asylum shopping bit right as it currently stands for the European Union, which regards itself as one area for this:
AlaninWales, I have mentioned several times in other threads that by law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dublin_Regulation
) an asylum seeker is only such until they come to the first safe country adjacent to their own, where they are obliged to apply for asylum. Once they have applied for and been granted asylum, they become a refugee. Once they move beyond the first safe country, they become migrants; they are no longer asylum seekers nor refugees.
That EU law might no longer apply to a Brexited UK, though.
There is also the small fact that only 30% of the people in the camps in France are actually from Syria; whether 70% have any legitimate claim to refugee status in any country, would be something that had to be taken on a case by case basis, with a number of them likely failing to prove they are in need of refuge (not withstanding the fact neither France nor the UK is the place they should attempt to claim it).
I disagree about where they should attempt to claim it, but the mixing of migrants with refugees does seem to be the problem and there seems no solution which is both cheap and fair.
AlaninWales wrote: mjr wrote:
AlaninWales wrote:Quite a lot really: In France for example
French law does not apply to the UK (at the moment, at least) and an act doesn't become correct just because someone else does it.
As I said (but you conveniently missed out of your quote
AlaninWales wrote:... so we would not exactly be out of line with our EU-member neighbours if we used the same logic to ship asylum seekers back to the safe country they had just exited..
That is exactly the same logic as they use to refuse asylum.
I cut that but answered it: an act doesn't become correct just because someone else does it. Shouldn't we do better than that? Isn't Britain meant to be a bastion of freedom? Are we comfortable in engaging in a race to the bottom on human rights?
mjr wrote:Nothing there exempts us from considering the application, nor does it enable us to dump our duty to refugees on France, does it?
Nothing there exempts us from considering that they had come from our safe European neighbour and had no right to claim that they were unprotected in that state. Consideration time? About the interval between the ferry arrival and the next departure.
Neither convention nor protocol say people have to request asylum in the first state they reach, do they? So I don't agree with that, especially once we no longer have a union with France.
mercalia wrote:So Farage is giving up the leadership of UKIP and eventually retiring to normal life, having achieved what he promised to deliver ( how many can say that? ) .
But Farage hasn't delivered: not his £350m to the NHS, not the immigration cut and he's even quitting before the UK is out of the EU. Quitting now smacks of some sort of power struggle between funders and politicians in UKIP, but I expect it'll become clear soon.
What a shame as we are left with middle class stuffed shirts establishment figures who think they are better than the rest of us but pretend they arent? A sad day, no one else to insult and irritate them?
Oh plenty of people insult and irritate them, so we need not morn the departure of one never-grown-up public schoolboy.