As far as I understood the law, if you are a genuine asylum seeker, you must claim so at the first democratically elected country you come to... and theres a lot of those between albania etc. and Britain...
Maybe I'm misinformed, but thats how I understood the law...
2006-12-19 19:40:01 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Yes youre right,
theres a lot of difference between the govt spiel and the actual situation.
Whenever blair is confronted with public discontent, on paper he reacts ,but in reality its just spin and nothing changes.
ie, closing of the sangatte centre in france.
Ye, it got closed ,great success? not quite, britain agreed to take 1200 asylum seekers unqualified asylum seekers instantly and an agreement to take a measured amount monthly from france.
France was laughing ,the immigrants were laughing with guaranteed asylum status and the taxpayer......well the taxpayer wasnt laughing.....in fact he didnt really know why his taxes were going up because the govt kept the dark deal from the public.
France was taking england for a fool , allowing nightly escapes from sangatte, they couldnt believe their luck when witless blunkett "sorted it all out".Wouldnt it have been cheaper to employ soldiers to guard our borders like in every other country?
lets get blair and brown out before they do any more damage!
2006-12-19 22:10:08 · answer #1 · answered by ? 3 · 3⤊ 1⤋
You are indeed correct ! There is now approx 5 million asylum seeker`s staying in the whole of the UK ( and that is just the legal one`s we know about )
The worst thing ever done by this government was to want to be part of Europe now the flood gates have been opened and there is no chance of them ever closing now ,so we just have to accept the fact that they are now part of our society ! ( whether we agree or not ) It is a well known fact that they come to England for our state hand out`s ! The government say we need to be part of Europe for our economy ! that is utter RUBBISH !!!
England was a small enough island to make it a tax free haven !
We should of brought back the death penalty years ago and there would of been no asylum seeker`s in this country ( The law state`s that no person can seek asylum in a country that holds the death penalty as capital punishment )
2006-12-19 22:06:30 · answer #2 · answered by charlotterobo 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
You are misinformed.
1) Democratically elected governments have no bearing on the granting of asylum.
2) The asylum seeker is eligable for asylum in any nation that is willing to take them in
3) If they have a link to a particular country (i.e. family already there) then they have a legal claim to stay there, provided they meet the other criteria.
4) If they come from a country that is a former dependant (in Britain's case - any former part of the Empire/Commonwealth)
2006-12-19 20:05:30 · answer #3 · answered by Monkey Hobbit 2 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Thats a terrible attitude to have ,heartless and selfish Britains record with its treatment of asylum seekers is also heartless in sending genuine asylum seekers back .Other countries who can afford it a lot less than the uk are swamped with refugees who would not have to leave their countries if it wasn`t for the interference of this country and America now and in the past ,Syria is a good example they have about a million Iraqis there and thousands more arriving every week .if there was any justice this country and America should be made to take them all in since they are fleeing what we caused
how would you feel if you had been born in the places and had the life these people have, it`s luck of the draw which country your born into no one gets to choose.we should think our selves lucky and help who we can. 1in 10 British people live abroad i hope they get treated better than the way foreign peoople are looked down on and patronised here.
2006-12-20 00:20:35 · answer #4 · answered by keny 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
you are correct in that refugees should apply for asylum in the first state they come to, believe me many do that`s why Iran has the highest number of refugees in the world and places like Tanzania are also flooded out, most refugees walk out of wars carrying nothing but kids.
Refugees are questioned on this point by our dear old home office and if it is found that they have not applied in a previous nation then they ARE refused refugee status. some of the places that they could have applied from are not safe to be repatriated to, especially if they were in starvation like Ethiopia so humanitarian grounds for leave to remain will be granted.
Britain has signed the Geneva convention which obliges us to accept refugees, we accept a very small number and treat many applicants appallingly, I`m not being patronising, you realy have no idea some of the stuff the government does to avoid granting asylum, I didn't either. The Albanians would have to show that they did not get out of the wagon between there and here to have any case, otherwise they would go back to France or wherever, but you try and get France to accept them on that basis.
2006-12-19 20:32:49 · answer #5 · answered by bletherskyte 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
For goodness sake. We are all descended from conquerors or immigrants yourselves. Have a heart.
Legally I think you are correct. What if the country where you first seek refuge refuses. Then teh next. Then the next.
We have a problem in Europe where xenophobia (racism by a kinder name) is rife and the 'rules' apply to some but not others. Take for instance the centre set up by the French. "We don't want them. Don't need them. Let them 'venez a l'angleterre'."
So yes, I think you are correct, but there are some real refuge seekers coming to the UK. Also - some of the other answers here may be talking more about migrant workers rather than political immigrants.
2006-12-19 20:02:55 · answer #6 · answered by saracenthemoor 2 · 1⤊ 3⤋
they are probably criminals hoping to flee justice of their residing house u . s .. I keep in mind that white electorate of each u . s . locate it confusing to declare asylum interior the united kingdom, they don't fit in with Labour's plan of enforced multiculturalism right here.
2016-12-01 00:00:01 · answer #7 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i would love the idea of putting up the full go away sign but to b realistic this would only deter the very few that acctually declare themselves to imagration they would simply enter the country illegally you are kind of right it was a law that jack dtraw tried to impliment but europe vetoed it
2006-12-19 20:10:08 · answer #8 · answered by phillip b 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
We should be like America, talk about freedom and accepting everyone, then refuse. refuse and refuse.......
What i don't understand is why after they are refused entry, we let them stay for months at our expense, and why they can stay after breaking our laws.......if i wasn't so old i'd emigrate!
2006-12-19 20:27:41 · answer #9 · answered by Doug 1 · 1⤊ 1⤋
hi i agree but England is an open door for any one to come in what happened we were great Britain
2006-12-19 19:56:34 · answer #10 · answered by juls w 1 · 1⤊ 3⤋