The Student Room Group

It's a disgrace that Britain is not welcoming the Calais refugees

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Reue
They've already escaped violence and warfare long before reaching Calais.


The only rule relates to the fact that they must have left their country and be unable to return due to fear of persecution.

Where they claim asylum has nothing to do with where they must claim, just where they are fleeing from.
Original post by 999tigger
Thanks for reminding me about the law, alwats good you understand it and include all of it.

The law is actually contained in the 1951 UN Convention on Refugees.

http://www.unhcr.org/uk/1951-refugee-convention.html

Dublin regulations are only some administrative rules created by EU countries that operate between themselves on who deals with an asulym claim. the rules dont actually work and ahve been more or less abandoned. The EU now has an agreement with Turkey and is following the quota route.



https://www.amnesty.org.uk/truth-about-refugees


From your link

The relevant conditions include that the person is shown to have previously entered that other EU country or made a claim there.

If they are in France then the Dublin agreement applies


also

11. According to this use of the concept, asylum-seekers/refugees may be returned to countries where they have, or could have, sought asylum and where their safety would not be jeopardized, whether in that country or through return there from to the country of origin.

http://www.unhcr.org/uk/excom/scip/3ae68ccec/background-note-safe-country-concept-refugee-status.html
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by BaconandSauce
From your link

The relevant conditions include that the person is shown to have previously entered that other EU country or made a claim there.

If they are in France then the Dublin agreement applies



Read the whole qiote.

Thats what Dublin says but that only applies to EU countries as to who should deal with the claim. Dublin is rarely applied these days as they have been more or less abandoned by the EU. For many years the UK has not returned asylum seekers to either Italy or Greece, which are the main countries of entry.

That obligation does not apply to the asylum seeker. the 1951 Convention does not require them to make the claim in any particular country.
Original post by 999tigger
Read the whole qiote.

Thats what Dublin says but that only applies to EU countries as to who should deal with the claim. Dublin is rarely applied these days as they have been more or less abandoned by the EU. For many years the UK has not returned asylum seekers to either Italy or Greece, which are the main countries of entry.

That obligation does not apply to the asylum seeker. the 1951 Convention does not require them to make the claim in any particular country.


I have

I have also update my original re the 1951 convention regarding the issue of safe country
Original post by Iridocyclitis
They just want the chance to enter Britain to escape violence and warfare

Look I hate France as much as the next true blue Englishman but it isn't that bad.
Original post by BaconandSauce
I have

I have also update my original re the 1951 convention regarding the issue of safe country


Well it doesnt appear to have gone in.

Dublin is applied very patchily and doesnt work or is ignored.
Thats why its being abandoned by the EU and replaced by a quota sustem. Do some rsearch and you will see thats the case.
Original post by 999tigger
Well it doesnt appear to have gone in.

Dublin is applied very patchily and doesnt work or is ignored.
Thats why its being abandoned by the EU and replaced by a quota sustem. Do some rsearch and you will see thats the case.


I know that in the future this will change be we are talking about NOW.

http://www.unhcr.org/uk/excom/scip/3ae68ccec/background-note-safe-country-concept-refugee-status.html
Reply 147
Avatar for Seelowe
Seelowe
They are not refugees. They are economic migrants who refuse to settle in France because the British benefits system is more generous.

I couldn't care less about them. They have chosen to live in squalor.
Original post by BaconandSauce
I know that in the future this will change be we are talking about NOW.

http://www.unhcr.org/uk/excom/scip/3ae68ccec/background-note-safe-country-concept-refugee-status.html



You are mixing the two concepts up. They come from different places.

It is possible to return refugees of a particular country, but it is difficult and the UK will only consider it in certain circumstances. This is why we 40-45% of asylum claims are successful. Dublin obligates countries, but not individuals.

If you are talking about now, then explain why the UK takes asylum claims at all and they arent all being made in Italy, Spain and Greece or any interveming country between there and the UK. Dublin hasnt really been applied for many years because it doesnt work and thats why they have been abandoned.

If you read the Dublin rules then you will also see there are plenty of exceptions to the discredited first safe country rule.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Iridocyclitis
They may not speak French but speak English and they may have family and friends in the UK who they are desperate to see.

They can learn French.

Or go live in one of the poverty ridden ghettos in the banlieue where a knowledge of French is optional anyway.

After the Jungle it will really feel like home...
Reply 150
Avatar for Reue
Reue
20
Original post by 999tigger
The only rule relates to the fact that they must have left their country and be unable to return due to fear of persecution.

Where they claim asylum has nothing to do with where they must claim, just where they are fleeing from.


My point was the credibility of that statement, not the legalities of potential future asylum claims. They are not in danger and have not yet claimed asylum so are nothing more than illegal economic migrants*
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Reue
My point was the credibility of that statement, not the legalities of potential future asylum claims. They are not in danger and have not yet claimed asylum so are nothing more than illegal economic migrants*


I get your point, but the difference between whether they are classed as asylum seeker or rfugees does boil down to legal definitions agreed between countries.

The way it works is that the danger doesnt ahve to be in the country they are currently located, but a fear of persecution in respect to the country they have fled. Thats the definition of refugee.
Pretty depressing how many people's views condense down to "let someone else deal with it". I can't for the life of me understand how you can feel morally justified in telling other countries they should be caring for refugees whilst refusing to do it yourself.
Original post by Plagioclase
Pretty depressing how many people's views condense down to "let someone else deal with it". I can't for the life of me understand how you can feel morally justified in telling other countries they should be caring for refugees whilst refusing to do it yourself.


because they are not refuges (as they won't be going back)

This is the issue if we knew they were going to go home once the conflict has been resolved then there would be no issues
Original post by BaconandSauce
because they are not refuges (as they won't be going back)

This is the issue if we knew they were going to go home once the conflict has been resolved then there would be no issues


From Wikipedia:


A refugee, generally speaking, is a displaced person who has been forced to cross national boundaries and who cannot return home safely


Can't see anything in that definition that says a refugee by definition must return back to their country eventually. The conflict in Syria is not going to be solved in the near future, the country is in absolute ruins and by the time it's in a state where people could reasonable expect to go back, they will have set up new livelihoods and would have every right to stay.
Original post by MeYou2Night
I think everybody who supports the UK taking refugees, should be forced to take 2 into their own home. Lead by example right?

I wonder how long they'll support it then..? Not very long, I guarantee as they'll realise what a backwards culture they come from.


What a load of racist garbage. Should everyone who supports wind farms have a wind generator in their garden? That's not the point, the point is we can give them a safer future than the area they come from.
Original post by Plagioclase
From Wikipedia:



Can't see anything in that definition that says a refugee by definition must return back to their country eventually. The conflict in Syria is not going to be solved in the near future, the country is in absolute ruins and by the time it's in a state where people could reasonable expect to go back, they will have set up new livelihoods and would have every right to stay.


Then they are migrants and should be treated as such
Original post by Plagioclase
Pretty depressing how many people's views condense down to "let someone else deal with it". I can't for the life of me understand how you can feel morally justified in telling other countries they should be caring for refugees whilst refusing to do it yourself.


I am, fundamentally, a humanist. Unfortunately though, we can't deal with everyone's problems, everywhere. There's nothing the average Brit can do about the Calias crisis, we could ofc "let 'em all in) but then tha's not down to the average individual or collective - it's down to the powers that be - so what else can be done? I have became rather impassive to the whole thing as my hands are tied, nor would I let them in at any rate.
Original post by BaconandSauce
Then they are migrants and should be treated as such


No they're not migrants, they're refugees. I don't understand why you've suddenly invented your own definition of what refugees are. Throughout history refugees have fled their own countries and settled in others.
Original post by Danny the Geezer
I am, fundamentally, a humanist. Unfortunately though, we can't deal with everyone's problems, everywhere. There's nothing the average Brit can do about the Calias crisis, we could ofc "let 'em all in) but then tha's not down to the average individual or collective - it's down to the powers that be - so what else can be done? I have became rather impassive to the whole thing as my hands are tied, nor would I let them in at any rate.

There is indeed little that the average Brit can do about the crisis which is why we have a government which is supposed to be dealing with these things for us and taking up its social responsibilities rather than graciously negating the hard work to the rest of Europe and demanding only benefits (hmmm that reminds me of something else too...)
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by CHARLIEBSS
What a load of racist garbage. Should everyone who supports wind farms have a wind generator in their garden? That's not the point, the point is we can give them a safer future than the area they come from.


Yes they should, and that's a totally different thing anyway. People who support us taking refugees should take some on themselves and pay for heir keep instead of somebody else (I.e the taxpayer) . Typical hypocrisy of the left.if they truly care they will.

They are in France, they are safe.

And how on Earth is that racist?
(edited 7 years ago)

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you