calais migrants should claim asylum in france

No they dont have to make claim but the Geneva convention does state they must make their claim in the first safe country. By these grounds, the UK can deny any 'refugee' asylum since they could have claimed it in France. I guess its not law but it is stated in the Geneva convention.

Care to link?

I learnt it in an old geography lesson

But this is one i quickly found: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/libertycentral/2010/sep/21/claim-asylum-uk-legal-position

That supports the point I made and not the one you did.

No they dont have to make claim but the Geneva convention does state they must make their claim in the first safe country. By these grounds, the UK can deny any 'refugee' asylum since they could have claimed it in France. I guess its not law but it is stated in the Geneva convention.

We are talking about this claim. the first safe country is inciopriated into what are known as the Dublin rules. Ita an arrangement between countries and doesnt bind indviduals. Its mean to eal with who deals with claims but as the rules dont work they are near collapse and largely ignored.

On a practical basis asulum seekers aboid being fingerprinte or registering as that will get them sent back to that place for an asylum claim.

But the 'dublin rules' you are referring to can strictly speaking be fully enforced. Britain can kick out asylum seekers because they did not claim asylum in the first safe country.

Doesnt work like that.

The UK wont send many people back who entered the EU via Italy and Greece because its been ruled illegal to send them back on human rights grounds.

Also the Dyblin rules are a little more complicated than first safe country as there are plenty of exceptions. i.e first safe country only lasts for 12 months.

The Convention does not impose any restrictions on where they can claim asylum. There is nothing that requires them to make a claim in France, so they are perfectly entitled to have their cmaim considered in the UK if they make it here.

Care to point out where this is dealt with in the Geneva convention as you claim?

Article 33 of the convention prohibits "refoulement" of refugees – ie removal to places or countries where their lives or freedom would be at risk on account of their race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. The convention also imposes other obligations on states, such as to secure equal treatment for refugees and issue special travel documents to refugees, which can be used instead of their national passport.The effect of the convention is that states are required to determine asylum claims made by anyone within their territory. The principal exception to this is where there is a safe third country to which the person can be sent in order for substantive consideration to be given to their claim. Removing a person to a safe third country will not engage the removing state's obligations under the convention unless doing so exposes the person to a real risk of refoulement.There is no obligation under the refugee convention or any other instrument of international law that requires refugees to seek asylum in any particular country. There has, however, been a longstanding "first country of asylum" principle in international law by which countries are expected to take refugees fleeing from persecution in a neighbouring state. This principle has developed so that, in practice, an asylum seeker who had the opportunity to claim asylum in another country is liable to be returned there in order for his or her claim to be determined.