A Political Thread pt. 2

[Which Tyler]

They could just allow people who are looking for asylum to claim for it in their country of origin or in the next country in the example of refugees. Then you wouldn't have 1000s trying to cross the channel everyday.

Second part, yes, a diplomatic nightmare, but should be possible.
First part no, because if they felt they could stay put for long enough to be processed, then they wouldnt be seeking asylum

 

[McTallshort]

Second part, yes, a diplomatic nightmare, but should be possible.
First part no, because if they felt they could stay put for long enough to be processed, then they wouldnt be seeking asylum

But doesn't every other country in the western world have the ability to process people's asylum claims before they actually get to that country? In the UK you can only claim asylum when you get here.

 

[Which Tyler]

But doesn't every other country in the western world have the ability to process people's asylum claims before they actually get to that country? In the UK you can only claim asylum when you get here.

I... don't know.
I had thought it was only within the EU (thanks to Shengen) that you could apply from off-shore.
I guess it's easy to just assume that what you're used to, is standard practice; added to the need for a signed treaty with Rwanda for this one, and "floods" of small boats on the Med.

If it is standard practice, then I will happily stand corrected on that.

 

[Reiser99]

I thought the whole point of asylum was you had to be in the country to claim it. Asylum is basically asking for protection as if you return home you might be persecuted, abused or killed etc...

Claiming asylum from another country just opens the system up to suggesting why don't they claim asylum in that country instead. It's why the U.K has tried so hard to say refugees should claim asylum in the first safe country they arrive in, so that there is little chance of many making it to Britain.

The reality is the government loves to equate refugees with immigration and the two are not the same. However, for many people in the uk, especially those the government is targeting with this scheme, the difference is too subtle for them to grasp.

 

[McTallshort]

I thought the whole point of asylum was you had to be in the country to claim it. Asylum is basically asking for protection as if you return home you might be persecuted, abused or killed etc...

Claiming asylum from another country just opens the system up to suggesting why don't they claim asylum in that country instead. It's why the U.K has tried so hard to say refugees should claim asylum in the first safe country they arrive in, so that there is little chance of many making it to Britain.

The reality is the government loves to equate refugees with immigration and the two are not the same. However, for many people in the uk, especially those the government is targeting with this scheme, the difference is too subtle for them to grasp.

What about when people go to embassies and claim asylum?

 

[Gavin]

What about when people go to embassies and claim asylum?

I used to work with asylum seekers and you can't claim asylum in an embassy.

You can only claim asylum, in the UK at least, with the Home Office, who are only allowed to be in the UK.

If as asylum seeker tried to claim asylum from a UK embassy in an EU, you could argue the UK representatives would query why they don't claim it in the country they are in.


When the UK was within the EU it fell under the Dublin Regulation which meant that if someone claimed asylum in another EU country then they could be removed to that country if they attempted to claim asylum in another EU country.

After Brexit the UK can't deport asylum seekers now to other EU countries.

 

[Bada-Bing!]

Johnson should stay because of Ukraine? Nonsense. The war makes it more urgent he go | Jonathan Freedland

The people of Ukraine are fighting for values that the British prime minister tramples on, says Guardian columnist Jonathan Freedland

www.theguardian.com

 

[Which Tyler]

 

[McTallshort]

I used to work with asylum seekers and you can't claim asylum in an embassy.

You can only claim asylum, in the UK at least, with the Home Office, who are only allowed to be in the UK.

If as asylum seeker tried to claim asylum from a UK embassy in an EU, you could argue the UK representatives would query why they don't claim it in the country they are in.


When the UK was within the EU it fell under the Dublin Regulation which meant that if someone claimed asylum in another EU country then they could be removed to that country if they attempted to claim asylum in another EU country.

After Brexit the UK can't deport asylum seekers now to other EU countries.

Thanks Gavin

 

[Reiser99]

What about when people go to embassies and claim asylum?

Gavin obviously answered in regards to the UK, but embassies are considered the territory of that country. It's why Assange claimed asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy.

However, this is just my musings, please don't take as gospel or factual.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Gavin obviously answered in regards to the UK, but embassies are considered the territory of that country. It's why Assange claimed asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy.

However, this is just my musings, please don't take as gospel or factual.

Embassies are not considered the territory of the country the represent. They are however afforded many protections and are outside the jurisdiction of normal police forces.

Assange didn't really have asylum in the Ecuadorian Embassy, he had sanctuary.

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

yeah embassies are under the jurisdiction of the country that has their ambassador there but are still the territory of host nation. Asylum is just term of law so it doesn't really have a set definition. If Ecuador called him an asylum speaker cause they were using their diplomatic immunity to protect him (for whatever reason) then he's a refugee.

 

[Reiser99]

Ah ok, fair enough

 

[Bada-Bing!]

 

[Reiser99]

Patel personally approved Rwanda plan launch after civil servant concerns

A civil servants union says the plan is "divisive" but officials will have to implement it or leave.

www.bbc.co.uk

Deterring illegal entry would create significant savings and the fact that the savings could not be quantified precisely should not prevent action from being taken.

"Yes we know the plan is slightly immoral, heartless and possibly illegal, but look! We saved a whole £2.87 by doing it.

On a serious note, Patel directly putting her neck on the line which is only the second time in 30 years a Home Secretary has done so would lead me to think it might cost her her job. But hey, PM and Chancellor can break the law so what are the chances of her resigning when this goes ***s up?

 

[Bada-Bing!]

Why Brexit Britain is turning purple with shame | Stewart Lee

The government’s catalogue of embarrassments found a perfect symbol last week in a 500-tonne mountain of rotting beetroot

www.theguardian.com

 

[Amiga500]

According to Putin it's changed roles and is now a submarine

Its actually performing a special undersea operation right now.

 

[Amiga500]

Stalking horse?

HAHAHA

Horse?

I wouldn't demean a donkey by comparing it to Patel.

Nor would I call her a stupid cow as that is demeaning to both stupid people and cows.

 

[Gavin]

 

[Reiser99]

Is that his actual account?