Every week, there are headlines about illegal immigrants, sneaking under lorries and even hiding behind car seats – all so they can claim asylum in ‘soft-touch Britain’. Why don’t we send them back to their countries? Are they taking us for a ride?
To answer that, we really need to understand the law and process around asylum – and so does much of the media.
Why are there so many ‘illegal’ asylum seekers?
Well, the thing is…
There’s no such thing as an illegal asylum seeker.
Eh?
It’s completely legal to claim asylum.
The UN drew up some international laws on this after the Second World War (1951). They’re in a big document called the Refugee Convention, which protects people fleeing persecution and trauma.
The European Union (EU) also follows some extra guidance that can relate to asylum, such as the Human Rights Act.
There’s a general principle in the EU about claiming asylum in the first safe country you reach – but this isn’t a hard-and-fast rule (nor a legal requirement), for various reasons.
So what exactly is an asylum seeker?
An economic migrant moves to improve their lot. They may fancy a change of scene or they may live in terrible poverty, with little chance of finding a job.
An asylum seeker is asking for protection from persecution – and everyone has the right to do this.
The newspapers sometimes mix up these terms or keep things vague. But if you spot any confusion, it should sound off alarm bells.
Who’s hiding in lorries to get here, then?
It’s impossible to say without knowing more. They could be asylum seekers, economic migrants, or a mix of the two. (A person’s home country might shed some clues, but we shouldn’t jump to conclusions.)
If an economic migrant hides from authorities or overstays their visa, they break UK law.
But an asylum seeker has the right to stay in the UK while we process their claim.
Why do they get off so lightly?
Asylum seekers flee unimaginable horrors.
They can only claim asylum in another country once they get there, but the journey itself can be extremely dangerous. Around 4,000 people die every year (with many more unrecorded) – so you have to be leaving something awful to take the risk.
Bear in mind that some asylum seekers can’t officially leave their country or afford a plane ticket. They have to get out any way that they can. Their lives could depend on it.
In fact, article 31 of the Refugee Convention says countries should not penalise refugees who “show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.”
This includes:
- clinging under a vehicle for four hours in the Eurotunnel
- fleeing suddenly, in absolute fear, so not taking a passport or other ID
- giving their life-savings to a people-smuggler, to take them somewhere – anywhere – so they can feel safe again.
However you get here, if you’re looking for safety, you’re not breaking the law.
So the country isn’t overrun with “bogus refugees”?
We’ve all seen that phrase in the papers, but it doesn’t actually make any sense.
An asylum seeker can legally stay here while waiting for a decision on their case.
If the government agrees they need protection, then they get refugee status and can breathe a sigh of relief. They’re safe. Now they can stay here long-term or permanently. And they have nearly all the same legal rights as any UK citizen.
What about the ones we turn down?
If the government decides an asylum seeker can’t stay, they will send them back as a ‘refused asylum seeker’. (But this doesn’t make them a ‘criminal’, either.)
Some can appeal the decision, as they have fresh evidence to support their case.
Others have no choice but to go home or stay here on a short-term basis, as they cannot yet go back. Perhaps they are too sick or their country is just too dangerous right now.
And no, coming from a dangerous country doesn’t always mean you’ll get refugee status – even if you’ve left a raging volcano or war-torn country. You have to show that you, specifically, are at risk of persecution.
The asylum system in the UK is actually pretty tough – with tight criteria that you must prove you meet.
Donate to our Europe Refugee Crisis Appeal
Find out more
Go straight to the source
- 1951 Refugee Convention
- GOV.UK: claim asylum in the UK
- International Organization for Migration report on migrant deaths (PDF)
Help us get the story straight
- Read the other blogs in this series
- Keep the conversation going: #factsnotfear
Mar 28, 2015 @ 01:25:52
Those who are in France, who hide in and under lorries to get into the UK are illegals. When they make it into the UK and they claim asylum they are bogus asylum seekers, illegals.
Current EU regulations require refugees to apply for asylum in the country where they first entered the EU – those who left France for the UK are illegal immigrants.
Sep 15, 2015 @ 13:19:51
A person cannot be illegal.
Jun 13, 2016 @ 18:17:25
The what do you call people who have entered a country illegally , and refuse to request asylum , and want to choose the country they go to ? , They have not respected the UN conditions for claiming asylum , and have lost all rights , except deportation . The majority of these migrants are economic migrants , ( as the EU admits) and refugee status does not give the right to permanent residence or the possibility to work .
Jun 13, 2016 @ 18:25:49
Then try entering a country at an airport and see what happens . Obviously you travel little outside the EU . These migrants never try to enter Arab or Asian nations as they know the consequence , even for Muslims entering a Muslim controlled country without authorization , its prison , often punishment and then deportation . Try entering Arab countries , China , Indonesia or Malaysia without authorization !
Jul 01, 2016 @ 16:23:14
Hi PG,
Most asylum seekers (86 per cent) flee to a country over their nearest border. That’s why countries like Turkey, Pakistan, Lebanon, Iran, Ethiopia and Jordan host the most refugees. (Tellingly, three of these share a border with Syria.) Find out more in our blogs on this topic: https://blogs.redcross.org.uk/tag/get-the-story-straight/
Best wishes,
Ros
Apr 01, 2018 @ 10:28:24
Then why are there so many in Europe ?????????
Apr 01, 2018 @ 10:27:38
A person who has entered a country without authorisation is considered to have entered illegally and should be punished .
Anyone who does not agree to this is supporting human trafficking , and criminal activity
Oct 25, 2015 @ 06:58:26
I fully agree with Angus. You stop fleeing persecution when you get to a country of safety after that you are shopping as an econimic migrant for your preferred option. All those in France are illegals.
Mar 30, 2015 @ 17:14:07
Hi Angus,
Thanks for your comment.
Please do take another look at this blog, as it addresses your points. I will go back over these:
At point someone hides in a lorry, we have no idea whether they are an asylum seeker or not.
The fact that someone enters the UK illegally does not make them a bogus, or illegal, asylum seeker. It simply means that they did not enter the UK legally. The UN Refugee Convention makes it clear that there will often be justified reasons why refugees are unable to enter a country legally, and that refugees should not be penalised for doing so.
Current regulations do not require refugees to apply for asylum in the first country they enter within the EU. This is a principle rather than rule, and countries interpret it differently.
In fact, the asylum systems in EU member states are very different, with some far easier for asylum seekers to engage with than others. People may attempt to reach the UK because they perceive the UK system to be fairer and more efficient. Others may have family here, or other personal links.
However, most of the world’s asylum seekers flee to a developing country (their nearest border) and not the UK.
Best wishes,
Sophie
Jul 30, 2015 @ 18:20:04
Any immigrant hiding in a lorry to get from Calais to the UK is not an asylum seeker by definition, since they should have claimed asylum in the first country they escaped to. For most of the recent batch, they will have had to go through at least two other Western European countries to get to that far.
They are illegal immigrants.
The Red Cross should remain apolitical and I will not donate further until it is.
Sep 07, 2015 @ 05:28:16
The Dublin Regulation (Regulation No. 604/2013; sometimes the Dublin III Regulation; previously the Dublin II Regulation and Dublin Convention) is a European Union (EU) law that determines the EU Member State responsible to examine an application for asylum seekers seeking international protection under the Geneva Convention and the EU Qualification Directive, within the European Union. It is the cornerstone of the Dublin System, which consists of the Dublin Regulation and the EURODAC Regulation, which establishes a Europe-wide fingerprinting database for unauthorised entrants to the EU. The Dublin Regulation aims to “determine rapidly the Member State responsible [for an asylum claim]”[1] and provides for the transfer of an asylum seeker to that Member State. Usually, the responsible Member State will be the state through which the asylum seeker first entered the EU.
Sep 17, 2015 @ 01:51:29
I have always admired and supported the Red Cross but given your support for “illegal immigrants” which to my mind is anyone who tries to enter this country from another safe country without submitting themselves to the authorities, I can no longer do so.
You have in a fit of madness turned yourselves from a valuable part of the solution into a significant part of the problem.
Jun 13, 2016 @ 18:19:16
Sorry to say that you are wrong , the UN conventions requires asylum seekers to make the demand in the first safe haven , and this they are NOT doing
Jul 01, 2016 @ 16:17:22
Hi PG
The UN’s 1951 Refugee Convention does not place an obligation on individuals to apply for asylum in the first country they reach.
We are a neutral and impartial humanitarian organisation, so we do not take a view on people’s decisions as to what countries to flee to or claim asylum in. We focus on supporting and responding to the needs of refugees regardless of the journey they have taken.
Regards, Ros
Mar 30, 2015 @ 18:36:36
Would it not be far better to change the current treaties so asylum can only be granted regionally to the conflict zone? That way we avoid bogus asylum claims all together since asylum is only granted regionally we could also use the money that is freed up providing asylum within EU member states to improve living conditions in these regional camps the place where the vast majority of refugees reside (since they want to go back as soon as hostilities end).It would end the practice of people smuggling and attemps to enter the EU by fortune seekers hoping to exploit asylum law loopholes.
Aug 26, 2015 @ 08:52:44
This is a great video about the distribution of refugees from Syria. It is less than 2% that reaches Europe.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_QrIapiNOw
Mar 31, 2015 @ 14:07:24
Hi Roland,
Thanks very much for your comments. As we know though, there’s no such thing as a bogus asylum seeker. Also, the amount of asylum seekers coming to the UK – or even the EU – is relatively small. Most flee over their nearest border to a developing country.
We do share your concerns about the danger that people fleeing persecution are put in by illegal agents and traffickers. We work to support those people, as well as advocate on their behalf for safer, legal routes to seek asylum. You can find some more info on the trafficking situation here.
All the best,
Sophie
Aug 13, 2015 @ 17:30:18
“There is no such thing as a bogus asylum seeker”. What a smug and self-justifying comment. Someone who claims asylum while knowing they are not entitled, for example by lying, is bogus. You have extended your “there is no such thing as an illegal asylum seeker” to cover bogus asylum seekers, and by doing so betray your political bias.
Jun 13, 2016 @ 18:21:35
There are bogus asylum seekers . Many come from countries which are not in conflict , just with economic problems .
Many of these people have been proved not to come from the countries they say , as they cannot even speak the language
Apr 03, 2015 @ 11:08:15
Thank you for this article. No one likes to think that others are coming to this country and taking advantage. But this concept has got out of hand now thanks to countless TV documentaries about benefit scroungers, illegals, etc, and of course thanks to the likes of certain politicians, especially before a general election. We easily forget how good we have it in the UK. Yes, we work long hours; yes, we pay taxes and expensive housing. But we are not in danger of being persecuted, imprisoned, raped, tortured or executed for our beliefs. Please let’s stop being so selfish and have some compassion for people whose lives are a nightmare and are just trying to survive. Asylum seekers are not here for our 50″ TVs or our jobs. They just want a chance at a dignified life.
Apr 16, 2015 @ 20:38:54
Thank you very much for this very helpful article. For several years I taught this concept (immigrant / asylum seeker / refugee) to Year 12 students and I feel very strongly that this should be part of the school curriculum. Students and young people should be informed about the realities to help avoid the kind of knee jerk prejudice, misinformation and frankly downright inhumanity and intolerance we so often see in these discussions and in papers like the Mail and Express. Well done for your work in countering this.
Jun 10, 2015 @ 13:48:59
What a load of rubbish, people come here for the benefits and many take those benefits back home with them again and continue to claim them i.e polish people are doing this and refusing to give this right up.
In a case where somebody is seeking asylum from countries like africa or iraq then im afraid it has to be said there are many safe countries in between britain and those countries. Why dont they stop in them ? Coz there not as easy going and generous as braitain.
This is not about compassion,inhumanity or selfishness,its about looking at the facts and saying “why did they travel through several safe countries to get here”.
I have worked alongside immigrants for years and they have told me exactly what their motives for coming to britain are and its money, benefits, good housing.
Nobody comes here to escape torture, unless.you are from france you cant claim we are the first safe country.
At a time when our own people are using food banks its time to get real.
Jun 11, 2015 @ 10:34:30
Hi James, agree that this is about looking at the facts – which is what ‘Get the story straight’ is all about. Someone from Poland who is coming to the UK to work or supposedly claim benefits is not in the same legal category as someone from Syria who is fleeing war and torture. However, we all have free movement in Europe – which is why some Brits will move to somewhere like France to retire or set up a business. Regarding asylum (as that’s what this blog is discussing), an asylum seeker cannot claim benefits until they get refugee status. In terms of people coming here and not the first safe country, the vast majority of people head for a neighbouring country when they have to leave their homes and give up their lives. Last year, there were 13 million refugees worldwide. The top five countries for hosting these refugees were Pakistan, Lebanon, Iran, Turkey and Jordan. In Lebanon, one in every five people is a Syrian refugee. By contrast, there are 126,000 refugees living in the UK, which is 0.19% of the population.
You can read here for more info on the numbers of asylum seekers in the UK: https://blogs.redcross.org.uk/refugeesservices/2015/04/extreme-flood-alert-are-we-awash-with-refugees/
There is also a blog on the financial support they get while here: https://blogs.redcross.org.uk/refugeesservices/2015/04/asylum-in-the-uk-adding-up-the-true-costs/
Lastly, here is Ramelle’s story of about why she had to flee – not for money or good housing but as a “victim of war”: https://blogs.redcross.org.uk/refugeesservices/2015/05/i-am-the-neighbour-youve-never-met.
Best, Sophie
Jun 11, 2015 @ 15:21:48
Sophie, i understand the difference between freedom of movement and asylum seekers of course but the point i was making is that living standards are better in the uk which drives people to come here.
Brits moving abroad is a totally different kettle of fish, brits go abroad to do skilled work and contribute to that economy and in the case of spain have been propping up their economy for decades.
That is the opposite of what happens in britain,immigrants come here and live 6 to a house and are exploited by companies in agriculture mainly,i live next door to and have worked with immigrants like this so i speak from experience.
On asylum seekers i am sure theres some terrible stories and i dont begrudge helping these people BUT why have any of them come through so many countries to get here ???
If your leg was on fire would you run by 6 buckets of water to stick your leg in the 7th to put the fire out ?? No you would use the first.
This is not paper talk sophie, watch the news. These asylum seekers are blatently telling bbc news reporters what their intentions are and why they come here.
Jun 11, 2015 @ 15:27:24
Also sophie, you say asylum seekers get no benefits while awaiting a decision on their applications , well how do they live then ?… I cant see how they can live with no money,housing or care.
I can only think they turn to crime, as making people live in poverty with no support breeds crime for obvious reasons, i myself would steal to feed my kids if i had no money as any parent would.
So telling us they get no benefits on arrival is not easing anyones mind im afraid.
Jun 12, 2015 @ 10:05:48
Hi James, thanks for your further comments. Sorry if I wasn’t clear – this blog sheds more light on the financial support received, so I recommend it: https://blogs.redcross.org.uk/refugeesservices/2015/04/asylum-in-the-uk-adding-up-the-true-costs/. An asylum seeker, while awaiting a decision, cannot access state benefits. They do receive some financial support, but it works out at about £5 a day. It is less that someone receives on income support. There is no link between asylum and increased crime, but destitution is nevertheless a distressing issue for people at various stages of the process. In terms of people being driven to the UK because of living standards, I can again only comment on asylum seekers, as that is the focus for this blog series. Over 80% are not coming to the UK or other developed countries. They are instead heading for their nearest border. We also touch on the reasons a minority of asylum seekers might come to the UK in this very blog. I do feel that the Dublin Regulation (‘first safe country’ principle) is a confusing piece of legislation, so we may well run another piece on this in the near future to zoom in on some of the legal ins and outs.
All the best, Sophie
Jun 12, 2015 @ 18:01:17
Hi sophie, thanks for your replies, i am not saying there is a massive problem with asylum seekers coming here or that millions come but i do have a hard time understanding why any of them at all come so far, and we only have to watch the news to see the numbers of asylum seekers trying to get here, there are camp sites set up.
Although britain is not the most generous country in terms of the benefits paid out, our benefits are the most accessable, and we are one of the few countries.with a housing benefit system and of course we have the nhs.
Jun 12, 2015 @ 18:12:29
Isnt it a contracdiction to say these asylum seekers dont even know about the benefits here before they get here and then in another post you say they may come here coz they think its a fairer and more efficient system ?
If they know nothing about the benefits then how do they know how effecient the system is ?
Jun 16, 2015 @ 17:39:05
Hi James, I can’t see that in a post – was that something I wrote in reply to a comment? Either way, I think they key words there are ‘perceive’ and ‘efficient’. Some (and again, we’re talking about a minority) may think the UK is fairer in terms of its system and processes (not benefits). ‘Fair’ is with regards to that efficiency – some asylum seekers have to travel through countries that are almost as dangerous as the ones they escape. However, it’s important to remember that the small number of people who claim asylum here do so for lots of different reasons – and everyone has a different story or experience to tell. For instance, some may try to reach here as they already have a family member here, which would make settling in that much easier. As before, apologies if I’ve explained anything poorly and thanks for the comments.
Best,
Sophie
Aug 25, 2015 @ 14:57:27
‘A fairer more efficient system’ could refer to the asylum system rather than the benefits system. Maybe people come here to claim asylum because they believe there is a higher chance their claim will be accepted and they will be allowed to stay. That would be a completely separate issue to what money they get while being considered or after.
Jun 17, 2015 @ 21:05:44
Hi again sophie, i respect your comments and understand the points you have made, Like i say, i dont really have a problem with people coming here but i do not believe they are coming to escape torture, as you say some may come here bacause they have a family member here but that in my opinion is not asylum seeking.
Asylum seeking is seeking a safe haven at the first available opportunity and that is not the uk in any of these cases, im afraid coming to join a family member is not a valid reason for an asylum seeker to be here and if they are hiding in backs of trailers and underneath trucks to join a member of family here thats illegal and immoral coz they were already in a safe country , france.
Jul 25, 2015 @ 20:55:59
Thanks for your comments James, you are 100% spot on. seek asylum in the first safe country is key to understanding the problem. As we are an island all these immigrants are illegals as they have ignored free countries they have passed through. I like your fire analogy very much. You will never get a straight reply From Sophie in the discussion thread, she should become a politician.
Jul 29, 2015 @ 15:02:28
Thanks alan
Jul 31, 2015 @ 10:31:22
Reading several interviews with the migrants that are on the french border today in thr mirror, each one says their reason for wanting to come to the uk as benefits, support ,education and housing.
This confirms my belief that they come here coz they think its the promise land.
Aug 08, 2015 @ 00:10:37
Can the red cross explain how asylum seekers in France can look to be seeking asylum in the UK?
Unless these asylum seekers have had a plane chartered for them or a ship scheduled from prosecution etc in their home land then its impossible for them to claim asylum in the UK.
With that in mind, asylum seekers in France not claiming asylum in France are going against the principles of EU asylum and attempting to enter the UK illegally means they are justly called illegal asylum seekers, unless I’m missing something?
Aug 08, 2015 @ 08:26:57
Alec – it’s already been explained that there is no such thing as an “illegal asylum seeker”. An asylum seeker can seek asylum in any country they like. They are expected to do it in the first safe country they reach, but that is a principle rather than a law.
Aug 11, 2015 @ 07:18:15
How can those people currently trying to enter the UK illegally from Calais, be considered “asylum seekers”? If they are genuine, they should have claimed asylum in the first safe country they arrived in – invariably not France and very definitely not the UK. Those people should be considered as illegal immigrants.
Aug 24, 2015 @ 17:49:26
Dear Sophie,
this was a very interesting blog article. I lost faith in the asylum system many years ago, when as a student, I realised that all those in the queue in front of me were using vouchers, the council local to my university publicised the fact that it was providing accommodation in fine Victorian housing (better than anything I could ever dream of affording, even now), along with the use of mobile phones, and so on. Although this was under the “everyone’s winner” regime of Labour, I finally decided that the country should look after its own rather than the world and that, well, there was some preferential treatment.
Fast forward over a decade, and I see the mass social change which has swept the country as a result of economic migration, asylum and whole families joining refugees and other migrants. As a nation, is it not us that should be voting on this via referendums and such? Why is that, statistically, when a conflict ends, these refugees don’t return? For example, in cities such as Sheffield and Birmingham, we have large populations of Somalian refugees: recently, there has been much made of Somaliland (the Autonomous Region) being safe…. so, should we not be encouraging them to return!? Should “Leave to Remain” be scrapped?
It’s all very interesting. Many thanks,
S.
Sep 03, 2015 @ 10:42:11
Reading some of the comments here makes me despair at the intelligence level and closed-mindedness of the Great British public.
Why are so many people, who presumably have read the article, STILL seemingly unable to distinguish between asylum seekers/migrants/immigrants and asking why they have not claimed asylum in the first safe country they got to?
. A ‘migrant’ can be anyone who moves from one area to another, for all sorts of reasons. If I move from the UK to Poland to take up a job that I have applied for, I am a migrant. If I risk my life on a dinghy to cross the Med from Syria to Turkey, I am also a ‘migrant’ but for very different reasons. One is moving simply for economic reasons, the other is fleeing a war zone.
It is all very clearly explained in the article. THERE IS NO LAW that says asylum seekers MUST seek asylum in the first safe country they arrive in. How difficult is that to understand?
Sep 03, 2015 @ 18:04:55
Gillingham, no there may be no law but do you not question the validity of an asylum seeker who has come through 5/6 safe countries to get here???
Wake up, they come here coz of our NHS and perceived generous benefits
Sep 05, 2015 @ 08:49:34
James, have you ever thought how you would feel if you had the luck to be born in one of these dangerous countries and how you would do the best thing for your family? Just imagine how you would feel for one minute. If you have empathy I guarantee you will feel different about it.
Sep 11, 2015 @ 22:56:49
Paula, treat people as they are and not how you would like them to be.
Not every person from outside of Western Europe you come across is the person they claim to be.
You appear to be a nice but very naïve person believing that all people from bad places are purer than the driven snow. Only a fool would not vet a stranger walking into their home. Ask the people from the bad places if they would allow unfetted access to their own homes – the answer may help you.
You are being very disingenuous to James. You do not know his background. As to what he would feel being born in a dangerous country, perhaps you should ask what the young men and women from these dangerous countries would do. Ask her would she leave her mother/father, sister/brother, husband/wife or God forbid her child behind in a dangerous country to seek a safer life in a different country.
After all, ensure you look at the facts about the demographics of these unfortunate people who have left even more unfortunate people behind.
Sep 03, 2015 @ 18:05:34
Gillian **** sorry. Predictive text error
Nov 03, 2015 @ 13:47:46
Paula, if you read all my comments above you will see i have great sympathy for these people who are born into war torn countries.
The point i am making is that some of these countries are a long way from the uk and if i was seeking asylum from them i would personally stop in the closest safe country and not just keep on travelling, its my belief that they are not asylum seekers at this point and are now economic migrants, lets get real here and call it how it is.
I would not mind but in my experience they come here to escape their country and then they want to live by their own countries rules and customs.
I speak from experience, i have many foreign friends and former work colleagues and i wish them no harm, i am just speaking the truth
Dec 26, 2015 @ 22:31:03
The argument presented here is flawed. While its legal to apply for asylum anywhere the 1951 convention says you must have a well founded fear of persecution and be in imminent danger. Once you are in a safe country that no longer applies. In the case of the EU its even stronger as the Dublin accord requires asylum cases to be lodged in the first EU country. People fingerprinted there are returned, which is why the cheats chant no fingerprints. You can get the truth about refugees at http://www.ezralevant.com
Jan 18, 2016 @ 03:22:01
Having spent much of my adult life working in and attempting to stabilise war damaged and still at war countries I have developed a rather cynical attitude to the problems being discussed. One observation I have made concerning situations where mass migration is taking place is that those who flee these countries are very often large proportions of the younger generations of men and women. They have no intention to ever return and if successful at claiming refugee status are not normally required to leave their new country and return when a more normal level of safety resumes. This hugely compounds the problems of the countries they leave as it causes the economy, rebuilding and any resistance to oppresive regimes to stagnate. Those who are left behind (often the older generations) subsequently have a considerably worse outlook. By not contributing to finding a solution in their country of birth those who do not return are abandoning their countymen and often both prolong wars and help their oppressors achieve a strategic aim – ethnic or religious cleansing. Whilst not everyone can be expected to fight to preserve their homeland, ensuring refugees return and help in rebuilding these countries after others have is something that should be a priority for legislators in receiving countries. The alternative is to leave these poor counties of origin shattered indefinitely. Whilst this may seem to be hard on those who have ‘escaped’ it is a something that is for the greater good of all those left behind. Incidently those who are ‘asylum shoppers’ who target specific countries in which to make their claim are both making a sensible decision based on opportunity created by our government and showing likely intent that they intend to never return to their homeland. This fault lies with the tempting systems in the receiving countries and authorities squeemishness about applying the Dublin Accord.
Feb 08, 2016 @ 12:37:27
Well surely Cameron would have a far better chance of gaining a ‘yes’ vote when the Referendum takes place if he could get the ‘principle’ of asylum seekers seeking asylum in the 1st safe country they arrive at replaced by a law to that effect passed by the E.U.
But he won’t even try. Because he knows he’s got no chance. So the only way to stop this nonsense is to vote to leave the E.U. and then pass our own law to that effect.
Sep 01, 2016 @ 09:09:02
All current UN agreements concerning asylum are out of date , made in a different time and under different circumstances , and all need re-negociation .
Why are the vast majority of asylum seekers healthy young men of military age , who have refused to fight fore their country and their rights , yet demand rights in Europe .
They have also crossed several safe havens , and have thus lost their right to asylum .
The EU is not the only region that should accept asylum seekers , yet most Arab and Asian nations ,( often Muslim ones) refuse to accept any asylum seekers , yet your organization says nothing about this , that indicates hidden agendas and opaque operations .
Jan 19, 2018 @ 17:20:28
Do not conflate Asylum seekers with economic migrants.
Asylum to be sought in the first safe country.
In these cases you are part of the problem.
Jun 30, 2018 @ 02:35:37
thanks