What Did The Conservatives Achieve In...
Politics0 min ago
Immigration - Illegal?
4 Answers
I've been hearing and reading a lot of comments lately that state it is not illegal for anyone to get in to Britain by road, boat or air.
Immigrants are only 'illegal' when they claim asylum, are rejected and don't leave.
If that is the case why do I have to go through passport control when coming back from trips abroad?
Immigrants are only 'illegal' when they claim asylum, are rejected and don't leave.
If that is the case why do I have to go through passport control when coming back from trips abroad?
Answers
1 to 4 of 4
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by barry1010. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
To answer this question we need to turn to Article 31 of the UN Convention on the Treatment of Refugees. It is headed “Refugees unlawfully in the country of refugee” and it says this:
1. The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.
So the convention clearly recognises that there will be people who have entered or who remain in a territory without leave. It also recognises that there is a difference between those who present themselves to the authorities in the first safe country they find themselves in, and those who do not but instead travel to the destination of their choice. It says that the former should not be penalised. By implication it suggests that the latter can be. Those arriving by rubber boat from France are not coming "...directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened" in any sense.
Unfortunately the UN has taken it upon itself to place a different interpretation on that fairly straightforward Article. In fact it has decided unilaterally that it no longer applies at all. It has decided that refugees need not present themselves for processing in the first safe country they encounter but can instead “shop around.” They have decided that those travelling from Asia and Africa can roam across Europe unchallenged (abetted by the EU’s ridiculous Schengen arrangements) until they get to where they want to go. There is no basis for his but instead of challenging the UN’s proclamation, signatories seem to have meekly accepted it. The UN insists that those doing so should not be classed (or referred to) as “illegal migrants). But their own Convention certainly defines them as such and the UN should place an amendment before the signatories so they can decide whether to agree to it or not.
1. The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.
So the convention clearly recognises that there will be people who have entered or who remain in a territory without leave. It also recognises that there is a difference between those who present themselves to the authorities in the first safe country they find themselves in, and those who do not but instead travel to the destination of their choice. It says that the former should not be penalised. By implication it suggests that the latter can be. Those arriving by rubber boat from France are not coming "...directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened" in any sense.
Unfortunately the UN has taken it upon itself to place a different interpretation on that fairly straightforward Article. In fact it has decided unilaterally that it no longer applies at all. It has decided that refugees need not present themselves for processing in the first safe country they encounter but can instead “shop around.” They have decided that those travelling from Asia and Africa can roam across Europe unchallenged (abetted by the EU’s ridiculous Schengen arrangements) until they get to where they want to go. There is no basis for his but instead of challenging the UN’s proclamation, signatories seem to have meekly accepted it. The UN insists that those doing so should not be classed (or referred to) as “illegal migrants). But their own Convention certainly defines them as such and the UN should place an amendment before the signatories so they can decide whether to agree to it or not.
1 to 4 of 4
Latest Posts
Technology1 min ago
Does My Bum Look Bigger In These?
ChatterBank2 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles9 mins ago
