At least once a month, I watch the BBC 'Question-Time', which often puts intellectual folks into a bind.
This week, the question came up....because of illegal migration into the UK...from France....someone finally asked in some pointed way if France was 'safe'. Meaning? If it were safe and the migrant boarded a boat there....then the act of leaving France meant nothing, and the migrant should have avoided the British isle.
I pondered over this. It's the same way in the Med...once you land in Greece, Italy, France, or Spain....the safe status falls into play, and trying to sneak off into Germany makes no sense.
Is France 'safe'?
I'm not an authority on France. I admit.....once or twice a year....I cross the border...going 12 km into France....mostly to shop at a particular French grocery (Cora). Beyond that, if you asked me if it was safe....I'd respond that it seems to be as safe as Mainz or Wiesbaden.
Once you say France is safe....does that trigger a problem for French people who say the country is unsafe? Well....yeah, this could be a slight problem.
All of this making little to no sense to the common working-class guy? Yeah, that seems to be a problem that is developing.
4 comments:
It all plays on this myth that you're supposed to stop at the first "safe" country. No such law actually exists.
The EU and the Schengen Agreement business says 'such-and-such'....if you are escaping a place and intend to declare for asylum (at least in Europe)....the first place you arrive on the search for 'safety'...is where you have to declare.
If you asked me on legality, it's a question-mark. But you can figure half of all refugees are 'shopping' for the best deal, and the UK/Germany are the one offering 4-star deals.
Actually it doesn't. Find the paragraph. It was proposed but never ratified.
The Refugee Convention actually gives refugees a degree of choice as to where the seek asylum, in fact. Article 31 of the Convention protects refugees against prosecution for illegal entry to a receiving country in certain circumstances:
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.
This is not a right of entry. But it is protection against penalisation if the person does manage to evade the border guards and enter a country anyway.
This understanding has been recognised by the courts in England and Wales. In the landmark case landmark case of R v Uxbridge Magistrates Court (ex parte Adimi) [1999] Imm AR 560 Lord Justice Simon Brown held that refugees did not have to claim asylum in countries through which they pass to reach safety in order to be protected by Article 31:
Post a Comment