Right to Asylum?

Question

Should a persons right to asylum be scrapped if they don't claim this right in the nearest safe haven from the place they are fleeing? e.g: An Iraqi fleeing persecution applies for asylum in New Zealand( or australia, UK, US etc) having clearly passed through several safe havens but just being a bit picky about the haven they would like to be safe in. My opnion is yes...whats yours?

Answer 1

I think we should let people sort out their own problems in their own country.  this means we should stop selling arms to dictators who are using these on their own people.

We would have great and open competition that way because people will do everything in their own way.

Answer 2

I agree with you....how can they claim to be searching for 'safety' when they pass through several 'safe' countries to get to the UK? Could it be that other 'safe' countries don't automatically give them handouts (even to send home to their families), free health care and provide them with food and shelter?

I can't say I blame the immigrants, I would probably do the same...it's this country's fault for giving them those attractive handouts... Stop those perks and you'd soon notice the decline in the number travelling all that way to get here.

If other countries, like Australia can have a strict immigration policy, why can't we?

SeaEff....good idea...why has someone given it a thumb-down?They've given all the good answers a thumb-down but have not put their own case forward...cowards!

Answer 3

Very good Question....but some Liberal dooo...gooder will report this as a rant and you being a Racist!! and get the Question Deleted..(SO MUCH FOR FREEDOM OF SPEECH!!) even though what you say is the truth....BUT!!! and a BIG BUT!! is...Under the So called EU Asylum ACT( that is from the Second W.War..)..The first country does not have to be the only safe haven...eg...As Somalia was a Dutch(Nertherlands) coloney years ago!! they had the right to move to Holland!! and as Holland does not give as much away as the UK in Hand outs and FREE things..with FREE movment of EU people..WOOOOOO..we got a house shortage?? TB on the rise...HIV out of control plus more and more problems..And ME as a Born here  Tax Payer foots the bill!! ...All thanks to New Labour open door policy on enterants...Where do they want to COME!!???? HERE!!....Makes my blood boil when the USA sent Troops to Sadmalia to help with food hand outs....and what happens?? All the Waring factions TURN on the ones sent to help..and when the USA pull out....carry on with there own war....And leave all the people with no food...as they Pinch it for there own armys!!! F.ing taken tha wee wee....So we in my city get  stuck with up to 10,000 from the for said country...and some wonder why NO houses...This is not a rant just a fact!! take a look in LONDON!!!I rest my case......(for now)  

Answer 4

Dead right.

Answer 5

Well that is the current case. Basically the first safe country an asylum seeker reaches they have to apply for. They cannot apply for another country unless that country rejects them offically.

This process helps weed out all those who keep running looking for easy benefits, citizenship etc.

Answer 6

yes i feel that a person should accept residence in the first safe country they get to.

if they have money to fly across the world to get to uk and loose all theur id on the way

that is not a genuine case.

enough now too many immigrants here

we need to deal with waht we have, kick out those who are criminals, who wont work, who have lied etc

then we will have room in  our jails to put our own home grown problems

Answer 7

As soon as they pass through a safe country they should then lose the right to claim asylum as in my view they then become economic migrants.

Answer 8

Absolutely right, if you were really worried about your life, surely you'd run to the nearest safe country, rather than risk travelling half way round the world with the risk that you could be returned if your asylum fails. or is this just an excuse to get into a country that has a far better standard of living and the hand outs are free !!! or am i being too cynical ??

Answer 9

Most so called asylum seekers are not genuine. The whole concept of asylum should be scrapped because it simply provides an opening for illegals. We are not responsible for the actions of foreign Governments.

Answer 10

Yes I agree and wonder why we have so many asylum seekers here in Ireland when we have no direct flights from a number of the countries they are fleeing from, but then they can always go to the high court here (which is a very costly exercise) courtesy of the taxpayer and contest any decisions not in their favour. We have a Somalian woman who is suing the state because her husband and family didn't receive notification of leave to reside here when issued, we haven't stopped apologising since.  The loonies are running the asylum alright.  

Answer 11

Yes!!!

Answer 12

I agree with you, if things were that bad for me I would just go to the nearest safe haven.

Answer 13

Perhaps your point is perfectly valid and it would be a great idea in concept. Sadly, our govt / leaders would never agree to it. We in the UK are often taking in people that have passed through 3 or 4 European countries. They sit for weeks if not months in France waiting for a quick opportunity to sneak across the Channel. France of course - even encourages them (in the past) by building holding camps near the Chunnel and ferry ports.

We've got asylum so wrong in the UK. I admire Australia and the US (to some extent) in the way that they stop people from taking this advantage of them to the same degree.

Answer 14

Yes I beleive so.  

I've read stories about asylum seekers saying they "wanted" to come to the UK as they "had family here" or "wanted to go to an English speaking country".  Thats not how asylum is supposed to work.   You don't get to "choose" your country.  If you're fleeing for your lives, you just get accross the border into a safe country and stay there until its safe for you to return home.  You claim asylum in the first safe country you reach which, if you're coming from Iraq or Afghanistan or Somalia is NOT the UK!!!

The whole asylum system as it is just provides an opportunity for illegals to get into the UK.   It needs drastic overhauling.  And I agree the French have previously encouraged illegals to get into the UK by building their asylum camps right next to the Chunnel . . . they were probably glad to get rid of them and offload them onto us.

I get so sick of hearing about local Housing Associations in my area having to employ Somali-speaking staff because so many of their tenants are former asylum seekers, and yet there are Welsh families sitting in B&B for weeks because there is "not enough" social housing" for them.

I think our generous Welfare Benefit system, NHS, Social Housing and that fact that our Government are generally a bit of a pushover has a major influence on why many asylum seekers "choose" the UK.  If all benefit/Government support was withdrawn and asylum seekers were expected to support themselves or rely on charity help I'd be interested to see how many "chose" to come here . . .