Family to be deported from Sheffield

[999tigger]

I watched the local news and there is a family that are going to be deported as they were in Poland before they came here. They have been told by the Home Office that they should have claimed asylum in Poland so they are going to be deported in two weeks. How come they are not saying this to all the people queuing up at Calais and telling them they can't come and should claim asylum in France?

 

I believe its this man?

http://www.itv.com/news/calendar/2016-08-17/family-living-in-sheffield-living-in-fear-of-deportation/

 

 

His asylum claim has been rejected, but there doesnt seem to be a reasonable report as to why. Obviously they think he should claim in Poland and perhaps they believe the fact he was working in Poland that removed his fear of persecution. Its hard to say without looking at the judgment.

 

 

It may be that immigration are very loosely applying the Dublin rules, which are an adminstrative set of EU rules that dont really work. They decide which country takes responsibiliyu in the EU. Asylum seekers arent bound tio claim in any particular country so there is nothing wrong with him in not claiming.

 

In contrast there are blocks on returning people to Italy and Greece because of human rights cases. Most of the asylum seekers come in through those countries.

 

What happens in France is up to the French. they obviously wnat to claim in the UK and theres nothing which makes an individual claim in any country, they can choose. In contrast the UK might try to invoke Dublin, but returning them to Greece is not an option.

Not sure if the case law has changed but theirs been a block for years.

 

French arent bothered they dont want them as they have enough and realise more will go to Calais anyway. First safe country obligation runs out after 12 months, lots in calais been there longer.

 

One reason they might be returning him is that he registered in Poland i.e fingerprints, in which case thats where he has to apply. Need to see judgment to know what the arguments were.

[Santo]

Really? Have you thought that through at all?

 

Happy as in safe. Like the refugees from Syria in Lebanon. Perhaps my phrasing was poor....

 

---------- Post added 17-08-2016 at 23:16 ----------

 

why is this news ?. they were supposed to claim asylum in Poland but carried on to GB why ? . now they are to be deported . sounds like someone ,somewhere is doing the job they are paid for

 

Errrr because the father claims he was getting threatened in Poland. Did you not see it on Look North?

[999tigger]

I don't think so....

 

If you are a true refugee you would be happy in the first safe country you hit.

 

If you continue on to another country afterwards surely you become an economic migrant. What most people think of when they say asylum seeker (erroneously).

 

Doesnt work like that .

 

Its all set out in the UN Convention on Refugees.

Asylum seeker can claim asylum in whichever country they like.

An asylum seeker is someone who funnily enough seeks asylum. Its a specific term.

A refugee is someone whose case is determeined in their favour that they are fleeing persecution.

A failed asylum seeker may well be just an economic migrant.

Just becayse you pass through countries does not turn you into an economic migrant otherwise we would oblu ever get claims from from airports or those fleeing Ireland and France etc.

 

The first safe country is to do with Dublin Rules which are administrative and created by the EU. They are largely not enforced these days as they are unworkable.

 

If you wnat to explain asylum law to me, then link me up.

[Santo]

Doesnt work like that .

 

Its all set out in the UN Convention on Refugees.

Asylum seeker can claim asylum in whichever country they like.

An asylum seeker is someone who funnily enough seeks asylum. Its a specific term.

A refugee is someone whose case is determeined in their favour that they are fleeing persecution.

A failed asylum seeker may well be just an economic migrant.

Just becayse you pass through countries does not turn you into an economic migrant otherwise we would oblu ever get claims from from airports or those fleeing Ireland and France etc.

 

The first safe country is to do with Dublin Rules which are administrative and created by the EU. They are largely not enforced these days as they are unworkable.

 

If you wnat to explain asylum law to me, then link me up.

 

It appears I read too much right wing press and believed the first safe country rhetoric. You are indeed correct.

 

I was responding to this post from Orzel:

 

"They should claim asylum in first country in EU."

 

Which makes no sense at all.*

 

In the case of this chap, from what I heard on Look North, which, apart from Keeley the weather girl, never has my 100% undivided attention:

 

He was some kind of whistle-blower or dissident in Iraq and ended up getting shot so he fled to Poland (didn't catch why Poland) and got a job at the Iraqi Embassy there. However, he received threats in Poland so fled to the UK. Now the UK wants to send him back to Poland.

 

That's my understanding. Correct me if I misheard.

 

*A lot of people I know use the term asylum seeker when they mean immigrant in general, not necessarily a refugee or someone actually seeking asylum. I thought that was the case here.

[Eater Sundae]

It appears I read too much right wing press and believed the first safe country rhetoric. You are indeed correct.

 

I was responding to this post from Orzel:

 

"They should claim asylum in first country in EU."

 

Which makes no sense at all.*

 

In the case of this chap, from what I heard on Look North, which, apart from Keeley the weather girl, never has my 100% undivided attention:

 

He was some kind of whistle-blower or dissident in Iraq and ended up getting shot so he fled to Poland (didn't catch why Poland) and got a job at the Iraqi Embassy there. However, he received threats in Poland so fled to the UK. Now the UK wants to send him back to Poland.

 

That's my understanding. Correct me if I misheard.

 

*A lot of people I know use the term asylum seeker when they mean immigrant in general, not necessarily a refugee or someone actually seeking asylum. I thought that was the case here.

 

Odd that someone who is regarded as a dissident within Iraq would be able to get (or even want) a job in the Iraqi embassy.

[Santo]

Odd that someone who is regarded as a dissident within Iraq would be able to get (or even want) a job in the Iraqi embassy.

 

I use the word dissident. Pretty sure on Look North they said whistle-blower. I only had one eye on the news. He was shot though. They showed a photo of him in hospital with more holes than is healthy.

Edited August 18, 2016 by Santo

[mafya]

Muslims are not welcome in Poland= http://toprightnews.com/this-nation-just-had-a-massive-protest-against-islam-horrified-media-censors-it/

I don't blame them for not wanting to stay there.....

[ukdobby]

If he doesn't want Poland he must have come through Germany then France,he would have been safe there.

[pmurtdlanod1]

If he doesn't want Poland he must have come through Germany then France,he would have been safe there.

 

lots of safe countries between England and the rest of Europe just what is the attraction????

[999tigger]

It appears I read too much right wing press and believed the first safe country rhetoric. You are indeed correct.

 

I was responding to this post from Orzel:

 

"They should claim asylum in first country in EU."

 

Which makes no sense at all.*

 

In the case of this chap, from what I heard on Look North, which, apart from Keeley the weather girl, never has my 100% undivided attention:

 

He was some kind of whistle-blower or dissident in Iraq and ended up getting shot so he fled to Poland (didn't catch why Poland) and got a job at the Iraqi Embassy there. However, he received threats in Poland so fled to the UK. Now the UK wants to send him back to Poland.

 

That's my understanding. Correct me if I misheard.

 

*A lot of people I know use the term asylum seeker when they mean immigrant in general, not necessarily a refugee or someone actually seeking asylum. I thought that was the case here.

 

No worries first safe country just comes from Dublin rules, which work between EU countries. Thats an obligation on countries and not individuals. the main convention doesnt tell them to claim in any specific country, just that theres an obligation to hear there claim when they make it.

 

Its common misunderstanding because first safe country sounds convenient, but a lot of people dont understand where it comes from. They also dont understand those rules are largely not enforced as they are unworkable and have been mostly abandoned.

 

You would need to read the decision of the tribunal to know what the grounds were and why his appeal was rejected. I can see why he wants to be in the UK because he's settled with his family, Poland can be racist and hostile. Seems he's a professor, so intellugent and not typical.

 

As for mixing terms, then it makes a difference because they are specific definitions and not to be used interchangeably, but many people do.

 

FYI of about the 30,000-40,000 applications are made from asylum seekers in 2015, then about 35-40% are found to warrant refugee status. That means 2/3 are not considered refugees and could fall into the category of economic migrants.

 

If you look it up, then the amount of asulum seekers the UK takes is much lower than many other European countries.

 

http://www.redcross.org.uk/What-we-do/Refugee-support/Refugee-facts-and-figures