Arise Sir Mo..

[vetran]

According to international law, any means.

hmm even Full fact disagrees partially with you.

https://fullfact.org/immigration/can...-uk-illegally/

A lot depends here on how to interpret which country people are “coming directly from”. It could be argued, for instance, that as the people crossing the channel are coming directly from France—which is not the country they initially fled—they don’t have the right to claim asylum in the UK.

However, in 1999 a UK judge ruled that “some element of choice is indeed open to refugees as to where they may properly claim asylum.” The judge specified that “any merely short term stopover en route” to another country should not forfeit the individual’s right to claim refugee status elsewhere.

This means people can legitimately make a claim for asylum in the UK after passing through other “safe” countries. Once in the UK it is then up to the authorities to review that application.

I'm not sure a short stopover in a safe country is 6 months in the Calais jungle. Maybe we need to consider this in court again now it is obvious many asylum seekers have been proven lying?

So if we reject their asylum claim we can deport them and prosecute them for entering illegally.

https://fullfact.org/immigration/ref...-safe-country/

[vetran]

You weren't suppose to give him the answer especially as he thinks crossing the channel in a boat is illegal.

He didn't he gave me the answer he believes.

It is illegal however applying for Asylum overrules this, just like murder is illegal but claiming self defence means you may not be charged with murder. If they can prove you are a bogus asylum seeker then guess what the illegality returns.

[NotAllThere]

He didn't he gave me the answer he believes.

It is illegal however applying for Asylum overrules this,

This is correct. Asylum seekers may not, by international convention, be prosecuted for entering the country illegally. But effectively it means, be law, that no means of entry is illegal. It's just a matter of semantics.

If they can prove you are a bogus asylum seeker then guess what the illegality returns.

No such thing as a bogus asylum seeker, merely a failed one. The person was seeking asylum, genuinely, but their grounds were judged too weak. The seeker gets their request for asylum denied and is required to leave the country / deported.

If failed asylum seekers were to be prosecuted for entering the country illegally, that would deter asylum seekers from coming to the country, which is contrary to international agreement (see above).

[vetran]

This is correct. Asylum seekers may not, by international convention, be prosecuted for entering the country illegally. But effectively it means, be law, that no means of entry is illegal. It's just a matter of semantics.

No such thing as a bogus asylum seeker, merely a failed one. The person was seeking asylum, genuinely, but their grounds were judged too weak. The seeker gets their request for asylum denied and is required to leave the country / deported.

If failed asylum seekers were to be prosecuted for entering the country illegally, that would deter asylum seekers from coming to the country, which is contrary to international agreement (see above).

So someone trying to obtain asylum by deceit is called what?