| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:The migrant crisis | |
| Posted by: | Fraser Pearce | |
| Date/Time: | 03/09/15 14:55:00 |
| “If they are safe in the refugee camps in Turkey, from where they will be expected eventually to return to their countries of origin when it is safe to do so, then doesn't their deciding to leave Turkey for the EU turn them into economic migrants rather than refugees ?” - No, Sir. The issue is muddied by the misapprehension that people should seek asylum in the first safe country they arrive in. There is no such ‘safety’ requirement in international law (i.e. the 1951 UN Convention and the 1967 Protocol). In effect, refugee status is defined by people being unable to return to their home country, not by the first foreign country they find safety in (such as Turkey). In international law, people can therefore travel through multiple countries, remain a refugee and claim asylum in the nth country.* *The situation is a little qualified by supranational EU law, however, thanks to the Asylum Procedures Directive and related Regulations. These are designed to stop “secondary movement” within the EU (a provision itself not recognised by international law). Then, thanks to the EU Dublin regulations, the UK reserves the right to send migrants to the first EU Member State they arrived in. The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, however, still guarantees the right to asylum. |