BBC had a refugee on the news this morning

Moby

chewmylegoff wrote: »

That's pretty clear as well. What it doesn't do is say that anyone has the right to enter any country which appears to be what you think it suggests.

The specifics are as clear as mud once the international lawyers get involved and then the arm twisting over quotas of refugees between different countries becomes an issue. Just because someones 'arrival point is Sicily does not absolve us of responsibility in the UK imo.

CLAPTON

Moby wrote: »

The specifics are as clear as mud once the international lawyers get involved and then the arm twisting over quotas of refugees between different countries becomes an issue. Just because someones 'arrival point is Sicily does not absolve us of responsibility in the UK imo.

so nothing based on international law, but merely your opinion about economic migrants

antrobus

Moby wrote: »

But part 2 says 'everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country' and that has made the declaration open to interpretation.

Err, no it doesn't.

It means that; Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

It doesn't give anyone the right to enter any country other than their own.

Besides which, I would point out that Article 14 (1) states that Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution. Such a right would be utterly redundant if there already was a right of 'freedom of movement' between countries. Ergo, the existence of Article 14 (1) clearly demonstrates that no such right exists.

DTDfanBoy

TheBlueHorse wrote: »

and they showed his journey, from Sudan, via Egypt, Jordan, Turkey and then boat to Greece.

So, how did he get from the safety of Greece to the UK? Surely he was safe in Greece (or Turkey, or even Jordan). Then he was safe in the other umpteen countries he went through to get here.

The question is:

1. Why did he wait to get here, and not claim asylum elsewhere and;

2. why did the BBC not ask him?

Well he certainly missed a trick, had he claimed Asylum in Greece then managed to sneak into the UK the Home Office would have been unable to deport him to his home country, the best they'd be able to manage would be to sent him back to Greece so he'd have a much shorter journey when he tried to gain entry into the UK again

Moby

antrobus wrote: »

Err, no it doesn't.

It means that; Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

It doesn't give anyone the right to enter any country other than their own.

Besides which, I would point out that Article 14 (1) states that Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution. Such a right would be utterly redundant if there already was a right of 'freedom of movement' between countries. Ergo, the existence of Article 14 (1) clearly demonstrates that no such right exists.

Err I was talking about 'freedom of movement' specifically in relation to asylum and the expectation that states co-operate with each other for a fair interpretation of the Articles regarding the quotas they take.So basically I disagree with you.

ging84

TheBlueHorse wrote: »

the point is, i don't want to have to pay for these people. or lose a school place for my child (that my taxes have paid for).

You should claim asylum in the FIRST safe place you get to.

But that isn't the rule
and there are many reasons why that isn't

You question was not about why do the governments not enforce rules that would suit your world view, your question was, why would an individual choose to come here to claim asylum given the opportunity, rather than settle for the first safe they could have.
And why didn't the BBC choose to grill a victim of war live on air over his choice not to claim asylum elsewhere, presuming that they had the opportunity to.

Moby

CLAPTON wrote: »

so nothing based on international law, but merely your opinion about economic migrants

So you are an expert on international law and how it is interpreted now...... as well as being an expert on the UK constitution. It amazes me how you therefore find so much time to spend on here;)

antrobus

Moby wrote: »

Err I was talking about 'freedom of movement' specifically in relation to asylum and the expectation that states co-operate with each other for a fair interpretation of the Articles regarding the quotas they take.So basically I disagree with you.

And I'm talking about your claim that;

Moby wrote: »

Freedom of movement is a basic human right and that is the way it should be of course.

and pointing out that it is not a "basic human right" in terms of the UN Declaration.

Your original statement was therefore incorrect. The fact that you are now qualifying that statement with the phrase "specifically in relation to asylum" only serves to demonstrate that.

antrobus

Moby wrote: »

So you are an expert on international law and how it is interpreted now...... as well as being an expert on the UK constitution. It amazes me how you therefore find so much time to spend on here;)

You don't have to be an expert in international law to be able to read what it says in the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It's really not that difficult.

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml