Barring the asylum claims

K, Canada and U. S seeking asylum has now become a nightmare whereby the grounds for rejection are now stretched towards controlling the immigrants’ population. For instance, in the U. S the proclamation order released by President Trump to allow asylum application only from specific and recognized ports of entry is a move that is not only in contradiction with the federal laws (Immigration and Nationality Act) but also with the international laws such as the UN 1951 Refugees Convention and its subsequent Protocol. Therefore, the aim of this paper is to provide precise argument against the move by these countries (U. This right is important especially considering how asylum seekers are treated as well as their living conditions in most of the countries’ detention camps.

As result, every country must provide adequate resources to the asylum seekers in order to avoid any violation of their rights. For instance, in M. S. S v. However, in such instances, the rule humanity rule must prevail above morality and any legal issue that can be raised. What is more important is protection of the lives that are under the threat rather than invoking a legal ground that is against the humanity. In 2004, there was a debate whether countries had the moral duty to protect some of the 410 asylum seeking children from severe illnesses and accord them permanent residence (Bjork, 2006). This resulted to the United Nations commission as well as other human rights organizations condemning Sweden for its restrictive asylum and migration rules.

The response from the Swedish minister denying asylum to the 410 ill children was that those children could not be given asylum as group since each one of them had their personal reasons of seeking asylum thus each child has the right to apply for asylum as individuals. S and Canada in barring asylum seekers In November 2018, the United States unveiled new rules that are intended to limit the asylum claims by individuals who enter the southern border illegally with the intention of seeking asylum (Torbati & Cooke, 2018). The proclamation together with the interim final rule which were issued by the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) are in obvious clash with the intention of the Congress when enacting the Immigration and Nationality Act (Margulies, 2018).

However, advocates of immigration has since then denounced the move by the government indicating that it is a direct violation of the U. S laws which requires the government to offer individuals fleeing from other countries out of fear of persecution. Moreover, the move by the government will see all illegal migrants from Mexico border claims for asylum being rejected. Hundreds if not thousands of asylum seekers have been subjected to unlawful detention. Taylor (2018) for instance, indicates that the unlawful detention is against the Dublin III which requires individuals to seek asylum to the first country they arrive in. In this regards, the move by U. K to limit the entry of asylum seekers in the country is somehow justified strictly in relation to the Dublin III.

This is because, the law (Dublin III) requires individuals seeking asylum in the U. S is a safe country to seek asylum as well. Trumps restriction of asylum seekers in the U. S has prompted most of them to consider Canada as an alternative. Therefore, the Canadian move to restrict asylum seekers in regards to the agreement is justified. Nevertheless, Macklin indicates that as opposed to the U. , Cornish, D. , Vonk, M. , Ravensbergen, S. J. , Maeckelberghe, E. Retrieved from: https://cms. emergency. unhcr. org/. /Convention+relating. Asylum & the Rights of Refugees. Retrieved from: https://ijrcenter. org/refugee-law/. Accessed on November 22, 2018. United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR)-Kenya. Margulles, P. Barring Asylum Claims: The President Versus the Statute. Lawfare. Retrieved: https://www.