You seem to have no idea how the asylum system works.

If this was a valid reason for not getting to seek asylum in the UK, then the UK would for all practical purposes be exempt from having to accept asylum seekers.

As others have pointed out, his main reason for wanting to seek asylum in the UK, is probably that his english is good, which makes it easier and faster for him to be a productive citizen there than in France.

Most people involved with this is aware of the fact that there's problems with the asylum system. If you think this is so awful, how about you propose an alternative system that distributes asylum seekers evenly and fairly across industrialized nations in a way that doesn't require them to cross borders illegaly. We sure could use more people who think about solutions, rather than pointing out problems that everyone is aware of.

But at the same time, I would like to understand why you are so vehemently opposed to him being legally allowed to pick wherever he prefers. If I'm born in France I can legally move and work in the UK, what in your mind is the rationale for not extending the same privileges to someone who's been given refugee status in France? Honest question.

Perhaps the UK would prefer to do its own background check on the man before just letting anyone in.

But once some person is in a safe place where there is no threat for him then immigration laws apply instead of asylum laws.

So why do I want to differentiate between immigration and asylum? (and generally all Western countries do so)

Asylum is something you grant based on moral principles, immigration is something that we grant only voluntarily.

And here I want my country to choose new immigrants based on what skills we need, what skills the migrant brings to the table and of course we also have to take into consideration if we are capable of absorbing them into society.

Meaning: Do they have a chance to integrate and lead a successful life here or not. This is very important because in Europe we already have no go zones where police cannot enter and the inhabitants basically implement some kind of Sharia law.

I will never accept living under some kind of alternative law without a fight. This does not mean that I am against Muslims, but I want to preserve the culture that we have here and more importantly the freedoms and the social order.

Edit: And he is no asylum seeker in my book. He was in France so what is he fleeing from?

The fact the you are reading this on HN probably means that any one of us could have contacts capable of creating fake passports. I am certain that most tech savvy people with the right motivation could easily learn to use dark net tools and purchase fake documents within a few hours. This is 2016, contact with criminals no longer means hanging out in seedy drug dens or back alleys.

It's 2016, where engaging in criminal activity is still a crime.

However, I have lived both in the UK and in France. If I had a choice, and if I was looking for asylum, I would choose the UK every time. In another video from him he says his two friends made it to the UK before him. The best country to get into Europe (as an asylum seeker) is the UK. It is also a reason why there is such a big fuss about immigration. The benefits are great, it is a very safe country, wealthy, lots of opportunity... etc etc. I might be very biast but the UK is quite a bit ahead of the other European countries in my opinion (with a few exceptions). If the UK was on mainland Europe it would have waayyy more immigration problems.

Edit: I am happy he made it. I am pro immigration.

It depends on your previous education. If he speaked both french and english (thus, language were not a relevant part in the decision), then France would be a better destiny. Is a Mediterranean country, so there is a lot of shared context. More similar climate (in the South), familiar ingredients used in the kitchen easily available, and because France have stronger historical bounds with several African, and by extension Islamic, countries. For islamic people to be able to find food halal prepared by other muslim of their same branch is a must. Finding a suitable job out of the capital would be also much easier. There are more locations suitable in France.

But for someone who takes public transportation to and from work and just wants good food, an apartment for cheap and safety (UK - only country where I've seen drunk people yelling, bothering other people and throwing trash bins around and some guy threatening staff in a bank), as well as security in the future (pension, health care), Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, maybe France, they seem better. Cleaner too, sorry (except maybe France haha)...

There are so many innocent people, who has nothing to do with the violence. Show some compassion towards your fellow man, please.

He was already in France, then obtained a fake passport to illegally cross into the UK.

Maybe he doesn't know, and doesn't want to learn French?

RE: something great or terrifying

Classic case of "do the ends justify the means." It's not a simple thing.

I couldn't care less if he doesn't want to learn french or hates baguette, what kind of ridiculous excuse is that?

Do we soon have to enable refugees to live in Monaco, Disney Land or Hawaii just because they feel like it?

Disney Land is a private company. They are not signatory to any treaty on refugees and have no obligation to accept refugees. Should the US decide to use eminent domain to seize Disney Land and put refugees there, it would be possible, but very expensive and face much outcry.

The US has signed the 1967 Protocol on refugees. There is a right of free movement in the US, and I don't think there's any legal reason which prevents refugees in the US from moving to Hawaii should they feel like it.

In addition, Hawaii has accepted refugees before and the governor has said he is not opposed to accepting Syrian refugees: http://khon2.com/2015/11/17/gov-ige-defends-position-on-syri... .

Once a refugee enters any country that is deemed safe, he or she has no right to flee any further. It would be really hard to argue in court that someone had reason to flee France.

Countries can of course have bi or multilateral laws in place that allow free movement, but in case of the EU we have the Dublin Regulation that explicitly forbids this for refugees. The EU country where a refugee first sets foot on has to take care of the asylum process. If the refugee decides to move to another EU country then this country has the right to send them back and this is also executed.

Also yes, the Dublin Agreement is the current law. That does not make it just. I hold with a minority (alas) party of the country I live in - strike down that unjust law and, yes, require all EU and/or Schengen countries to share the effort of providing asylum. Including Monaco, which seems to be doing a good job of it already.

If you want to defend that unjust law, then there's another solution - promote more legal ways to enter the EU, rather than force them through land and dangerous ocean routes, and overloading the border countries.

Get rid of carrier liability and let asylum seekers hop a plane into whichever country they want. As it stands, airlines don't want to bear the penalty for transporting someone who might not get refugee status.

Charter boats so places which are willing to accept refugees (for example, in Spain, https://www.yahoo.com/news/barcelona-waits-refugees-arent-co... ) don't end up with only a trickle.

Quoting from that last link, "human rights are above European legislation".

>If the refugee decides to move to another EU country then this country has the right to send them back and this is also executed.

I guess you are not aware of the court rulings regarding deportation back to Greece?

So basically the court said that Greece is not safe for refugees.

If you know about this ruling then I'm sure you also know about this detail, it is widely known here in Europe.

Why do you then give me this reply? What is this about? You just wanting to be right, no matter if you deceive us by not mentioning this fact?

Do you think that you yourself should be able to pick where to live and work? If yes, why shouldn't he?

I definitely do. I am happy to be EU citizen able to move and relocate freely in EU. I would be even happier being a world citizen able to move wherever I would feel like.

Alas asylum seekers are pinpointed to the place where they ask for asylum.

While this (badly designed) solution stands, the countermeasure they have to pursue is to ask for asylum in the final destination of your journey.

And I cannot see a good reason why Monaco, Disney Land (seriously?) or Hawaii should be exempted from helping asylum seekers.

No, I don't want this. And I don't want anyone to being able to settle in my country just because they would like to.

Anyone that believes otherwise (like you do) denies all members of a society the right to control and choose who can join and live with them.

If we take in people they should be sufficiently educated to have a chance on the job market and willing to be a part of our society and culture.

This is a good thing. Nothing good has ever come from xenophobia, racism and discrimination.

Btw: do you believe that sexual selection is racist? Because it works exactly the same way.

Maybe it would be better if Socialists and Liberals take that choice away from us and make sure we are not racist by allocating sexual partners to each one of us?

Or how about companies? Don't they hire along the same lines? Education, job experience, proficiency in local language. Are companies racist if they don't hire a guy from Afghanistan who can't read and whose only job before was herding sheep?

At least if our school system isn't a total failure like it already is in some areas.

Now imagine how well some guy will fit that comes here in his thirties only knowing Sharia law, cruel physical punishment and who is used to subjugate women by force if necessary.

It is not his skin color or genes that will likely cause him to be a problem in our society, it is the culture he grew up in that had him internalise these rules as being the just way to live your life.

Edit: And of course local people are privileged in this regard. Why shouldn't they? They were most likely raised by citizens who paid taxes and worked on improving their society. It would be kind of crazy to then forcefully send their children away.

Plenty of kids are homeschooled.

A made up one. Your parent made up "learn french" and you made up "hates baguette". I think you've invented something to argue against here.

In addition, folks work and walk alongside criminals (who may or may not have gotten caught) every day, and they don't realize it. Stereotypes generally aren't true, and some have less truth than others. Not everyone is doing technically criminal things to hurt others, nor are outwardly bad folks.