With the increasingly hostile political environment in the UK and US (and elsewhere), some people are looking at fleeing those places.

Emigration is one option, but the bar is high to do so.

Applying for asylum requires you to be from a country that is considered dangerous. Right now that designation doesn't apply to the US or the UK.

I have predicted that should things continue to deteriorate, we may see countries begin to offer asylum to US and UK people who fear persecution. Perhaps the EU or Canada.

I must say that I never thought I would be facing this situation, but here we are.

Hugs, Devlyn

Canada will not grant asylum to U.S. citizens (and vice versa) due to the Safe Third Country Agreement. If you are in the U.S. and travel to Canada via land border to seek asylum, you will be returned to the U.S.

https://immigrationequality.org/asylum/asylum-manual/immigration-basics-safe-third-country/

Mexico is not part of the agreement, so that is an option. The problem is that a country that is part of the agreement must have the infrastructure in place to offer protection. Mexico does not.

What is interesting is the hostile attitude of the U.S. and yet it still meets the qualifications. I think someone needs to challenge that.

Yes, this is the reason I made the topic. Many people think they can just move from their country on a whim.

Hugs, Devlyn

Thanks for this thread Devlyn. It may well be added to with comments over the months and years. Let's hope not, but it may.

A long time ago I had to flee an African state under gunfire. I had 20 minutes in which to pack my life's possessions into a knapsack and head down to the river port dodging bullets. I managed to find a boat that would take me across the river and into the neighbouring country where I was held in a refugee camp.

I had no passport with me because my current one was with the African authorities awaiting a resident's visa. In fact, I had no paperwork at all.

After some days a charter flight for refugees lifted me to Paris, where the British embassy patiently explained that the easiest way for me to get back to Britain was to claim refugee status under the UNHCR. This I did, despite British Airways doing their level best not to accept the document the embassy had produced. In fact, BA were the worst part of the whole ordeal.

So when I returned to Britain I was officially a refugee.

I know that in some ways my experience was different because I was fleeing to my country of birth whereas there are plenty of people around the world being forced to flee from their homeland to a completely new country. But there was nothing unreal about the bullets flying overhead.

Whether we use the term 'flee' or not, it's perfectly possible that things are set to deteriorate in the UK, and the US, to the point where it's considered unsafe to remain.

So, the definitions for claiming asylum under the UN charter are:

'To be a refugee you must be unable to live safely in any part of your own country because you fear persecution there.

This persecution must be because of:

your race
your religion
your nationality
your political opinion
anything else that puts you at risk because of the social, cultural, religious or political situation in your country, for example, your gender, gender identity or sexual orientation

You must have failed to get protection from authorities in your own country.'


Now, IF the UK (same may apply to the US) is in due course considered NOT a safe country then the third country status no longer pertains. The country that is deemed unsafe would be the UK, under which condition you would be able to claim asylum in any other country that subscribes to the 1951 United Nations Refugee Convention. Provided, that is, you can prove your case.

So it would all come down to that proof. Would the receiving country accept the claim that the UK puts you at risk because of gender or gender identity?

That's all you have to prove.

There are some on this forum who argue that the recent ruling has already taken us across the threshold of safety.

xx


copy for info: @kira21 ♡♡♡

p.s. Oooh by the way, it's worth mentioning that if anyone is serious about going down this route as opposed to emigrating ... you can't just pop back home. Refugee status is usually granted on the grounds that it's unsafe in your own country.

So you can't just nip back to see your rels. Or indeed favourite football team.

That's it. You leave, for good.

xx

Quote from: Tills on May 27, 2025, 06:03:40 AMWhether we use the term 'flee' or not, it's perfectly possible that things are set to deteriorate in the UK, and the US, to the point where it's considered unsafe to remain.

One of the choke points here is going to be the European Court of Human Rights acceptance of the UK's Equality Act 2010 (EA2010) and the Gender Recognition Act 2004. The former was enacted to bring us into compliance with the ECHR's rulings over protected characteristics.

The retired High Court judge (now living in Eire) who is bringing an appeal against the recent Supreme Court decision about the meaning of a woman under the EA2010 appears to be bringing it on the narrow grounds that no trans people were consulted while the SC was deliberating. Unless I've missed something, not even she believes the ECHR is likely to overrule the SC's decision unless it can be shown they've failed due process.

If her appeal succeeds, the SC would need to consult again and a lot of things like the draft guidance by the Equality Commission in the UK would be put on hold. But if the appeal is on the narrow grounds I think it is being made on, even if it is won, then the SC could reach the same interpretation after consulting with trans people included. In that case, the ECHR would be in agreement with the decision, because it has no issues with the EA2010 and so no European country would be offering asylum.

Given the issues the UK is experiencing rejecting asylum applications from illegal migrants because of the ECHRs power, while the UK recognises the ECHRs authority, parliament is unlikely to derogate from the ECHR.

However, if say a Reform or Conservative government comes to power and somehow extracts us from the ECHR (tricky because of the Northern Ireland Agreement) then the possibility of asylum claims within Europe would open up, at least theoretically. Except that European countries have been doing everything they can to deny asylum claims because immigration of minorities is so unpopular with electorates and I suspect trans people will get caught up in that.

So this isn't going to be simple, for sure. All we can do is wait and see how it pans out, because right now, I can't think of any jurisdictions which are free of prejudice against trans people, only nations which are best classified as 'least worst' cases.

Quote from: TanyaG on May 27, 2025, 07:28:13 AMright now, I can't think of any jurisdictions which are free of prejudice against trans people, only nations which are best classified as 'least worst' cases.

Thanks for your helpful and thoughtful comments Tanya.

I don't think your last sentence above is entirely warranted though. There are plenty of countries whose jurisdictions are free of prejudice against trans people. You may get some prejudiced people, you do everywhere, but there are lots of countries which are protective of trans people by legislation. https://rainbowmap.ilga-europe.org/

Everything else you post seems relevant to the EHCR ruling, but the thread is about claiming asylum and that's down to the UNHCR, not the EHCR. I know I raised the EHCR, but it was in the context of whether that means we now feel unsafe by the definitions of the United Nations Charter. It's about claiming asylum which is a refugee status. Have a look at the part I posted in bold which gives specific criteria for claiming asylum.

I agree with you about the trajectory though too: if the direction does continue things could only get worse.

xx

Quote from: Tills on May 27, 2025, 07:40:07 AMYou may get some prejudiced people, you do everywhere, but there are lots of countries which are protective of trans people by legislation.

I could have phrased that last sentence better! What you've written there is what I meant, mainly because there are countries where the law protects trans people but it isn't enforced, in the same way, for example, as Spain's protection of women's rights isn't enforced by its judiciary, leading to the recent high profile court cases where judges disallowed rape because the victim wasn't protesting enough. Right now, many countries in Europe are one election away from changing political colour, the UK included and that's going to make the very useful chart you linked to look very different if it happens.

My message, I guess, to people is look before you leap.

Quote from: TanyaG on May 27, 2025, 07:47:19 AMMy message, I guess, to people is look before you leap.

These are very wise words Tanya and you're right to caution in this way.

Food for thought.

xx

There is the concept of States Rights in which a state can legalize something like pot possession or gay marriage when it isn't allowed by the Federal Government.  It is still relatively easy to move between US states.

I was just reading this article about families that have decided to leave the U.S. because of anti-transgender climate. In the article was something that I suspected but did not know for certain.

These families say they're leaving the U.S. because of its anti-transgender climate
One of the families said they decided to move from Colorado to New Zealand after their 9-year-old trans daughter's health care was interrupted.
https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-news/families-say-leaving-us-anti-transgender-climate-rcna206560

Jackson said many Americans don't know, for example, that they can't move to other countries, particularly in Europe, and apply for asylum because of their or their children's trans status. No countries that provide asylum to LGBTQ people because of fears of persecution accept U.S. citizens through those programs. When people are denied asylum by one of the more than two dozen member countries in the European Union, they are also banned from re-entering all other countries in the E.U. except Ireland and Switzerland for two years if they are from what are considered "safe countries."

---------------------------

I knew the Safe Third Country Agreement existed between the U.S. and Canada. I did not know that it also exists within the EU.

But this has yet to be tested Lori Dee?

The argument will be that the situation has dramatically changed making it now unsafe. The Jackson family left a year before the 2024 election, pre-empting what they thought was likely to happen. I don't think you can claim on those grounds. It has to become unsafe, and then you flee.

So now the situation has actually changed, then until cases are tested in asylum courts this is not correct. There may now be evidence.

I've done a fair bit around on asylum - it comes into the book I wrote - and it doesn't work on the basis that there's a fixed rule. It adapts to changing political circumstances.

Take Ukraine for example. If you'd put in an asylum claim in 2021 on the grounds you thought Russia was getting angsty you would have been refused. Roll on a year, and pretty much everywhere accepted asylum claimants. It's all about the changing circumstances.

xx

My guess is that we are getting to the point where an asylum claimant could make a case that would stand up in tribunal.

But the bigger issue for me is that you can't go back. You flee. You flee. Like Lot's wife, you can't turn back.

This article also clarifies what is meant by Safe Third Country and is helpful reading.

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2024/767148/EPRS_BRI(2024)767148_EN.pdf

As I've mentioned, until a test case appears after recent legislative changes in the US or UK we won't know about the validity of an asylum claim. It may be a protracted process involving appeals and teams of lawyers. It's as yet untested so anyone saying that it can or cannot happen by law is not correct. The answer is, we don't yet know.

xx

Times are changing.  Environments are changing.

Wishing all of us the best.


Chrissy

Quote from: Tills on June 01, 2025, 11:30:30 PMI've done a fair bit around on asylum - it comes into the book I wrote - and it doesn't work on the basis that there's a fixed rule. It adapts to changing political circumstances.

This is a key observation, because even if asylum law does not change, each country's, or bloc's assessment of other nations' human rights violations is dynamic. But it gets worse...

Within Europe there are complex dependencies, because the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) is a part of the Council of Europe, an organisation which is not related to the European Union. Britain was a founder member of the Council of Europe not long after the war.

Right now nine countries which belong to the CoE have written to demand reform of the ECHR's interpretation of asylum rights (Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland.) If their request is granted, then the ECHR's new interpretation will affect every member of the CoE, including, as far as I know, all members of the EU.

As if that wasn't enough, each nation's supreme court's interpretation determines how existing law is applied. You would think something like the US Constitution was clear enough, yet the US Supreme Court is now interpreting it through the lens of Originalism, which puports to gift the judges on it the ability to see into the minds of the long dead founders with an astonishing and unquestionable clarity. The doctrine of Originalism (aka textualism etc) has already caused US laws which have stood for decades to be overturned.

So I'm with Tills. It's for each person to judge where is safe for them and where is not, because trans people are not homogenous, we are very diverse, and so the risks to each of us vary. I agree also it is risky to pre-judge the courts, because it is wishful thinking to believe they will always interpret the law to our benefit.

Quote from: TanyaG on June 02, 2025, 02:20:58 AMOriginalism, which puports to gift the judges on it the ability to see into the minds of the long dead founders with an astonishing and unquestionable clarity.

Things are unlikely to improve anytime soon. Much depends on Chief Justice Roberts. Originalism is not so much a methodology for interpreting the Constitution, it's a flawed justification for ignoring it. Otherwise, only White men would still be created equal. 

Quote from: Mrs. Oliphant on June 02, 2025, 02:28:53 PMOriginalism is not so much a methodology for interpreting the Constitution, it's a flawed justification for ignoring it.

It appears to be an excuse for playing Humpty Dumpty and having words mean whatever the SC judges choose them to mean, while assuring voters it's fine because the same SC judges intuit the founders would have agreed?

James Madison himself said the Constitution was not meant to be interpreted forever in the same light as it was at the Convention.

Quote from: TanyaG on June 02, 2025, 03:17:24 PMJames Madison himself said the Constitution was not meant to be interpreted forever in the same light as it was at the Convention.

The SC Justices do consult Madison's Notes and the Federalist Papers to gain insight into the discussions at the Convention. They were detailed enough that the Justices could see how each side responded to the issue.

The problem arises when politicians decide to "update" the interpretation to more accurately fit modern times. A prime example is in the discussions of the Second Amendment right to bear arms. The amendment does not specify rifle, pistol, shotgun, semiautomatic, or "assault" weapons. It does not even specify "firearms". Yet both sides will argue that some of these are okay and some are not.

Both Madison's Notes and the Federalist Papers make it clear what the intent was, and the SC has decided along those lines through history at least ten times that I am aware of.

Things get hairy when discussing issues that did not exist back then, so there is no discussion of that exact topic, such as transgender rights. Slowly, the Court realized that women should have the right to vote, and discrimination based on race is wrong. The issue of immigration existed back then, possibly asylum too, but in those days, we had open borders, and it was nothing to walk across and set up a homestead. Immigration was not nearly as regulated as it is today. So they need to really examine what was intended and what was not included or specified.

But with some of their recent decisions, I don't have much confidence in them.

Thanks Lori (and Tanya) for such a cogent discussion of 'original textualism'. I doubt Barack Obama could have spoken more succinctly. We now have an imperial presidency resulting from decisions reached by a majority of those currently sitting on the SC. A situational fact most founding fathers (based on my flawed interpretation of original text) would have found abhorrent. I say this with profound sadness and regret: the Constitution will not protect us. The lower courts will be overruled. The next election may, or may not, be reflective of the will of the people. As you and Tills discussed, other countries may, or may not, offer sanctuary. And most of us can't afford to flee regardless of the political environment. And some of us refuse to flee. Like Galileo, I suppose I would recant in order to avoid torture or execution. But until that moment manifests, I quote Ashley: Onward Brave Sister.