text_body: --- DIVISION TITLE ---
  
  Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill - Prevent the government from interpreting the Geneva Convention so that terrorism can be used as grounds to dismiss asylum claims - rejected
  
  --- MOTION EFFECT ---
  
  
  
  
  The majority No voters rejected an amendment[1] to the [http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmbills/070/2006070.htm Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill]. The amendment aimed to remove a clause from the Bill entirely[2].
  
  The clause relates to Article 1 (F)(c) of the [http://www.unhcr.org/3b66c2aa10.html Refugee Convention agreed in Geneva in 1951]. This allows states to reject asylum applications where the people in question have "been guilty of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations." In the Bill this particular clause would apply Article 1 (F)(c) to acts of terrorism, and/or encouraging others to commit these acts, meaning the government could reject asylum seekers with a suspected background in terror. If a person appeals against their asylum application being rejected, the appeal will always be dismissed if Article 1 (F)(c) applies. 
  
  The Liberal Democrats explained their reasoning for removing the clause as follows:
  
  :'I do not understand why the clause is necessary, and that view is shared by the Immigration Law Practitioners Association (ILPA). In a briefing to me, the ILPA pointed out that the 1951 convention is an international convention in respect of which the international jurisprudence and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNHCR UNHCR] statements are relevant. The ILPA put it to me: "To purport to interpret it in statute is to fail to respect this jurisprudence and to usurp the role of judges in interpreting it." As ever, the Government seek to go much further than is necessary. The definition they want to import is much wider than is either necessary or desirable.'[3]
  
  However, the government argued:
  
  :'The charge is that clause 51 is not compatible with the refugee convention, but part of the justification for clause 51 in all its glory is that it reflects the relevant [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Security_Council Security Council] resolutions that refer to the guiding principles of the UN [United Nation]. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1373 UN Security Council resolution 1373] states that "knowingly financing, planning and inciting terrorist acts" as well as the commission of such acts constitute acts "contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations."'[4]
  
  The Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill became law in 2006. Its main aims were to:[5]
  
  * Restrict appeals from those are refused entry to the UK to work or study. Only rejected asylum applications can have a full appeal
  * Criminalise employers who knowingly employ illegal immigrants
  * Allow biometric data to be taken from people entering the UK
  * Requires that asylum is refused to anyone who is involved in terrorist activities
  
  ----
  
  * [1] [http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debate/?id=2005-11-16b.1050.5 Alistair Carmichael MP], House of Commons, 16 November 2005
  * [2] [http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmbills/070/06070.28-31.html#jNC07 Clause 51 in the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill]
  * [3] [http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debate/?id=2005-11-16b.1051.0 Alistair Carmichael MP], House of Commons, 16 November 2005
  * [4] [http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debate/?id=2005-11-16b.1054.1 Tony McNulty MP], House of Commons, 16 November 2005
  * [5] Based on The Guardian's [http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2009/jan/15/immigration-asylum-nationality-act A-Z of legislation]
  
  
  
  
  
  --- COMMENTS AND NOTES ---
  
  (put thoughts and notes for other researchers here)
  