e is a possible occurrence that a person may be treated in a way, in their country of origin, that would be classed as a breach of the HRA in the UK; this breach would be imputed back to the UK through its act of deportation, therefore causing a breach in the HRA. These persons are not technically asylum seekers as they are making a claim under the Refugee Convention; therefore this adds additional, albeit limited protections, to persons in fear of abuse. So for the purposes of this discussion they will be defined as asylum seekers. Persons who are looking for a safe place to enjoy their life and freedoms and in some cases obtain their basic needs, i.e., food, water, education… The HRA does not protect a right to basic necessities. This essay begins by focusing on founding human rights principles and the central question that will be discussed is; whether the legal framework of human rights, through the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) and the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR), uphold the principles that these pieces of law were founded upon. This is a similar reaction in other European countries and the most prevalent are the Roma Gypsies and Eastern Europeans; the following discussion will consider this case study to show that immigration law can and has been used to assert racist policies by classing them as economic migrants rather than asylum seekers, which means their financial status will exclude them and the persecution does not meet the standard posed by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR).
Natural rights are the basis for the international human rights of today, however the theory of modern human rights is slightly different as it is no longer purely concerns democratic government, but aims to ensure that gross human rights violations in the world as a whole will be held accountable and hopefully eliminated. Dworkin describes human rights as trumps1 that indicate a powerful set of principles individuals can rely on to protect them from