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 abuses of these rights, yet his version weak in the sense it was only a power over bureaucratic decisions not that of government and law. Donnelly also believes that these rights are to be supported as powerful instrument to protect the individual from abuses of a tyrannical government2. Peter Jones in Rights contrasted the difference between natural and human rights3. The concept of natural rights is tied up in the idea where the citizens gave up to the governing body for the good of law and order and in return the governments protected and upheld within the law, i.e., Constitutions. Therefore the argument of natural rights has now become so diluted that it is no longer an effective model. Human Rights as theory admits from the outset they are intangible and not from nature, therefore one cannot empirically observe or measure them, as Margaret MacDonald4 criticized the argument from nature. Human rights, as described by Jones, are prescribed by the fact of being human and part of humanity5. It picks up on the egalitarian theory of equality, whereby human beings are equal and therefore are afforded these basic rights. The arguments for these rights come from arguments, such as self-evidence, human worth and moral worth.
Roma Gypsies - A Case Study of Racism in European Immigration Law:
The Roma Gypsies illustrate how human