Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2023 18:39:16 GMT
You are hitting the wall, they have a legal right to leave France and go to a country of their choice, why can you not acknowledge that? They don't have a legal right to enter the UK. Why are you having such difficulty with this? They do have a legal right to any country they choose and last time I looked the UK was a country. Why are you having such a hard time understanding that? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2023 18:41:22 GMT
They have a legal right to cross our borders and apply for asylum. Why are you having difficulty with this? No they don't because they don't have a right to cross our borders. They would only have such a right if France were declared a dangerous nation / area. You need to read up on the UNHCR regarding refugee seekers rights. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Mar 18, 2023 18:44:09 GMT
They don't have a legal right to enter the UK. Why are you having such difficulty with this? They do have a legal right to any country they choose and last time I looked the UK was a country. Why are you having such a hard time understanding that? They have no such right - hence some are attempting to enter the country unofficially and illegally.
|
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Mar 18, 2023 18:57:42 GMT
It's called arguing by analogy. It's a valid debating technique that's used in the courts every working day of the week. In fact, it's how the common law develops. Sorry you don't think it's good enough for this place, Benny. Of course, you could just answer the question. It’s called changing the goalposts darling . You were struggling with roping in Orwell and you changed the subject. The forum isn’t a court , it’s a debate forum. You incessantly repeating your demand for me to answer your question about dumps in gardens ( to hide your squirming) isn’t how it works darling . I see. So, debating/argumentation techniques used in courts aren't good enough for this place. This place has higher standards. No arguing by analogy here. You won't answer the question because you know it reveals a fatal flaw in the gammon position. And, for the record, I very much doubt you've ever read a book by Orwell. Maybe you're not in a position to judge the appropriateness of the reference to him. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Mar 18, 2023 19:00:02 GMT
They do have a legal right to any country they choose and last time I looked the UK was a country. Why are you having such a hard time understanding that? They have no such right - hence some are attempting to enter the country unofficially and illegally.
They have a legal right under the Refugee Convention. You disagree with the judicial interpretation of that convention. That's fine. The judge was a Lord Justice and you are you. You'll understand if we go with his interpretation, won't you? |
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Mar 18, 2023 19:04:11 GMT
They have no such right - hence some are attempting to enter the country unofficially and illegally.
They have a legal right under the Refugee Convention. You disagree with the judicial interpretation of that convention. That's fine. The judge was a Lord Justice and you are you. You'll understand if we go with his interpretation, won't you? there are conditions under the Refugee Convention as to the procedure when they land here. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Mar 18, 2023 19:05:41 GMT
They have a legal right under the Refugee Convention. You disagree with the judicial interpretation of that convention. That's fine. The judge was a Lord Justice and you are you. You'll understand if we go with his interpretation, won't you? there are conditions under the Refugee Convention as to the procedure when they land here. Yes. They must report their presence at the first reasonable opportunity. Nobody said that wasn't a condition imposed by the Convention. |
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Mar 18, 2023 19:10:48 GMT
there are conditions under the Refugee Convention as to the procedure when they land here. Yes. They must report their presence at the first reasonable opportunity. Nobody said that wasn't a condition imposed by the Convention. So what should happen if they're found weeks or months later, sometimes longer and they haven't sought asylum, are they illegal immigrants and do we have the right to deport them, immediately? |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Mar 18, 2023 19:14:02 GMT
Yes. They must report their presence at the first reasonable opportunity. Nobody said that wasn't a condition imposed by the Convention. So what should happen if they're found weeks or months later, sometimes longer and they haven't sought asylum, are they illegal immigrants and do we have the right to deport them, immediately? They are required to report at the first reasonable opportunity. What is reasonable will depend on the circumstances. If they remain within the control of traffickers and can't report for that reason, then they must report at the first reasonable opportunity after. If they do not, they do not qualify for the protections conferred by the Convention. |
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on Mar 18, 2023 19:20:24 GMT
The issue at hand is that Cruella is trying to treat them as criminals simply for entering the country. She is attempting to have them deported without first giving them the chance to be processed by the asylum system.
That is against laws and treaties that the UK has signed up to so it will fail.
|
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Mar 18, 2023 19:26:55 GMT
They have a legal right under the Refugee Convention. The refugee convention gives them no such right because there is no reason refugees would be fleeing from France into the UK. I know I have said it before, but a timely reminder every now and then doesn't hurt. The purpose of the refugee convention is to allow people to flee danger, not to get them into the UK. You disagree with the judicial interpretation of that convention. That's fine. The judge was a Lord Justice and you are you. You'll understand if we go with his interpretation, won't you? Even this gormless, corrupt judge's ruling, being particular in nature, doesn't get you to a generalised right to enter - i.e. the effective dissolution of all signatories' national borders. You would have to be glue sniffing for a solid week to think that any such an arrangement is now effective or could be made so. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Mar 18, 2023 19:29:16 GMT
They have a legal right under the Refugee Convention. The refugee convention gives them no such right because there is no reason refugees would be fleeing from France into the UK. I know I have said it before, but a timely reminder every now and then doesn't hurt. The purpose of the refugee convention is to allow people to flee danger, not to get them into the UK. You disagree with the judicial interpretation of that convention. That's fine. The judge was a Lord Justice and you are you. You'll understand if we go with his interpretation, won't you? Even this gormless judge's ruling, being particular in nature, doesn't get you to a generalised right to enter - i.e. the effective dissolution of all signatories' borders. You would have to be glue sniffing for a solid week to think that any such an arrangement is now effective or could be made so. Okay. At least accept that we can accept your word as to what the law is or the word of a Lord Justice (Lord's Justice are the highest judges in the land (gormless, you say). |
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Mar 18, 2023 19:49:21 GMT
So what should happen if they're found weeks or months later, sometimes longer and they haven't sought asylum, are they illegal immigrants and do we have the right to deport them, immediately? They are required to report at the first reasonable opportunity. What is reasonable will depend on the circumstances. If they remain within the control of traffickers and can't report for that reason, then they must report at the first reasonable opportunity after. If they do not, they do not qualify for the protections conferred by the Convention. But where they are working, the employer has both the right and the duty to check they are eligible to work. So in those cases it is easy to determine what is reasonable. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Mar 18, 2023 19:50:50 GMT
Okay. At least accept that we can accept your word as to what the law is or the word of a Lord Justice (Lord's Justice are the highest judges in the land (gormless, you say). Several tedious pages were expended trying to explain to you that this judge wasn't the convention and that the convention was very much clearer than the judge. However, your fantasy filled interpretation of his idiotic judgment is yet another matter. What you are suggesting breaches basic common sense - i.e. your claim implies that the exclusionary dimension of the national borders borders of all signatories has now been effectively dissolved, in that such exclusion now only applies to people who identify themselves / come in through official routes. Clearly that is not the case and multiple nations signed no such document. You are getting over-excited. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2023 20:09:35 GMT
Okay. At least accept that we can accept your word as to what the law is or the word of a Lord Justice (Lord's Justice are the highest judges in the land (gormless, you say). Several tedious pages were expended trying to explain to you that this judge wasn't the convention and that the convention was very much clearer than the judge. However, your fantasy filled interpretation of his idiotic judgment is yet another matter. What you are suggesting breaches basic common sense - i.e. your claim implies that the exclusionary dimension of the national borders borders of all signatories has now been effectively dissolved, in that such exclusion now only applies to people who identify themselves / come in through official routes. Clearly that is not the case and multiple nations signed no such document. You are getting over-excited. It's almost like dealing with the criminally insane, where their sinister motives are laid bare for all to see. |
|
