|
|
Post by Einhorn on Mar 21, 2023 9:25:36 GMT
Correct. That's exactly what we should be doing. Using your analogy - there is no way of doing that without identification. There are ways to identify their origins. I don't have the link to hand, but the Germans were identifying and deporting 3 times as many economic migrants than the UK just a couple of years ago. They were relying mainly on technology that could identify an individual's origins from their accent. There are other methods. Very few genuine refugees will have identification. Those travelling from Africa will mostly have passed through Libya, where their papers are taken from them by the authorities there. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Mar 21, 2023 9:37:21 GMT
Using your analogy - there is no way of doing that without identification. There are ways to identify their origins. I don't have the link to hand, but the Germans were identifying and deporting 3 times as many economic migrants than the UK just a couple of years ago. They were relying mainly on technology that could identify an individual's origins from their accent. There are other methods. Very few genuine refugees will have identification. Those travelling from Africa will mostly have passed through Libya, where their papers are taken from them by the authorities there. You can tell if someone is a murderer from their accent? Just to be clear here - your suggestion is we take them into the country? |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Mar 21, 2023 9:39:36 GMT
There are ways to identify their origins. I don't have the link to hand, but the Germans were identifying and deporting 3 times as many economic migrants than the UK just a couple of years ago. They were relying mainly on technology that could identify an individual's origins from their accent. There are other methods. Very few genuine refugees will have identification. Those travelling from Africa will mostly have passed through Libya, where their papers are taken from them by the authorities there. You can tell if someone is a murderer from their accent? Just to be clear here - your suggestion is we take them into the country and .. So, the Refugee Convention should be scrapped because of the possibility that a small number of refugees might be criminals? |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Mar 21, 2023 9:45:49 GMT
You can tell if someone is a murderer from their accent? Just to be clear here - your suggestion is we take them into the country and .. So, the Refugee Convention should be scrapped because of the possibility that a small number of refugees might be criminals? As i have pointed out several times, allowing anyone who can't, or wont, identify themselves to enter your country is going way, way 'above and beyond' anything in the refugee convention. This is more a matter of your 'politics' |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Mar 21, 2023 9:55:53 GMT
So, the Refugee Convention should be scrapped because of the possibility that a small number of refugees might be criminals? As i have pointed out several times, allowing anyone who can't identify themselves to enter your country is going way, way 'above and beyond' anything in the refugee convention. This is more a matter of your 'politics' You're not qualified to interpret the Refugee Convention. Your thinking on how the Refugee Convention should be interpreted is informed by how legal documents are interpreted under the common law system in the UK. The common law system takes a black letter approach to interpretation. It looks at the strict wording of the document and gives a literal interpretation to the words used. The Roman law system is different. That system doesn't take a black letter approach. Rather, it takes a 'purposive' approach. Unlike a common law lawyer, a lawyer from the civil law system won't first ask what the strict wording of the document is; rather, he will ask himself: 'what is the purpose of this document. What did the people who created it set out to achieve?' As far as the Refugee Convention is concerned, what its authors set out to achieve is detailed in the Travaux préparatoires. This, more than the strict wording of the articles of the convention, is supposed to inform how the convention is implemented. You keep saying that the Lord Justice who interpreted the convention misread it. He didn't. He read it in the way it was intended to be read; that is, in the light of its purpose, as set out in the Travaux préparatoires. Like a common law lawyer, you keep focusing in on the exact wording of the articles of the convention. That would be perfectly acceptable if the Refugee Convention was a common law document. But it isn't. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Mar 21, 2023 10:11:18 GMT
As i have pointed out several times, allowing anyone who can't identify themselves to enter your country is going way, way 'above and beyond' anything in the refugee convention. This is more a matter of your 'politics' You're not qualified to interpret the Refugee Convention. I don't even need to interpret the refugee convention here because it's a matter of basic common sense. The refugee convention does not compel signatories to invite, or collect, everyone who can't, or won't, identify themselves into their countries. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Mar 21, 2023 10:20:50 GMT
You're not qualified to interpret the Refugee Convention. I don't even need to interpret the refugee convention here because it's a matter of basic common sense. The refugee convention does not compel signatories to invite, or collect, everyone who can't, or won't, identify themselves into their countries. You're right, to the extent that the Refugee Convention doesn't require signatories to take 'fake' refugees. But it does require them to process applications. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Mar 21, 2023 10:46:17 GMT
I don't even need to interpret the refugee convention here because it's a matter of basic common sense. The refugee convention does not compel signatories to invite, or collect, everyone who can't, or won't, identify themselves into their countries. You're right, to the extent that the Refugee Convention doesn't require signatories to take 'fake' refugees. But it does require them to process applications. It doesn't compel signatories to invite in, or collect in, anyone who can't, or won't, identify themselves and wants to enter. It compels signatories to process asylum claims |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Mar 21, 2023 10:49:55 GMT
You're right, to the extent that the Refugee Convention doesn't require signatories to take 'fake' refugees. But it does require them to process applications. It doesn't compel signatories to invite in, or collect in, anyone who can't, or won't, identify themselves and wants to enter. It compels signatories to process asylum claims The Refugee Convention allows signatories to have laws which protect their borders. But it also confers immunity from prosecution on refugees who break those laws. And it compels signatories to process applications for asylum from these people, even though they have broken those laws. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Mar 21, 2023 11:08:28 GMT
Right - It doesn't compel signatories to invite in, or collect in, anyone who can't, or won't, identify themselves and wants to enter.
|
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Mar 21, 2023 11:37:17 GMT
Right - It doesn't compel signatories to invite in, or collect in, anyone who can't, or won't, identify themselves and wants to enter. No, it doesn't. But, as has been repeatedly pointed out, it does confer immunity from prosecution on refugees who enter illegally and it requires all applications for asylum to be processed, even where the applicant has entered the country illegally. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2023 15:27:35 GMT
Correct. That's exactly what we should be doing. Using your analogy - there is no way of doing that without identification. Correct identify who is coming to our shores. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2023 15:28:59 GMT
You obviously believe the right-wing claptrap that the majority of asylum seekers entering our country are intent on murdering us. There is no excuse for a country to treat human beings in such a way as this bill would allow. 50 people enter our country by boat and all of them are returned leading directly to the death of one woman is not a price people should be willing to pay when there are perfectly sensible alternatives that would not lead to her death. Not once have you come close to the simple, cheaper solution to the problem and asked why the government is not doing it. This policy will only serve the traffickers who will make a fortune out of it. How do you know that 49 anonymous guys will not murder someone? - you have no idea who these people are or what they will do once they get here. How do you 'know' they will. The indication "to do us harm" does not necessarily mean murder. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Mar 21, 2023 15:36:53 GMT
Using your analogy - there is no way of doing that without identification. Correct identify who is coming to our shores. Identify (if we can) people coming into the country? I think we already do that |
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Mar 21, 2023 15:46:04 GMT
Using your analogy - there is no way of doing that without identification. Correct identify who is coming to our shores. Sharks. |
|
