|
|
Post by Einhorn on Mar 22, 2023 9:37:12 GMT
Article 1 (not Article 2) is the relevant provision. This applies only to serious crimes. Article 1 says that a person may be denied refugee status by a signatory state if 'He has committed a serious non-political crime outside the country of refuge prior to his admission to that country as a refugee'. Which of course is the point that knowing about a serious crime requires knowing who they are in reality and not who they say they are or how old they say they are or which country they come from. Arriving without documentation is as much part of the game being played to pull the wool over the eyes of teh British authorities and to claim to be the poor refugee fleeing danger the very danger that they have left their 'loved ones' at home to face without them. No point in being reasonable anymore. All that is seemingly wished for is the destruction of the UK by any means possible and the law has been coopted to that end. Sigh! There are lots of reasons why refugees won't have documentation. Requiring refugees to have documentation as a precondition to awarding asylum would render the Convention largely redundant. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Mar 22, 2023 9:44:20 GMT
Which of course is the point that knowing about a serious crime requires knowing who they are in reality and not who they say they are or how old they say they are or which country they come from. Arriving without documentation is as much part of the game being played to pull the wool over the eyes of teh British authorities and to claim to be the poor refugee fleeing danger the very danger that they have left their 'loved ones' at home to face without them. No point in being reasonable anymore. All that is seemingly wished for is the destruction of the UK by any means possible and the law has been coopted to that end. Sigh! There are lots of reasons why refugees won't have documentation. Requiring refugees to have documentation as a precondition to awarding asylum would render the Convention largely redundant. Mostly it is becasue they chuck it all away before arriving. Being in France and moving in the EU without documentation is illegal and can lead to immediate deportation. They are not challenged for ID in France as French police can do and in general are allowed, and often enabled, to progress free from resistance or have documentation that disappears. You must think we were born yesterday. Manipulating the terms of the Convention has already rendered it redundant in the eyes of many, all that remains is to get the government to act to defend Britain and the British, strangely the very thing they are elected to do. |
|
|
|
Post by wapentake on Mar 22, 2023 9:48:23 GMT
They do not have this right - or to put it another way, the UK would / could be within its rights to prevent them entering. The Schrodinger's refugee thing doesn't get you there. Are you seriously saying that a refugee can be deported without consideration of his asylum application? We keep having international law cast in our direction,the UK has a better record for observing the law though we are also hamstrung by our domestic laws often used improperly imo in cases to prevent lawbreakers being deported which clearly need an overhaul.
We are also in a state where the infrastructure doesn't match the numbers only to be told we should spend more then.
Looking at crumbling infrastructure as it stands roads,water,energy etc where is this coming from to house economic migrants?
There is no problem with genuine asylum seekers though many are not.
|
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Mar 22, 2023 9:55:15 GMT
Are you seriously saying that a refugee can be deported without consideration of his asylum application? We keep having international law cast in our direction,the UK has a better record for observing the law though we are also hamstrung by our domestic laws often used improperly imo in cases to prevent lawbreakers being deported which clearly need an overhaul.
We are also in a state where the infrastructure doesn't match the numbers only to be told we should spend more then.
Looking at crumbling infrastructure as it stands roads,water,energy etc where is this coming from to house economic migrants?
There is no problem with genuine asylum seekers though many are not.
Yes, many are fake refugees. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Mar 22, 2023 9:58:06 GMT
They do not have this right - or to put it another way, the UK would / could be within its rights to prevent them entering. The Schrodinger's refugee thing doesn't get you there. Are you seriously saying that a refugee can be deported without consideration of his asylum application? You keep trying to shift the conversation to something else and we all know why. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Mar 22, 2023 9:58:17 GMT
Sigh! There are lots of reasons why refugees won't have documentation. Requiring refugees to have documentation as a precondition to awarding asylum would render the Convention largely redundant. Mostly it is becasue they chuck it all away before arriving. Being in France and moving in the EU without documentation is illegal and can lead to immediate deportation. They are not challenged for ID in France as French police can do and in general are allowed, and often enabled, to progress free from resistance or have documentation that disappears. You must think we were born yesterday. Manipulating the terms of the Convention has already rendered it redundant in the eyes of many, all that remains is to get the government to act to defend Britain and the British, strangely the very thing they are elected to do. Most refugees entering Europe from Africa will have travelled through Libya. The Libyan authorities take their papers. It takes little imagination to understand how many who have not had to travel through Libya might not have papers. It is only fake refugees who have an interest in 'chucking' their documents. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Mar 22, 2023 9:58:40 GMT
Are you seriously saying that a refugee can be deported without consideration of his asylum application? You keep trying to shift the conversation to something else and we all know why. Can you elaborate on that? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2023 10:09:35 GMT
You forgot to mention part of the costs will be offset by the successful applicants, which presently stands at about 70% would pay taxes on earnings and spend money supporting our economy. Also if 'turn around' is faster not 18 months+ the initial outlay will be much smaller. That assumes they all are willing to work and enter the system. If 70% are successful that means on the numbers already arrived that 60,000 more houses are needed and 60,000 families can be reunited and a new town the size of Portsmouth needed every year and a half. You seem unable to view the future with anything other than through the rose coloured spectacles clamped in front of your eyes. Currently we are progressing into high levels of debt because most people are not positive contributors overall to the economy. I doubt very much that most arriving will doctors and rocket scientists most will have complex needs that are currently being denied to people who have actually paid in and contributed for most of their lives. Turn around will have to be faster to accommodate the hundreds of thousands who are and will come. If we adopt your wishes what is the end game, you really have to throw your mind forward as to the consequences of what you wish to do as saving the life of one woman in the long run will cost an awful lot more. What will actually stop the channel boats? Ad infinitum. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Mar 22, 2023 10:10:17 GMT
You keep trying to shift the conversation to something else and we all know why. Can you elaborate on that? Sure - Mags wrote: They do not have this right - or to put it another way, the UK would / could be within its rights to prevent them entering.
Darling Wrote in reply:
Are you seriously saying that a refugee can be deported without consideration of his asylum application?
Do you see the conflation? |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Mar 22, 2023 10:21:22 GMT
Can you elaborate on that? Sure - Mags wrote: They do not have this right - or to put it another way, the UK would / could be within its rights to prevent them entering.
Darling Wrote in reply:
Are you seriously saying that a refugee can be deported without consideration of his asylum application?
Do you see the conflation?But the issue is those who arrive in the UK or its territorial waters. And please stop basing your legal conclusions on nothing. You say there is a right to prevent their entering. To the best of my knowledge, that issue has only been considered by one judge. A South African judge decided that the Refugee Convention does not allow signatories 'to prevent them entering.' Admittedly, it wasn't a judge from the highest court in South Africa. I haven't considered this aspect of the Convention and I don't have an opinion on whether signatories have a right to 'prevent them entering'. But someone who says the exact opposite to what you claim, has something solid on which to base that claim. Your claim that signatories 'are within their rights to prevent them entering' is based on nothing at all. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Mar 22, 2023 10:25:26 GMT
Sure - Mags wrote: They do not have this right - or to put it another way, the UK would / could be within its rights to prevent them entering.
Darling Wrote in reply:
Are you seriously saying that a refugee can be deported without consideration of his asylum application?
Do you see the conflation?But the issue is those who arrive in the UK or its territorial waters. Not really for me. I joined the discussion to refute the implication that the refugee convention gave such people in France the right to enter the UK |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Mar 22, 2023 10:40:02 GMT
But the issue is those who arrive in the UK or its territorial waters. Not really for me. I joined the discussion to refute the implication that the refugee convention gave such people in France the right to enter the UK Okay. Neither of us has any expertise in this area of law. To the best of my knowledge, the issue you raise has been considered by only one judge. She decided that the Convention does, in fact, impose a duty on signatories to take in refugees. I'm not in a position to advance an argument that she is right. By the same token, you are not entitled to make bold statements to the effect that what she decided is wrong. Stop pulling things out of thin air. Your proposition that the Convention does not impose an obligation on signatories to take in refugees is not based on a detailed analysis of the duties imposed by the Convention. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Mar 22, 2023 10:52:41 GMT
It might be an opportune moment to review Art.31 of the Convention to see what it has to say about a signatory state's obligations to accept refugees who turn up 'unannounced'.
31. Refugees unlawfully in the country of refuge
1. The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article i, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.
2. The Contracting States shall not apply to the movements of such refugees restrictions other than those which are necessary and such restrictions shall only be applied until their status in the country is regularized or they obtain admission into another country. The Contracting States shall allow such refugees a reasonable period and all the necessary facilities to obtain admission into another country.
It seems to me that the current state of the art re interpretation does not apply sufficient weight to the need for a prospective refugee (aka an asylum seeker) to show they are 'coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened'. It seems a significant stretch to apply this criterion to small boat arrivals from the EU.
|
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Mar 22, 2023 10:58:14 GMT
She decided that the Convention does, in fact, impose a duty on signatories to take in refugees. Yet another conflation - this time it is buried in the word 'refugee'. Nations are compelled to allow people entry if people are entering their country in order to flee a dangerous situation. Obviously, this doesn't include people fleeing across the English Channel from France Once you accept that the refugee convention does not dissolve the general rights of signatories to exclude ( and it can't), the rest of your position folds logically. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Mar 22, 2023 11:11:37 GMT
She decided that the Convention does, in fact, impose a duty on signatories to take in refugees. Yet another conflation - this time it is buried in the word 'refugee'. Nations are compelled to allow people entry if people are entering their country in order to flee a dangerous situation. Obviously, this doesn't include people fleeing across the English Channel from France Once you accept that the refugee convention does not dissolve the general rights of signatories to exclude ( and it can't), the rest of your position folds logically. I don't recall the facts of the South African case. I don't know if the refugees who massed on the South African border were in a dangerous country. But let's suppose they weren't. Let's suppose that that they were in a neighbouring country that was safe. There is still no support for your proposition that signatory states are not required to take in* refugees, even if they have travelled through a safe country. You could be right. But the only way to know that would be by a detailed study of the travaux préparatoires. The travaux préparatoires can put a completely different slant on the wording of the Convention. Klan Dan has mentioned Article 31 above. On the face of it, Article 31 does not require the UK to consider asylum applications from refugees who have not travelled directly from a place where their life or liberty was in peril. Yet, a Lord Justice found that the Convention did confer a right in these circumstances. He reached his conclusion after consideration of the travaux préparatoires. In other words, he gave the Convention a 'purposive' interpretation. This interpretive method is more common in civil law (Roman law) jurisdictions, and it is the interpretive approach signed up to by the high contracting parties to the Convention. *by this, I mean: consider applications from refugees who are not already in their territory. |
|
