|
|
Post by Orac on Mar 22, 2023 11:25:21 GMT
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. The support is in logic 1) The refugee convention does not say that signatories are compelled to allow in any un-identified person crossing over any of their borders from any other nation. 2) The refugee convention cannot legally be interpreted to imply 1 Once you have accepted that signatories did not sign away virtually all control of their national borders, the rest is a downhill ride back to common sense. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Mar 22, 2023 11:38:54 GMT
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. The support is in logic 1) The refugee convention does not say that signatories are compelled to allow in any un-identified person crossing over any of their borders from any other nation. 2) The refugee convention cannot legally be interpreted to imply 1 Once you have accepted that signatories did not sign away virtually all control of their national borders, the rest is a downhill ride back to common sense. Indeed, logic certainly plays a role. But you are ignoring logic. You are using a common law interpretive technique to interpret a document that was intended to be interpreted in the light of its purpose. In defiance of all logic and 'common sense', you continue to apply a literal interpretive technique in the face of the fact that a Lord Justice used an entirely different technique in the leading case in the UK. Logic and common sense tell us that a Lord Justice is better positioned than you to understand what is required under the Convention. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Mar 22, 2023 11:43:38 GMT
The support is in logic 1) The refugee convention does not say that signatories are compelled to allow in any un-identified person crossing over any of their borders from any other nation. 2) The refugee convention cannot legally be interpreted to imply 1 Once you have accepted that signatories did not sign away virtually all control of their national borders, the rest is a downhill ride back to common sense. Indeed, logic certainly plays a role. But you are ignoring logic. You are using a common law interpretive technique to interpret a document that was intended to be interpreted in the light of its purpose. In defiance of all logic and 'common sense', you continue to apply a literal interpretive technique in the face of the fact that a Lord Justice used an entirely different technique in the leading case in the UK. Logic and common sense tell us that a Lord Justice is better positioned to understand what is required under the Convention than you. You can even use an empirical approach and go through the logic from the other side - ie are signatories compelled to allow in any un-identified person crossing over any of their borders from any other nation?The answer being; no, they are not. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Mar 22, 2023 11:47:24 GMT
Indeed, logic certainly plays a role. But you are ignoring logic. You are using a common law interpretive technique to interpret a document that was intended to be interpreted in the light of its purpose. In defiance of all logic and 'common sense', you continue to apply a literal interpretive technique in the face of the fact that a Lord Justice used an entirely different technique in the leading case in the UK. Logic and common sense tell us that a Lord Justice is better positioned to understand what is required under the Convention than you. You can even use an empirical approach and go through the logic from the other side - ie are signatories compelled to allow in any un-identified person crossing over any of their borders from any other nation?The answer being; no, they are not. That was the issue raised in the South African case. A South African judge ruled that South Africa was compelled to 'take in' refugees. I don't recall whether the country they were in prior to arriving at the South African border was dangerous. But the country they originated from was dangerous. |
|
|
|
Post by dodgydave on Mar 22, 2023 11:51:51 GMT
Lineker used the Nazi comparison to shut down the argument. He could have said it was cruel without bringing Hitler's mob into it, but he chose to, and ironically used hate speech against another group of people (the Tories) lol. That is the classic tactic of many on the left. Instead of having a grown up conversation they seek to remove people from the conversation by labelling them Nazi / racists / sexist / homophobe / transphobe. A grown up argument would have been to say we need to get together with other developed countries and come up with fair quotas for each country, and better aim foreign aid / peace keeping to improve the countries people are fleeing from. He did not mention Nazi's. He alluded to the fact that the language used in 1930s Germany led to the horrors that ensued. We have 'fair' quotas the UK regularly fails to meet its commitments. Pray tell, who was in power in 1930s Germany? lol. The man has zero balls, and this line of argument that he didn't use the word Nazi is as stupid as Boris's defense for lying to parliament lol. ie he was talking about 1930s Germany, but he didn't mean to imply the Tories were behaving like the Nazis hahahahahaha. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Mar 22, 2023 11:59:32 GMT
You can even use an empirical approach and go through the logic from the other side - ie are signatories compelled to allow in any un-identified person crossing over any of their borders from any other nation?The answer being; no, they are not. That was the issue raised in the South African case. No it wasn't. No judge stated that all signatory nations are compelled to allow in any un-identified person crossing over any of their borders from any other nation. This is where your motivated reasoning kicks in. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Mar 22, 2023 12:25:10 GMT
That was the issue raised in the South African case. No it wasn't. No judge stated that all signatory nations are compelled to allow in any un-identified person crossing over any of their borders from any other nation. This is where your motivated reasoning kicks in. Hmmm. I haven't been able to find the South Africa case online. It was discussed at length in another thread (probably on the old site). I suspect I came across it in an article I downloaded from a university law library. I'm not about to read all the articles I have on the subject to find it again, so you can take it or leave it. I am curious to know what you think is achieved by taking the discussion in the direction you wish to go. You are discussing whether countries have an obligation to take in refugees from outside the UK. The real issue here is the rights of those who are already in the UK or UK territorial waters.
Last night, you mentioned that there was no duty to collect refugees. Again, I'm curious as to why you think this is worthy of discussion. You appear to be introducing things that simply aren't relevant. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Mar 22, 2023 12:49:29 GMT
No it wasn't. No judge stated that all signatory nations are compelled to allow in any un-identified person crossing over any of their borders from any other nation. This is where your motivated reasoning kicks in. Last night, you mentioned that there was no duty to collect refugees. Again, I'm curious as to why you think this is worthy of discussion. You appear to be introducing things that simply aren't relevant. 'Collect refugees' was in a short list of barmy possibilities that are not compelled by the refugee convention. The UK is not compelled to perform (say) international scouting missions looking for potential refugees. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Mar 22, 2023 12:53:00 GMT
Last night, you mentioned that there was no duty to collect refugees. Again, I'm curious as to why you think this is worthy of discussion. You appear to be introducing things that simply aren't relevant. 'Collect refugees' was in a short list of barmy possibilities that are not compelled by the refugee convention. The UK is not compelled to perform (say) international scouting missions looking for potential refugees. Yes, but why are you discussing this stuff at all? Surely, it's academic. It might be interesting to discuss whether signatories have a duty to 'take in' refugees, but is it really relevant to the issues faced by the UK at the moment? The UK's problems are caused by refugees already in the UK, having arrived in the UK by dinghy or being in dinghies in the UK's territorial waters. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Mar 22, 2023 13:17:14 GMT
'Collect refugees' was in a short list of barmy possibilities that are not compelled by the refugee convention. The UK is not compelled to perform (say) international scouting missions looking for potential refugees. Yes, but why are you discussing this stuff at all? Surely, it's academic. It might be interesting to discuss whether signatories have a duty to 'take in' refugees, but is it really relevant to the issues faced by the UK at the moment? The UK's problems are caused by refugees already in the UK, having arrived in the UK by dinghy or being in dinghies in the UK's territorial waters. I felt, so heightened was the apparent hysterical insistence in some quarters that the UK people have no exclusive rights at all to the territory of the UK, that this possibility warranted inclusion. I could have made the list longer - for instance, I didn't exclude the possibility that the UK government is compelled to build moving walkways from the middle east. I think I was quite restrained. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Mar 22, 2023 13:19:40 GMT
Yes, but why are you discussing this stuff at all? Surely, it's academic. It might be interesting to discuss whether signatories have a duty to 'take in' refugees, but is it really relevant to the issues faced by the UK at the moment? The UK's problems are caused by refugees already in the UK, having arrived in the UK by dinghy or being in dinghies in the UK's territorial waters. I felt, so heightened was the apparent hysterical insistence in some quarters that the UK people have no exclusive rights at all to the territory of the UK, that this possibility warranted inclusion. I could have made the list longer - for instance, I didn't exclude the possibility that the UK government is compelled to build moving walkways from the middle east straight into labour marginals. I think I was quite restrained. We're all very appreciative of your pithy commentary, Mags. But it's probably time to get back to the matter at hand. |
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Mar 22, 2023 14:06:32 GMT
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. The support is in logic 1) The refugee convention does not say that signatories are compelled to allow in any un-identified person crossing over any of their borders from any other nation. 2) The refugee convention cannot legally be interpreted to imply 1 Once you have accepted that signatories did not sign away virtually all control of their national borders, the rest is a downhill ride back to common sense. It's worth reading UNHCR explaining the rights of refugees under "The 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol"...
The 1951 Convention contains a number of rights and also highlights the ob-
ligations of refugees towards their host country. The cornerstone of the 1951
Convention is the principle of non-refoulement contained in Article 33. Accord-
ing to this principle, a refugee should not be returned to a country where
he or she faces serious threats to his or her life or freedom. This protection
may not be claimed by refugees who are reasonably regarded as a danger to
the security of the country, or having been convicted of a particularly serious
crime, are considered a danger to the community.
• The right not to be expelled, except under certain, strictly
defined conditions (Article 32);
• The right not to be punished for
illegal entry into the territory of a
contracting State (Article 31);
• The right to work (Articles 17 to 19) • The right to housing (Article 21);
• The right to education (Article 22);
• The right to public relief and
assistance (Article 23);
• The right to freedom of religion
(Article 4); • The right to access the courts
(Article 16);
• The right to freedom of
movement within the territory (Article
26); and
• The right to be issued identity
and travel documents (Articles 27 and 28).
|
|
|
|
Post by thescotsman on Mar 22, 2023 14:49:24 GMT
The support is in logic 1) The refugee convention does not say that signatories are compelled to allow in any un-identified person crossing over any of their borders from any other nation. 2) The refugee convention cannot legally be interpreted to imply 1 Once you have accepted that signatories did not sign away virtually all control of their national borders, the rest is a downhill ride back to common sense. It's worth reading UNHCR explaining the rights of refugees under "The 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol"...
The 1951 Convention contains a number of rights and also highlights the ob-
ligations of refugees towards their host country. The cornerstone of the 1951
Convention is the principle of non-refoulement contained in Article 33. Accord-
ing to this principle, a refugee should not be returned to a country where
he or she faces serious threats to his or her life or freedom. This protection
may not be claimed by refugees who are reasonably regarded as a danger to
the security of the country, or having been convicted of a particularly serious
crime, are considered a danger to the community.
• The right not to be expelled, except under certain, strictly
defined conditions (Article 32);
• The right not to be punished for
illegal entry into the territory of a
contracting State (Article 31);
• The right to work (Articles 17 to 19) • The right to housing (Article 21);
• The right to education (Article 22);
• The right to public relief and
assistance (Article 23);
• The right to freedom of religion
(Article 4); • The right to access the courts
(Article 16);
• The right to freedom of
movement within the territory (Article
26); and
• The right to be issued identity
and travel documents (Articles 27 and 28).
Article 31 is vastly expanded upon within English Law - and provides tests and defences in respect of potential asylum seekers as well as with carriers legal liability requirements....as a tiny example United Kingdom: Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, section 31: 31. – (1) It is a defence for a refugee charged with an offence to which this section applies to show that, having come to the United Kingdom directly from a country where his life or freedom was threatened (within the meaning of the Refugee Convention), he – (a) presented himself to the authorities in the United Kingdom without delay; (b) showed good cause for his illegal entry or presence; and (c) made a claim for asylum as soon as was reasonably practicable after his arrival in the United Kingdom. (2) If, in coming from the country where his life or freedom was threatened, the refugee stopped in another country outside the United Kingdom, subsection (1) applies only if he shows that he could not reasonably have expected to be given protection under the Refugee Convention in that other country... . . (5) A refugee who has made a claim for asylum is not entitled to the defence provided by subsection (1) in relation to any offence committed by him after making that claim. (6) ‘Refugee’ has the same meaning as it has for the purposes of the Refugee Convention. (7) If the Secretary of State has refused to grant a claim for asylum made by a person who claims that he has a defence under subsection (1), that person is to be taken not to be a refugee unless he shows that he is... etc etc....there's a whole myriad of tests and defences applicable within English Law and Practise as well as any Country's national law and practises and tests and defences through which persons are transiting...I guess simply citing Article 31 as a stand alone is in itself basically meaningless without taking into account the context of English Law and practise.....I'm not a lawyer so pick the bones out of that |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Mar 22, 2023 14:55:11 GMT
It's worth reading UNHCR explaining the rights of refugees under "The 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol"...
The 1951 Convention contains a number of rights and also highlights the ob-
ligations of refugees towards their host country. The cornerstone of the 1951
Convention is the principle of non-refoulement contained in Article 33. Accord-
ing to this principle, a refugee should not be returned to a country where
he or she faces serious threats to his or her life or freedom. This protection
may not be claimed by refugees who are reasonably regarded as a danger to
the security of the country, or having been convicted of a particularly serious
crime, are considered a danger to the community.
• The right not to be expelled, except under certain, strictly
defined conditions (Article 32);
• The right not to be punished for
illegal entry into the territory of a
contracting State (Article 31);
• The right to work (Articles 17 to 19) • The right to housing (Article 21);
• The right to education (Article 22);
• The right to public relief and
assistance (Article 23);
• The right to freedom of religion
(Article 4); • The right to access the courts
(Article 16);
• The right to freedom of
movement within the territory (Article
26); and
• The right to be issued identity
and travel documents (Articles 27 and 28).
Article 31 is vastly expanded upon within English Law - and provides tests and defences in respect of potential asylum seekers as well as with carriers legal liability requirements....as a tiny example United Kingdom: Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, section 31: 31. – (1) It is a defence for a refugee charged with an offence to which this section applies to show that, having come to the United Kingdom directly from a country where his life or freedom was threatened (within the meaning of the Refugee Convention), he – (a) presented himself to the authorities in the United Kingdom without delay; (b) showed good cause for his illegal entry or presence; and (c) made a claim for asylum as soon as was reasonably practicable after his arrival in the United Kingdom. (2) If, in coming from the country where his life or freedom was threatened, the refugee stopped in another country outside the United Kingdom, subsection (1) applies only if he shows that he could not reasonably have expected to be given protection under the Refugee Convention in that other country... . . (5) A refugee who has made a claim for asylum is not entitled to the defence provided by subsection (1) in relation to any offence committed by him after making that claim. (6) ‘Refugee’ has the same meaning as it has for the purposes of the Refugee Convention. (7) If the Secretary of State has refused to grant a claim for asylum made by a person who claims that he has a defence under subsection (1), that person is to be taken not to be a refugee unless he shows that he is... etc etc....there's a whole myriad of tests and defences applicable within English Law and Practise as well as any Country's national law and practises and tests and defences through which persons are transiting...I guess simply citing Article 31 as a stand alone is in itself basically meaningless without taking into account the context of English Law and practise.....I'm not a lawyer so pick the bones out of that The whole point of international law is that countries should bring their national laws into line with it. Putin's invasion of Ukraine is legal under Russian national law, but it is illegal under international law. Similarly, it may be legal under UK national law to prosecute refugees who arrive in the UK illegally, but it will be illegal under international law. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Mar 22, 2023 15:16:08 GMT
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. Then they have no legal right to travel through the EU and can be stopped and deported by the authorities who do their level best to not ask them for ID. There is breaking the law and there is being allowed to break the law through the application of wilful blindness. There are tens of thousands of migrants in Libya and the numbers are increasing daily. Take a guess when will it stop? |
|
