|
|
Post by Einhorn on Mar 22, 2023 15:27:16 GMT
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? Really? The majority don't head for the camps in north France. The vast majority travel elsewhere. And why do the EU member states have a duty to prevent people travelling through their country? Does the UK have a responsibility to stop the people arriving in dinghies from moving on to the ROI? Does international law even permit governments to detain refugees in their country if they wish to leave? |
|
|
|
Post by thescotsman on Mar 22, 2023 15:36:43 GMT
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. well....again you need to look at the convention's wording (which foregoing my utter lack of expert knowledge seems basically to follow UK law) to the extent that persons "present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence" etc....unfortunately like everything in life the devil is in the detail ergo there is vast industry from lawyers to traffickers to human rights activists etc etc making a crap pile of money out of a loosely worded convention....in terms of the non-refoulment principles the convention is really only establishing a regime of rights and responsibilities for refugees where, in most cases, only if an individual’s claim to refugee status is examined before he or she becomes affected by national law or jurisdiction (for example, in regard to penalization for ‘illegal’ entry)...for example "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"...who defines "necessary" and who determines when their "status" is "regularized" - there's nothing in the convention which defines those tests or provides defences should there be doubt, so you enter into a body of law and judgements....the devil's in the detail... |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Mar 22, 2023 15:38:31 GMT
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. well....again you need to look at the convention's wording (which foregoing my utter lack of expert knowledge seems basically to follow UK law) to the extent that persons "present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence" etc....unfortunately like everything in life the devil is in the detail ergo there is vast industry from lawyers to traffickers to human rights activists etc etc making a crap pile of money out of a loosely worded convention....in terms of the non-refoulment principles the convention is really only establishing a regime of rights and responsibilities for refugees where, in most cases, only if an individual’s claim to refugee status is examined before he or she becomes affected by national law or jurisdiction (for example, in regard to penalization for ‘illegal’ entry)...for example "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"...who defines "necessary" and who determines when their "status" is "regularized" - there's nothing in the convention which defines those tests or provides defences should there be doubt, so you enter into a body of law and judgements....the devil's in the detail... Well, if the act's wording is identical to the Refugee Convention, nothing's changed. In that case, refugees arriving from France can't be prosecuted. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2023 15:43:40 GMT
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. So you are using an abstraction. Originally, the term was used in Germany before the rise of NSDAP as a colloquial and derogatory word referring to an awkward, backward, and clumsy peasant. It would go on to be used as a mockery of the name Ignatz—a German variation of Ignatius. Lineker was talking about the language used by the NSDAP and its followers in dehumanising Jews, Gypsies..... to gain power. Originally the NSDAP wanted to deport 'people' it did not like it was only later that the started to execute them but it all started with words. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Mar 22, 2023 15:46:57 GMT
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? Really? The majority don't head for the camps in north France. The vast majority travel elsewhere. And why do the EU member states have a duty to prevent people travelling through their country? Does the UK have a responsibility to stop the people arriving in dinghies from moving on to the ROI? Does international law even permit governments to detain refugees in their country if they wish to leave? If a person is in France with no identification they can be deported. The duty is not to prevent people travelling it is to uphold their own laws. I would think we do have a duty to prevent free illegal travel in our country and you cannot board an Irish Ferry without some form of identification. If people wish to leave a country within which they are travelling illegally they must do to their original point of entry In Ireland almost half arrive on flights from various places yet have no travel documents despite the fact that documents are required to board the aircraft. People are taking the piss out of the West and rely on the pressures from the hand wringers to get them through |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Mar 22, 2023 15:47:00 GMT
So when lefties refer to middle aged white people as ‘ gammons’ they are using the language of 1930s Germany then?
Someone should be telling them .
|
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Mar 22, 2023 15:50:10 GMT
Really? The majority don't head for the camps in north France. The vast majority travel elsewhere. And why do the EU member states have a duty to prevent people travelling through their country? Does the UK have a responsibility to stop the people arriving in dinghies from moving on to the ROI? Does international law even permit governments to detain refugees in their country if they wish to leave? If a person is in France with no identification they can be deported. The duty is not to prevent people travelling it is to uphold their own laws. I would think we do have a duty to prevent free illegal travel in our country and you cannot board an Irish Ferry without some form of identification. If people wish to leave a country within which they are travelling illegally they must do to their original point of entry In Ireland almost half arrive on flights from various places yet have no travel documents despite the fact that documents are required to board the aircraft. People are taking the piss out of the West and rely on the pressures from the hand wringers to get them through There's a duty in international law for each country to uphold its own laws? Where did you get that idea? Where international law is not applicable, the enforcement of national law is entirely a matter for national governments. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Mar 22, 2023 16:43:15 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.
illegal entry into the territory of a
contracting State (Article 31);
Note - Illegal entry. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Mar 22, 2023 16:48:20 GMT
• The right not to be punished for
illegal entry into the territory of a
contracting State (Article 31);
Note - Illegal entry. Yes, the Refugee Convention confers immunity from prosecution on refugees who illegally enter the territory of a signatory. What's your point? |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Mar 22, 2023 17:09:24 GMT
Yes, the Refugee Convention confers immunity from prosecution on refugees who illegally enter the territory of a signatory. What's your point? My point is it does not confer a right to entry, merely a contingent waiver of prosecution for the crime of illegal entry. Somewhat similar to the contingent waiver you might expect if you (say) technically stole a bicycle to save your own or someone else's life. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Mar 22, 2023 17:20:59 GMT
If a person is in France with no identification they can be deported. The duty is not to prevent people travelling it is to uphold their own laws. I would think we do have a duty to prevent free illegal travel in our country and you cannot board an Irish Ferry without some form of identification. If people wish to leave a country within which they are travelling illegally they must do to their original point of entry In Ireland almost half arrive on flights from various places yet have no travel documents despite the fact that documents are required to board the aircraft. People are taking the piss out of the West and rely on the pressures from the hand wringers to get them through There's a duty in international law for each country to uphold its own laws? Where did you get that idea? Where international law is not applicable, the enforcement of national law is entirely a matter for national governments. You are ignoring the international obligation as regards how countries interact with each other. If ignoring ones own laws results in onerous conditions on your neighbour that creates an international obligation. If a country allowed an armed force to traverse its country to attack its neighbour then that is a breach of international law. by only ignoring their own laws. There is a duty to uphold one's own laws if failure to do so has serious consequences upon your neighbour. If we were very lax as regards who was allowed on Ferries to travel to Ireland we would be breaching our own laws and visiting problems upon Ireland who have enough problems of their own. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2023 17:34:07 GMT
So when lefties refer to midfield aged white people as ‘ gammons’ they are using the language of 1930s Germany then? Someone should be telling them . Snowflake. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Mar 22, 2023 17:37:28 GMT
It requires that they are allowed to ask for asylum if they wish. It doesn't give them a right to be in the UK or for that Asylum to be granted. Some countries flat out refuse to entertain asylum requests from countries they consider safe - the Convention allows for that. Can you point to a case that decided that? I should think the issue has never been discussed in a court because it is so obvious that a signatory state has to consider all applications made by those in their territory. The Refugee Convention is a binding agreement. If its signatories need only consider applications at their discretion, there is no obligation whatsoever, and the Convention becomes redundant. All applications are considered - those from what are deemed safe countries are automatically rejected. Take Sweden.. According to the Swedish Migration Agency, the following countries are safe countries of origin:
Albania
Bosnia and Hercegovina
Chile
Georgia
Kosovo
Mongolia
North Macedonia
Serbia
If you come from any of these countries, the Swedish Migration Agency will assume that you can obtain protection from the authorities in your home country. The Swedish Migration Agency can then make a decision on refusal of entry that will be enforced immediately. This means that you may need to leave Sweden even if you appeal the decision, and you will be issued a re-entry ban that is valid for two years. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Mar 22, 2023 17:39:43 GMT
So when lefties refer to midfield aged white people as ‘ gammons’ they are using the language of 1930s Germany then? Someone should be telling them . Snowflake. Lefties love snowflakes. You Nazi. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Mar 22, 2023 17:53:03 GMT
Yes, the Refugee Convention confers immunity from prosecution on refugees who illegally enter the territory of a signatory. What's your point? My point is it does not confer a right to entry, merely a contingent waiver of prosecution for the crime of illegal entry. Somewhat similar to the contingent waiver you might expect if you (say) technically stole a bicycle to save your own or someone else's life. It only deals with those who have entered the country illegally. Just because the Article says that those who enter the country illegally have an immunity, does not mean that signatories do not have an obligation to take in migrants by legal means. They are two separate issues. As far as I'm aware, the issue whether signatories have a duty to consider asylum applications from persons who are not already in their jurisdiction has been addressed by only one court, and that court ( a South Africa court, as mentioned), held that there was a duty. In order to know whether there is a duty, the Travaux préparatoires, as well as the Convention's articles, will need to be analysed. You keep saying there is no duty. But neither of us has enough expertise to make that determination. And, as mentioned, the only court that has examined the issue has found that there is a duty. |
|
