|
|
Post by Einhorn on Mar 22, 2023 17:54:43 GMT
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.Can you provide the link for this? You say they are automatically rejected. Yet, the part you link says there is merely an assumption. Assumptions can be rebutted. I'd like to see whether Swedish law allows the presumption of safety to be rebutted. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Mar 22, 2023 17:59:13 GMT
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. I'd like you to provide a link to this 'international obligation'. I've asked for it already. You haven't responded. I'm not aware of any rule in international law that says that sovereign states are under an obligation to enforce their own rules. If you have proof of your assertion to the contrary, provide a link. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Mar 22, 2023 18:03:22 GMT
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. The only point I have made throughout is that there is no right to entry. This does seem to trigger some odd, and desperate looking, responses |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Mar 22, 2023 18:06:10 GMT
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. The only point I have made throughout is that there is no right to entry. This does seem to trigger some odd responses Odd? How? A South Africa court has found there is a right to enter. You simply don't have the expertise to determine whether the court made a proper interpretation of the Convention. Tough shit, if you think pointing that out is 'odd'. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Mar 22, 2023 18:19:58 GMT
The only point I have made throughout is that there is no right to entry. This does seem to trigger some odd responses Odd? How? A South Africa court has found there is a right to enter. You simply don't have the expertise to determine whether the court made a proper interpretation of the Convention. Tough shit, if you think pointing that out is 'odd'. No judge found or stated that all signatory nations are compelled to allow in any un-identified person crossing over any of their borders from any other nation. Even the passages of the convention cited by the most enthusiastic deniers of the UK population's collective rights, use the word illegal to describe the entry of even a person who, in retrospect, qualifies for asylum. There is no right to entry. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2023 18:25:17 GMT
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. The only point I have made throughout is that there is no right to entry. This does seem to trigger some odd, and desperate looking, responses They'd support Hitler's invasion. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Mar 22, 2023 19:24:31 GMT
Odd? How? A South Africa court has found there is a right to enter. You simply don't have the expertise to determine whether the court made a proper interpretation of the Convention. Tough shit, if you think pointing that out is 'odd'. No judge found or stated that all signatory nations are compelled to allow in any un-identified person crossing over any of their borders from any other nation. Even the passages of the convention cited by the most enthusiastic deniers of the UK population's collective rights, use the word illegal to describe the entry of even a person who, in retrospect, qualifies for asylum. There is no right to entry. Can you explain what the practical difference between having immunity for entering illegally and having a right to enter illegally is? |
|
|
|
Post by wapentake on Mar 22, 2023 19:46:34 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. 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. Spain an EU member and a signatory to various conventions appears to have no compunction in engaging in direct action and deporting people to whence they came there seems no outcry on what they do.
It's not the first time either
|
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Mar 22, 2023 19:53:06 GMT
No judge found or stated that all signatory nations are compelled to allow in any un-identified person crossing over any of their borders from any other nation. Even the passages of the convention cited by the most enthusiastic deniers of the UK population's collective rights, use the word illegal to describe the entry of even a person who, in retrospect, qualifies for asylum. There is no right to entry. Can you explain what the practical difference between having immunity for entering illegally and having a right to enter illegally is? If you have no right to enter, you can be legitimately prevented from entering. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Mar 22, 2023 19:56:57 GMT
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. Spain an EU member and a signatory to various conventions appears to have no compunction in engaging in direct action and deporting people to whence they came there seems no outcry on what they do.
It's not the first time either
So what? How does that answer any of the questions about the rights of refugees raised here? We're discussing international law. The last time there was a threatened breach of international law in respect of refugees, the government responded to an injunction issued by an international court. It's of no relevance if the Spanish government would choose to defy such an injunction. Boris didn't have the balls to defy the injunction, so it is unlikely Rishi will. What the Spanish do is up to them. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Mar 22, 2023 19:59:37 GMT
Can you explain what the practical difference between having immunity for entering illegally and having a right to enter illegally is? If you have no right to enter, you can be legitimately prevented from entering. Yes, I suppose that is a practical distinction. However, it's of little use in respect of persons who have already entered the UK. There is no practical distinction in terms of rights between a refugee who entered the country illegally and one who entered by a legal route. |
|
|
|
Post by wapentake on Mar 22, 2023 20:12:24 GMT
Spain an EU member and a signatory to various conventions appears to have no compunction in engaging in direct action and deporting people to whence they came there seems no outcry on what they do.
It's not the first time either
So what? How does that answer any of the questions about the rights of refugees raised here? We're discussing international law. The last time there was a threatened breach of international law in respect of refugees, the government responded to an injunction issued by an international court. It's of no relevance if the Spanish government would choose to defy such an injunction. Boris didn't have the balls to defy the injunction, so it is unlikely Rishi will. What the Spanish do is up to them. So what? well its an example of how others in Europe view international law,that you dismiss it as irrelevant displays a determination only to villify this country I am merely pointing out that fact. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Mar 22, 2023 20:15:28 GMT
So what? How does that answer any of the questions about the rights of refugees raised here? We're discussing international law. The last time there was a threatened breach of international law in respect of refugees, the government responded to an injunction issued by an international court. It's of no relevance if the Spanish government would choose to defy such an injunction. Boris didn't have the balls to defy the injunction, so it is unlikely Rishi will. What the Spanish do is up to them. So what? well its an example of how others in Europe view international law,that you dismiss it as irrelevant displays a determination only to villify this country I am merely pointing out that fact. It's not about vilifying anyone. It's about what's going to happen. The central issue is: what does international law say on this issue? Because recent experience shows that the government will respond to orders from international courts. It's of no relevance that the Spanish government might choose to ignore an order from an international court. |
|
|
|
Post by wapentake on Mar 22, 2023 20:37:56 GMT
So what? well its an example of how others in Europe view international law,that you dismiss it as irrelevant displays a determination only to villify this country I am merely pointing out that fact. Isn't it? and it's very relevant and does demonstrate what I said earlier that this country has a better record of complying with international law than many others.
You know what's going to happen? If only I had your powers I'd be a damn sight wealthier.
It appears international law holds little sway with Spain and sets a precedent.
Perhaps we're not the villainous country often depicted by some posters on here.
|
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Mar 22, 2023 20:40:23 GMT
You know what's going to happen/ If only I had your powers I'd be a damn sight wealthier.
Stop being stupid. If you know what the law is, you can predict the outcome of a court case. |
|
