|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Jul 10, 2023 13:42:09 GMT
The Refugee Convention is a peice of outdated legislation drawn up in 1951 in the shadow of WW2 when there were millions of displaced people in Europe. It was not designed to help criminals, 70 years later, move from safe country 'A' to safe country 'B', but that is exactly what it is being used for. The government should quite obviously withdraw from the convention and any other 70 year old legislation that is no longer fit for purpose. This would not stop illegals crossing the channel, but it would make it more difficult for left wing politicians, left wing lawyers and left wing charities to defend the invasion from the safe EU state of France. That is your opinion and you are perfectly entitled to it but it's not a good look for the UK is it? Read it again. It's fact not opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Jul 10, 2023 13:54:21 GMT
Well strictly speaking Red, the rules on asylum in use today mainly derive from the 1967 protocol rather than the 1951 convention.
It was intended to regulate what people fleeing from their homes were and were not allowed to do. It made clear that these people were not obliged to claim their asylum in the first safe country they reached. Nothing has changed since. That interpretation has since been confirmed by UK case law.
Those are the facts and the basis of international law today.
It may be your opinion that the UK should become (as far as I know) the only country in the world to withdraw from this Convention. It is your right to hold and express that opinion (however ridiculous many people will consider it to be).
It appears your primary objection is that you believe that peop,le should be obliged to claim in the first safe country. Could you explain how you justify that view.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2023 13:58:00 GMT
That is your opinion and you are perfectly entitled to it but it's not a good look for the UK is it? Read it again. It's fact not opinion. The refugee convention is undoubtably being used by a few outside the spirit of the convention but that does not make it bad or outdated. A sensible processing policy will solve most of the issues. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2023 13:59:31 GMT
That is your opinion and you are perfectly entitled to it but it's not a good look for the UK is it? Read it again. It's fact not opinion. EUphiles and Blairites will support everything to undermine this country, and we know for a fact that they will support people being debanked and unpersonned as a means of terrorising people into silence. It was the Islamists who said "we will use your system against you".
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Jul 10, 2023 14:10:45 GMT
Read it again. It's fact not opinion. EUphiles and Blairites will support everything to undermine this country, and we know for a fact that they will support people being debanked and unpersonned as a means of terrorising people into silence. It was the Islamists who said "we will use your system against you".
That's very true. The problem is, myopic lefties don't seem to realise that they are as threatened as everyone else. |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Jul 10, 2023 15:39:50 GMT
Well strictly speaking Red, the rules on asylum in use today mainly derive from the 1967 protocol rather than the 1951 convention. It was intended to regulate what people fleeing from their homes were and were not allowed to do. It made clear that these people were not obliged to claim their asylum in the first safe country they reached. Nothing has changed since. That interpretation has since been confirmed by UK case law. Those are the facts and the basis of international law today. It may be your opinion that the UK should become (as far as I know) the only country in the world to withdraw from this Convention. It is your right to hold and express that opinion (however ridiculous many people will consider it to be). It appears your primary objection is that you believe that peop,le should be obliged to claim in the first safe country. Could you explain how you justify that view. Seems like Red is evading this question too. Becoming a theme..... |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jul 10, 2023 15:51:00 GMT
It appears your primary objection is that you believe that peop,le should be obliged to claim in the first safe country. Could you explain how you justify that view. The same straw-man again. It isn't that anyone is obliged to claim anything at any point, it is that they are compelled not to cross borders illegally. If they are in a safe country, they don't have to claim and we don't have to accept them. |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Jul 10, 2023 16:13:30 GMT
I dont understand the point you are making Orac.
1) Do you understand that international and domestic law makes it clear that people seeking asylum are not obliged to claim that asylum in the first safe country they reach
Agreed or are you arguing that that is not a simple fact?
2) Once you understand 1) you may wish to argue that in your opinion the above law should not be what it is and people should be obliged to claim asylum in the first country they reach. If that is your point, could you explain your justification?
|
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jul 10, 2023 16:32:36 GMT
I dont understand the point you are making Orac. 1) Do you understand that international and domestic law makes it clear that people seeking asylum are not obliged to claim that asylum in the first safe country they reach Agreed or are you arguing that that is not a simple fact? 2) Once you understand 1) you may wish to argue that in your opinion the above law should not be what it is and people should be obliged to claim asylum in the first country they reach. If that is your point, could you explain your justification? You are attempting to re-present the same straw-man yet again. Nobody is obliged to seek asylum anywhere and nobody is obliged to take in a person who is in a safe country. Put the two together. |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Jul 10, 2023 17:11:38 GMT
It is perhaps telling that Orac is so reluctant to confirm whether or not he understands what the law is.
It is also telling that he refuses to explain why he believes the law should be changed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jul 10, 2023 17:36:57 GMT
It is perhaps telling that Orac is so reluctant to confirm whether or not he understands what the law is. It is also telling that he refuses to explain why he believes the law should be changed. I think it's rather telling that, although i answered your question unambiguously, you are under some impression I didn't. Read what i put - here it is again - Nobody is obliged to seek asylum anywhere and nobody is obliged to take in a person who is in a safe country. |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Jul 10, 2023 17:47:04 GMT
Of course people are not obliged to seek asylum.
Do you understand that the law is that those who choose to seek asylum are not obliged to do so in the first safe country they reach?
|
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jul 10, 2023 18:04:11 GMT
Of course people are not obliged to seek asylum. Do you understand that the law is that those who choose to seek asylum are not obliged to do so in the first safe country they reach? How can anyone be obliged to 'seek asylum in the first country they reach', if nobody is obliged to seek asylum? Do you remember your Venn diagrams at school? I said - Nobody is obliged to seek asylum and nobody is obliged to take in anyone from a safe country.If you put those two ideas together you will (hopefully) see what the problem is. |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Jul 10, 2023 18:07:18 GMT
You are avoiding a simple question again
|
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jul 10, 2023 18:20:12 GMT
Let's add another rule -
Anyone can seek asylum if they wish.
The answer to your question is simple -
1) Nobody is obliged to seek asylum
2) Anyone can seek asylum if they wish.
3) Nobody is obliged to take in anyone from a safe country
Have a think about the consequences.
|
|
