|
Post by Orac on Jul 11, 2023 8:15:28 GMT
No that doesn't follow. An asylum seeker has a right to flee the dangerous country, he doesn't have an infinitely extendable right to enter any country from any other. How many countries does the convention stipulate that an asylum seeker is allowed to cross before they must claim asylum then. It doesn't specify a number and doesn't have to. Rather, there is simply no obligation to accept people from safe countries. This means that, after a person reaches a safe country, there is no longer any obligation to allow them to further move from that country to any other. i.e the number is 1 unless someone volunteers to accept them
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Jul 11, 2023 8:28:08 GMT
Of course Ukrainians fleeing war from their country are refugees, why on earth would you ask if they are refugees? They are fleeing war and hopefully you will never know what that's like. However, there's a massive difference between a refugee and the criminal scum who this poxy government continue to allow into this country from France. So, are Sudanese fleeing war? Yes, but Nigerians aren't.
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Jul 11, 2023 8:34:47 GMT
How many countries does the convention stipulate that an asylum seeker is allowed to cross before they must claim asylum then. It doesn't specify a number and doesn't have to. Rather, there is simply no obligation to accept people from safe countries. This means that, after a person reaches a safe country, there is no longer any obligation to allow them to further move from that country to any other. i.e the number is 1 unless someone volunteers to accept them Partly correct. Lets say person has to flee country A, arrives in country B (which is deemed "safe") and wishes to claim asylum in country C. Country C has no obligation to facilitate the persons travel from B to C. However if the person makes his own way to country C and claims asylum in C, then C is obliged to consider his claim fairly and grant asylum if justified unless B (or another safe country) offers to hear his claim instead.
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jul 11, 2023 8:48:48 GMT
The statement is correct Lets say person has to flee country A, arrives in country B (which is deemed "safe") and wishes to claim asylum in country C. Country C has no obligation to facilitate the persons travel from B to C. However if the person makes his own way to country C [...] Country C also has no obligation to allow this person passage into their country and so, 'making his own way' may well infer a criminal act. - the fact of that criminal act has been the subject of many arguments here, but it remains a fact. There is no extended legal right to travel from country to country regardless of the consent of the destination countries.
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Jul 11, 2023 8:56:56 GMT
Technically that is true Orac. However international law accepts that those seeking to claim asylum will have to cross borders irregularly. Hence the end country (country C) is prohibited from taking any action against people who have arrived in that country, they are obliged to hear the applicants claim for asylum (except in the circumstances I have outlined above) and while their claim is being assessed they are in country C perfectly legally. If their claim is eventually dismissed, their status changes again and Country C would then be free to deport them.
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jul 11, 2023 9:00:31 GMT
I only wanted to establish that you recognise that passing through a safe country doesn't disqualify from refugee status. Job done. That's right, according to legislation penned in 1951 when the world was a very different place. No, according to you in 2023. You acknowledged above that travelling to the UK via Poland doesn't make Ukrainians any less refugees.
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jul 11, 2023 9:11:54 GMT
Technically that is true Orac. However international law accepts that those seeking to claim asylum will have to cross borders irregularly. Not as a generality it doesn't. The convention allows a legal escape (border crossing) to a safe country. This permit doesn't extend because there is no further obligation once a person is in a safe country. Hence the end country (country C) is prohibited from taking any action against people who have arrived in that country, they are obliged to hear the applicants claim for asylum (except in the circumstances I have outlined above) and while their claim is being assessed they are in country C perfectly legally. If their claim is eventually dismissed, their status changes again and Country C would then be free to deport them. You would have to be more specific here. Countries are obliged to hear (process) claims from people who are in their country (whether arriving legally or illegally), but that doesn't get rid of the fact of the crime (the fact remains a fact, but is waived). These people are technically criminals and fraudsters. They are inappropriately leveraging what amounts to a legal loophole in legislation designed to help people in genuine need. In other words, they are shitheads
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Jul 11, 2023 9:21:38 GMT
hooray you seem to have finally grasped the law Orac.
People who wish to claim asylum are under no obligation to claim that asylum in the first safe country they reach and the country in which they do claim that asylum is obliged to hear that claim regardless of how they arrived in that country (unless another country volunteers to do so instead.). We have got somewhere.
you can throw names at people if you wish (unjustifiably in my view) but we have at least established what the law says.
That moves us on (eventually) to how (if at all) the law should be changed. (this now becoming a question of opinion rather than fact). Do you have any views here?
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jul 11, 2023 10:00:05 GMT
hooray you seem to have finally grasped the law Orac. People who wish to claim asylum are under no obligation to claim that asylum in the first safe country they reach ...However, countries are under no obligation to accept people from safe countries. - which means, after a person arrives in a safe country, either a third party volunteers to have them, or the legal part of their journey is complete. It's hard to see how I 'now understand' something after I have explained it to you three times.
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Jul 11, 2023 10:15:44 GMT
As we have established international law recognises that people wishing to claim asylum may have to cross borders irregularly.
I think you accepted that the law stated that if someone wishes to claim asylum in country C (having passed through safe country B), country C is under no obligation to facilitate their arrival into C but IF they arrive in C by irregular means, then they are then entitled to claim asylum in C and country C cannot take any action against them for their irregular arrival, must determine their claim fairly and while that claim is being determined the claimant is present in C legally.
Simple yes or no question. Do you agree that is what the law currently is.
If yes, we can move to the much more interesting question of how, if at all, the law in your opinion should be changed.
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jul 11, 2023 10:19:57 GMT
As we have established international law recognises that people wishing to claim asylum may have to cross borders irregularly. People in unsafe countries, in order to reach safety. Sure. However, it does not recognise that people in safe countries may need to cross borders irregularly to reach safety. If you think about it, such a construct would be a bit ludicrous.
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Jul 11, 2023 10:25:51 GMT
The law is what the law is.
People wishing to claim asylum can do so in any safe country they reach whether they have entered that country by conventional or irregular means.
Once they have claimed asylum, that country is obliged not to penalise them for their method of entry an d is obliged to fairly consider their asylum claim.
While their claim is being considered, they are legally entitled to be in that country.
Its the law.
you recognised the law as it is a few posts ago and are now backtracking which is a shame. the more interesting conversation surely is how you would wish to see the law changed. You seem curiously reluctant to engage in that conversation.
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jul 11, 2023 10:51:58 GMT
France isn't that dangerous - OK I know its pretty shit at the moment but over the next few weeks millions of people will be going there for their Holidays. France takes more asylum seekers than we do. I guess that makes France less dangerous. So why are they fleeing from France if its so good?
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jul 11, 2023 10:57:30 GMT
The law is what the law is. People wishing to claim asylum can do so in any safe country they reach whether they have entered that country by conventional or irregular means. Nobody contended this. This is essentially the loophole i outlined earlier. You have missed the conversation. The conversation that has banged about on this board for years is about the moral status of people who exploit this loophole. Some consider them to be worthy, while more realistic people consider them to be criminals and fraudsters, callously exploiting legislation designed to help the needy (which is what they are doing)
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Jul 11, 2023 11:04:56 GMT
Good we have got back to establishing the law.
Once again you wish to throw insults at people. I don't agree. Whatever.
Now that we have established what the law is, we can move on to how you would wish the law to be changed. I have asked you this several times yet you refuse to answer, which is odd.....
|
|