|
Post by Bentley on Dec 13, 2023 15:50:43 GMT
So I could paddle over to France without a passport and France would be obliged to accept me . Probably not, if the intention is to claim asylum. All EU states (plus the UK) have clauses in their domestic asylum regulations to the effect that claims from nationals of states considered to be as safe as them are deemed to be inadmissible. So if you rocked up on a French beach in your dinghy the gendarmes would likely just give you a good going over before bundling you straight back on the next ferry.
The UK's current inadmissibility regulations (s80a of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002) is being upgraded as we speak to add other ultra-safe countries something a lot of lefties are in a right old lather about.
So darling might be wrong ? Its a terrifying thought.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Dec 13, 2023 15:51:55 GMT
I'd take a second opinion before proceeding with any of his prescriptions if I were you.
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Dec 13, 2023 15:52:42 GMT
I'd take a second opinion before proceeding with any of his prescriptions if I were you. Or try his home brew .
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 13, 2023 15:54:26 GMT
Nothing gets past you, Jonks. Well it would take more than a simpleton like you darling. Please try to be more supportive.
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Dec 13, 2023 15:58:39 GMT
Well it would take more than a simpleton like you darling. Please try to be more supportive. Maybe we should have support a twat week.
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 13, 2023 16:03:07 GMT
Please try to be more supportive. Maybe we should have support a twat week. Too kind. You've been like a mother to me, Jonks.
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 13, 2023 16:17:32 GMT
I'd take a second opinion before proceeding with any of his prescriptions if I were you. You're not showing the white race in it's best light, Danny. We're discussing international law. Keep quoting domestic law if you like, but it's irrelevant for our purposes. Putin's invasion of Ukraine is legal under Russian domestic law - it's illegal under International law. Maybe, you just missed the references to international law on the preceding pages.
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 13, 2023 16:18:59 GMT
They entered via Poland. Now who is the clown as none of the Ukrains came in small boats illegally. Who said they did? And, if you've been reading this thread, you'll know that international law explicitly recognises that those entering the UK by dinghy are acting illegally. BUT, it confers a duty on those who have voluntarily entered the Refugee Convention to bestow a pardon on those criminals. The UK is a voluntary signatory of the Refugee Convention. The new laws which punish refugees for entering the UK by dinghy contradict the duty to confer a pardon. They are therefore a breach of international law, and will be held to be so when they appear before the courts. Understanding what the convention says must also raise the question what was the intent of those who signed the convention as regards including that allowance. No one seems willing to address that issue. Was it to allow massive cross countries movement of peoples to seek asylum in their chosen country or was there another consideration. My belief was it was to facilitate those who may have to escape using subterfuge and fraud to cross frontiers whereby their means of escape involved crossing one or more frontiers illegally to effect their escape. Somewhere along the line it has been usurped to mean anyone can reach anywhere without having legal sanction against them which is a nonsense both in terms of protecting one's borders and in effecting the proper consideration of those claiming asylum. The law does not allow free movement across borders it is just that no country is willing to stop it as long as the illegal entrants move on to somewhere else.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Dec 13, 2023 16:46:36 GMT
I'd take a second opinion before proceeding with any of his prescriptions if I were you. You're not showing the white race in it's best light, Danny. We're discussing international law. Keep quoting domestic law if you like, though. But it's irrelevant for our purposes. Putin's invasion of Ukraine is legal under Russian domestic law - it's illegal under International law. Maybe, you just missed the references to international law on the preceding pages. I didn't miss them but already realised that international law is not always everything it's cracked up to be by its more pie-eyed promoters.
In the particular field of inadmissibility of asylum claims Germany, for example, declares over 99% of such claims from its list of safe countries (the EU plus Albania and Serbia) inadmissible and has been doing so for many years. Has the UN declared war on Germany yet for its persistent and flagrant disregard for international law? Or even called for a rapping of knuckles if not economic sanctions?
If it has I haven't heard about it.
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 13, 2023 16:48:14 GMT
You're not showing the white race in it's best light, Danny. We're discussing international law. Keep quoting domestic law if you like, though. But it's irrelevant for our purposes. Putin's invasion of Ukraine is legal under Russian domestic law - it's illegal under International law. Maybe, you just missed the references to international law on the preceding pages. I didn't miss them but already realised that international law is not always everything it's cracked up to be by its more pie-eyed promoters.
In the particular field of inadmissibility of asylum claims Germany, for example, declares over 99% of such claims from its list of safe countries (the EU plus Albania and Serbia) inadmissible and has been doing so for many years. Has the UN declared war on Germany yet for its persistent and flagrant disregard for international law? Or even called a rapping of knuckles?
If it has I haven't heard about it.
I'm seriously beginning to doubt the supremacy of the white race, Danny. We're discussing international law, not domestic law.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Dec 13, 2023 16:53:26 GMT
You're discussing international law, largely with yourself. The rest us are discussing the Rwanda plan and associated matters.
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 13, 2023 16:57:38 GMT
You're discussing international law, largely with yourself. The rest us are discussing the Rwanda plan and associated matters. You may recall the time that plane to Rwanda didn't leave the airport. It was in all the newspapers. Do you happen to recall why that was? Was it because of international law, by any chance? You can discuss domestic law if you please. It's already been stated that it's contrary to international law. Let's see how that works out. Congratulations on the success of your vexatious report in the Mind Zone, by the way. Never heard of the boy who called wolf, Danny?
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Dec 13, 2023 17:09:11 GMT
In the specific area of inadmissible asylum claims, it's very obvious that "international law" has no relevance.
Not just in Germany, but everywhere else in the EU and in the UK too.
In the year to March 2023 the Home Secretary certified (declared inadmissible) 514 claims from nationals of designated (safe) countries.
Let us know when you see the white helicopters and blue helmets landing in Whitehall.
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 13, 2023 17:11:14 GMT
International law stopped the plane to Rwanda. That's enough. That was a sad day for you. Of course, it's all part of the Zionist genocidal conspiracy.
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Dec 13, 2023 17:42:24 GMT
Please try to be more supportive. Maybe we should have support a twat week. You would still fail to get any support other than from "twats".
|
|