monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

@Baldimo,

International law disagrees with you on "illegal" crossing to claim refugee status.

The Convention And Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees is a United Nations treaty that we agreed to in 1951 and is still international law in 2019. This is the law as it relates to refugee status for all United Nations members. Here is a link: https://www.unhcr.org/3b66c2aa10

The important bit for our conversation is:

Quote:

The Convention further stipulates that, subject to specific exceptions, refugees should not be penalized for their illegal entry or stay. This recognizes that the seeking of asylum can require refugees to breach immigration rules. Prohibited penalties might include being charged with immigration or criminal offences relating to the seeking of asylum, or being arbitrarily detained purely on the basis of seeking asylum. Importantly, the Convention contains various safeguards against the expulsion of refugees.

Let me know if any of those sentences are unclear now.

2 Replies

@izzythepush,

What I know of that time period is admittedly in fiction novels, however, nowadays most readers will not accept authors who have not done a lot of research in their time period. Half the interest in reading is experiencing other parts of time and/or places you may not ever get to and you want it to be real, even romance readers want it to be real. In other words I have read about that time period. It would be interesting to see it. So would seeing famous places where there were civil wars and border wars as well as parts of Wales and Scotland as it referred to then. Probably not much left but "ruins" but still interesting to see. Now it is all UK isn't it?

My sister who leads a completely different life than me although we are close, went on an European tour through Spain and parts of the UK. I would have wanted to go Scotland while I was at it, but anyway, she showed me lots of pictures because she knows of my interest in it.

1 Reply

@maporsche,

Quote:

International law disagrees with you on "illegal" crossing to claim refugee status.

International law is only followed if the country or nation wants to follow it, it is non binding. Meaning only the nation involved can enforce it or not.

Also the UNCHR is an Islamist tool and completely corrupt joke.

1 Reply

@coldjoint,

coldjoint wrote:

Quote:
International law disagrees with you on "illegal" crossing to claim refugee status.

International law is only followed if the country or nation wants to follow it, it is non binding. Meaning only the nation involved can enforce it or not.

So you're suggesting that we just stop following international treaties we agree to willy nilly then? I'm sure that won't cause any problems.

But, to humor you, how about we follow United States law then?

The Refugee Act of 1980
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-94/pdf/STATUTE-94-Pg102.pdf

Quote:

"SEC. 208. (a) The Attorney General shall establish a procedure for
an alien physically present in the United States or at a land border or
port of entry, irrespective of such alien's status, to apply for asylum,
and the alien may be granted asylum in the discretion of the
Attorney General if the Attorney General determines that such alien
is a refugee within the meaning of section 101(aX42XA).

1 Reply

@maporsche,

Quote:

So you're suggesting that we just stop following international treaties we agree to willy nilly then?

I am saying if we change our minds the treaty is useless. They are only diplomatic flourishes that can be ignored when necessary.

And how many laws about illegal immigration were not enforced by Obama?

1 Reply

@coldjoint,

What about the domestic, United States law that you didn't respond to?

1 Reply

@revelette1,

England, Wales, Scotland and NI are very distinct. NI and Scotland have their own legal system. We may all be ruled from Westminster but the differences remain.

1 Reply

@maporsche,

Quote:

What about the domestic, United States law that you didn't respond to?

Look at the edit. Obama decided not enforce laws on the books. They even took AZ. to court for trying to enforce them. Why should this administration do what Obama did not or why can't they just ignore laws like Obama did?

2 Replies

@coldjoint,

I don’t think that response makes sense in the context of the conversation with Baldimo.

I’ll wait for his response.

1 Reply

@maporsche,

Quote:

I don’t think that response makes sense in the context of the conversation with Baldimo.

I don't care. What I said was true.

1 Reply

@maporsche,

Asylum law also states that they have to seek asylum in the first country that can grant it, not keep going until you get to a better place. These people coming from South America are not seeking asylum, they are simply trying to immigrate for a better life.

1 Reply

@coldjoint,

Maybe (I don't know that I agree)...but definitely irrelevant to the discussion.

1 Reply

@Baldimo,

But that's what I said. It is NOT illegal to cross the border and ask for asylum. How is it correct when YOU say it but when I did, you argued it was.

1 Reply

@maporsche,

Quote:

Maybe (I don't know that I agree)...but definitely irrelevant to the discussion.

If the discussion is about immigration law, then what he said is relevant to asylum as well, as none of the people coming from South America are really after asylum, they want to exploit asylum law to bypass immigration law.

0 Replies

@Baldimo,

Baldimo wrote:

Asylum law also states that they have to seek asylum in the first country that can grant it...

Where does the law say that?

0 Replies

@neptuneblue,

Quote:

But that's what I said. It is NOT illegal to cross the border and ask for asylum. How is it correct when YOU say it but when I did, you argued it was.

This is why quotes are important, I didn't say it was legal for them to cross the border and ask for asylum, I said they have to do it at the port of entry.

1 Reply

@Baldimo,

Baldimo wrote:

Quote:
But that's what I said. It is NOT illegal to cross the border and ask for asylum. How is it correct when YOU say it but when I did, you argued it was.

I didn't say it was legal for them to cross the border and ask for asylum, I said they have to do it at the port of entry.

And that's where the actual law that I've quoted and linked to and your comments have a problem.

0 Replies

Quote:

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows that 50% of Likely U.S. Voters approve of President Trump’s job performance. Forty-nine percent (49%) disapprove.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration/prez_track_feb08

0 Replies

Quote:

Child Rapists, MS-13 Caught at the Border Where There Is No Wall

BTW, this is the real problem, not asylum laws.
http://www.independentsentinel.com/child-rapists-ms-13-caught-at-the-border-where-there-is-no-wall/

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

the change is here,and its good. ever since karl marx,explained his social views we have been misled. people like hitler,stalin,castro ,and other dictators have tried the ideas our leftist democratic party is now trying. we are finally restoring our democratic republic to what it was intended to be.
.go to Argentina to live your dream...

2 Replies

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know