Political refugees etc
Discussion
Mrr T said:
Point 12
"that asylum should not be refused solely on the grounds that it could have been sought elsewhere.
You do need to read that whole section in context."that asylum should not be refused solely on the grounds that it could have been sought elsewhere.
article said:
The notion was also formally put forward in the context of the 1977 Diplomatic Conference on Territorial Asylum, when Denmark proposed that where it appeared that a person already had a connection or close links with another State, if it was reasonable and fair, (s)he should be called upon to request asylum from that State. It was, recognized though, that asylum should not be refused solely on the grounds that it could have been sought elsewhere.
Denmark made the point (which is recognised in law) that if, for example, a refugee has family or friends who are legal residents of a safe country, or has business interests there, or something similar, it makes a lot of sense for them to claim asylum there as they will be much less of a burden on that country than one where they turned up with no way of supporting themselves, so that's where they should claim asylum.The recognition was that someone should not be refused asylum in the first country of safety if they had that pre-existing connection to another country, elsewhere meaning "not the first safe country but one you have a connection to".
You managed to get the whole thing turned around by quoting out of context.
mikal83 said:
No Bend said:
mikal83 said:
On the subject of Syria then. Why don't they go to Iraq/Lebanon/Israel/Egypt etc. Stay in Turkey, head due north to the Caucuses maybe even Russia.....Ukraine, Poland etc. But on the TV today was a story about a young woman with a group trying to get to Sweden.....thru Bulgaria and up.
Israel?? Do you know anything of world politics??? And Ukraine may accept them, but the country is in a spot of bother itself - But Israel? That would be funny if it wasn't so ignorant.
t, or just looking for an argument and trolling. No Bend said:
mikal83 said:
No Bend said:
mikal83 said:
On the subject of Syria then. Why don't they go to Iraq/Lebanon/Israel/Egypt etc. Stay in Turkey, head due north to the Caucuses maybe even Russia.....Ukraine, Poland etc. But on the TV today was a story about a young woman with a group trying to get to Sweden.....thru Bulgaria and up.
Israel?? Do you know anything of world politics??? And Ukraine may accept them, but the country is in a spot of bother itself - But Israel? That would be funny if it wasn't so ignorant.t, or just looking for an argument and trolling. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_citizens_of_Isr...
Regardless, as a signatory to the 1951 Convention on Refugees Israel is required to accept anyone with a legitimate asylum claim.
http://www.unhcr.org/3b73b0d63.html
I think you owe him an apology.
eatcustard said:
Why dont the Syria men say and fight IS, they should be banned from leaving the country, bunch of cowards. If it was me I would say and fight and take as many of them with me as possible.
On whose side? Assad's? Who has been dropping barrel bombs on towns for the last 4 years? I don't know if there is a good side left to fight on over there.davepoth said:
Mrr T said:
Point 12
"that asylum should not be refused solely on the grounds that it could have been sought elsewhere.
You do need to read that whole section in context."that asylum should not be refused solely on the grounds that it could have been sought elsewhere.
article said:
The notion was also formally put forward in the context of the 1977 Diplomatic Conference on Territorial Asylum, when Denmark proposed that where it appeared that a person already had a connection or close links with another State, if it was reasonable and fair, (s)he should be called upon to request asylum from that State. It was, recognized though, that asylum should not be refused solely on the grounds that it could have been sought elsewhere.
Denmark made the point (which is recognised in law) that if, for example, a refugee has family or friends who are legal residents of a safe country, or has business interests there, or something similar, it makes a lot of sense for them to claim asylum there as they will be much less of a burden on that country than one where they turned up with no way of supporting themselves, so that's where they should claim asylum.The recognition was that someone should not be refused asylum in the first country of safety if they had that pre-existing connection to another country, elsewhere meaning "not the first safe country but one you have a connection to".
You managed to get the whole thing turned around by quoting out of context.
Its clear the accord is badly written but the article makes it clear:
"Denmark proposed that where it appeared that a person already had a connection or close links with another State, if it was reasonable and fair, (s)he should be called upon to request asylum from that State."
This was a proposal by Denmark at a conference on the accord, it did not alter the accord and is not Law in Denmark or any other country, Note the words it is "reasonable" to "expect".
The final paragraph is then clear:
"It was, recognized though, that asylum should not be refused solely on the grounds that it could have been sought elsewhere."
So lets be clear the articles say it would be better if they apply in a country they have a close link with. Just passing though a safe country does not give you a close link with a country. However, refusal should not be based solely on a close link with another safe country. This effectively mean you can apply in any safe country you choose.
davepoth said:
No Bend said:
mikal83 said:
No Bend said:
mikal83 said:
On the subject of Syria then. Why don't they go to Iraq/Lebanon/Israel/Egypt etc. Stay in Turkey, head due north to the Caucuses maybe even Russia.....Ukraine, Poland etc. But on the TV today was a story about a young woman with a group trying to get to Sweden.....thru Bulgaria and up.
Israel?? Do you know anything of world politics??? And Ukraine may accept them, but the country is in a spot of bother itself - But Israel? That would be funny if it wasn't so ignorant.t, or just looking for an argument and trolling. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_citizens_of_Isr...
Regardless, as a signatory to the 1951 Convention on Refugees Israel is required to accept anyone with a legitimate asylum claim.
http://www.unhcr.org/3b73b0d63.html
I think you owe him an apology.
Rostfritt said:
eatcustard said:
Why dont the Syria men say and fight IS, they should be banned from leaving the country, bunch of cowards. If it was me I would say and fight and take as many of them with me as possible.
On whose side? Assad's? Who has been dropping barrel bombs on towns for the last 4 years? I don't know if there is a good side left to fight on over there.k me what a choice!irocfan said:
That being said I would imagine that on balance things were better 5 years for those in Syria than they are now! Yes, they lived under a dictator who curtailed lots of freedoms but IIRC they also had (by the standards of the region - excluding Israel) good medical care, education and infrastructure. A degree of religious freedom - what have they got now? A dictator who's clearly off his rocker and an oppo who make him look sane!!! fk me what a choice!
Good summary. The West should be helping him, perhaps to create a partitioned Syria - Sunnis on side, the rest on the other,k me what a choice!Mermaid said:
irocfan said:
That being said I would imagine that on balance things were better 5 years for those in Syria than they are now! Yes, they lived under a dictator who curtailed lots of freedoms but IIRC they also had (by the standards of the region - excluding Israel) good medical care, education and infrastructure. A degree of religious freedom - what have they got now? A dictator who's clearly off his rocker and an oppo who make him look sane!!! fk me what a choice!
Good summary. The West should be helping him, perhaps to create a partitioned Syria - Sunnis on side, the rest on the other,k me what a choice! accuse you of being a serial bigot 
irocfan said:
Mermaid said:
irocfan said:
That being said I would imagine that on balance things were better 5 years for those in Syria than they are now! Yes, they lived under a dictator who curtailed lots of freedoms but IIRC they also had (by the standards of the region - excluding Israel) good medical care, education and infrastructure. A degree of religious freedom - what have they got now? A dictator who's clearly off his rocker and an oppo who make him look sane!!! fk me what a choice!
Good summary. The West should be helping him, perhaps to create a partitioned Syria - Sunnis on side, the rest on the other,k me what a choice! accuse you of being a serial bigot No fear
davepoth said:
No Bend said:
mikal83 said:
No Bend said:
mikal83 said:
On the subject of Syria then. Why don't they go to Iraq/Lebanon/Israel/Egypt etc. Stay in Turkey, head due north to the Caucuses maybe even Russia.....Ukraine, Poland etc. But on the TV today was a story about a young woman with a group trying to get to Sweden.....thru Bulgaria and up.
Israel?? Do you know anything of world politics??? And Ukraine may accept them, but the country is in a spot of bother itself - But Israel? That would be funny if it wasn't so ignorant.t, or just looking for an argument and trolling. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_citizens_of_Isr...
Regardless, as a signatory to the 1951 Convention on Refugees Israel is required to accept anyone with a legitimate asylum claim.
http://www.unhcr.org/3b73b0d63.html
I think you owe him an apology.
I don't blame Israel - we all know what the Muslim world thinks of them and we all know what the Israeli government thinks of it's Arab population. Israel is protecting it's own interests by not allowing Arab refugees into their country.
However Israel do take some asylum seekers although they have recently demanded that tens of thousands of Africans should leave.
washingtonpost said:
HOLOT, Israel — As Europe struggles to stem a spring flood of migrants from Africa and the Middle East trying to cross a deadly Mediterranean Sea, Israel has begun to toughen its stance toward refugees, telling unwanted Africans here they must leave now or face an indefinite stay in prison.
Israeli authorities are sending letters to the first of 45,000 Eritrean and Sudanese refugees, informing them they have 30 days to accept Israel’s offer of $3,500 in cash and a one-way ticket home or to an unnamed third country in Africa, or face incarceration at Saharonim prison.
Israeli authorities are sending letters to the first of 45,000 Eritrean and Sudanese refugees, informing them they have 30 days to accept Israel’s offer of $3,500 in cash and a one-way ticket home or to an unnamed third country in Africa, or face incarceration at Saharonim prison.
washingtonpost said:
Before Israel began cracking down on African migrants a few years ago, the Africans were highly visible in bustling cities, working in kitchens and doing menial labor. There are still neighborhoods in south Tel Aviv filled with Africans. Many Israelis complained they were being “invaded.”
Israel is a nation built by Jewish refugees, and those with Jewish ancestry are encouraged, even courted, to move here and provided wide-ranging assistance. A million Russian speakers came in the 1990s, and Jews from Ethiopia continue to arrive each month.
But fearful that a wave of impoverished Africans, mostly Muslims from Sudan and Christians from Eritrea, would overwhelm the Jewish nature of the state, Israel spent more than $350 million to build a 140-mile fence along its entire border with Egypt. Undocumented migrants to Israel are called “infiltrators” by the Israeli government.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/toughening-its-stance-toward-migrants-israel-pushes-africans-to-leave/2015/05/14/e1637bce-f350-11e4-bca5-21b51bbdf93e_story.htmlIsrael is a nation built by Jewish refugees, and those with Jewish ancestry are encouraged, even courted, to move here and provided wide-ranging assistance. A million Russian speakers came in the 1990s, and Jews from Ethiopia continue to arrive each month.
But fearful that a wave of impoverished Africans, mostly Muslims from Sudan and Christians from Eritrea, would overwhelm the Jewish nature of the state, Israel spent more than $350 million to build a 140-mile fence along its entire border with Egypt. Undocumented migrants to Israel are called “infiltrators” by the Israeli government.
Mermaid said:
BMRuss said:
Would interested to know where the £920m we have given Syria in aid (which is more than the rest of Europe put together) actually goes?
The middle east peace envoy probably got a share of that, so he could buy one more house. .
groucho said:
I was going to move to France. I think I'll move to Bolivia instead. What is happening is total insanity. I have never experienced anything like it.
Some think this is only the beginning of the great migration. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff