Looks like there

[Vinty]

according to you, vinty, there is a law forbidding refugees to move to other countries

The Polish government and the EU seem to believe that such a law exists.

 

[Vinty]

but you have never been able to find evidence of your imaginary law

If no such law exists, why are you complaining about the Belarussian government helping asylum seekers move to a country of their choosing.

 

[JohnD]

...why are you complaining...

show me this imaginary complaint that you have fantasised.

 

[AngleEyes]

According to you asylum seekers shouldn't have to claim sanctuary in the first country they land in

They don't.

instead you believe that asylum seekers should be able to claim sanctuary in a country of their own choosing,

They can.

so why do you support the Polish government policy of refusing entry to asylum seekers who want to enter the EU.

Wow that's a leap of assumption. Where did I even slightly suggest that I do?
However, I suspect that you have to actually be in a country in order to claim asylum there. You can't claim asylum in Poland while still in Belarus.
Otherwise people in a refugee camp in Turkey could claim asylum in USA.

 

[AngleEyes]

If no such law exists, why are you complaining about the Belarussian government helping asylum seekers move to a country of their choosing.

Because it's a deliberate and inhuman exploitation of refugees.
Also assisting refugees to break down fences in order to enter another country is probably an act of war.

 

[AngleEyes]

The Polish government and the EU seem to believe that such a law exists.

Every country has a right to protect its borders.
UK could if it so wished erect fences around the coast to deter refugees.
What it can't do is refuse maritime assistance to people in distress in or on the sea.
There's advantages and disadvantages to being an island.

 

[AngleEyes]

You can't just wander across borders.

You can in the schengen one.
Plus as also said, if there is an obstacle designed to prevent you entering a country, it's undoubtedly illegal to overcome that obstacle.
However, no obstacle and you can just wander across.
As also said, once in a country you can claim asylum.
Also said, UK is an island and as such has a maritime obligation to a) rescue those in distress on the sea and b) not to intentionally cause distress on the sea.

 

[AngleEyes]

It can be reasonably argued that the EU can't hold us to more forgiving acceptance obligations that are granted by their Dublin declaration. Which, I thought would be obvious, and has legal precendent as a principle, is why the Dd is very relevant even though it doesn't apply to the UK.

What legal precedent?
The Dublin Agreement is a gentleman's agreement between cooperating countries. It is not a legally binding requirement.

 

[fillyboy]

The Dublin Agreement is a gentleman's agreement between cooperating countries. It is not a legally binding requirement.

eh?

Dublin Regulation - Wikipedia

The Dublin Regulation (Regulation No. 604/2013; sometimes the Dublin III Regulation; previously the Dublin II Regulation and Dublin Convention) is a European Union (EU) law that determines which EU Member State is responsible for the examination of an application for asylum, submitted by persons seeking international protection under the Geneva Convention and the EU Qualification Directive, within the European Union. It is the cornerstone of the Dublin System, which consists of the Dublin Regulation and the EURODAC Regulation, which establishes a Europe-wide fingerprinting database for unauthorised entrants to the EU. The Dublin Regulation aims to "determine rapidly the Member State responsible [for an asylum claim]"[1] and provides for the transfer of an asylum seeker to that Member State.

The Dublin regime was originally established by the Dublin Convention, which was signed in Dublin, Ireland on 15 June 1990, and first came into force on 1 September 1997 for the first twelve signatories (Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain and the United Kingdom), on 1 October 1997 for Austria and Sweden, and on 1 January 1998 for Finland.[2] While the convention was only open to accession by member states of the European Communities, Norway and Iceland, non-member states, concluded an agreement with the EC in 2001 to apply the provisions of the Convention in their territories.[3]

The Dublin II Regulation was adopted in 2003, replacing the Dublin Convention in all EU member states except Denmark, which has an opt-out from implementing regulations under the area of freedom, security and justice.[1] An agreement with Denmark on extending the application of the Regulation to Denmark came into force in 2006.[4] A separate protocol also extended the Iceland-Norway agreement to Denmark in 2006.[5] The provisions of the Regulation were also extended by a treaty to non-member states Switzerland on 1 March 2008,[6] which on 5 June 2005 voted by 54.6% to ratify it, and Liechtenstein on 1 April 2011.[7] A protocol subsequently made this agreement also applicable to Denmark.[8]
On 3 December 2008, the European Commission proposed amendments to the Dublin Regulation, creating an opportunity for reform of the Dublin System.[9] The Dublin III Regulation (No. 604/2013) was approved in June 2013, replacing the Dublin II Regulation, and applies to all member states except Denmark.[10] It came into force on 19 July 2013. It is based on the same principle as the previous two, i. e., that the first Member State where finger prints are stored or an asylum claim is lodged is responsible for a person's asylum claim.[11]

In July 2017, the European Court of Justice upheld the Dublin Regulation, declaring that it still stands despite the high influx of 2015, giving EU member states the right to transfer migrants to the first country of entry to the EU.[12]

One of the principal aims of the Dublin Regulation is to prevent an applicant from submitting applications in multiple Member States. Another aim is to reduce the number of "orbiting" asylum seekers, who are shuttled from member state to member state.[13] The country in which the asylum seeker first applies for asylum is responsible for either accepting or rejecting the claim, and the seeker may not restart the process in another jurisdiction.[14]

 

[transam]

According to some bloke on the radio the EU don’t grant visas to Iraqis

 

[transam]

This bell a Russian is flying them into Minsk with the sole intention of dumping them on the polish EU
Border

Good on the poles for standing there ground

supported by the EU

 

[Vinty]

Also assisting refugees to break down fences in order to enter another country is probably an act of war

Maybe if they used rubber dinghies to break down the fences it would be acceptable.
At what point does a refugee cease to be a refugee.
If these people have chosen the EU to be their preferred point of destination in order to claim asylum, why is the EU denying them entry.

 

[Vinty]

Every country has a right to protect its borders.

You sound like Nigel Farage.

 

[AngleEyes]

eh?

Dublin Regulation - Wikipedia

The Dublin Regulation (Regulation No. 604/2013; sometimes the Dublin III Regulation; previously the Dublin II Regulation and Dublin Convention) is a European Union (EU) law that determines which EU Member State is responsible for the examination of an application for asylum, submitted by persons seeking international protection under the Geneva Convention and the EU Qualification Directive, within the European Union. It is the cornerstone of the Dublin System, which consists of the Dublin Regulation and the EURODAC Regulation, which establishes a Europe-wide fingerprinting database for unauthorised entrants to the EU. The Dublin Regulation aims to "determine rapidly the Member State responsible [for an asylum claim]"[1] and provides for the transfer of an asylum seeker to that Member State.

The Dublin regime was originally established by the Dublin Convention, which was signed in Dublin, Ireland on 15 June 1990, and first came into force on 1 September 1997 for the first twelve signatories (Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain and the United Kingdom), on 1 October 1997 for Austria and Sweden, and on 1 January 1998 for Finland.[2] While the convention was only open to accession by member states of the European Communities, Norway and Iceland, non-member states, concluded an agreement with the EC in 2001 to apply the provisions of the Convention in their territories.[3]

The Dublin II Regulation was adopted in 2003, replacing the Dublin Convention in all EU member states except Denmark, which has an opt-out from implementing regulations under the area of freedom, security and justice.[1] An agreement with Denmark on extending the application of the Regulation to Denmark came into force in 2006.[4] A separate protocol also extended the Iceland-Norway agreement to Denmark in 2006.[5] The provisions of the Regulation were also extended by a treaty to non-member states Switzerland on 1 March 2008,[6] which on 5 June 2005 voted by 54.6% to ratify it, and Liechtenstein on 1 April 2011.[7] A protocol subsequently made this agreement also applicable to Denmark.[8]
On 3 December 2008, the European Commission proposed amendments to the Dublin Regulation, creating an opportunity for reform of the Dublin System.[9] The Dublin III Regulation (No. 604/2013) was approved in June 2013, replacing the Dublin II Regulation, and applies to all member states except Denmark.[10] It came into force on 19 July 2013. It is based on the same principle as the previous two, i. e., that the first Member State where finger prints are stored or an asylum claim is lodged is responsible for a person's asylum claim.[11]

In July 2017, the European Court of Justice upheld the Dublin Regulation, declaring that it still stands despite the high influx of 2015, giving EU member states the right to transfer migrants to the first country of entry to the EU.[12]

One of the principal aims of the Dublin Regulation is to prevent an applicant from submitting applications in multiple Member States. Another aim is to reduce the number of "orbiting" asylum seekers, who are shuttled from member state to member state.[13] The country in which the asylum seeker first applies for asylum is responsible for either accepting or rejecting the claim, and the seeker may not restart the process in another jurisdiction.[14]

But it still requires the cooperation of the receiving state. The receiving state is not obliged to accept the returned refugee.
And it only applies to refugees that have applied to more than one country for asylum. If a refugee passed through one country without applying for asylum, how does that country (or any other) know that they passed through?

 

[AngleEyes]

Maybe if they used rubber dinghies to break down the fences it would be acceptable.
At what point does a refugee cease to be a refugee.
If these people have chosen the EU to be their preferred point of destination in order to claim asylum, why is the EU denying them entry.

Because each and every country has a right to protect their borders. And no country has a right to use civilians to overcome another country's borders.
UK could protect its borders if it so wished, but if it created distress to people on the sea, in the process, it would be against international law.

Are you just being daft for the sake of it, or do you honestly not understand?

Refugees cease to be refugees when they've been granted leave to remain.
Could you not work that out for yourself?