- Joined
- 1 Apr 2016
- Messages
- 13,609
- Reaction score
- 552
- Country
....which is why some destroy any proof of their country of origin.
Then how can they claim asylum. They have to put down a county they are fleeing from?
....which is why some destroy any proof of their country of origin.
Then how can they claim asylum. They have to put down a county they are fleeing from?
It's your credibility that's at stake.
It's obvious to anyone with an ounce of intelligence what the real situation is about editing posts, which are the edited posts, and which are the original.
Motman accepts that both posts are his. It's just a question about which is the original and which is the subsequent edited post.
Where do they deport them to.
Racist
Not if you go clockwise it's not!You mean Countyist
Anyway, its like a different country to me. Its separated from me by water and there is a border crossing, by tunnel or bridge.
Have you read it.According to the UN charter for refugees, a refugee is supposed to claim refugee status in the first safe country they come to.
If they don't they then lose the right to claim asylum.
You mean Countyist
Anyway, its like a different country to me. Its separated from me by water and there is a border crossing, by tunnel or bridge.
Have you read it.
It's a rhetorical question obviously because you can't have.
"There is nothing in international law to say that refugees must claim asylum in the first country they reach."
https://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/policy_research/the_truth_about_asylum/facts_about_asylum_-_page_4
So more garbage spouted by wannabe right-wing experts.
The article is a permissive article, not a legislative article, that allows a member country to return an asylum seeker to the first country (it means that a country can choose to follow it, but is not obliged to)
Introduction: International Standards The concept of first country of asylum is defined in Article 26 of the APD: A country can be considered to be a first country of asylum for a particular applicant for asylum if:
(a) s/he has been recognised in that country as a refugee and s/he can still avail him/herself of that protection; orApplication in law and practice Belgium and France have not transposed Article 26 in national legislation.
(b) s/he otherwise enjoys sufficient protection in that country, including benefiting from the principle of non-refoulement; provided that s/he will be re-admitted to that country. In applying the concept of first country of asylum to the particular circumstances of an applicant for asylum Member States may take into account Article 27 (1).
The other surveyed Member States, i.e. Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Finland, Germany, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Slovenia, Spain and the UK have transposed or reflect the concept of the first country of asylum in their respective national laws.
Belgium, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Greece and Slovenia do not apply in practice the concept of first country of asylum. All other Member States of focus in this research applied it rarely.
https://www.refworld.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/rwmain/opendocpdf.pdf?reldoc=y&docid=4bab55da2
As there is no substantive contribution to the discussion, I assume transam's comment is another infanity. Therefore it can be ignored.Best u read it again "him again"
If you "wannabe" an expert
In any event we are concerned about refugees in the EU
Used to be a poster on here called blightymam she had expert knowledge on asylum / refugees ect
Have not seen her post for a while
Used to be a poster on here called blightymam she had expert knowledge on asylum / refugees ect