UN Charter on refugees.

[Doppleganger]

Oh dear is Wannabe prattling on about a charter not in force

Bless

Notch descends into infanities, yet again.

Are you incapable of conducting a discussion without resort to such infanities?

 

[motorbiking]

The problem is @Doppleganger is you either don't understand the stuff you refer to, or you don't read it properly. The original legislation you need to start with is this https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1971/77/contents

then you will see how it has been amended over time and most recently by the immigration act 2014, the aim of which was to create a more toxic environment for illegals to remain in the UK.

 

[Doppleganger]

the immigration act 2014, the aim of which was to create a more toxic environment for illegals to remain in the UK.

Again, you are conflating illegals with refugees.
No-one is contesting that immigration, or illegal immigration, is dealt with by the Acts that you refer to. But it is a separate issue to refugees and asylum seekers.

The urban mythology propagated by right-wing extremists is about refugees and asylum seekers.
The UN Charter, and the EU case law has dispelled that urban mythology.

You are just confusing and conflating the issue with reference to illegal immigration.
An asylum seeker, or refugee is only an illegal immigrant after their application has been processed and refused, and they remain in UK.

If you cannot understand the difference, I suggest that "you either don't understand the stuff you refer to, or you don't read it properly".

 

[motorbiking]

An asylum seeker, or refugee is only an illegal immigrant after their application has been processed and refused, and they remain in UK.

What are they before they apply?

 

[Doppleganger]

What are they before they apply?

Refugees or asylum seekers.
And during the process they are still refugees or asylum seekers.
Only after their application has been processed, and refused, and they remain in the UK without permission, do they become illegal immigrants.

 

[Notch7]

How can you apply that if they don't register?

You arent making sense.

If the first point of entry is not known, then refugees cant be returned can they?

If refugees are caught by an EU country, then they can be fingerprinted. If their fingerprints are on the Eurodac system, then that EU country is the one that has to process the application.

According to you this is just an urban myth:
Germany, UK and others to send asylum seekers back to where they first sought refuge, despite the continued economic strife in Greece
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...ng-refugees-to-greece-as-german-reunions-slow

 

[Doppleganger]

You arent making sense.

If the first point of entry is not known, then refugees cant be returned can they?

If refugees are caught by an EU country, then they can be fingerprinted. If their fingerprints are on the Eurodac system, then that EU country is the one that has to process the application.

According to you this is just an urban myth:
Germany, UK and others to send asylum seekers back to where they first sought refuge, despite the continued economic strife in Greece
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...ng-refugees-to-greece-as-german-reunions-slow

Suppose I had said:
How can you apply that to those that don't register?

They can only be returned to the original country with the agreement of that country.
If that country refuses their re-entry, then the UN charter test has failed. (and would be readmitted to that country. UN Charter)
However, those that have registered, do need to be processed to ascertain that they have been previously registered.

Thus obviously, all refugees need to be processed.
Either to ascertain that they have already been registered, or to start a process of asylum.

You cannot simply return any refugees to another country without due process.

Are you getting it yet?

The urban mythology that has been demolished is the myth that refugees must claim asylum in the first country of call.

Additionally the UN Charter provides for the 'family unit' to be considered.
from your source:
"as migrants seeking reunification with their family members – mostly in Germany "

Maybe the actions of some EU governments was not in the spirit of the UN Charter

Also, from your source:
"returns of refugees to Greece were suspended after the European court of human rights intervened"
The court can hardly go against some supposed legislation already in place.

 

[Notch7]

he urban mythology that has been demolished is the myth that refugees must claim asylum in the first country of call

All you have proved is that you cant return refugees back to their first point of entry when you dont where that is.

 

[Notch7]

How can you apply that to those that don't register

Refugees must seek asylum in their first country of entry.

Refugees must seek asylum in first EU country reached: court

Refugees seeking asylum in European countries must do so in the first country they reach, even in exceptional circumstances, the European Court of Justice ruled on Wednesday
https://www.thenational.ae/world/eu...um-in-first-eu-country-reached-court-1.614521


Perhaps the European court of justice have been fooled by an urban myth
You should give em a call

 

[Ihavenojob]

You mean the one voted in December. 181 countries voted for it and 3 abstained.

Its non binding so even if you vote for it you don't need to implement it.

Why do you not enlighten us?

I am talking about this, as it was in December 2018 & the way politics work, nothing will be done for several years, if ever.
https://refugeesmigrants.un.org/intergovernmental-conference-2018

 

[durhamplumber]

Obviously, I'm not going to post the whole caboodle, just the relevant bit, to totally refute the urban myths.

Let's concentrate our minds on the first paragraph, and the conditions that need to be met, for that paragraph to be applicable.

A country of "first country of asylum" applies if (and only if)
a) the refugee has been recognised in that country as a refugee, and that country continues to protect that refugee, or
b) if the refugee enjoys sufficient protection, and has registered in that country, and would be readmitted to that country.

I think that is absolutely clear and unambiguous.
If a refugee has not been recognised (or registered) in the first (safe) country that they land, or they would not be allowed re-admittance. The "first country of asylum" does not apply, and cannot be applied.
The UN Charter makes no requirement on refugees to register in the "first country of asylum".

So we can absolutely dismiss the urban mythology about refugees having to register in the first country that they reach!

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; or
(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).​

Application in law and practice Belgium and France have not transposed Article 26 in national legislation.
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

Well maybe the UN charter needs changing to prevent refugees wandering Europe looking for the best deal

 

[Ihavenojob]

prevent refugees wandering Europe looking for the best deal

Maybe all members of the UN should give a percentage of GDP to the UN (instead of foreign aid), then the UN could use the money to rehouse the refugees in the most affordable way.

 

[durhamplumber]

Maybe all members of the UN should give a percentage of GDP to the UN (instead of foreign aid), then the UN could use the money to rehouse the refugees in the most affordable way.

Since when is it in the EU remit to find housing for all refugees.

 

[JohnD]

or to put it another way,

Since when is it in the EU remit

...to work together to find ways of dealing with problems that affects many, or all, of the members of the group?

 

[durhamplumber]

So,at the moment we have a situation where Syrians,etc,escape war and land in Southern Italy etc,,Fair enough.They do not like it there,for whatever reason,so they keep moving,not registering with anyone..Somehow they wander through Italy,France and cross the channel,,because they do not fancy those other countries.They end up in Dover,then the UK finds them housing,,benefits,etc,,,yes,,,welcome them all with open arms...And nobody finds all that caper a bit odd then???