Human rights bollocks

[Hermit]

They can claim asylum in the country that they are in at the current time. That's all. Fin. End of story. Finito.

That is not what the human rights declaration even suggests. At least I don't see it in article 14, which says: "Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution." No limitations are as much as hinted at.

[mistermack]

They can claim asylum in the country that they are in at the current time. That's all. Fin. End of story. Finito.

That is not what the human rights declaration even suggests. At least I don't see it in article 14, which says: "Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution." No limitations are as much as hinted at.

Yes they have, IF they can get there.
There's nothing in that that obliges a country to grant them entry. But if they can get in, they have a right to seek asylum.
It doesn't remove the right of a country to police it's borders, and deny entry to anybody they choose.

You are struggling with something that everyone else finds bleedin obvious.
All over the world, people are trying to smuggle themselves into the country of their choice, and those countries are turning people back at the borders.
Where the fuck have you been?

[Hermit]

It doesn't remove the right of a country to police it's borders...

...except asylum seekers. As per the UN Convention. Article 14. (1) "Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution." Preventing them from entering other countries denies them that right. That is the contradiction inherent in your interpretation of the responsibilities you quoted from the Wikipedia.

The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights is very idealistic, difficult to implement, impossible to enforce and too often simply ignored even by nations who have agreed to abiding by it, but those problems are not what I'm talking about just now. At the moment I am interested in the intent and purpose of the declaration in relation to asylum seekers.

[JimC]

It doesn't remove the right of a country to police it's borders...

...except asylum seekers. As per the UN Convention. Article 14. (1) "Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution." Preventing them from entering other countries denies them that right. That is the contradiction inherent in your interpretation of the responsibilities you quoted from the Wikipedia.

The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights is very idealistic, difficult to implement, impossible to enforce and too often simply ignored even by nations who have agreed to abiding by it, but those problems are not what I'm talking about just now. At the moment I am interested in the intent and purpose of the declaration in relation to asylum seekers.

Part of the problem is that the flood of people heading to Europe are a mixture of genuine asylum seekers (for example, those fleeing violence and persecution in Syria) and those who simply want to move for economic reasons. Those on the left would put it at 90% plus asylum seekers, those on the right 90% plus economic migrants. I suspect the truth, as usual, is somewhere in between...

[Tyrannical]

And a 100% useless drag on society lol

[pErvinalia]

Like racists, really.

[mistermack]

It doesn't remove the right of a country to police it's borders...

...except asylum seekers. As per the UN Convention. Article 14. (1) "Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution." Preventing them from entering other countries denies them that right.

Well, congratulations. You're just about the only person on the planet who has chosen that deliberate misinterpretation of that phrase.
Everybody else knows full well that asylum has always been something that you claim in the country that you are in, and has never ever been a visa to travel wherever you like. Even the people who drafted the phrase never expected that.

But you, uniquely, see it differently. Or can you produce one link to any authority which claims it means what you say? Or any court ruling?
I can't prove a negative, but it should be easy for you to give an example.

[pErvinalia]

The principle of
non-refoulement
, which prohibits the return of a refugee to a
territory where his or her life or freedom is threatened, is considered a rule
of customary international law. As such it is binding an all States, regard-
less of whether they have acceded to the 1951 Convention or 1967 Protocol. A
refugee seeking protection must not be prevented from entering a country as
this would amount to refoulement.

http://www.unhcr.org/4ec262df9.html

If they are denied entry to a particular country and that denial means they end up in a country that poses a threat to their freedom then that denial is illegal. But if the denial sees them wind up in another country party to the convention (and that country is actually meeting its obligations) then it would seem it isn't illegal.

[Hermit]

Everybody else knows full well that asylum has always been something that you claim in the country that you are in...

Certainly. Like homes you can live in



life



and liberty



Damn those opportunistic frauds posing as asylum seekers.

...can you produce one link to any authority which claims it means what you say?

The UN Convention. Article 14. (1) "Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution."

[cronus]

After world war two the population of the UK/Germany/France didn't emigrate to the USA. Makes sense that emigration in appalling circumstances happens with close geographical and cultural regions. Saudi Arabia should be taking these people. It is a recipe for strife when nations with deep economic problems of their own start taking vast numbers recently involved in a civil war, anyone forgot the sovereign debt crisis and that wage increases have stalled despite inflation in the West? It is like mixing the nitro with the glycerine and hoping you've got the temperature right. Works only as long as your hope in the temperature is well founded - and mass unemployment is not un/predictable.

[Hermit]

After world war two the population of the UK/Germany/France didn't emigrate to the USA. Makes sense that emigration in appalling circumstances happens with close geographical and cultural regions.

17 million people fled from the east during and after WWII. Thousands of them from as far, and beyond, the Balkans. In 1938 908 Jewish asylum seekers were turned away by Cuba, the USA and Canada. Then there's this interesting article from 1938:

Saudi Arabia should be taking these people.

Saudi Arabia won't have them. So what should the asylum seekers do? Throw up their hands in the air and give up? What should we do? Say "If the Saudi's won't accept them, that absolves us from having to act in a humanitarian manner."?

[cronus]

They should join the most good militias and take back their country. If everyone ran away or joined evil groups everytime a despot took power you'd see a world forever at war. Some improvement.

[Hermit]

They should join the most good militias and take back their country. If everyone ran away or joined evil groups everytime a despot took power you'd see a world forever at war. Some improvement.

There are no good militia in Syria or anywhere else. The choice is between a dictatorial and an Islamic death squad. Besides, you should not require people who just want to make a living and raise a family to become soldiers. Let them save themselves from the carnage.

[cronus]

They should join the most good militias and take back their country. If everyone ran away or joined evil groups everytime a despot took power you'd see a world forever at war. Some improvement.

There are no good militia in Syria or anywhere else. The choice is between a dictatorial and an Islamic death squad. Besides, you should not require people who just want to make a living and raise a family to become soldiers. Let them save themselves from the carnage.

Only takes one man, or woman, with vision to change that. All progressive social change begins with the individual. And lets not forget, the refugees fleeing are the most able, leaving the most vulnerable - the old and the disabled and poor, to a fate worse than death as can been seen....

[Hermit]

Only takes one man, or woman, with vision to change that. All progressive social change begins with the individual.

Fight for peace, yes? Lets get lots of weapons, form an army and do that! That's always worked so well in the past.