|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On October 11 2015 02:52 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2015 02:23 kwizach wrote:On October 11 2015 01:41 Narw wrote:On October 10 2015 22:40 kwizach wrote:On October 10 2015 22:36 Gorsameth wrote:On October 10 2015 22:04 kwizach wrote:On October 10 2015 13:23 LegalLord wrote:On October 10 2015 06:49 Nyxisto wrote:On October 10 2015 06:19 LegalLord wrote:
Violating property rights is also a pretty serious abuse of power on the part of the government. There is no strict moral obligations of governments to take economic migrants, Can you stop using right-wing lingo like it actually means something? Every single person who makes it here has the right to apply for asylum, it is their right. They may be rejected or accepted but every single on of them has the right to apply and thus also will be accommodated for at least that time. They are in fact economic migrants - whether or not you want to take them is a matter of political choice, but don't pretend that they weren't safe 3-4 nations ago on the way to Germany. And that makes the moral obligation to take them rather questionable. If you're talking about Syrian refugees, then no, you're utterly wrong. They are not economic migrants, they are refugees, as I explained at length previously. By definition, under international law, the Syrians fleeing the civil war are refugees. Economic migrants are people who leave their home country for economic reasons. If you leave Syria and go to Greece/Turkey ect then yes you are 100% a refugee but f you then cross those countries. and another, and another to end up in north/west europe you are not just fleeing a war, your also looking for economic opportunities. I'll repeat: by definition, if you left your home country because you feared for your life due to a civil war, you are a refugee. It doesn't matter if you cross the entirety of Europe, the Atlantic, the United States and end up in San Francisco. You are a refugee, period. You're not an economic migrant. An economic migrant is someone who left his home country due to economic reasons. That does not characterize Syrian refugees. If you want to bitch about those pesky Syrian refugees who dare cross several countries to find good living conditions, be my guest, but don't deny them their status of refugees. Nice narration, i like it. How do Syrians that got invited to Poland, given shelter and any help we can provide then leave for Germany and other Western Europe countries fit it? If they left Syria because they feared for their lives due to the civil war, they are refugees. On October 11 2015 01:48 cLutZ wrote:On October 11 2015 01:41 Narw wrote:On October 10 2015 22:40 kwizach wrote:On October 10 2015 22:36 Gorsameth wrote:On October 10 2015 22:04 kwizach wrote:On October 10 2015 13:23 LegalLord wrote:On October 10 2015 06:49 Nyxisto wrote:On October 10 2015 06:19 LegalLord wrote:
Violating property rights is also a pretty serious abuse of power on the part of the government. There is no strict moral obligations of governments to take economic migrants, Can you stop using right-wing lingo like it actually means something? Every single person who makes it here has the right to apply for asylum, it is their right. They may be rejected or accepted but every single on of them has the right to apply and thus also will be accommodated for at least that time. They are in fact economic migrants - whether or not you want to take them is a matter of political choice, but don't pretend that they weren't safe 3-4 nations ago on the way to Germany. And that makes the moral obligation to take them rather questionable. If you're talking about Syrian refugees, then no, you're utterly wrong. They are not economic migrants, they are refugees, as I explained at length previously. By definition, under international law, the Syrians fleeing the civil war are refugees. Economic migrants are people who leave their home country for economic reasons. If you leave Syria and go to Greece/Turkey ect then yes you are 100% a refugee but f you then cross those countries. and another, and another to end up in north/west europe you are not just fleeing a war, your also looking for economic opportunities. I'll repeat: by definition, if you left your home country because you feared for your life due to a civil war, you are a refugee. It doesn't matter if you cross the entirety of Europe, the Atlantic, the United States and end up in San Francisco. You are a refugee, period. You're not an economic migrant. An economic migrant is someone who left his home country due to economic reasons. That does not characterize Syrian refugees. If you want to bitch about those pesky Syrian refugees who dare cross several countries to find good living conditions, be my guest, but don't deny them their status of refugees. Nice narration, i like it. How do Syrians that got invited to Poland, given shelter and any help we can provide then leave for Germany and other Western Europe countries fit it? I would say all treaties aside from trade pacts are a nullity in the view of an intelligent international observer. That's not even remotely the case. As dozens of international laws are violated by signatories as we speak. But your right, totally not a nullity.
I study international relations for a living. If you think public international law has no impact on how states behave, you are wrong, period. The fact that you can find plenty of examples of states not abiding by their legal obligations in various situations does not mean international law has no impact (including in cases where it's not in a given state's best interest to respect the law). There's not much else to tell you other than advise you to educate yourself on the topic.
|
dude you keep quoting the definition of a refugee from The 1967 Protocol on Refugee as"A person who owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.."
but just below it in Wiki, there is an explanation to it and because in law things need to be explicit else they aren't taken into account...This definition of a refugee is contrary to common sense: "a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of [. . .]" excludes people seeking refuge simply because of war. The definition also excludes those who having fled their country then refuse to remain in under-resourced or overly-restricted circumstances and set off to find sanctuary in a third country (e.g. Europe's new refugees from Africa and Asia, 2011 to the present).
|
Two things:
1. The Syrian refugees we're talking about can very well claim that it is their political/religious convictions or their membership to a particular social group that lead them to fear persecution from Assad/ISIS/other groups.
2. The definition has to an extent expanded in customary international law to include people fleeing from war in general if there is a well-founded reason for them to fear for their lives. This has also been codified in specific instruments in certain regions.
|
On October 11 2015 00:35 WhiteDog wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Haha Le Pen telling Hollande is a vice chancelor was priceless. Translation is bad but well.
Haha golden.
|
and can you not see the irony here?.
you bash the layman's for trying to alter/change the meaning of that definition(not that they would have to, since a war refugee doesn't even exist based on the '67 definition) but then you interpret it however you like?.
customary is civil law, it depends on states/nations consent.
the international law you're arguing about here isn't statutory.
you're as right as cLutZ(for ex.) but just better at enforcing your idea.
|
On October 11 2015 03:55 xM(Z wrote:
and can you not see the irony here?.
you bash the layman's for trying to alter/change the meaning of that definition(not that they would have to, since a war refugee doesn't even exist based on the '67 definition) but then you interpret it however you like?.
customary is civil law, it depends on states/nations consent.
the international law you're arguing about here isn't statutory.
you're as right as cLutZ(for ex.) but just better at enforcing your idea.
I don't interpret it "however [I] like". I explained to you why Syrian refugees are refugees according to the 1967 Protocol, and I also explained to you that under customary law (which doesn't necessarily rely on the consent of states, by the way, but on international practice) the definition has expanded to an extent. I'm certainly not "as right as" anyone claiming that the Syrian people fleeing the conflict in Syrian for fear of losing their lives aren't refugees. I'm right and they're wrong.
|
Please provide either the codified law or adjudication which substantiates your claims as to how this is being interpreted.
|
On October 11 2015 04:07 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2015 03:55 xM(Z wrote:
and can you not see the irony here?.
you bash the layman's for trying to alter/change the meaning of that definition(not that they would have to, since a war refugee doesn't even exist based on the '67 definition) but then you interpret it however you like?.
customary is civil law, it depends on states/nations consent.
the international law you're arguing about here isn't statutory.
you're as right as cLutZ(for ex.) but just better at enforcing your idea. I don't interpret it "however [I] like". I explained to you why Syrian refugees are refugees according to the 1967 Protocol, and I also explained to you that under customary law (which doesn't necessarily rely on the consent of states, by the way, but on international practice) the definition has expanded to an extent. I'm certainly not "as right as" anyone claiming that the Syrian people fleeing the conflict in Syrian for fear of losing their lives aren't refugees. I'm right and they're wrong.
lmao, what a waste of time
|
On October 11 2015 04:07 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2015 03:55 xM(Z wrote:
and can you not see the irony here?.
you bash the layman's for trying to alter/change the meaning of that definition(not that they would have to, since a war refugee doesn't even exist based on the '67 definition) but then you interpret it however you like?.
customary is civil law, it depends on states/nations consent.
the international law you're arguing about here isn't statutory.
you're as right as cLutZ(for ex.) but just better at enforcing your idea. I don't interpret it "however [I] like". I explained to you why Syrian refugees are refugees according to the 1967 Protocol, and I also explained to you that under customary law (which doesn't necessarily rely on the consent of states, by the way, but on international practice) the definition has expanded to an extent. I'm certainly not "as right as" anyone claiming that the Syrian people fleeing the conflict in Syrian for fear of losing their lives aren't refugees. I'm right and they're wrong.
hmmm, sure...
let's take Narw: his claim is - the Syrian people fleeing from Poland do not fear losing their lives in <insert random polish conflict/war here> so they're not war refugees.
how is he wrong?.
|
I am confused. There are no internal borders inside the Eurozone and there is no common mechanism to distribute refugees, so nobody really can make a claim about what a refugee moving inside the EU legally is. I have a great idea! If you want to not have people roaming around aimlessly lets create a mechanism that distributes refugees proportionally to every country's capacity! Oh wait the people complaining the loudest about a lack of control also don't like this
|
On October 11 2015 04:56 Nyxisto wrote:
I am confused. There are no internal borders inside the Eurozone and there is no common mechanism to distribute refugees, so nobody really can make a claim about what a refugee moving inside the EU legally is. I have a great idea! If you want to not have people roaming around aimlessly lets create a mechanism that distributes refugees proportionally to every country's capacity! Oh wait the people complaining the loudest about a lack of control also don't like this
ya that's patently false
http://www.csu.de/aktuell/meldungen/mai-2015/verteilungsquoten-fuer-fluechtlinge/
|
I'm not sure what that link from May is supposed to tell me, but we currently only have a temporary agreement for 160k refugees, which covers only a fraction of people arriving this year. There is no stable system for distributing refugees within the Eurozone.
|
On October 11 2015 04:56 Nyxisto wrote:
I am confused. There are no internal borders inside the Eurozone and there is no common mechanism to distribute refugees, so nobody really can make a claim about what a refugee moving inside the EU legally is. I have a great idea! If you want to not have people roaming around aimlessly lets create a mechanism that distributes refugees proportionally to every country's capacity! Oh wait the people complaining the loudest about a lack of control also don't like this
Its that basically what the Dublin Accord is?
Refugees have to apply in the first European country they arrive in and are distributed from there.
|
On October 11 2015 04:56 Nyxisto wrote:
I am confused. There are no internal borders inside the Eurozone and there is no common mechanism to distribute refugees, so nobody really can make a claim about what a refugee moving inside the EU legally is.
Of course i can make a claim what that "refugee" is. He is economical immigrant.
|
On October 11 2015 05:02 Nyxisto wrote:
I'm not sure what that link from May is supposed to tell me, but we currently only have a temporary agreement for 160k refugees, which covers only a fraction of people arriving this year. There is no stable system for distributing refugees within the Eurozone.
That the biggest opponents of large scale migration to Germany have been demanding a quota since way before this whole debacle got a lot of public attention, they continue to do so by the way. smh
|
On October 11 2015 05:02 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2015 04:56 Nyxisto wrote:
I am confused. There are no internal borders inside the Eurozone and there is no common mechanism to distribute refugees, so nobody really can make a claim about what a refugee moving inside the EU legally is. I have a great idea! If you want to not have people roaming around aimlessly lets create a mechanism that distributes refugees proportionally to every country's capacity! Oh wait the people complaining the loudest about a lack of control also don't like this Its that basically what the Dublin Accord is? Refugees have to apply in the first European country they arrive in and are distributed from there.
The Dublin Accord was always unenforceable without a common policy and mechanism it only worked as long as the numbers were so small that it wasn't actually put to test. How is that supposed to work out? "Hey we have no borders but please stay where you are right now, okay?". We need a quota system and we need to enforce it, or you better start building a fence around your country like glorious Orban. You can't demand free movement within the EU, national answers to the refugee crisis and honestly be surprised that the result is chaos.
On October 11 2015 05:04 dismiss wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2015 05:02 Nyxisto wrote:
I'm not sure what that link from May is supposed to tell me, but we currently only have a temporary agreement for 160k refugees, which covers only a fraction of people arriving this year. There is no stable system for distributing refugees within the Eurozone. That the biggest opponents of large scale migration to Germany have been demanding a quota since way before this whole debacle got a lot of public attention, they continue to do so by the way. smh
which I didn't actually deny, I just said that it doesn't exist, which is true.
|
On October 11 2015 05:12 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2015 05:02 Gorsameth wrote:On October 11 2015 04:56 Nyxisto wrote:
I am confused. There are no internal borders inside the Eurozone and there is no common mechanism to distribute refugees, so nobody really can make a claim about what a refugee moving inside the EU legally is. I have a great idea! If you want to not have people roaming around aimlessly lets create a mechanism that distributes refugees proportionally to every country's capacity! Oh wait the people complaining the loudest about a lack of control also don't like this Its that basically what the Dublin Accord is? Refugees have to apply in the first European country they arrive in and are distributed from there. The Dublin Accord was always unenforceable without a common policy and mechanism it only worked as long as the numbers were so small that it wasn't actually put to test. How is that supposed to work out? "Hey we have no borders but please stay where you are right now, okay?". We need a quota system and we need to enforce it, or you better start building a fence around your country like glorious Orban. You can't demand free movement within the EU, national answers to the refugee crisis and honestly be surprised that the result is chaos.
Without centralized registration it is indeed woefully lacking.
Im just stating the basic framework is there.
Its utterly insufficient for the problems we are having now.
|
On October 11 2015 04:10 dismiss wrote:
Please provide either the codified law or adjudication which substantiates your claims as to how this is being interpreted.
You could have taken a look at the article xM(Z cited, which provides two examples of such codification. Note also that the conference which adopted the original 1951 Convention added in the Final Act a recommendation to interpret the definition liberally:
"The conference expresses the hope that the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees with have value as an example exceeding its contractual scope and that all nations will be guided by it in granting so far as possible to persons in their territory as refugees and who would not be covered by the terms of the Convention, the treatment for which it provides."
The article could also have cited the Bangkok Principles, which several African and Asian states have adhered to, and which stipulate that the status of refugee also applies to:
"every person, who, owing to external aggression, occupation, foreign domination or events seriously disturbing public order in either part or the whole of his country of origin or nationality, is compelled to leave his place of habitual residence in order to seek refuge in another place outside his country of origin or nationality"
Court decisions are a different source of international law than international customs.
On October 11 2015 04:19 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2015 04:07 kwizach wrote:On October 11 2015 03:55 xM(Z wrote:
and can you not see the irony here?.
you bash the layman's for trying to alter/change the meaning of that definition(not that they would have to, since a war refugee doesn't even exist based on the '67 definition) but then you interpret it however you like?.
customary is civil law, it depends on states/nations consent.
the international law you're arguing about here isn't statutory.
you're as right as cLutZ(for ex.) but just better at enforcing your idea. I don't interpret it "however [I] like". I explained to you why Syrian refugees are refugees according to the 1967 Protocol, and I also explained to you that under customary law (which doesn't necessarily rely on the consent of states, by the way, but on international practice) the definition has expanded to an extent. I'm certainly not "as right as" anyone claiming that the Syrian people fleeing the conflict in Syrian for fear of losing their lives aren't refugees. I'm right and they're wrong. hmmm, sure... let's take Narw: his claim is - the Syrian people fleeing from Poland do not fear losing their lives in <insert random polish conflict/war here> so they're not war refugees. how is he wrong?.
Is Poland the home country of "the Syrian people" you're talking about? No, so whether or not they fear losing their lives in Poland is not relevant to their status of refugees. What is relevant when it comes to whether or not those "Syrian people" are refugees is their situation in their home country, namely Syria. How is this difficult to grasp?
|
On October 11 2015 05:12 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2015 05:02 Gorsameth wrote:On October 11 2015 04:56 Nyxisto wrote:
I am confused. There are no internal borders inside the Eurozone and there is no common mechanism to distribute refugees, so nobody really can make a claim about what a refugee moving inside the EU legally is. I have a great idea! If you want to not have people roaming around aimlessly lets create a mechanism that distributes refugees proportionally to every country's capacity! Oh wait the people complaining the loudest about a lack of control also don't like this Its that basically what the Dublin Accord is? Refugees have to apply in the first European country they arrive in and are distributed from there. The Dublin Accord was always unenforceable without a common policy and mechanism it only worked as long as the numbers were so small that it wasn't actually put to test. How is that supposed to work out? "Hey we have no borders but please stay where you are right now, okay?". We need a quota system and we need to enforce it, or you better start building a fence around your country like glorious Orban. You can't demand free movement within the EU, national answers to the refugee crisis and honestly be surprised that the result is chaos. Show nested quote +On October 11 2015 05:04 dismiss wrote:On October 11 2015 05:02 Nyxisto wrote:
I'm not sure what that link from May is supposed to tell me, but we currently only have a temporary agreement for 160k refugees, which covers only a fraction of people arriving this year. There is no stable system for distributing refugees within the Eurozone. That the biggest opponents of large scale migration to Germany have been demanding a quota since way before this whole debacle got a lot of public attention, they continue to do so by the way. smh which I didn't actually deny, I just said that it doesn't exist, which is true.
I'm utterly shocked that an international accord is unworkable when facing conflict. I mean, almost all these countries are in NATO and fully fulfill thier military obligations every year.
|
On October 11 2015 05:32 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2015 04:10 dismiss wrote:
Please provide either the codified law or adjudication which substantiates your claims as to how this is being interpreted. You could have taken a look at the article xM(Z cited, which provides two examples of such codification. Note also that the conference which adopted the original 1951 Convention added in the Final Act a recommendation to interpret the definition liberally: Show nested quote +"The conference expresses the hope that the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees with have value as an example exceeding its contractual scope and that all nations will be guided by it in granting so far as possible to persons in their territory as refugees and who would not be covered by the terms of the Convention, the treatment for which it provides." The article could also have cited the Bangkok Principles, which several African and Asian states have adhered to, and which stipulate that the status of refugee also applies to: Show nested quote +"every person, who, owing to external aggression, occupation, foreign domination or events seriously disturbing public order in either part or the whole of his country of origin or nationality, is compelled to leave his place of habitual residence in order to seek refuge in another place outside his country of origin or nationality" Court decisions are a different source of international law than international customs. Show nested quote +On October 11 2015 04:19 xM(Z wrote:On October 11 2015 04:07 kwizach wrote:On October 11 2015 03:55 xM(Z wrote:
and can you not see the irony here?.
you bash the layman's for trying to alter/change the meaning of that definition(not that they would have to, since a war refugee doesn't even exist based on the '67 definition) but then you interpret it however you like?.
customary is civil law, it depends on states/nations consent.
the international law you're arguing about here isn't statutory.
you're as right as cLutZ(for ex.) but just better at enforcing your idea. I don't interpret it "however [I] like". I explained to you why Syrian refugees are refugees according to the 1967 Protocol, and I also explained to you that under customary law (which doesn't necessarily rely on the consent of states, by the way, but on international practice) the definition has expanded to an extent. I'm certainly not "as right as" anyone claiming that the Syrian people fleeing the conflict in Syrian for fear of losing their lives aren't refugees. I'm right and they're wrong. hmmm, sure... let's take Narw: his claim is - the Syrian people fleeing from Poland do not fear losing their lives in <insert random polish conflict/war here> so they're not war refugees. how is he wrong?. Is Poland the home country of "the Syrian people" you're talking about? No, so whether or not they fear losing their lives in Poland is not relevant to their status of refugees. What is relevant when it comes to whether or not those "Syrian people" are refugees is their situation in their home country, namely Syria. How is this difficult to grasp?
dude i'm not giving you points for persistence.
read the definitionA person who [.....], is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country
home country = your interpretation, again ...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
