|
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 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?
Wait so you're claiming there are widely recognised ways to interpret a convention and your response is to just link me back to the original convention? Surely those interpretations you spoke of must be spelled out somewhere. Or you know some factual law that's applicable in Europe would be great.
|
On October 11 2015 05:51 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2015 05:32 kwizach wrote: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: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 definition Show nested quote +A 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 ...
You seem to have not understood the terms I used. That's obviously what I meant by "home country", or "country of origin". In your example of "Syrian people" coming to, and then leaving Poland, their nationality is not Polish, it is Syrian. And in Syria, they fear for their lives under the aforementioned conditions, which means that they are refugees whether or not they decide to stay in Poland.
|
On October 11 2015 05:55 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2015 05:51 xM(Z wrote:On October 11 2015 05:32 kwizach wrote: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: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 definition A 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 ... Do you not understand basic English or something? That's obviously what I meant by "home country". In your example of "Syrian people" coming to, and then leaving Poland, their nationality is not Polish, it is Syrian. And in Syria, they fear for their lives under the aforementioned conditions, which means that they are refugees whether or not they decide to stay in Poland.
To be fair, their citizenship and their home are not necessarily the same anymore. You could make an argument that they should have made a new home in the first safe country they fled to, and they should thus be treated as residents of that country by any later country they travel to.
Not that I agree with such an interpretation, but it is not an entirely unreasonable argument to make. For the record: I agree with your initial interpretation: they left their home and kept fleeing until reaching Germany, Sweden or wherever. At no point dI'd they stop long enough to be considered a resident of anywhere other than Syria.
|
On October 11 2015 05:52 dismiss wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2015 05:32 kwizach wrote: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: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 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? Wait so you're claiming there are widely recognised ways to interpret a convention and your response is to just link me back to the original convention? Surely those interpretations you spoke of must be spelled out somewhere. Or you know some factual law that's applicable in Europe would be great.
I did not link you to the convention itself, I linked you to the final act accompanying the convention, which is the kind of document (along with preparatory works, for example) that is used to interpret treaties (see the 1969 Vienna Convention on the law of treaties). I also referred you to several examples of codifications corresponding to the "extended" interpretation of "refugee" that I described, exactly like you asked. I'm not sure what "factual law that's applicable in Europe" is supposed to mean -- customary international law, which derives from widespread state practice accompanied by opinio juris, very much applies.
If you're looking for other similar interpretations coming from Europe, you can look at the Council of Europe's Parliamentary Assembly Recommendation 773 (1976) on the Situation of de facto Refugees (link), which calls "to apply liberally the definition of "refugee" in the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees of 28 July 1951 as amended by the Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees of 31 January 1967". See also Recommendations 817, 1327, and 1525, all on the same topic, and the latter was followed by the Council of Europe's Council of Ministers' adoption of Recommendation Rec (2001)18, which called to include among those granted protection people like someone who has "been forced to flee or remain outside his/her country of origin as a result of a threat to his/her life, security or liberty, for reasons of indiscriminate violence, arising from situations such as armed conflict".
You could also look at the national laws found in various EU member states pointing towards an extended conception of the status of refugees, extending protection to those not falling within a strict application of the original definition.
|
On October 11 2015 02:53 LegalLord wrote:
A run of the mill secular dictator worse than a group that is interested in systematically dismantling every culture that disagrees with it?
Whether or not it's accurate (polls are neither reliable nor newsworthy), they are straight up wrong You know who are the worst kind of humans?
Uninformed arrogant ones...
Assad killed/kills easily ten times as much Syrian civilians then ISIS does. (see here and here for last month)
Also, how about you think for a moment about what certain numbers actually mean and not just go by 'general impressions'?
Like for example that there are only about 50.000 ISIS fighters around, but they control a population of 6.2 million. If their terror is so monstrous and they are so few, how come people are still living voluntary under their rule?
According to reports their biggest city Mosul with 1.5 million inhabitants is held / defended by not more than 8000 ISIS fighters. While at the same time the Iraq army and the Kurds could muster nearly a hundred thousand men to recapture the city. What's stopping them?
Well, they are not sure that the civilian population of Mosul will not fight along ISIS against them. If they had guaranties from them, they could take back the city in days (there is even a high chance ISIS would simply retreat). But the people of Mosul have not given their consent yet.
So think about what this means? It means that millions of Mosul citizens would rather live under the 'terror rule of ISIS' than be part of the 'democratic Iraq government'. Something is not adding up according to western reporting. How can the 'good guys' be even worse than the 'bad guys' for them? mind = blown
PS: Aleppo does not look like this because ISIS attacked with foot soldiers and light artillery:![[image loading]](http://www.alaraby.co.uk/File/GetImageCustom/9093348f-6c31-4d0f-9e49-63273634ff2d/471/265)
|
Maybe they agree with the fundamental ideas of ISIS
|
On October 11 2015 13:40 lord_nibbler wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2015 02:53 LegalLord wrote:
A run of the mill secular dictator worse than a group that is interested in systematically dismantling every culture that disagrees with it?
Whether or not it's accurate (polls are neither reliable nor newsworthy), they are straight up wrong You know who are the worst kind of humans? Uninformed arrogant ones... Assad killed/kills easily ten times as much Syrian civilians then ISIS does. (see here and here for last month) Also, how about you think for a moment about what certain numbers actually mean and not just go by 'general impressions'? Like for example that there are only about 50.000 ISIS fighters around, but they control a population of 6.2 million. If their terror is so monstrous and they are so few, how come people are still living voluntary under their rule? According to reports their biggest city Mosul with 1.5 million inhabitants is held / defended by not more than 8000 ISIS fighters. While at the same time the Iraq army and the Kurds could muster nearly a hundred thousand men to recapture the city. What's stopping them? Well, they are not sure that the civilian population of Mosul will not fight along ISIS against them. If they had guaranties from them, they could take back the city in days (there is even a high chance ISIS would simply retreat). But the people of Mosul have not given their consent yet. So think about what this means? It means that millions of Mosul citizens would rather live under the 'terror rule of ISIS' than be part of the 'democratic Iraq government'. Something is not adding up according to western reporting. How can the 'good guys' be even worse than the 'bad guys' for them? mind = blown PS: Aleppo does not look like this because ISIS attacked with foot soldiers and light artillery:
50,000 (although I've heard reports of there being well over 100,000) well-fed, well-trained and battle-experienced people who have guns, tanks and artillery is plenty to subdue 6,000,000 who are not well-fed and do not have any weapons besides slingshots.
A civilian people lacking military training is a liability in conflict, not a boon, unless you want to apply Russian WW2 tactics in the conflict: just let them run towards the enemy and overwhelm them with sheer numbers, no matter how many die along the way.
In World War 2 the population needed to be liberated. It's not as if they suddenly took up arms en-masse as soon as the allies landed. Apart from small but determined resistance groups, the population left the fighting to the soldiers. The people in Mosul will not take up arms because they don't have weapons to begin with and lack the military training to do so.
|
On October 11 2015 05:55 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2015 05:51 xM(Z wrote:On October 11 2015 05:32 kwizach wrote: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: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 definition A 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 ... Do you not understand basic English or something? That's obviously what I meant by "home country", or "country of origin". In your example of "Syrian people" coming to, and then leaving Poland, their nationality is not Polish, it is Syrian. And in Syria, they fear for their lives under the aforementioned conditions, which means that they are refugees whether or not they decide to stay in Poland.
so i have problems with english?...
we are talking laws here; laws have to be specific/precise but based on your interpretation, the turks(of nationality) that lived in Syria and then fled from the Syrian war are not refugees because their home country is Turkey. that makes no sense what so ever and you want me to take it as a law. your law maybe ...
as for your terminology use, nothing is set in stone. there are people arguing about the usage of words like migrant, refugee, alien and so on from official positions and they admit there's no common agreement under law or commonality about meaning and usage. it's all media bullshit and political correctness agendas.
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-34061097
But in the US, alien remains official terminology for any person who is not a citizen or national.
The Obama administration proposed Dreamers as a new positive way - with its reference to the American Dream - of describing undocumented young people who met the conditions of the Dream act (Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors). But there would be many people who would be wary of labelling someone a refugee until that person has gone through the legal process of claiming asylum. In the UK, and other places, claims for "refugee status" are examined before being either granted or denied. "Migrant used to have quite a neutral connotation," explains Alexander Betts, director of the Refugee Studies Centre at Oxford University. "It says nothing about their entitlement to cross that border or whether they should be." But some people believe that the word has recently developed a sour note. It is being used to mean "not a refugee", argues Betts. "The moment at which they can officially say whether they are refugees or economic migrants is the moment at which the EU state that is processing their claim makes its decision," says Tim Stanley, historian and columnist for the Daily Telegraph. "I am not questioning the validity of their narrative, I am not saying that anyone was lying about it. I am saying that it is down to the state in which they have arrived to define what they are."
you don't get to come here and say this is like that because you said so. if the state in which they arrive says they're not refugees, you have nothing.
as for me, when the fear is no longer a factor, when 'owing to such fear' doesn't exist anymore, they become asylum seekers or migrants by choice.
Edit: and just so wont get this the wrong way again - that fear is linked to the place they're currently in.
-they left out of fear out of Syria = refugee
-they didn't leave out of fear out of Poland, they left by choice = migrant.
|
On October 11 2015 18:46 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2015 05:55 kwizach wrote:On October 11 2015 05:51 xM(Z wrote:On October 11 2015 05:32 kwizach wrote: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: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 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 definition A 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 ... Do you not understand basic English or something? That's obviously what I meant by "home country", or "country of origin". In your example of "Syrian people" coming to, and then leaving Poland, their nationality is not Polish, it is Syrian. And in Syria, they fear for their lives under the aforementioned conditions, which means that they are refugees whether or not they decide to stay in Poland. so i have problems with english?... we are talking laws here; laws have to be specific/precise but based on your interpretation, the turks(of nationality) that lived in Syria and then fled from the Syrian war are not refugees because their home country is Turkey. that makes no sense what so ever and you want me to take it as a law. your law maybe ...
I provided you with the definition and explained to you how it applies to the Syrians who left Syria because of a well-founded fear for their lives. Is there anything you don't understand about why they are called refugees (I am not talking about Turks, about Polish people, or anyone else than Syrians fleeing Syria)?
On October 11 2015 18:46 xM(Z wrote:as for your terminology use, nothing is set in stone. there are people arguing about the usage of words like migrant, refugee, alien and so on from official positions and they admit there's no common agreement under law or commonality about meaning and usage. it's all media bullshit and political correctness agendas. http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-34061097Show nested quote +But in the US, alien remains official terminology for any person who is not a citizen or national.
The Obama administration proposed Dreamers as a new positive way - with its reference to the American Dream - of describing undocumented young people who met the conditions of the Dream act (Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors). Show nested quote +But there would be many people who would be wary of labelling someone a refugee until that person has gone through the legal process of claiming asylum. In the UK, and other places, claims for "refugee status" are examined before being either granted or denied. Show nested quote +"Migrant used to have quite a neutral connotation," explains Alexander Betts, director of the Refugee Studies Centre at Oxford University. "It says nothing about their entitlement to cross that border or whether they should be." But some people believe that the word has recently developed a sour note. It is being used to mean "not a refugee", argues Betts. Show nested quote +"The moment at which they can officially say whether they are refugees or economic migrants is the moment at which the EU state that is processing their claim makes its decision," says Tim Stanley, historian and columnist for the Daily Telegraph. "I am not questioning the validity of their narrative, I am not saying that anyone was lying about it. I am saying that it is down to the state in which they have arrived to define what they are."
The core definition is agreed under international law, and I've explained how it has tended to be applied liberally. "Political correctness agendas" have zero relevance to how states apply the said definitions.
On October 11 2015 18:46 xM(Z wrote:
you don't get to come here and say this is like that because you said so. if the state in which they arrive says they're not refugees, you have nothing.
I get to come here and tell you about the definition of refugee in international law because I know international law and you don't. States have a legal obligation to apply the definition I presented you with, and they do. How a given state applies international law is relevant to a refugee's claim for asylum in that particular state, but if a state suddenly decides to violate his international obligations and recognize nobody, or almost nobody as a refugee, it certainly doesn't mean that the same people would not be granted refugee status in another country. This is why we rely on international law to discuss these issues and not only national laws or an individual state's practice.
On October 11 2015 18:46 xM(Z wrote:
as for me, when the fear is no longer a factor, when 'owing to such fear' doesn't exist anymore, they become asylum seekers or migrants by choice.
Edit: and just so wont get this the wrong way again - that fear is linked to the place they're currently in.
-they left out of fear out of Syria;
-they didn't leave out of fear out of Poland. they left by choice = migrant.
Yes, I know your position, and I have no interest in how xM(Z would treat asylum applications for people seeking to live in his living room as refugees. I care about how it works on the international stage, and I've repeatedly explained to you that your view is not how refugees and economic migrants are defined in international law and in how international law is applied by states. Whether or not Syrians fleeing Syria for fear for their lives decided to leave Poland because of a fear for their lives in Poland is irrelevant to the fact that they are still refugees because of the situation in Syria.
|
yea, i'll just stop now because you not only provided nothing about how it works on an international stage(statutory+regulatory) but indirectly inferred that there is no international stage to begin with but rather a statal/regional stage(civil+conventional) at best.
Edit: plus, in actual state law, there's another kicker here - you're considered refugee only if you left/fled from a war zone, literally.
so, if you lived in Syria, in peace, under Assads rule, in his territory or something, you will not be considered legally a refugee.
|
The EU seems to be pretty clear on who is a refuge. You have to ask for asylum in the first country you enter (its supposed to be the contries job and not the refuge tho) and depending on what they say your either a refuge or your not. I guess if you are rejected you could technically try to get to another EU country with wider standards. So they are not refuges and are still refuges at the same time.
If you do get asylum status however you are not eligeble to move to another EU country.
So while these people are technically refuges they are practically migrants because despite international law they leave thelt safe haven for a country that they are not allowed to go to.
The fact that these rules are not enforced anymore doesnt really relate to the legal standpoint.
But from a practical standpoint the fact that every country does whatever they want does make international law completly meaningless. Because if it worked we would not be having this discussion since everyone would be stopped and processed at the outer eu border and either turned back or stopped from economic migration inside the EU. But since international law is useless now we are having this discussion.
|
On October 11 2015 20:46 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
The EU seems to be pretty clear on who is a refuge. You have to ask for asylum in the first country you enter (its supposed to be the contries job and not the refuge tho) and depending on what they say your either a refuge or your not. I guess if you are rejected you could technically try to get to another EU country with wider standards. So they are not refuges and are still refuges at the same time.
If you do get asylum status however you are not eligeble to move to another EU country.
So while these people are technically refuges they are practically migrants because despite international law they leave thelt safe haven for a country that they are not allowed to go to.
The fact that these rules are not enforced anymore doesnt really relate to the legal standpoint.
But from a practical standpoint the fact that every country does whatever they want does make international law completly meaningless. Because if it worked we would not be having this discussion since everyone would be stopped and processed at the outer eu border and either turned back or stopped from economic migration inside the EU. But since international law is useless now we are having this discussion.
Most countries within the EU disagree on which people can ask for asylum or not, and this explain the high differences in the % of people that are accepted. In the current migration wave, there are people coming from africa through the mediterraneen sea, and africa is a complex matter in itself. As for the migration coming from the east, the majority of the people are usually coming from countries that are not in a war like state. Syrian represent something like 40 % of the overall migrants according to the things I've read.
So yeah, putting aside the dublin rules (that are already obsolete) countries needs to agree on a number of people that would be considered refugees for everyone.
|
On October 11 2015 20:13 xM(Z wrote:yea, i'll just stop now because you not only provided nothing about how it works on an international stage(statutory+regulatory) but indirectly inferred that there is no international stage to begin with but rather a statal/regional stage(civil+conventional) at best.
Since at this point your points have been utterly refuted you seem to have resorted to straight out lying. I started by providing you with the relevant international legal dispositions with regards to refugees, then expanded on regional mechanisms and practices at the state level at the request of another poster. It must be tough that the legal definition of refugee doesn't correspond to your view, but that's how it is.
On October 11 2015 20:13 xM(Z wrote:
Edit: plus, in actual state law, there's another kicker here - you're considered refugee only if you left/fled from a war zone, literally.
so, if you lived in Syria, in peace, under Assads rule, in his territory or something, you will not be considered legally a refugee.
You sometime just managed to be factually wrong again, which is pretty impressive in itself. The definition of refugee under the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol does not make it necessary to be fleeing from a war zone to be considered a refugee. Let me quote it again; someone qualifies when that person:
"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."
There is no necessity either under "state law" (I'm not even sure of what you're referring to here) to come from a "war zone". There have been, like I said, laws adopted at the national and regional levels to extend the definition, or in some cases at least protect people who did not fall under a strict application of that definition, in order to notably (but not exclusively) include people fleeing an armed conflict in general because they feared for their lives. But fleeing from an armed conflict is not a requirement to be considered a refugee.
Also, to further respond to one of your previous points about states determining who is a refugee (and to CuddlyCuteKitten at the same time), let me quote the UNHCR Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status (1979 and 1992): "A person is a refugee within the meaning of the 1951 Convention as soon as he fulfils the criteria contained in the definition. [...] Recognition of his refugee status does not therefore make him a refugee but declares him to be one. He does not become a refugee because of recognition, but is recognised because he is a refugee". Acceptance at the state level is declarative, not constitutive.
|
On October 11 2015 20:13 xM(Z wrote:yea, i'll just stop now because you not only provided nothing about how it works on an international stage(statutory+regulatory) but indirectly inferred that there is no international stage to begin with but rather a statal/regional stage(civil+conventional) at best. Edit: plus, in actual state law, there's another kicker here - you're considered refugee only if you left/fled from a war zone, literally. so, if you lived in Syria, in peace, under Assads rule, in his territory or something, you will not be considered legally a refugee.
I'd really recommend you don't spend too much time replying to kwizach. He has consistently shown that he really doesn't care about facts and will spin anything he can into something that appears to support his position.
On October 11 2015 13:40 lord_nibbler wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2015 02:53 LegalLord wrote:
A run of the mill secular dictator worse than a group that is interested in systematically dismantling every culture that disagrees with it?
Whether or not it's accurate (polls are neither reliable nor newsworthy), they are straight up wrong You know who are the worst kind of humans? Uninformed arrogant ones... Assad killed/kills easily ten times as much Syrian civilians then ISIS does. (see here and here for last month) Also, how about you think for a moment about what certain numbers actually mean and not just go by 'general impressions'? Like for example that there are only about 50.000 ISIS fighters around, but they control a population of 6.2 million. If their terror is so monstrous and they are so few, how come people are still living voluntary under their rule? According to reports their biggest city Mosul with 1.5 million inhabitants is held / defended by not more than 8000 ISIS fighters. While at the same time the Iraq army and the Kurds could muster nearly a hundred thousand men to recapture the city. What's stopping them? Well, they are not sure that the civilian population of Mosul will not fight along ISIS against them. If they had guaranties from them, they could take back the city in days (there is even a high chance ISIS would simply retreat). But the people of Mosul have not given their consent yet. So think about what this means? It means that millions of Mosul citizens would rather live under the 'terror rule of ISIS' than be part of the 'democratic Iraq government'. Something is not adding up according to western reporting. How can the 'good guys' be even worse than the 'bad guys' for them? mind = blown
Ok, are you seriously endorsing ISIS here? There is quite a lot wrong with what you said, and frankly I can't address all of it, but I will say this much:
1. Look at all the public executions, genocidal acts, etc. that have been a staple of ISIS in its earlier years. They most certainly do intend to establish a caliphate and kill off anyone they think is not of their religious conviction.
2. The entire world has (rightfully so) quickly moved against ISIS, and stopped them before they could do what they wanted. Genocidal intentions without the means to carry them out are no better than genocidal intentions with the means to carry them out. For example, there do exist fascist movements with some tractions in Eastern Europe - they just don't belong to any nations with the same military capabilities as Germany. Doesn't make them any less dangerous, and same with ISIS.
3. Sure, there probably is some solid support for ISIS in the one region that welcomed the coming of a caliphate as they thought it was better than the highly incompetent Iraqi government. People do some really stupid things out of desperation, and sooner or later they will come to regret it. It doesn't mean that they are better than Assad's regime or the planted Iraqi government.
A few thousand civilian deaths is an unfortunate but necessary casualty when you have to root out guerillas. ISIS would gladly kill tens of thousands of Christians, Jews, and those of different Muslim groups if the chance were given to them - probably with public mass-executions. To defend them after the way they conducted themselves is simply laughable. Neither the Maliki nor Assad governments are particularly good, but they are at the very least legitimate governments that intend to maintain stability. ISIS is neither legitimate nor interested in stability, as you might learn from listening to anything their leaders actually say or do.
|
The point is that there is no practical difference. If a tree falls in the forrest and no one is around to hear it does it make a sound? If a person declares himself fleeing a war and no nation recognizes him is he a refuge?
But even the answer to that question is irrelevant if you just look at reality...
And answer me this: If international law is so important and it says refuges have the right to move through countries, then why do we restrict their travel? Airlines are faced with heavy fines if they transport someone who ends up not having reasons for being granted asylum. If they have reasons its fine. This means that they cant just buy a 270€ airplane ticket from turkey but must instead run a deadly, difficult and expensive (5000€ to some smuggler) maze to be proven "worthy" to seek asylum in Europe.
Rigthous people who think they are the good guys make me sick. They are the ones who make people risk their lives on the mediteranian and spend all their money on smugglers. But they refuse to talk about that we could (and should) recognize peoples refuge status in turkey or lebanon and then they could just take a plane like anyone else.
Its always the same bullshit about international law and being humane. While all along we are working our hardest to make sure people have to risk their lives in order to get into the EU with laws that I find to be questionable if you look at the spirit of refuge conventions.
So no. No one cares about international law. It has no point because every country bends it to their will anyway and even the ones who say they promote it, like Sweden, are hypocritical bitches who hide behind technicalities.
|
On October 11 2015 22:55 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2015 20:13 xM(Z wrote:yea, i'll just stop now because you not only provided nothing about how it works on an international stage(statutory+regulatory) but indirectly inferred that there is no international stage to begin with but rather a statal/regional stage(civil+conventional) at best. Edit: plus, in actual state law, there's another kicker here - you're considered refugee only if you left/fled from a war zone, literally. so, if you lived in Syria, in peace, under Assads rule, in his territory or something, you will not be considered legally a refugee. I'd really recommend you don't spend too much time replying to kwizach. He has consistently shown that he really doesn't care about facts and will spin anything he can into something that appears to support his position.
It sure looks like you don't like to be called out on the liberties you take with facts. I consistently back up my positions with factual information and scientific analyses, like I just did to explain the definition of refugee in international law. Do entertain me -- where exactly am I supposed to have shown that I don't "care about facts"? Is the definition of "refugee" that I just quoted not factual? I won't be holding my breath waiting for your answer, since you're probably incapable of giving me any examples and will therefore not answer, exactly like you do whenever your poorly-informed opinions are rebutted by facts.
edit: also, I think it's the second time I see you attack me to actively discourage another poster from engaging with me. I'll kindly ask you to mind your own business and abstain from personal attacks, which happen to be prohibited under forum rules.
|
Here in Croatia the pro-refugee propaganda is so strong, persistent and one-sided in all of the news sources that it basically had the exact opposite effect of what they wanted to do and revolted the people.
Same thing is happening now with the Russian intervetion in Syria, where the news are disgustingly and unobjectivelly pro-NATO. It only made the Russians look better.
Basically this news campaign is such an utter fail it's laughablr.
|
On October 11 2015 23:05 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
The point is that there is no practical difference. If a tree falls in the forrest and no one is around to hear it does it make a sound? If a person declares himself fleeing a war and no nation recognizes him is he a refuge?
But even the answer to that question is irrelevant if you just look at reality...
And answer me this: If international law is so important and it says refuges have the right to move through countries, then why do we restrict their travel? Airlines are faced with heavy fines if they transport someone who ends up not having reasons for being granted asylum. If they have reasons its fine. This means that they cant just buy a 270€ airplane ticket from turkey but must instead run a deadly, difficult and expensive (5000€ to some smuggler) maze to be proven "worthy" to seek asylum in Europe.
Rigthous people who think they are the good guys make me sick. They are the ones who make people risk their lives on the mediteranian and spend all their money on smugglers. But they refuse to talk about that we could (and should) recognize peoples refuge status in turkey or lebanon and then they could just take a plane like anyone else.
Its always the same bullshit about international law and being humane. While all along we are working our hardest to make sure people have to risk their lives in order to get into the EU with laws that I find to be questionable if you look at the spirit of refuge conventions.
So no. No one cares about international law. It has no point because every country bends it to their will anyway and even the ones who say they promote it, like Sweden, are hypocritical bitches who hide behind technicalities.
You are raising points that are unrelated to what I was arguing, so just in case this was a response to me I'd like to clarify why your objections fall outside of the scope of what I was discussing. In the current exchange, I was not giving policy prescriptions, or commenting on the Dublin Regulation or any other possible legal agreement to distribute refugees within the EU. All I was discussing is the definition of who constitutes a refugee. This definition is found in international law, and it is very much applied by EU member states (as well as non-EU member states). There are cases where it is applied restrictively, others where it is applied expansively, but even when asylum claims are refused the justifications for the refusals refer to the relevant international legal provisions defining who qualifies and under what circumstances certain asylum claims can be refused. To say that "no one cares about international law" with regards to how refugees are defined and claims are processed is therefore factually false, since it can be seen from the declarations and practice of states that the definition is a reference point that matters.
|
On October 11 2015 16:30 Incognoto wrote:
Maybe they agree with the fundamental ideas of ISIS
As the majority of the Arab world does. But don't you dare point that out.
|
I do find it a bit humorous how Europeans come in American threads and call Americans racists for not completely opening up the borders (of which I am supportive of for property rights reasons...nonetheless..), and yet European countries are far from having open borders. The US gets a ton of "refugees" from Mexico because of the Cartels and the Drug Wars down in South and Central America, and you guys can't handle a bit from Syria and the ME. There is humor to be found here (except for the refugees themselves of course). A lot of the shit that's going on is because of the French and British in the early 20th, as well as the American Government in the latter half. When will people simply say enough is enough and mind your own god damned business. Let the people in the ME (or Russia for that matter) deal with it themselves. Western Government's have clearly shown their ineptness the past 100+ years.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
