Cyprus-Forum.com

[Paphitis]

There is no law or provision in the Geneva Convention that permits anyone to illegally enter a country by attempting to cross the border at all.

The 1951 Geneva Convention only gives refugees the right to cross a border ONLY if they are fleeing violence.

Go and read the conventions and protocols. They do not give a right to 'cross borders' to anyone. They give refugees, those for whom the risks to their safety and life were so great that they felt they had no choice but to leave and seek safety outside their country because their own government cannot or will not protect them from those dangers, a right to international protection.

I have, and there is no provision for anyone to attempt to cross any countries border unless they are fleeing violence and that is up to the discretion of the signatory state.

[erolz66]

I entered this discussion with the observation that the whole issue of asylum and its connection to migration is surrounded by hypocrisy on all sides. Nothing that has been said in the ensuing debate following that has led me to reconsider that opinion. It has only confirmed and reinforced it as far as I am concerned.

[erolz66]

There is no law or provision in the Geneva Convention that permits anyone to illegally enter a country by attempting to cross the border at all.

The 1951 Geneva Convention only gives refugees the right to cross a border ONLY if they are fleeing violence.

Go and read the conventions and protocols. They do not give a right to 'cross borders' to anyone. They give refugees, those for whom the risks to their safety and life were so great that they felt they had no choice but to leave and seek safety outside their country because their own government cannot or will not protect them from those dangers, a right to international protection.

I have, and there is no provision for anyone to attempt to cross any countries border unless they are fleeing violence and that is up to the discretion of the signatory state.

So just quote where it says this in these agreements with a link. You will not and can not because it just does not say what you claim it says. Fuckwit.

[Paphitis]

There is no law or provision in the Geneva Convention that permits anyone to illegally enter a country by attempting to cross the border at all.

The 1951 Geneva Convention only gives refugees the right to cross a border ONLY if they are fleeing violence.

Go and read the conventions and protocols. They do not give a right to 'cross borders' to anyone. They give refugees, those for whom the risks to their safety and life were so great that they felt they had no choice but to leave and seek safety outside their country because their own government cannot or will not protect them from those dangers, a right to international protection.

I have, and there is no provision for anyone to attempt to cross any countries border unless they are fleeing violence and that is up to the discretion of the signatory state.

So just quote where it says this in these agreements with a link. You will not and can not because it just does not say what you claim it says. Fuckwit.

https://www.unhcr.org/3bcfdf164.pdf

1. The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of Article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization,provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.

[erolz66]

There is no law or provision in the Geneva Convention that permits anyone to illegally enter a country by attempting to cross the border at all.

The 1951 Geneva Convention only gives refugees the right to cross a border ONLY if they are fleeing violence.

Go and read the conventions and protocols. They do not give a right to 'cross borders' to anyone. They give refugees, those for whom the risks to their safety and life were so great that they felt they had no choice but to leave and seek safety outside their country because their own government cannot or will not protect them from those dangers, a right to international protection.

I have, and there is no provision for anyone to attempt to cross any countries border unless they are fleeing violence and that is up to the discretion of the signatory state.

So just quote where it says this in these agreements with a link. You will not and can not because it just does not say what you claim it says. Fuckwit.

https://www.unhcr.org/3bcfdf164.pdf

1. The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of Article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization,provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.

As ever I am not responsible for your inability to comprehend properly. You are responsible for the distortion and lies you propagate.

The PDF you have linked to is NOT the 1951 Convention. It is a detailed examination of exactly why states like Australia are behaving in illegal ways. The section you selectively quote is NOT article 1 of the convention. It is section one of this analysis of Australia and other illegal acts. That you actively choose not to include the part that says the section you quote is in fact 'Article 31 of the convention' is done with intent to deceive as far as I am concerned.

What section 1 of Article 31 of the convention is explicitly saying is that even if a refugee has entered a country illegally, that does not mean that state can use this as cause to deny them their rights as a refugee if they have done so directly from the country they are fleeing. A provision that Australia routinely flouts against all legality - which is what the document you link to is describing. This article does NOT mean that you can only claim asylum in the first safe country you reach. Now go away and find the ACTUAL convention and try reading the 30 articles in it that come BEFORE this extra protection defined in article 31. Turning up at a border and requesting Asylum is NOT entering a country illegally. It is seeking you rights under the law and preventing a refugee from being able to do so because you do not want to meet you international obligation is NOT LEGAL.

You could also look at section 2 of article 31 that you also do not quote and try and comprehend that.

2. The Contracting States shall not apply to the movements of such refugees restrictions other than those which are necessary and such restrictions shall only be applied until their status in the country is regularized or they obtain admission into another country. The Contracting States shall allow such refugees a reasonable period and all the necessary facilities to obtain admission into another country.

dishonest fuckwit.

[Paphitis]

There is no law or provision in the Geneva Convention that permits anyone to illegally enter a country by attempting to cross the border at all.

The 1951 Geneva Convention only gives refugees the right to cross a border ONLY if they are fleeing violence.

Go and read the conventions and protocols. They do not give a right to 'cross borders' to anyone. They give refugees, those for whom the risks to their safety and life were so great that they felt they had no choice but to leave and seek safety outside their country because their own government cannot or will not protect them from those dangers, a right to international protection.

I have, and there is no provision for anyone to attempt to cross any countries border unless they are fleeing violence and that is up to the discretion of the signatory state.

So just quote where it says this in these agreements with a link. You will not and can not because it just does not say what you claim it says. Fuckwit.

https://www.unhcr.org/3bcfdf164.pdf

1. The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of Article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization,provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.

As ever I am not responsible for your inability to comprehend properly. You are responsible for the distortion and lies you propagate.

The PDF you have linked to is NOT the 1951 Convention. It is a detailed examination of exactly why states like Australia are behaving in illegal ways. The section you selectively quote is NOT article 1 of the convention. It is section one of this analysis of Australia and other illegal acts. That you actively choose not to include the part that says the section you quote is in fact 'Article 31 of the convention' is done with intent to deceive as far as I am concerned.

What section 1 of Article 31 of the convention is explicitly saying is that even if a refugee has entered a country illegally, that does not mean that state can use this as cause to deny them their rights as a refugee if they have done so directly from the country they are fleeing. A provision that Australia routinely flouts against all legality - which is what the document you link to is describing. This article does NOT mean that you can only claim asylum in the first safe country you reach. Now go away and find the ACTUAL convention and try reading the 30 articles in it that come BEFORE this extra protection defined in article 31. Turning up at a border and requesting Asylum is NOT entering a country illegally. It is seeking you rights under the law and preventing a refugee from being able to do so because you do not want to meet you international obligation is NOT LEGAL.

Oh well! Then the UN can bite us and eat our shorts.

Australia has every right to do what it likes on its territory and it is very clear to me that Australia quite clearly has a different interpretation.

Not only that, but most of the illegal entries carry no documentation making it impossible toi determine anything. For Australia, this is in direct violation of our federal laws, hence they end up in detention centers.

Up until now, Australia has not had any UN resolutions against it and even if it did, it will just ignore them and even walk from the assembly just like they walk when Iran addresses the chamber.

[erolz66]

Oh well! Then the UN can bite us and eat our shorts.

Australia has every right to do what it likes on its territory and it is very clear to me that Australia quite clearly has a different interpretation.

Not only that, but most of the illegal entries carry no documentation making it impossible toi determine anything. For Australia, this is in direct violation of our federal laws, hence they end up in detention centers.

Up until now, Australia has not had any UN resolutions against it and even if it did, it will just ignore them and even walk from the assembly just like they walk when Iran addresses the chamber.

You either believe in international law and the principle of asylum or you do not. QED.

[Kikapu]

I don’t know how any country is expected to handle tens of thousands of people on their border all at once to seek an asylum. The answer is one cannot. There are two choices. One you let them all in unprocessed not knowing who these people are or where they are once in that country or where they are going or second choice is to close the border. Greece choice to close it’s border with Turkey because that is the only way to protect it’s sovereignty and it’s citizens. It may be contrary to certain appendixes in International law regarding refugees and migrants which I do not know, but until they are processed we don’t know to which category these people at the border belong to. However, once these people try to gate crash the border, they are committing a criminal act and the border guards have every means available to them to prevent illegal entry into the country. This is where we are now on the Turkish/Greece border.

This is nonsense Kiks, imo. An entity like the EU, working in true solidarity that had the desire and will to follow both the letter and the spirit of the international laws on asylum could process 10,000 of applications in a day and make fair decisions within weeks, including a fair right to appeal initial decision, for the 99.9 % of such asylum seekers. That they instead allow the camps in places like Greek islands to become overfull to 10 times their capacity and take years to 'process' applications is not because this is a physical limit on what is possible. It is a political decision based on trying to avoid legal obligations of the treaties they have signed up to. This is not about 'appendixes' to the laws on asylum, this about the very core principles of of it. That the EU does not do this, can not demonstrate solidarity on these issue, that states like Austria and Poland seek to fuck Greece as Greece and they seek to fuck asylum seekers, is the biggest existential threat to the continued existence of the EU as a political entity and the principles it is founded on.

If it was legal for Turkey to close it’s borders for these people to leave the country until a month ago, then why would it be illegal for Greece to close it’s borders to the same people.

Turkey has the sovereign right to decide who (of those who have not requested asylum there) it lets in to Turkey and who it lets out of Turkey, just as any and every country does. Just as they have the right to decide who can visit Turkey under a 90 day tourist visa and the like. Greece can do likewise. What it should not be able to do but does do is ignore its legal obligations to asylum seekers.

Greece has been processing asylum seekers before a month ago in an orderly manner as much as possible, but not when tens of thousands are deliberately bused to the border by Erdogan for political purposes.

This is just nonsense and akin to the RoC decision that nationals can only return to Cyprus currently if they first obtain a piece of paper that it is impossible to obtain. You talk about it being physically impossible to process 10,000 of people if they arrive at the borders of the EU and then claim such could be easily processed at embassies in Turkey. The notion is ludicrous. Now the EU could have and still could set up 'application centres' in Turkey that could and would fairly process 10,000s of applications for asylum within Europe quickly and efficiently and if they had of done then we would not have 10,000s turning up at borders and Erdogan would not be able to blackmail the EU by exploiting these peoples suffering. The EU has not and does not do this, not because it is impossible but because they DO NOT WANT TO GIVE THESE PEOPLE THEIR RIGHTS if it means they end up in Europe. At best they prefer to try and pay others to take them so they can avoid these obligations and at worst they seek to subvert international law entirely.

They choice number 2 as any other country would have done. Turkey invited these people from Syria from the time the war started there, therefore it is for Turkey to look after them. As for migrants in Turkey from other countries, it is up to Turkey to process them and send them back to their country of origin for being in Turkey illegally unless they ask for asylum. If they have been given asylum by Turkey, then their cases are closed.

You either respect and believe in international law and the principle of asylum or you do not kiks. From what you have written you do not.

No Erol, it is not correct that I do not believe in the International law. What you have not demonstrated so far, that all those people sent to the Greek border by Erdogan are actually refugees to begin with, and I’ve stated that we don’t know what their status are until they have been processed. For all we know, they may have been already refused asylum status and just want to gate crush into Europe just like all those in Calais trying to enter the UK in lorries illegally. Until they have been processed they are only refugees in name only. Just because some may be from Syria, assuming they have documents to prove their claim, does not make them refugees. They could be terrorist with ill intentions. I wouldn’t put anything past Erdogan. Just like the so called coup in 2016 in Turkey was his creation.

The problem is, they cannot be processed if the Greek border is closed with Turkey and Greece is not able to process 10’s of thousands of people just showing up on the border. I agree, that the EU can process them on Turkish soil, so what is the difference by the EU having one processing center in Turkey representing all it’s 27 member states and each 27 EU state using their own embassies to process them? There are more than just 27 countries to choose from for these people to ask for asylum, which makes all the more sense for them to apply at at embassy of their choice, does it not?

[Paphitis]

Oh well! Then the UN can bite us and eat our shorts.

Australia has every right to do what it likes on its territory and it is very clear to me that Australia quite clearly has a different interpretation.

Not only that, but most of the illegal entries carry no documentation making it impossible toi determine anything. For Australia, this is in direct violation of our federal laws, hence they end up in detention centers.

Up until now, Australia has not had any UN resolutions against it and even if it did, it will just ignore them and even walk from the assembly just like they walk when Iran addresses the chamber.

You either believe in international law and the principle of asylum or you do not. QED.

I believe in Greece's national Security and in protecting its own citizens from illegal immigrants who are not refugees and who have no accompanying documentation and could even be murderers, rapists, thieves and carriers of coronavirus.

I believe in Greece's right to protect its sovereignty and borders.

And most of the illegals do not have the right to request asylum as they are in no imminent danger and most do not even come from Syria.

Most are economic refugees and some are even Turkish Citizens.

No matter what, golden poster boy EU is backing Greece, and so would so many other countries like Australia, US, and most OECD countries.

[Kikapu]

As Canada virus cases pass 1,000, asylum seekers to be turned back; jobless claims soar

David Ljunggren, Jeff Lewis

OTTAWA/TORONTO (Reuters) - Canada will turn back asylum seekers who walk over the U.S.-Canada border, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said on Friday, as economic damage from the coronavirus outbreak intensified and a ban on non-essential travel across the world’s longest undefended border was set to come into effect.


https://www.reuters.com/article/us-heal ... SKBN2171M8