What did Democrats do wrong?

[Emily's Cat]

[Citation needed]

And yes I have seen the website the transphobes continuously point to and contains a tiny number of examples, the vast majority of which aren't trans athletes winning, not athletic sports events (stuff like quizzes are included) or are completely non-competetive events like school sports days. In fact the biggest example cited is cisgender woman Imame Khelif who was picked because she comprehensively beat another woman in the olympics because her opponent was only included because she was the niece of the Italian boxing federation (it was well known before the olympics that Carini was out of her depth in national competitions, never mind international ones).

Khelif is a male with 5-ARD.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Per Disbelief's citation above, they seem to be required to present themselves to our authorities, even if entering illegally. Like, they don't have to ask for refuge in the first country that might still be dicey.

Hmm. It seems to suggest that they can't pass through other countries prior to identifying themselves as seeking assylum:

Article 31 - Refugees unlawfully in the country of refuge​

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.

What I think many people viscerally object to is sneaking under the wire and just laying low as long as possible instead of at least making the attempt to do things on the up-and-up.

 

[theprestige]

It's trivially easy to look this up and see that you are wrong about this.

You say that, but I found it trivially easy to read the plain text of 31.1 and reach exactly the opposite conclusion. What's your source?

 

[Reformed Offlian]

Hmm. It seems to suggest that they can't pass through other countries prior to identifying themselves as seeking assylum:

Nope.

Per UNHCR Guidelines on International Protection No. 14:

The term “directly” should be interpreted broadly and not necessarily in a literal
(geographical or temporal) sense. For Article 31(1) to apply, refugees are not required to have
come to the current host country without crossing through, stopping or staying in any other
intermediate country or countries after leaving the territory where their lives or freedom are
threatened.34 Mere transit in an intermediate country cannot be considered to interrupt “coming
directly”.

Guidelines on International Protection No. 14: Non-penalization of refugees on account of their irregular entry or presence and restrictions on their movements in accordance with Article 31 of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees |

www.refworld.org

 

[theprestige]

Nope.

Per UNHCR Guidelines on International Protection No. 14:

The term “directly” should be interpreted broadly and not necessarily in a literal
(geographical or temporal) sense. For Article 31(1) to apply, refugees are not required to have
come to the current host country without crossing through, stopping or staying in any other
intermediate country or countries after leaving the territory where their lives or freedom are
threatened.34 Mere transit in an intermediate country cannot be considered to interrupt “coming
directly”.

Guidelines on International Protection No. 14: Non-penalization of refugees on account of their irregular entry or presence and restrictions on their movements in accordance with Article 31 of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees |

www.refworld.org

Are these guidelines part of the convention that parties have ratified as law in their jurisdiction?

I for one would consider it madness to ratify as law an agreement that was subject to extrajudicial reinterpretaion by a foreign entity.

Also this interpretation comically boils down to, when you signed on for direct arrival, we didn't really mean direct arrival, syke! You're basically arguing that these folks pulled a blatant bait and switch on the signatories, and now they have no choice but to live with it. I disagree. I think they can repudiate the bad faith clown show, and stick to their own sovereign interpretation of the document they ratified.

Also, playing bait and switch games hardly positions the UNHCR as a trustworthy or reputable arbiter. Are you sure this is the horse you want to back?

 

[Reformed Offlian]

Are these guidelines part of the convention that parties have ratified as law in their jurisdiction?

I for one would consider it madness to ratify as law an agreement that was subject to extrajudicial reinterpretaion by a foreign entity.

Also this interpretation comically boils down to, when you signed on for direct arrival, we didn't really mean direct arrival, syke! You're basically arguing that these folks pulled a blatant bait and switch on the signatories, and now they have no choice but to live with it. I disagree. I think they can repudiate the bad faith clown show, and stick to their own sovereign interpretation of the document they ratified.

Also, playing bait and switch games hardly positions the UNHCR as a trustworthy or reputable arbiter. Are you sure this is the horse you want to back?

You and Emily's Cat are wrong about how the term is interpreted in international law by those who do it for a living. How you deal with that is up to you.

 

[theprestige]

You and Emily's Cat are wrong about how the term is interpreted in international law by those who do it for a living. How you deal with that is up to you.

"International law" isn't a thing. Only national laws. Name one party to this convention, that has made it their law that the UNHCR is the supreme authority on their interpretation of their own laws.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

"International law" isn't a thing. Only national laws. Name one party to this convention, that has made it their law that the UNHCR is the supreme authority on their interpretation of their own laws.

Sour grapes. It was a thing when you thought it supported your argument. Now that you realize it doesn't, it's suddenly not a thing.

 

[theprestige]

Sour grapes. It was a thing when you thought it supported your argument.

No it wasn't, because I never did. I only ever referred to what nations had actually signed into national law.

Now that you realize it doesn't, it's suddenly not a thing.

I have consistently disparaged "international law", as not being a thing, on this forum since I first started posting here.

But enough about me. I'm not the topic.

I asked you to name one party to the Convention, that had ratified the UNHCR as their sovereign authority for interpreting their own laws. Instead of doing so, you decided to attack me.

Just do what I asked. If the UNHCR has legal authority over any country, tell us which country it is.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

No it wasn't, because I never did. I only ever referred to what nations had actually signed into national law.

You did. You attempted to gloss Article 31.1. You did not bring up a single national code on that point.

As to your red herring about the UNHCR being some sort of sovereign authority over other nation's laws, I shall continue to ignore it, so you might as well stop bringing it up.

 

[Thermal]

Hmm. It seems to suggest that they can't pass through other countries prior to identifying themselves as seeking assylum:

Article 31 - Refugees unlawfully in the country of refuge​

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.

I'm not sure that it means you can't pass through another country to get to asylum? i mean, I can go directly to a town while passing through another first, right? Why should you have to seek asylum in an adjacent nation a stone's throw from where you were fleeing?

 

[TragicMonkey]

I'm not sure that it means you can't pass through another country to get to asylum? i mean, I can go directly to a town while passing through another first, right? Why should you have to seek asylum in an adjacent nation a stone's throw from where you were fleeing?

I think the idea is that if things are so horrible where you started, you should be glad to accept the next country you come to as being better.

 

[Thermal]

I think the idea is that if things are so horrible where you started, you should be glad to accept the next country you come to as being better.

Well, yeah, we do that with homeless people too. They aren't allowed to pass up a perfectly good cardboard box if they are heading towards a shelter.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

I think the idea is that if things are so horrible where you started, you should be glad to accept the next country you come to as being better.

In practical terms though that would mean that almost all refugees, and certainly all the poorest, would end up in neighbouring countries regardless of their size and capacity to cope. I agree the language is ambiguous, but I'm not aware of any country that's taken a strick interpretation of it.

ETA: There's also matters of language, culture and family. One of the after effects of colonialism is that there are lot of poorer countries where English, French and other European languages are almost universally spoke , someone from an English speaking nation is obviously going to prefer, and find it easier, to settle in an English speaking host nation than a French one and vice versa. If they have family members already legally in another country they're going to prefer going there than to somewhere they know no one. And for European nations in particular colonies were encouraged to think of themselves as culturally linked to the 'Mother' country, it's hardly surprising that some people will consider it a less alien environment than a random country without such links.

 

[Mongrel]

I'm not sure that it means you can't pass through another country to get to asylum? i mean, I can go directly to a town while passing through another first, right? Why should you have to seek asylum in an adjacent nation a stone's throw from where you were fleeing?

And looking at the mandate for the UNHCR (PDF) the rules regarding refugees are all directed at nations treatment of refugees, not individuals.

 

[Disbelief]

You say that, but I found it trivially easy to read the plain text of 31.1 and reach exactly the opposite conclusion. What's your source?

So you are an expert in the interpretation. You made the claim that your interpretation is correct, so you should back it up with someone with actually expertise and not your interpretation. Nice try to reverse burden of proof.

 

[Thermal]

And looking at the mandate for the UNHCR (PDF) the rules regarding refugees are all directed at nations treatment of refugees, not individuals.

Right. I'm reading the 'directly' as meaning you can't flee El Salvador, open a Bed and Breakfast in Mexico for a few years, then show up in the US seeking asylum from the conditions in El Salvador.

 

[Mongrel]

Right. I'm reading the 'directly' as meaning you can't flee El Salvador, open a Bed and Breakfast in Mexico for a few years, then show up in the US seeking asylum from the conditions in El Salvador.

Yeah, it's not binding on the refugee but it allows the country to deny entry since the opening lines of the Article 31 being bandied about are "The Contracting States"

 

[Thermal]

Yeah, it's not binding on the refugee but it allows the country to deny entry since the opening lines of the Article 31 being bandied about are "The Contracting States"

I'm impressed by how the Contracting States agree to put little honus on the refugee for following strict procedure, even to the point of excusing illegal entry. I mean, it's intuitively the right thing to do, but they often don't do the intuitively right thing.

 

[Mongrel]

I'm impressed by how the Contracting States agree to put little honus on the refugee for following strict procedure, even to the point of excusing illegal entry. I mean, it's intuitively the right thing to do, but they often don't do the intuitively right thing.

My first thought is that it's to stop the "If they break the law we can send them away" shennanigans that some have touted and have countries abrogating responsibility by not allowing them across their border