Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-14-2020, 04:16 PM
Zyada is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Foat Wuth!
Posts: 5,425

Geneva convention requires countries to accept refugees?


I read this on the wilderness that is social media. Is there any truth to it? If so, where do I point people to, if I want to let them know that we really should be taking in refugees?
  #2  
Old 01-14-2020, 04:26 PM
carnivorousplant is offline
KB not found. Press any key
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Central Arkansas
Posts: 59,596
I believe it applies only during a time of war.
"Article 33 provides that: No contracting state shall expel or return a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion."
__________________
You callous bastard! More of my illusions have just been shattered!!-G0sp3l
  #3  
Old 01-14-2020, 04:30 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 22,470
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conven...us_of_Refugees

And not what you were specifically asking about but probably also useful:

https://founders.archives.gov/docume.../04-06-02-0266
  #4  
Old 01-14-2020, 05:03 PM
bump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 19,009
The Geneva conventions are a set of treaties that govern warfare- there's probably some provision about not attacking refugees or something along those lines. But at their core, the "Geneva Conventions" are rules governing warfare between two combatants and don't apply here.

You're probably thinking of the "Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees" (1951) and the "Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees" (1967), both of which are multilateral UN treaties that define refugees and how they should be treated. The difference between them is that the Convention was limited to pre-1951 European refugees (i.e. WWII related ones), while the Protocol removes the temporal and geographic restrictions.

I suspect that there's some legalistic wrangling going on w.r.t. the actual refugee status- it's defined as:

Quote:
“someone who is unable or unwilling to return to their country of origin owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion.”
There's a lot of legal wiggle room there for saying that the border migrants aren't refugees, but merely migrants wanting a better life, I'd bet.
  #5  
Old 01-15-2020, 10:51 AM
zimaane is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: washington, dc
Posts: 1,101
Quote:
There's a lot of legal wiggle room there for saying that the border migrants aren't refugees, but merely migrants wanting a better life, I'd bet.
As I understand it, that is exactly the issue - whether fear of e.g., criminal violence from street gangs fits the definition of refugee.
  #6  
Old 01-15-2020, 11:11 AM
Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is back, dammit!
Posts: 30,421
There have been rulings from domestic courts in other countries interpreting the meaning of refugee in the treaty, which have concluded that if the authorities in an individual’s country can’t or won’t protect the individual from drug gangs or politically motivated violence, that individual may qualify as a refugee. The failure of the local government to protect its citizens can trigger the rights under the treaty.
__________________
"I don't like to make plans for the day. If I do, that's when words like 'premeditated' start getting thrown around in the courtroom."
  #7  
Old 01-15-2020, 01:09 PM
bump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 19,009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Piper View Post
There have been rulings from domestic courts in other countries interpreting the meaning of refugee in the treaty, which have concluded that if the authorities in an individualís country canít or wonít protect the individual from drug gangs or politically motivated violence, that individual may qualify as a refugee. The failure of the local government to protect its citizens can trigger the rights under the treaty.
Sure, but a local domestic court decision in say.. Ireland, isn't binding on the US, and nor is it necessarily even pertinent.
  #8  
Old 01-15-2020, 02:26 PM
Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is back, dammit!
Posts: 30,421
Not saying those court decisions are binding on US courts. The US courts are obviously not bound by foreign courts.

But, it is significant, if youíre a court interpreting an international treaty, to consider how other domestic or international courts have interpreted that same treaty, because one principle of implementing treaties is that they should have a consistent interpretation.

A US court may find the reasons given by other courts to be helpful in interpreting the treaty obligations. Always subject, of course, to whatever US federal statutes have been adopted to implement the treaty.
__________________
"I don't like to make plans for the day. If I do, that's when words like 'premeditated' start getting thrown around in the courtroom."
  #9  
Old 01-15-2020, 03:39 PM
gnoitall is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 6,041
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Piper View Post
...one principle of implementing treaties is that they should have a consistent interpretation.
This clashes with another principle of implementing treaties: interpreting them as advantageously to your own interests as possible.
  #10  
Old 01-16-2020, 11:14 AM
BigT's Avatar
BigT is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 37,030
Quote:
Originally Posted by gnoitall View Post
This clashes with another principle of implementing treaties: interpreting them as advantageously to your own interests as possible.
Yes, but then the element of "whose own interests" comes into play. The people not wanting to let in the refugees and the courts that would be required to interpret the treaty are not the same people.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:48 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017