Slashdot Mirror

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

So merely entering the country illegally is not a justification to arrest an asylum seeker. This is justified in the introduction by saying that

subject to specific exceptions, refugees should not be penalized for their illegal entry or stay. This recognizes that the seeking of asylum can require refugees to breach immigration rules. Prohibited penalties might include being charged with immigration or criminal offences relating to the seeking of asylum, or being arbitrarily detained purely on the basis of seeking asylum.

To my understanding, the US implemented this by interpreting "without delay" as "within a one year period".

Not everything needs a bilateral treaty. As the GP stated "the requirement that the destination country agree to accept the deported person" -- every nation can deny entry to anyone, and is actually done quite often. There are a lot of guys in Guantanamo who have been cleared of any crime, but have no country willing to accept them, including their country of birth.

The UN states that there are over 10 million people who are denied a nationality. There's literally nowhere to deport them to.

The US doesn't generally deport refugees who are likely to suffer death or torture in their home country, regardless of how they got here.

Literally, the list goes on seemingly forever. By US law, it's not as simple as "deporting them."

Even when it does deport somebody, the US has its own laws for how deportees are to be treated -- generally similar to a domestic criminal. Deportation isn't cheap: ICE spent 3.2 billion dollars in 2016, with an average cost of over $10,000 per person deported.

So not only is it not as simple as "deporting them", it's also quite expensive.

There are currently 60 million war refugees according to UNHCR

So either our military commanders havent kept up with whats been going on the last decade, or they can't even imagine current reality.

I understood that quote to count only refugees from Bangladesh—not worldwide.

He said one metre of sea level rise will flood 20% of his nation. "We're going to see . . . 30 million people."

"We're going to see refugee problems on an unimaginable scale, potentially above 30 million people."

There are currently 60 million war refugees according to UNHCR

So either our military commanders havent kept up with whats been going on the last decade, or they can't even imagine current reality.

He campaigned on a platform of isolationism. Why would he care if two countries on the other side of the world are hacking each other?

Not just that, unlike previous Republican administrations, he takes a dim view of all of Islam: he doesn't view Sunnis as better than Shias or vice versa or any of that. His whole stance of allying w/ the Russians in Syria is based on that: that militias that are financed by the Saudis, Turks or Qatar are just not reliable at best, and Jihadists at worst. That's why he's taken a position that's completely heterodox to the Republicans, if not downright heretical.

On Iran, what he has to do is pull the plug on that deal, and make it clear to Iran's trading partners that they can choose to trade either w/ the US or Iran, but not both. If European countries are so enamored w/ trading w/ Iran, that's fine: just don't expect to do any business w/ the US.

But as far as the Saudis go, we have no dog in the fight b/w Iran and Saudi Arabia. Both are our enemies, and the 2 of them fighting each other is an alien vs predator situation, to paraphrase Debbie Schlussel. Or like the 2 cats of Kilkinney. If they can fight each other and wipe each other out, then praise be to allah - nothing like it!

Wars have a habit of spilling their effects across borders. For a time, I was reading every day's front page of the Canberra Times starting in October 1938. The problem of international refugees appeared again and again, and I had to stop in February 1939 because I got busy with work. The war had only just begun at that point.

65 million people were displaced at the end of 2015. This problem is not just Saudi Arabia and Iran's problem. A lot of the costs of their "not so cold" war are externalized onto other nations.

This is not a question of wanting to do something. Germany (like most other countries) has signed the 1951 Refugee Convention and the 1967 Protocol. This means that we cannot legally refuse helping refugees that arrive here. Neither can Austria, the US and 143 other countries. If we now refuse to honor that convention, it will for all practical purposes cease to exist.

Furthermore, I second that we do not really have a problem with the number of refugees in Germany. Temporary issues, yes, but in the long term this will not be a problem.

No, only 21.8% of the refuges are fighting age men. Try again you racist troll.

Iran hosts almost a million refugees at the moment. That's more than three times what US has which is impressive as it's a smaller nation with a lot less resources, under sanction! Go write your FUD somewhere else.

Asylum seekers may well perform illegal acts or use illegal services to get to Australia, but the actual act of coming to Australia to seek asylum is not illegal, whether they come by boat, plane or walk across the ocean floor.

Great comment, pity it's wrong.

The actual act of coming to Australia to seek asylum is usually illegal. Migration Act 1958 section 14. Also see s13. Also see s5AA. Basically you need a visa prior to entry.

Now according to UN 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, Article 31, if you're an asylum seeker and entered Australia illegally, you won't face penalty as long as you declare yourself to the authorities right away and show good cause.

Most IKEA products aren't -designed- to be exposed to the elements, though. They are designed to be placed indoors in a controlled environment.

I'm pretty sure these shelters are designed with weather in mind at least until something else is proven.

You are pretty wrong. Shelters are made to be extremely cheap and easy to transport. At the moment transporting cost is the limiting factor. The cost of setting up a refugee shelter is measured in its weight.
Mostly refugee shelters are just tents but sometimes they are made of recycled cardboard boxes or tents supported by a paper tube frame.

Here is a link to an article about a refugee shelter where heavy rain damaged 7000 tents.

No house is going under tomorrow.

You might want to check out those pacific island communities that are literally flooded at high tides *NOW*

You might want to find out which UN treaty you're talking about and actually read it. Pay particular attention to the word "directly"

Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees

"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."

Australia doesn't get a lot of refugees coming from Indonesia, Papua New Guinea, Malaysia, the Philippines or New Zealand.

What's more, it is, in fact, illegal and the convention calls it illegal on more than one occasion. Contracting states are, however, forbidden to penalize people who enter illegally provided they present themselves to the authorities promptly.

While we don't need religion to tell us that murder is wrong,

Although arguments have been made regarding humanity's innate moral sense, I still have to ask, are you quite sure about that?

Druids Committed Human Sacrifice, Cannibalism?
Human sacrifices 'on the rise in Uganda' as witch doctors admit to rituals
Four held for kidnapping kids for human sacrifice
Nigeria: Prevalence of ritual murder and human sacrifice and reaction by government authorities (March 2000-July 2005)"
Evidence found of human sacrifice in North America
"Chilling" Child Sacrifices Found at Prehistoric Site

Many in the West cannot conceive of things being different in any way if foundations of its morality and culture are destroyed, but that is an epic mistake. Things will change, and many of the possibilities make for something that may not be nice at all.

. These days, they've done away with much of the blood guilt that would kill your family

Have you got any sources to back this up? It doesn't have to be particularly authoritive as NK is so restrictive this would be hard to get.

Human Rights Watch reported in 2007 it was getting harsher: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/publisher,HRW,,PRK,45fff1b92,0.html

It may well have improved; I'd just like to read about it.

I fail to see how the world food programme, the construction of refugee camps, malaria and AIDS prevention, child protection and education are bad for anyone, let alone "the rest of us."

Unless, of course, you mean that you're unwilling to pay taxes to support such efforts. In which case you'd seem like a selfish bastard but I'd reluctantly agree that human decency should be optional. I would go on to point out that most of the UN's humanitarian programs are financed by voluntary contributions from member states.

From the Convention on Diplomatic Asylum, Ecuador should not have provided Asylum:

Article III
It is not lawful to grant asylum to persons who, at the time of requesting it, are under Indictment or on trial
for common offenses or have been convicted by competent regular courts and have not served the
respective sentence, nor to deserters from land, sea, and air forces, save when the acts giving rise to the
request for asylum, whatever the case may be, are clearly of a political nature.
Persons included in the foregoing paragraph who de facto enter a place that is suitable as an asylum
shall be Invited to leave or, as the case may be, shall be surrendered to the local authorities, who may not try them for political offenses committed prior to the time of the surrender.

http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/topic,4565c22517,4565c25f203,3ae6b3823c,0,,,.html

No doubt, this probably has at least something to do with the charges against Assange.

I fail to see how the US could pursue a case against Assange, as he is not a US citizen and not bound by US law. On what charge could he be extradited under?

The US does not adhere to International law and cannot really make any claims under it.

The following claims are made in some articles:

"Despite this, and apparently on the basis of still classified off-the-record discussions with US officials and private legal experts, the embassy reported the existence of the grand jury as a matter of fact. It identified a wide range of criminal charges the US could bring against Assange, including espionage, conspiracy, unlawful access to classified information and computer fraud."

This is complete nonsense. US Federal law only applies to US citizens and cannot be applied to a foreigner without consent.

Do you really believe that diplomatic immunity was *intended* to be used in the way Ecuador is trying to use it, to shield an alleged criminal from prosecution? And would you be okay with that if, say, Mr. Assange got mugged, identified a suspect to the police, and then the suspect fled to the US embassy seeking asylum? Because if Ecuador can do it... why can't every other country use its diplomatic immunity in a disingenuous fashion, as well?

You mean, like József Mindszenty, who the US shielded in their embassy for 15 years? Like Fang Lizhi? Like Victor Haya? Manuel Zelaya? The answer is, they (including the USA) do.

It says he was imprisoned on charges that include firearms charges and property damage, so no not really. You would have been better off going for this article which is about journalists being charged for something they actually printed. The actual tabloid article they were arrested for showed pictures of female members of the judiciary as prostitutes (using their faces on a stock photo). If anyone can find the text of this article I would be interested. So I have found your citation for you, proving that I am in fact impartial and genuinely want to be informed. I disagree with the charges and believe that journalists should be able to say what they want, I think the Chavez administration has overstepped its authority in this case. Now should I spend hours on the internet searching for documents proving that Chavez also kills journalists or do you want to admit you are full of shit?

Oh wait, I have found some totally unsubstantiated allegations of extra-judicial killing of journalists in Venezuela too. Some journalists were killed but no one knows exactly who killed them and speculate that it may have been politically motivated. It is not proof but it is still a cause for concern.

So now I am actually concerned about state repression of the media in Venezuela. Thanks to... oh wait. No thanks to some people who couldn't find a reliable source for their own backside. I hope you are embarrassed. I was asking a reasonable question, when I state something I find citations for it on request. I resent being called an asshole for not swallowing your opinion whole without thinking for myself. I also resent having my internet search skills insulted by someone who fails basic reading comprehension. Don't make me search for your citations next time, that is your job.

I guess, if you don't count domestic violence: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/publisher,IRBC,,ARE,4e4a2c0c2,0.html

"As the Supreme Court has observed, "[t]he United States frequently employs Armed Forces outside this country - over 200 times in our history - for the protection of American citizens or national security." United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259, 273 (1990). On at least 125 such occasions, the President acted without prior express authorization from Congress. See Bosnia Opinion, 19 Op. O.L.C. at 331. Such deployments, based on the President's constitutional authority alone, have occurred since the Administration of George Washington. See David P. Currie, The Constitution in Congress: Substantive Issues in the First Congress, 1789-1791, 61 U. Chi. L. Rev. 775, 816 (1994)"

The DPRK are at war with South Korea. The cease-fire is a condition of the Korean Armistice Agreement between them, which is monitored by the UN United Nations Command Military Armistice Commission, of which (surprise!) we are a permanent member. Between the authority granted us by the Armistice, UN Security Council Resolution 84and the Mutual Defense Treaty, we are allowed to respond militarily - excuse me, "act to meet the common danger" - to any violation of the cease-fire. And according to the DOJ, we can just say "national security! booga booga!" and send in the Marines whenever we like. What, exactly, is the difference?

Some of the smaller countries, like San Marino, most likely have an almost flawless, if not perfect, record: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/topic,4565c22532,4565c25f425,,0,,,SMR.html

This isn't legal in Sweden by any stretch of the imagination, yet it happened.

Just because Swedish law prohibits extradition to torturers, it doesn't mean we don't do it. See this decision by the UN's Committee Against Torture. Apparently we do extradite people to be tortured, and noone in charge in Sweden faces any consequences for it. However, Assange is white. That may decrease his risks of being extradited.

All the money that is given to the church could be used to eliminate homelessness or other social problems.

Who do you think is running the homeless shelters and tackling social problems in much of the world?

The UN.

What is your argument? What are you implying?

Civilians died unnecessarily in Kosovo, that is a fact. Civilians being killed in one ware is just as unnecessary as in any other.I remember quiet clearly that the Kosovo war was very controversial in Germany. I personally was very upset with the civilian casualties that resulted due to the war. I clearly remember that the media did report and comment harshly on the linked civilian deaths, but it seems that both the press and NATO did take it as seriously. As an example read is this report: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,HRW,,SRB,,3ae6a86b0,0.html

>What goes around comes around.
A very productive way of dealing with the issue at hand.

Uh. South Korea, while being pretty rich and having lots of economical freedom, has less than ok political freedom, at least judging from information available to me.

If your information is more than 15 years old, it's out of date. South Korea stopped being a military dictatorship around the end of the cold war. Today, it has its accusations of corruption and scandal, but no more than your average democracy.

But more importantly from a geopolitical perspective, it's where all the cell phones and memory chips come from, and it would be bad if they got blowed up.

(Actually, I'm prepared to make the case that countries that make cell phones are countries that make freedom, but that's a topic for another thread.)

PEACEFUL???

What the hell are you smoking?

There are about million dead, e.g. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/10/AR2006101001442.html.
US of fucking A is responsible *directly* for 70'000 http://www.iraqbodycount.org/, and indirectly for most of the rest.

The are several million refugees (some to neighboring countries) http://www.unhcr.org/iraq.html.

Jesus Christ and Holy Maria - what the hell would you consider non-peaceful!?

BTW, there is no invitation. Even the puppet government has asked USA to leave. Google yourself.

You prove Sudanese government participation in this. I do not have to prove anything. Genocide is a systematic extermination. There is no systematic extermination like it was in Bosnia, with camps. There are attacks on civilians, there are civilians deaths, like deaths in any dangerous area of a conflict. The term "genocide" is deliberately used by Western propaganda spear headed by Zionist masters instead of milder terms. I frankly could not care less how you and your neocon moderator friends label me. So you can take it back or to your back. I do not care. Now get lost.

Nah, I don't think I will. I'm kind of enjoying pissing you off. You deserve it after being nothing but a fucking troll all day.

Zionist masters? Western Propoganda? You really are a fucking idiot. What about the government of Chad? Chad isn't exactly in the 'back pocket' of either Israel or anyone in the West, but they blame the Sudanese for for supporting the Janjaweed when the Janjaweed crosses from Sudan INTO Chad and attacks Chadian citizens!! Yeah, that's western propoganda.

How about the fucking African Union? They CERTAINLY aren't supported by ANYONE in the west. But, if you actually click the fucking link you will see they have humanitarian troops in Sudan. And, the AU is complaining that the Sudan Army is attacking those troops! Why? Those troops certainly aren't doing anything in the Civil War

How about the Central African Republic? Most of the citizens in the Western World couldn't even find the country on a map. But CAR blames Sudan for unrest on the border between the two countries.

How about the United Nations? The UN, which, if anything, is actually anti-Israel & anti-US, has a major humanitarian program going on in Sudan. The humanitarian effort is focused on three areas: East Sudan (home of thousands o Ethiopian and Erirtrean refugees, South Sudan and Darfur. If you have the fucking guts to read my link, you will see that one of the primary goals of the Sudanese Refugee mission is to PROTECT the refugees from intimidation. And their chief problem is armed conflict.

Now stop spouting your conspiracy theories. You trolled for a response, now I'm going to stick around and continue to annoy the fuck out of you. Give me FACTS! Don't just spout off talking points that were distributed by your local mosque.

As for me begin a "neo-con", you should realize that I am a proud Democrat. I voted against that idiot George Bush two times. I dislike George Bush. I dislike his policies. I was against Iraq before THAT war even started.

If you read this(and it is filled with diplomatic language), you will see that the UN Security Council is at least trying to say something. Considering how slow diplomacy is, this might be the strongest language you will see on the subject. Also, the UN has this organization involved. The African Union is also at least attempting to do something. I think ALL of these organizations need to do more, but exactly what and how much more, I can't say. Nation-building is a treacherous exercise (just ask George W. Bush).

I know that's not per capita but I think it is still indicative how welcoming the french are. Theres a lot of reasons for this, one of them being that most african countries speak french so france is a natural destination.

I do, however, stand corrected. Most EU countries do in fact receive refugees. A lot of the immigrants I met in France (mostly from Africa or the middle east) said they came to France because it was the only country that would take them. I dunno what the difference is but I guess I was talking to a pretty select demographic (those already in france).

I live a lot closer to Bhutan than most people here on /. , and I call typical bullshit leftist (it is the guardian after all) scaremongering on this article.

The violence, corruption and crime that's rising in Bhutan is quite natural. Any society that is completely free of crime, poverty and corruption is too totalitarian and oppressive for me to live in.

Bhutan has been a country with an extremely poor record of ethnic/religious tolerance and freedom. The "Druk" aristocracy in Bhutan were a bunch of bigoted assholes that would have given the Ku-Klux-Klan and Taliban a run for their money. Hindus in Bhutan who (mainly descended from Nepalese immigrants) were pretty much treated like untermenschen by the Druks. The Tek Nath Rizal government passed "sumptuary laws" against the Hindu minority (special "dress codes" based on ethnic/religious denomination, think anti-Semitic yellow badge of Nazi Germany for a comparison).Some 103,000 Hindus were ethnically cleansed by the Buddhist Fundamentalists in Bhutan and sent back to India and Nepal (and you thought Americans had draconian immigration laws). Bhutan is widely known as one of the most racist and xenophobic countries in South Asia.Dunno abt you, but this is not a country that I would want to live in, even if it meant no crime/corruption/whatever.

All this oppression stems from their inbred isolationist culture, which creates suspicion of all "foreign elements". It may seem like an "idyllic paradise" to the clueless observer, but so would Apartheid South Africa to a Boer.

The introduction of television,internet etc. will teach them about the world outside in some form, expose them to novel ideas and the complexities of other cultures. This will, in the long run, help create a more egalitarian society, though arguably a more violent one (join the club). The rise in crime etc. is merely people learning about new things and new possibilities from TV and expressing themselves accordingly. No surprise that with the modernization of Bhutan came the government introducing reforms that would help alleviate the problem.

References:
http://www.voanews.com/uspolicy/archive/2006-10/20 06-10-19-voa1.cfm?CFID=96985519&CFTOKEN=24717708
http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/publ/opendo c.htm?tbl=PUBL&id=4444d3c93e
http://web.archive.org/web/20030408101642/http://w ww.crin.org/docs/resources/treaties/crc.27/Bhutan. doc

Read the article.

I read the article you cited. It is misleading and crap.
It generally proceeds from its premise (that MS is ransoming the welfare of the children for its own profit), omits facts (like that MS is guaranteeing $100k minimum donation) that don't support this premise, and spews outright misinformation. For example, it says that "The website will try to automatically install a downloadable 'gadget' on each visitor's computer.", which is false but might deter you from visiting the site and learning more about the story.
I did discover this:

The company will guarantee a minimum donation of US$100,000 to UNHCR based on the number of queries that are generated from the search site. The rate for each query will be US$0.01. The maximum donation payable by Microsoft will be US$250,000, which would be equivalent to 25 million search queries. "Driving awareness is critical to finding lasting solutions for the millions of refugees and displaced people worldwide," said Nick Van Praag, director of UNHCR's Division of External Relations. "Through Microsoft, utilising the MSN network on behalf of ninemillion.org, we are able to generate consumer awareness that we hope will result in donations to support this important cause, giving hope to refugee youth and children."

So there you have it: the UNHCR gets a guaranteed $100k, no "ransom" required. They stand to receive as much as $250k in direct giving, and in the package they get something even more valuable: broad exposure and visibility, plus a public endorsement from one of the most philanthropic organizations in the history of the world.

They are driving site hits with human suffering.

Who, these hacks? They (and you) are the only ones banging the drum and imploring people to think about the poor suffering children here.
If you visit the promotion site you're talking about, you'll note a conspicuous absence of such ham-handed exploitation: rather, there's a direct appeal to your desire to spend a little of MS's money for a worthy cause while hopefully getting something useful for yourself in the deal. From the site, here's the pitch: "Searching for a way to help? You've found it.". This creates a win:win:win scenario- you get your search result, UNHCR gets cash and visibility, MS gets hits and visibility. This is hardly sinister; it's sustainable, smart philanthropy that accomplishes more good than just the money it delivers.

The goal is profit. That's the actual problem. And, yes, its worth criticizing.

Is it? Profit may be made via any number of methods, yet MS chose to partner with a charity and give some part of the proceeds (anybody know how much MS earns per search? Is MS taking a loss for the duration of the promotion? Does anybody know?) to the charity. Does this put the charity ahead of where it would be in net terms if Microsoft had elected to market its search product in some different way? Yes, absolutely. They're getting direct cash and broad exposure they wouldn't have gotten otherwise. So what's the problem?

You've said that no profit should ever be made by using a charity, because of some notion of conflict of interest- that if it's profitable to give to charity, MS will have an interest in creating or perpetuating the conditions that make the charity necessary- but that's put-on-your-tinfoil-hat illogical. If it's profitable to work with charities, MS will continue to do so- and there's an inexhaustible supply of worthy causes to give to- meaning that your theory (that MS will be profit-motivated to cause more children to suffer) is implausible at best. Even if 9Million.org's mission is fulfilled, there will be no want of other worthy charities to p

Want to listen to better music and still help the people of Sudan? Check out the Genocide in Sudan compilation. All proceeds go to UNICEF and The UN Refugee Agency. Or you could donate directly to UNICEF, the UN Refugee Agency, or the UN world food programme

By contrast, in December 2005 the UN Refugee Agency noted:

"Some 20,500 refugees returned from Iran and Saudi Arabia with the support of UNHCR. Parallel to the organized return movements, the Iraqi Ministry of Trade recorded the spontaneous return of some 270,000 refugees to Iraq after May 2003."

That's only about 300,000 rather than 1,200,000. In fact, that same UN article states:

"UNHCR estimates that nearly one million Iraqis (of whom some 98,000 are registered refugees) are living in the countries immediately surrounding Iraq, and a further 350,000 Iraqis (of whom 166,000 are registered refugees) are living further afield."

Even assuming that doesn't count the 300,000 already returned, that's only a total of 1.65 million Iraqis residing or formerly residing abroad, of whom the article asserts 75% have returned to Iraq by "the most conservative estimate".

More importantly, though, that doesn't even take into account the reportedly-vast numbers of Iraqis fleeing Iraq. From a report entitled "Iraqi Refugees Overwhelm Syria":

"Syrian officials say 700,000 Iraqis from various ethnic, religious and economic backgrounds have arrived since the U.S.-led invasion, far more than in any other country in the region."

There are several other highly-questionable assertions in the article (e.g., Iraq is again a major oil exporter that will fulfill its OPEC quota of 2.8Mbpd by the end of 2006; the US Department of Energy reports that Iraq doesn't even have an OPEC quota, and is producing at best 2.0Mbpd as of May 2006) and enough politicization and bias that, much as I'd like to believe what the author is saying, "The Real Iraq" is not a credible piece.