Yes, the right to not be prosecuted for illegally entering the country. Can you quote where the convention says that asylum requests must be accepted from someone who has entered the country illegally?
That doesn't say anything about not being able to use the fact that they entered illegally as part of the decision making process in their application for asylum. If you think that the UN convention gives countries ZERO discretion, then you are mistaken. If the UN Convention said something which conflicted with Trump's Executive Order, the media would've been ALL OVER IT, explicitly saying it left, right and center, as would the ACLU which is the organisation that took the matter to court! See this page on their website which says nothing about the Convention: https://www.aclu.org/blog/immigrant...federal-judge-blocks-president-trumps-illegal
At the very core of the UNHCR Convention is the accepted basic principle that anyone who seeks asylum within the territorial jurisdiction of a signtaory to it must be processed to establish if they are truly a refugee. I am not going to argue that with you. It is trite.
If Trump declared that the US will no longer be accepting asylum requests from ANYONE no matter how they go about requesting it, do you suppose that one or two members of the media might bring up the UN Convention that the US are a signatory to?
I would expect so, but I have little confidence that the US (and certainly Donald) is even aware they are a signatory to the UNHCR Convention. I have seen no evidence on this Forum that any Member is aware of it.
I have never seen anyone here refer to the UNHCR Convention except when I have drawn attention to it. Many people seem to believe that there are only intending immigrants and not asylum seekers.
Believe me, the liberal US media and the liberal ACLU and SPLC know ALL ABOUT the UNHCR! https://www.aclu.org/search/un human rights