So the Executive Order that Trump signed which said that people wishing to seek asylum will only be considered if they go to a port of entry, but NOT if they enter illegally. It was struck down by a court obviously, but it is still not clear what legislation the court based its decision on. Does anyone know?
Yes, but if the court's decision is rooted in law, then it is the LAW that is encouraging and condoning unlawful activity, or at least allowing it to happen.
Alright then - what kind of a legislature it would be which passed such legislation as would enable illegal entry into the country without sanction.
The Immigration and Nationality Act apparently. You can always rely on British media to tell you what’s actually going on in your country. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...ail-asylum-claims-violates-us-law-court-hears
Actually, I was thinking about this while reflecting on our discussions on Polanimal. I thought that the legislation that the court used may have been the UN Convention that we discussed, but then I realised that I must be thinking of where the convention says that if someone enters a country illegally to apply for asylum, they cannot be charged with illegally entering the country. Are you sure that you're not thinking of the same thing?
As I have not read an at source report on this case, I don't know. But, that UNHCR Convention over-rides Donald trying to herd asylum seekers to central points. A good illustration/analogy.....our PM says all boats carrying asylum seekers must only go to Broom. Nah....that will not work. The Convention gives them rights wherever they land in our territorial waters.
Google doesn't know what the hell you're talking about. Got a source? Yes, the right to not be prosecuted for illegally entering the country. Can you quote where it says that asylum requests must be accepted from someone who has entered the country illegally?
You have just acknowledged that asylum seekers do not enter illegally. Once they are in...they must be properly processed in order to determine if they qualify as refugees. If they do....they get to stay. If they don't, they get to bugger off.
Of course it doesn't. It is an analogy. Donald makes a totally useless edict that all in that Caravan must go to his nominated POE. Court apparently says...stuff you Donald. Now.....imagine....PM Morrison says all those seeking asylum must go to Broome. That is just as much a waste of time. The UNHCR Convention caters for asylum seekers arriving anywhere in Australia or its territorial waters. Jaybuz.....simple stuff. Not rocket science.
Haha. Okay I missed that. I read it as a comparison! "Nominated POE?" You mean ANY POE? His EO didn't specify a nominated POE. Do you think that it did?
Pretty sure on the TV he said that he wanted these peope to herd towards his designated spots...and the Court told him to get stuffed, yes?
No. You won't find even the most far left media source saying that Trump designated spots. You must have completely misheard.
