From: uklm@permabulator.33mail.com 
  
 On 16:32  17 Sep 2024, Norman Wells said: 
 > On 17/09/2024 15:47, Roger Hayter wrote: 
 >> On 17 Sep 2024 at 15:21:21 BST, "Jon Ribbens" 
 >>  wrote: 
 >>> On 2024-09-17, Handsome Jack  wrote: 
 >>>> On Tue, 17 Sep 2024 01:03:43 +0100, Tim Jackson wrote: 
 >>>>> 
 >>>>> 
 >>>>> Yawn.  We've discussed that ad nauseam.  The Refugee Convention 
 >>>>> doesn't require asylum seekers to seek asylum in the first safe 
 >>>>> country after leaving the country where they are unsafe. 
 >>>> 
 >>>> If that is really the case, then let us change it. And if other 
 >>>> countries refuse to agree, then let us resile from it until they 
 >>>> do. 
 >>>> 
 >>>> In general, the reply to anyone who says "we cannot do X to remedy 
 >>>> this unsatisfactory situation, because of the law", is "Then let us 
 >>>> change the law so that we can do X". 
 >>> 
 >>> But that isn't the situation. You are getting the reply "we cannot 
 >>> do X to make the situation worse, because it would be illegal". 
 >>> Changing the law to make it legal to make the situation worse would 
 >>> not help. As the Tories demonstrated repeatedly. 
 >> 
 >> I think the poster is under the impression we, as a great imperial 
 >> power, can change international law to suit ourselves. 
 > 
 > No-one's changing international law in the slightest.  The 1951 
 > Refugee Convention remains the definitive statement of what the law 
 > is. 
  
 That's quite true but there have also been several changes and 
 amendments to the definition of "refugee". It somewhat depends on 
 whether or not you accept these revisions. See: 
  
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refugee#Definitions 
  
 > All we have done in the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 is state 
 > definitively that, as far as the UK is concerned, the requirement in 
 > the Convention that to be a refugee he must be 'coming directly' from 
 > the place where he was being persecuted or in danger does not include 
 > coming via any number of other safe countries.  To most people who 
 > have any knowledge of the English language that would be coming 
 > 'indirectly'. So, it's a proper interpretation of the words used in 
 > the Convention. Anything else is a misinterpretation. 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)