Err, yes Lindy, yes

As the anti-Trump resistance movement finds its feet after a dizzying first 11 days, it’s hard not to notice how well women are playing offence. I can think of no more perfect distillation of Trump’s presidency than German chancellor Angela Merkel explaining the Geneva convention to him over the phone after he attempted to alpha-male his way past it. Of course, the world’s most extravagantly unqualified man – who was only able to defeat his peerlessly qualified female opponent through a combination of voter suppression, weaponised misogyny, Russian propaganda and a constitutional technicality, and still managed to lose by 3m votes – had to receive on-the-job training, pro bono, from a female world leader.

He fought the election under the rules that exist. He won under the rules that exist.

That’s, you know, democracy.

That he ain’t perfect is glaringly obvious. But think what that says about his opponent?

And at the risk of mansplaining, the Convention on Refugees is not the Geneva Convention, it’s the Convention on Refugees. And it also does not state that the US or anywhere else must take in refugees from anywhere at all. What it does state is that refugees have the right to enter, and be safe in, the first country they can get to which they are safe in. Thus, a Syrian refugee, assuming they will be safe in Turkey, has a right to go and be safe in Turkey. This is not the same thing at all as stating that said refugee does or should have the right of entry into the US. Or the UK, Oz or places further afield than the first safe place that a refugee can get to.

That refugee right, as with any rights to asylum over things not caused by a shooting war, applies to the first safe place, no more than that.

And it’s still not the Geneva Convention.

29 comments on “Err, yes Lindy, yes

  1. Err Tim, as has been pointed out on this site before, it doesn’t say that. It states that you have to complete the application process in the country that you first initiated it in i.e. you cannot shop around.

  2. “…it’s hard not to notice how well women are playing offence. “

    Quite right, Lindy, I find shrieking harpies wearing felt vaginas on their heads grossly offensive.

    Oh, that wasn’t what you meant? My bad.

  3. But you should file in the first safe country you come to. It’s absolutely fine to file in London if you get off a plane from Damascus at Heathrow. It isn’t if you’ve walked through 20 safe countries to get to Dover.

  4. ” You cannot turn us back into incubators once we have almost been the president. “

    Almost only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades, honey…

  5. as I have pointed out to people who then can’t find a response, the Refugee Convention says you’re eligible for refugee status in Country X if:
    1) you have a well-founded fear of persecution
    2) you travel direct to Country X from country of origin
    3) you make yourself known promptly to the authorities in Country X and make your claim

    Even if the Calais camp inhabitants meet condition 1, they certainly don’t meet the other two

  6. Tim, I agree absolutely with your position on this, but actually there is no legal obligation on a refugee to apply in the first county they reach.
    The European union has a Dublin convention that puts an obligation on EU states to take back refugees who have previously entered another EU state. Nothing in the Convention on Refugees, though.
    However, it seems to me that if you enter a country illegally, they can deport you unless you claim refugee status, which means you have initiated the process, and you have to carry that process through – there IS an obligation to abide by the decision of the first place you apply.

  7. http://www.unhcr.org/uk/excom/scip/3ae68ccec/background-note-safe-country-concept-refugee-status.html

    According to this use of the concept, asylum-seekers/refugees may be returned to countries where they have, or could have, sought asylum and where their safety would not be jeopardized, whether in that country or through return there from to the country of origin.

    “Agreements providing for the return by States of persons who have entered their territory from another contracting State in an unlawful manner should be applied in respect of asylum seekers with due regard to their special situation”.

    there are difficulties in applying the concept, in particular in deciding how long an individual needs to have stayed in a country and under what circumstances (Is transit sufficient?) before that country can be determined a country of first asylum

    Actually under the reading of the UNHCR, anyone in France is basically in a safe country and the UK should be able to deport them back. In practice proving they came from France is difficult. Which is why once they are in and claim refugee status unless they were fingerprinted in a Dublin convention country, they can claim asylum.

    The real problem is that Schengen is a total clusterfuck.

  8. Since we are leaving the EU their “rules” are irrelevant.

    And–since it is being used as a weapon against the West–we should withdraw from the Refugee Convention at once. In general we have NO obligation to help anyone.

    However in as much as the British state was part and party to de-stabilizing the Middle East it cannot be said that we have NO responsibility in this one matter. That responsibility can be discharged by handing over to the refugees (in Turkish camps) all the political and bureaucratic scum and liars who got us involved in the mess. Bliar/Brown /Camoron etc.

    That is equity I believe.

  9. I don’t give a sh!t if Asad wants to send half the country up the chimney. The fact that they have made their country is a sh!thole is no reason to let them come to the UK and make the West a sh!thole too.

    No refugees. At all. The only good immigration rate is less than zero.

  10. “his peerlessly qualified female opponent”: I thought Jill Stein didn’t have much to recommend her.

  11. Of course, the world’s most extravagantly unqualified man – who was only able to defeat his peerlessly qualified female opponent through a combination of voter suppression, weaponised misogyny, Russian propaganda and a constitutional technicality, and still managed to lose by 3m votes – had to receive on-the-job training, pro bono, from a female world leader.

    Is there any part of that, one single little bit, that is true? I mean Trump is a man. I am willing to believe Ms Merkel is a woman. Apart from that?

  12. Oh, and Lindy, you might ask Mrs Merkel, an alleged expert on conventions, if she has heard of the Hague Convention. Then ask her to explain the ammo that her bodyguards use.

  13. Unless Merkel plans for her bodyguards to shoot people from a balloon, I don’t see how the Hague Convention applies. It covers the use of bullets in wartime against other signatory states. Merkel’s bodyguards, I would guess, plan to shoot fellow Germans and maybe the occasional Turk recruited by the Bulgarians or the like.

    The Hague Convention does not bind the police or other internal forces. US police forces of various types use hollow-point bullets.

  14. ken – “dum-dums are legal outside war. (I assume that is why you refer to the Hague convention?)”

    Oddly enough I have been told they are required if you want to shoot deer in the UK. You must use a hollow-point or some sort of soft nosed bullet.

    So, remember, if asked, you want the bullets to shoot Bambi. Not, for instance, for getting rid of treasonous vermin in Westminster who have been selling us out to Brussels.

  15. I find it sick that a German would try to lecture anyone on the Geneva Conventions. They are noted in WW2 for breaching the conventions. To the tune of millions of people.

    However for refugees where are the people fleeing from when they turn up in the US? How many flights that come in with refugees come from a ‘safe’ country?
    Say France – that well known country people flee from because of persecution. As the British well know.

    I have met a number of refugees over the past few decades, its surprising what routes people will take to get into a country.
    How many enter the US via its southern or northern border rather than coming in from a long distance away by boat or plane?

  16. The “won by three million votes” thing is rather consistently annoying. For starters, to be accurate, she lost despite winning 3m more votes.

    And secondly, people vote according to the system in which they are voting, change the rules and you change how people vote. So there is no correlation between winning 3m more votes in the election they just had, and the outcome of an imagined election in which there is no electoral college.

  17. The Hague Convention does not bind the police or other internal forces. US police forces of various types use hollow-point bullets.

    The Hague Convention has been interpreted as not binding Military Police. They get different ammo (and sometimes wholly different weapons) to the rest of the villainous soldiery.

  18. From the Convention on Refugees:

    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.

    Directly.

  19. ‘anti-Trump resistance movement’

    These are the people against the Trump resistance movement?

    ‘it’s hard not to notice how well women are playing offence.’

    Oh, yeah, Trump will be gone tomorrow.

  20. Tim you’re absolutely correct that Trump won under the rules that exist. And those rules were carefully thought out; they are not random or arbitrary or even anti-democratic.

    “That’s, you know, democracy.”

    Actually . . . no. At least, not quite.

    As Ben Franklin famously said “A republic, madam, if you can keep it.”

    On the other hand, a pure democracy would indeed mean Mrs Clinton – that “peerlessly qualified female” – actually won by the national popular vote majority of 2,850,000 votes. But the Peerless Mrs. Clinton’s margin came from one state, the largest state, California – by 4,269,000 votes. In other words, Trump carried the remainder of the US by about 1.4 million votes and btw earned a much bigger relative margin of state electoral votes because he won the popular vote in so many more states than the Peerless Mrs. Clinton

    In the American republic, the popular vote for president is counted only at the state level. This preserves the democratic foundation of the American republic while at the same time making it very unlikely any candidate for president can win by running up large majorities in a few of the largest states, while ignoring the rest. Just exactly as happened in this election; The Peerless Mrs. Clinton ran up big voter majority in California (and New York and Illinois) while virtually ignoring other states notably Ohio, Wisconsin, and MIchigan, whose capture by Trump ensured his election.

    Meanwhile, we are witnessing in the streets of America every night “what democracy looks like”.

    It’s mob rule.

  21. Yep, this “Hillary won the popular vote” crap is pretty stupid.

    Given the thumping electoral college result – which came about from both parties campaigning to win under that system – the more likely outcome of a popular vote election would be Trump campaigning differently and winning anyway.

    “voter suppression”

    Bullshit

    “weaponised misogyny”

    How can one write that phrase with a straight face?

    “Russian propaganda”

    Bullshit.

    “and a constitutional technicality”

    The system that the Dems, having held the WH for 16 or the last 24 years, were happy to keep. Said “technicality” being the basis of their whole Presidential electoral system.

    “and still managed to lose by 3m votes”

    Trump won.

    “had to receive on-the-job training, pro bono, from a female world leader.”

    No he didn’t.

    Can anyone say “Fake News”?

  22. “On the other hand, a pure democracy would indeed mean Mrs Clinton – that “peerlessly qualified female” – actually won by the national popular vote majority of 2,850,000 votes. But the Peerless Mrs. Clinton’s margin came from one state, the largest state, California – by 4,269,000 votes.”

    Which is exactly why they went for the EC when setting up the Federation. If HC was now President on that basis those protests in Washington would be a teddy bear’s picnic by comparison.

  23. “Which is exactly why they went for the EC when setting up the Federation”

    Indeed. “Federation” is a very important word the Lefties keep ignoring.

    I have to disagree with your last point, though. I doubt we’d have seen such riots and burning universities if Trump had lost.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.