Comments by "craxd1" (@craxd1) on "" video.
-
1
-
I took it upon myself to look up the "international law" on this, a UN agreement from 1951, and read it over. What I found was, to qualify as a refugee, you have to arrive in a safe country "directly" from the nation you're fleeing, and then you must quickly present yourself to that safe nation for asylum. Directly, is the key word there, along with quickly presenting oneself to the safe state's authorities. Directly, would be one entering a safe state by crossing the border from the one you're fleeing, being flown in, or coming by boat from one state to the safe state, but not through multiple safe states. The safe state of arrival is the state that must accept them, and only then can you ask to be sent to another state, with the other state's permission.
Of course, these refugees broke the law, and so did several of the states.
1
-
@ericatkinson9285 I think what they're trying to use is a clause about a federal state (EU) with all the internal state's borders open, but Britain left the EU via Brexit. Thus, the EU should be keeping them, and not allowing them to cross the channel, unless the British Gov has secretly told them that they would accept them.
This came up in the US, as well, about the "refugees" coming through Guatemala and Mexico, where both are UN states that fall under this. By law, Guatemala would have to accept those from the south, and not Mexico nor the US, unless they agreed to it. It makes one wonder if Joe didn't tell them to come, with Mexico being in on it.
Worse, Joe doesn't want to accept Cuban refugees, but the US must accept them, according to the UN agreement, as they "directly arrive" from Cuba by boat.
1