Turkey opens its borders for refugees to go to Europe.

[Vanoi]

Nope. You're just whining because you jumped the gun without properly reading what people discuss. It's better not to do that again.

An argument about hypotheticals regarding refugees and third safe countries is irrelevant. Only whining in this thread from you about how the big bad EU doesn't help you with your refugees.

[Lord Thesaurian]

This doesn't address your earlier claim.

I’m not going to argue over the validity of travel information from the State Department regarding entry and travel in the EU. The State Department didn’t claim US tourists need a visa for entry to Schengen Area/EU countries.

This is no international law as much as you try to extend it to be.

I’m not extending anything. If you want to make the argument that the concept of a safe third country doesn’t exist in national and international laws, feel free.

[PointOfViewGun]

I’m not going to argue over the validity of travel information from the State Department regarding entry and travel in the EU. The State Department didn’t claim US tourists need a visa for entry to Schengen Area/EU countries.

I would give you credit if you could at least acknowledge that the State Department implies that some EU countries may request visas as indicated by the section I quoted from your own source. You directly claimed that this faulty information didn't exist. It does.

I’m not extending anything. If you want to make the argument that the concept of a safe third country doesn’t exist in national and international laws, feel free.

I'd love to see the relevant international law.

[Kyriakos]

Calling it how it is, always should be good enough.

[sumskilz]

Regarding the international law discussion:

Part of the difficulties encountered by refugees lies in the obvious gap between the existence of a right to asylum and the lack of a corresponding state duty to grant asylum. The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights famously provides that “everyone has the right to seek and enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution” (article 14).2 However, this right to seek asylum has not been included in any legally binding instrument. Most notably, there is no mention of this right in the 1951 Refugee Convention. This suggests that states have been very reluctant to give to this “right” any substantive legal content.3 In any case, international law clearly does not provide for a duty to grant asylum. Again, the 1951 Refugee Convention does not make any mention of such a duty. Attempts to introduce any reference to asylum and admission were vigorously opposed during the negotiations leading to the adoption of the Convention.4 It is generally argued that states have a right, rather than a duty, to grant asylum, which follows from their sovereign right to control admission into their territory.5...

While there is no obligation under international law to grant asylum to refugees, states are still bound by the principle of non-refoulement as defined in article 33 of the 1951 Convention. This principle provides that no refugee shall be returned to any country “where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.” This principle is now generally considered to be part of customary international law.9 It must be noted that the principle is not limited to those formally recognised as refugees.10 In other words, asylum-seekers should not be returned to any country where they would face persecution and they benefit from such a prohibition until they are declared not to be refugees.

There has been an on-going debate over the exact scope of the principle of nonrefoulement. It is clear that the prohibition of refoulement applies to all refugees who are already on the territory. Whether it also applies to refugees who arrive at the border and seek admission into the territory has been the subject of disagreement. As mentioned earlier, international law does not contain any obligation to grant asylum. Nevertheless, states should not be free to reject refugees at the frontier and it has been argued that rejection at the frontier does amount to refoulement.11... Not surprisingly, some states do not agree with this interpretation of the principle of non-refoulement.13 Most (in)famously, the US Supreme Court declared in 1993 that the principle applies only to refugees within state territory.14

It may be argued that rejection at the border does not necessarily result in return to a country where the refugee would fear persecution, and thus does not necessarily lead to refoulement. The difficulty with this argument is that it leads to an examination on a case-by-case basis of whether the rejection at the border of a refugee automatically leads to his return to acountry where he would fear persecution. Where the refugee is situated at the border between his country of origin and a neighbouring country, it appears obvious that rejection at the frontier would amount to refoulement. There are many other situations in which it may not be so obvious that rejection at the border amounts to refoulement.

Identifying States’ Responsibilities towards Refugees and Asylum Seekers

[Mithradates]

@Legio we have much looser laws around asylum than you. Even if a migrant has previously passed through another safe country to get to a wealthier one, they still have to be given asylum. The first safe country rule doesn’t really matter or apply.

Asylum shopping

The Dublin Convention stipulates that asylum seekers are returned to the country where their entry into the union was first recorded and where they were first fingerprinted.

To avoid abuses, European law, the Dublin Regulation, requires that asylum seekers have their asylum claim registered in the first country they arrive in,[4] and that the decision of the first EU country they apply in, is the final decision in all EU countries.

The law is there, its another matter why some EU governments are not enforcing it.

[Lord Thesaurian]

I would give you credit if you could at least acknowledge that the State Department implies that some EU countries may request visas as indicated by the section I quoted from your own source. You directly claimed that this faulty information didn't exist. It does.

The section you quoted doesn’t claim visas are required for US citizens to enter the Schengen area. It said that a US passport is required to enter the Schengen area, and applicable visas, if needed, such as when the entrant plans to stay longer than 90 days in a 180 day period.

I'd love to see the relevant international law.

Article 31 of the 1951 convention

1. 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.

2. The Contracting States shall not apply to the movements of such refugees restrictions other than those which are necessary and such restrictions shall only be applied until their status in the country is regularized or they obtain admission into another country. The Contracting States shall allow such refugees a reasonable period and all the necessary facilities to obtain admission into another country.

The safe third country principle is based on the above and is borne out by subsequent international consensus, as cited from the relevant ExCom conclusion.

[PointOfViewGun]

The section you quoted doesn’t claim visas are required for US citizens to enter the Schengen area. It said that a US passport is required to enter the Schengen area, and applicable visas, if needed, such as when the entrant plans to stay longer than 90 days in a 180 day period.

That's your addition. There is nothing in the text that considers staying longer than 90 days. It's just a badly written guide.

Article 31 of the 1951 convention
The safe third country principle is based on the above and is borne out by subsequent international consensus, as cited from the relevant ExCom conclusion.

The 1967 Protocol voided that description:

3. The present Protocol shall be applied by the States Parties hereto without any geographic limitation, save that existing declarations made by States already Parties to the Convention in accordance with article I B (I) (a) of the Convention, shall, unless extended under article I B (2) thereof, apply also under the present Protocol.

[dogukan]

From what I see in Turkey recently, Turkish nationalism is so ridiculous that it allows any political entity guide masses easily.
It is unbelievable how so many "secular" Kemalists all of a sudden became warmongers against Assad in backing Al Qaida and other jihadists as well as Turkey's plans to create a jihadist colony.

Turkish nationalism is a nuisance at a special level among all other nationalisms.
When it comes to military show off and violance, the whole country is ready to to jump in.

[PointOfViewGun]

From what I see in Turkey recently, Turkish nationalism is so ridiculous that it allows any political entity guide masses easily.
It is unbelievable how so many "secular" Kemalists all of a sudden became warmongers against Assad in backing Al Qaida and other jihadists as well as Turkey's plans to create a jihadist colony.

Turkish nationalism is a nuisance at a special level among all other nationalisms.
When it comes to military show off and violance, the whole country is ready to to jump in.

Vast majority of secular Kemalists in Turkey prefer the Turkish army to just pack up and leave Syria completely. Such an approach ignores Assad's actions and the refugee problem its causing but it shouldn't mean you can disparage what people support.

[Vanoi]

Vast majority of secular Kemalists in Turkey prefer the Turkish army to just pack up and leave Syria completely. Such an approach ignores Assad's actions and the refugee problem its causing but it shouldn't mean you can disparage what people support.

Keeping the war going isn't helping refugees. Turkey s just as guilty as Assad when it comes to violating the Sochi agreement. Supporting HTS is a horrible as well.

[PointOfViewGun]

Keeping the war going isn't helping refugees. Turkey s just as guilty as Assad when it comes to violating the Sochi agreement. Supporting HTS is a horrible as well.

If Turkey didn't have a presence in Idlib we'd be witnessing an other refugee crisis much earlier. How did Turkey violate the Sochi agreement?

[Lord Thesaurian]

That's your addition. There is nothing in the text that considers staying longer than 90 days. It's just a badly written guide.

That’s not my addition. From the same guide:

As a U.S. citizen, how long can I stay in the Schengen area without a visa?

With a valid U.S. passport, you can stay up to 90 days for tourism or business during any 180-day period. Do not overstay! You must wait an additional 90 days before applying to re-enter the Schengen area.
To stay longer than 90 days, you must have a visa. Apply for a visa through the embassy of the country where you will spend most of your time.

https://travel.state.gov/content/tra.../schengen.html

The 1967 Protocol voided that description:

The 1967 protocol does not void the safe third country concept, basis, or application in the relevant cited UNHCR ExCom conclusion in 1989, nor in equivalent EU or national laws.

[Vanoi]

If Turkey didn't have a presence in Idlib we'd be witnessing an other refugee crisis much earlier.

Keeping the war going again isn't helping. Just like Turkey's invasion of Afrin which displaced upwards to 300,000 people didn't help.

How did Turkey violate the Sochi agreement?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idli...%E2%80%932019)

Looks at the terms of the deal. HTS was required to leave the demilitarized zone. That never happended. The HTS Salvation government was never dissolved. The rebels also were supposed to allow unrestricted civilian access through the M4 and M5 highways. That never happened.

[PointOfViewGun]

That’s not my addition. From the same guide:

You're quoting a different section now. The section you quoted earlier had no relation to overstaying, yet it mentioned visas.

The 1967 protocol does not void the safe third country concept, basis, or application in the relevant cited UNHCR ExCom conclusion in 1989, nor in equivalent EU or national laws.

It kinda does, since it was the whole point of that protocol, but sure.

Keeping the war going again isn't helping. Just like Turkey's invasion of Afrin which displaced upwards to 300,000 people didn't help.

Keeping the war from going full throttle in Idlib helped. Turkey securing Afrin helped refugees return to Syria as well.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idli...%E2%80%932019)

Looks at the terms of the deal. HTS was required to leave the demilitarized zone. That never happended. The HTS Salvation government was never dissolved. The rebels also were supposed to allow unrestricted civilian access through the M4 and M5 highways. That never happened.

Yes, thanks to constant bombardments from Assad and Turkey's unwillingness to commit large number of troops HTS remained strong. If you're gonna blame Turkey blame them for not doing enough, while the Syrian government and the Russians actively tried to undermine the agreement.

[Lord Thesaurian]

You're quoting a different section now. The section you quoted earlier had no relation to overstaying, yet it mentioned visas.

I’m going to let the ridiculousness of your argument here speak for itself.

It kinda does, since it was the whole point of that protocol, but sure.

You’re welcome to interpret things however you like. The concept of a safe third country has been established within national and international laws for decades, and was not voided by the 1967 protocol.

[Infidel144]

You’re welcome to interpret things however you like. The concept of a safe third country has been established within national and international laws for decades, and was not voided by the 1967 protocol.

Setekh has tried this claim previously. Lets see if he can answer this time.

The 1967 Protocol voided that description:

What was the "geographic limitation" that you are claiming was voided, by the '67 protocol?

[Vanoi]

Keeping the war from going full throttle in Idlib helped. Turkey securing Afrin helped refugees return to Syria as well.

How many refugees resettled in Afrin? Lets compare it to how many were displaced.

And keeping the war on going is preventing Idlib from falling. As long as the war is on-going refugees will still be a problem. Better to let the jihadists lose so this can finally end.

Yes, thanks to constant bombardments from Assad and Turkey's unwillingness to commit large number of troops HTS remained strong. If you're gonna blame Turkey blame them for not doing enough, while the Syrian government and the Russians actively tried to undermine the agreement.

I did say the Syrians didn't adhear to the agreement too. Making an agreement with the Syrians and expecting them to honor it was a bad mistake. I can't help Turkey didn't uphold its end of the agreement as well.

[PointOfViewGun]

How many refugees resettled in Afrin? Lets compare it to how many were displaced.

According to Turkish defense minister Akar's words from November 2019, over 400 thousand Syrians returned to Afrin.

And keeping the war on going is preventing Idlib from falling. As long as the war is on-going refugees will still be a problem. Better to let the jihadists lose so this can finally end.
I did say the Syrians didn't adhear to the agreement too. Making an agreement with the Syrians and expecting them to honor it was a bad mistake. I can't help Turkey didn't uphold its end of the agreement as well.

The idea was to keep things in a stalemate till Syrians hold a convention with a new constitution. Syrian Constitutional Committee has been working September, 2019 to reconcile the parties of the conflict. The problem is not letting jihadists lose. It's how Assad wants to win. He wants to take his territory while emptying the country of the dissidents as well. He sees those people living there as his enemies. He wants to get rid of them. A

[Vanoi]

According to Turkish defense minister Akar's words from November 2019, over 400 thousand Syrians returned to Afrin.

You got a source?

The idea was to keep things in a stalemate till Syrians hold a convention with a new constitution. Syrian Constitutional Committee has been working September, 2019 to reconcile the parties of the conflict. The problem is not letting jihadists lose. It's how Assad wants to win. He wants to take his territory while emptying the country of the dissidents as well. He sees those people living there as his enemies. He wants to get rid of them. A

You mean it was founded in September of 2019. And none of its descions are binding and it has no timetables set or deadlines. Worse yet two very important groups were excluded from the Committee.

Like every other diplomatic attempt take to end the war its going to fail and does not at all gives answers on how to deal with HTS in Idlib.