Message from @🐇 Shallan 🐇
Discord ID: 503920474254737430
We’re literally aliens to these people
ehhh bit of a stretch
@Harukajunko I know
I wonder what the Mexican president thinks getting up every morning, “time to watch a bunch of my citizens leave.”
Ironically Mexico was taking in Asylum seekers.
But still there’s some truth to it
They were open to it.
But these people completely ignored mexico, broke through their border and assaulted their police officers.
well, they were open to the extent required by law, IIRC.
the problem is right now, they escalated the violence attack police and storming into the country. the escalation only goes up
this mob definitely has failed
They could’ve googled mexico was going to help them
well, or asked literally anyone
Inadmissibility grounds
Article 25 (2) (b) APD provides that “Member States may consider an application for
asylum as inadmissible … if: (b) a country which is not a Member State is considered as a
first country of asylum for the applicant, pursuant to Article 26”. Several Member States
of focus in this research use the notion of first country of asylum as a ground for
inadmissibility.
In Bulgaria, Article 13 (2)52 of the Law on Asylum and Refugees provides that the
procedure shall not start - or in case it has already started, shall be discontinued – if the
applicant has refugee status in a safe third country. Article 13 (2), item 2, obliges the
decision-maker first to establish that the third country is safe in the meaning of
paragraph 1, item 9 of the Additional Provisions of the Law on Asylum and Refugees53
before s/he may rely on this inadmissibility ground. In practice, however, this article is
not applied as a ground for inadmissibility. Article 13 (2) item 2 LAR refers to Paragraph
1, item 9 LAR by a direct reference – using a legal term which is defined in the Additional
Provisions of the law: “safe third country.”
In Finland, section 103 of the Aliens’ Act stipulates that an application for international
protection may be dismissed if the applicant has arrived from a safe country of asylum
where or s/he enjoyed or could have enjoyed protection,54 but this provision has rarely
I still don't even think these people wanted to come to america for help. seems strange 5000 people just got up and dcided to storm the borders
been used, and not at all during recent years, according to official information.55 In
Germany, the application is rejected as irrelevant, which means that an asylum
procedure reviewing the material criteria of the claim is not carried out56. In Italy,
applications are declared inadmissible and not subject to personal interviews when “the
applicant has been recognized as a refugee by a state that has signed the Geneva
Convention and is still able to avail him/herself of such protection.”57
In Spain, while it appears little used,58 the concept of first country of asylum is
applicable as a ground for inadmissibility.59 In the regular refugee status determination
procedure, there is no specific provision establishing the concept of first country of
asylum as a ground for rejection. Nevertheless, if a claim that could have been declared
inadmissible passes the admissibility stage, the definition of first country of asylum in
article 20 (1) (c) may then be used, if applicable, for rejection in practice. In the Czech
Republic, section 10a of the Asylum Act provides that “The application for international
protection shall be inadmissible (…) (d) if the alien have found effective protection in the
first asylum country”. However, UNHCR was informed that this provision has never
been used. In Slovenia,60 the concept of first country of asylum is not applied in
practice. However, the law foresees that claims are dismissed.
In Bulgaria, the direct reference to “safe third country” means the applicant should be
given the opportunity to rebut at least the presumption of safety (Article 99 LAR).
However, there is no evidence of practice in the use of any of the concepts. In
Germany, section 29 APA qualifies the respective applications as “irrelevant”
(“unbeachtlich”), thus providing a ground for inadmissibility, since an irrelevant
application would not be examined on the merits. However, according to the BAMF,
section 29 APA in practice is applied in connection with the rebuttable presumptions of
section 27 (2) and (3) APA. In Slovenia the applicant may show evidence that the
relevant country is not a safe country for him. According to Article 67 (3) of the IPA in
connection with Article 63 (2) of the IPA, this applies also to concept of first country of
asylum (in both cases, the same procedural rules apply).
oh god please no more words
> In Bulgaria, Article 13 (2)52 of the Law on Asylum and Refugees provides that the
procedure shall not start - or in case it has already started, shall be discontinued – *if the
applicant has refugee status in a safe third country.*
^ This would not apply in this case, because the mob has failed to request or receive asylum in Mexico
(or anywhere else, as far as anyone can tell)
"oh god please no more words"
Sounds like something the left is always saying
no I am just stupid and take a bit to read
"oh god, this word is now offensive, let's just ban all words"
and discord just scrolls up with the posts
Stealth black hawk
to be honest if the situation keeps escalating, it's only going to end with alot of blood I feel.
though at the same time, there is a hurrican moving into the area so maybe meme magic will wipe them out or deter them
Gingrich is riling up Republicans.
There is a difference between invasion and attack.
Attack means they are assaulting and killing citizens.
Invasion means they are forcefully invading our nation.
@Timcast ya know. Something just occurred to me. About a year ago, during the 2016 campaign, someone came around my property doing a "we want to get signatures for (insert issue) thing".
I say insert issue because the issue they were supposedly getting signatures for was saving the forest near the bay or some such thing. My left friends said of course they would sign. I had some questions. Why?
Well as it turned out the fine print of the form you signed giving them permission to use your name for this issue ALSO allowed them to use your names for OTHER issues that the organization deemed to be pertitnent to their "mission". In fact, the primary focus of the organization was not actually forests or wetlands or any of that. iirc it was stuff like social programs and issues as well as immigration. Signing meant that they could use your name as a supporter of any issue for the next year I think it was. Is this a common thing? When I told my Democrat friends they seemed genuinely shocked. I figured they read the fine print and were ok with it. Apparently I had been wrong.
Ay what’s that noise
Oh look
It's a thing I remembered from last year. Apologies for shitting up the general