Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

If you disregard the rule of law there is nothing to stop immigrants from coming to your country except naked force, then they can use force too, and things will go into a vicious spiral.

I'm saying the rule of law is blindingly irrelevant to stop immigrants from coming into your country. I'm looking at a border where the rule of law didn't stop 20MM people from crossing into the US. Only naked force works. Call it enforcement, border security whatever. Its still naked force. If they have more you lose. If you have more you win. Ask the Romans. Hell, ask the Mohicans.

I should note my view here:
*Shoot first, nah.
*Italy DOES HOWEVER have an absolute right to summarily turn those boats around and deny entry into Italian waters. If they try to run past or fight, then the Italian Navy has the right to board those ships or indeed, blow them out of the water if they don't stop.

I don't mean the Rule of Law will stop immigrants. I mean it should stop the Italian Navy from sinking ships without legal justification.

When an immigrant ship is boarded by the Navy, that is the opportunity for the immigrants to declare themselves as refugees or asylum seekers.

The Italians should then investigate the circumstances of the claimants, and either grant them legal status or deport them.

Frazzled wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:The Italians are obligated to check all the time by their signature on international treaties.

If you disregard the rule of law there is nothing to stop immigrants from coming to your country except naked force, then they can use force too, and things will go into a vicious spiral.

The rule of Law is only enforced by naked force. Legalisms are irrelevant.

"Keep my legions intact. They make the law, legal."
Julius Gaius Caesar

I'm sorry. How did that work out for him?

Really, if you want to quote someone on law and order who presents that sort of argument maybe choose a person who wasn't murdered in broad daylight.

Why is it that the illegal immigrants seek asylum in the last country down the chain after passing through several?

Australia is having a wave of boat people coming from Indonesia again (they stopped when the former govt took to locking them up in camps until their status was determined, 'status' being genuine asylum seekers or not.)

Problem is they aren't Indonesions.

They are usually Afghanis, and have passed through Pakistan, Malaysia and Indonesia then onto Oz. One boat was full of men who had been living in Indonesia for 5 years, the hope bring they get in then bring their families.
What is wrong with Pakistan, Malaysia or Indonesia?

They don't have wussy, leftie, champagne sipping city dwelling thought police to give them hand outs and stomp on the majority if the newbs feel that any feature of the new country is offensive to their sensibilities.

In Pakistan if you complain the cops just hit you with a big stick until you drink a glass of cement and harden up.

efarrer wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:The Italians are obligated to check all the time by their signature on international treaties.

If you disregard the rule of law there is nothing to stop immigrants from coming to your country except naked force, then they can use force too, and things will go into a vicious spiral.

The rule of Law is only enforced by naked force. Legalisms are irrelevant.

"Keep my legions intact. They make the law, legal."
Julius Gaius Caesar

I'm sorry. How did that work out for him?

Really, if you want to quote someone on law and order who presents that sort of argument maybe choose a person who wasn't murdered in broad daylight.

Would have worked fine if he had the Roman Secret Service watching out for him.
Sweriously, what the feth do you think makes people abide by the law? Cops. Cops use---force.

The Italians can board the ships. If someone says I want asylum they can give them the thumb and ignore them.

Frazzled wrote:The Italians can board the ships. If someone says I want asylum they can give them the thumb and ignore them.

They are required by International law to take them if they claim asylum, especially since Lybia is not party to the asylum treaties, so they cannot claim asylum there.

They are bound by internaitonal law only if:
1. They sgned relevant treaties
2. Real world: they feel like it. I am fully aware of how often countries abide by treaties at all, or just to the letter.

Gwar! wrote:

Frazzled wrote:The Italians can board the ships. If someone says I want asylum they can give them the thumb and ignore them.

They are required by International law to take them if they claim asylum, especially since Lybia is not party to the asylum treaties, so they cannot claim asylum there.

I hope the immigrants are asking for asylum in Italian otherwise...

Waaagh_Gonads wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Frazzled wrote:The Italians can board the ships. If someone says I want asylum they can give them the thumb and ignore them.

They are required by International law to take them if they claim asylum, especially since Lybia is not party to the asylum treaties, so they cannot claim asylum there.

I hope the immigrants are asking for asylum in Italian otherwise...

As an Italian I find that picture increadibly offensive...

It's "Shaddapa You Face!"

I remember an excellent song with that.
"hey you....shuddaupya face!"

I concur, he doesn't even sport a pencil moustache

Waaagh_Gonads wrote:Why is it that the illegal immigrants seek asylum in the last country down the chain after passing through several?

Australia is having a wave of boat people coming from Indonesia again (they stopped when the former govt took to locking them up in camps until their status was determined, 'status' being genuine asylum seekers or not.)

Problem is they aren't Indonesions.

They are usually Afghanis, and have passed through Pakistan, Malaysia and Indonesia then onto Oz. One boat was full of men who had been living in Indonesia for 5 years, the hope bring they get in then bring their families.
What is wrong with Pakistan, Malaysia or Indonesia?

They don't have wussy, leftie, champagne sipping city dwelling thought police to give them hand outs and stomp on the majority if the newbs feel that any feature of the new country is offensive to their sensibilities.

That's not true, though. First up Australia's 2008 total refugee intake was 11,000 people. For a country of more than 20 million that's pretty much stuff all. It's one person for every two thousand. It's like a town of 2,000 people is getting along fine, and a guy turns up from the next over and says that his town has burned down and people are fighting over the remains, so he can live here now. And the 2,000 residents look at each other, shrug and tell them that unfortunately they've got two thousand people and one more just won't fit, regardless of his situation.

Second up, its true that if someone comes to Australia and requests asylum, then putting them in a detention centre in the desert for 18 months will mean someone else will be more likely to go to say, Canada. But it is also a really, really awful thing to do to someone. Now you can call me a leftie or whatever, but I just don't think you should put a child behind barbed wire in the middle of the desert. It's the kind of thing I though would have been obvious 10 years ago, but I sure have learnt alot about the extent of decency since then.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:Would have worked fine if he had the Roman Secret Service watching out for him.
Sweriously, what the feth do you think makes people abide by the law? Cops. Cops use---force.

The Italians can board the ships. If someone says I want asylum they can give them the thumb and ignore them.

You're being silly. We are talking about the law as it applies to accepting refugees. That is, Italy like most other countries signed an agreement, and to follow the law would to follow that agreement, which means properly verifying the claims of each individual application for refugee status. Whether or not a refugee is following the law is irrelevant*, just like policemen are still required to follow the law when apprehending criminals. You know this, everyone knows this, it's obvious.



*Pro-tip - you are not actually breaking the law to arrive in another country and claim asylum. In fact, that's very legal. If your claim is processed and found lacking, only then are required to leave, and only then will can you be considered illegally present in another country.

sebster wrote:[

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:Would have worked fine if he had the Roman Secret Service watching out for him.
Sweriously, what the feth do you think makes people abide by the law? Cops. Cops use---force.

The Italians can board the ships. If someone says I want asylum they can give them the thumb and ignore them.

You're being silly. We are talking about the law as it applies to accepting refugees. That is, Italy like most other countries signed an agreement, and to follow the law would to follow that agreement, which means properly verifying the claims of each individual application for refugee status. Whether or not a refugee is following the law is irrelevant*, just like policemen are still required to follow the law when apprehending criminals. You know this, everyone knows this, it's obvious.

Well yea, half the time I post I'm being silly.
Actually if they enter Italy illegally, asylum doesn't necessary apply.
But in the real world (TM) countries can and will do what they want to do whether or not there is a treaty. They just use a loophole or ignore it completely.

Frazzled wrote:Well yea, half the time I post I'm being silly.
Actually if they enter Italy illegally, asylum doesn't necessary apply.

If you enter a country by any means and apply for refugee status, you aren't actually breaking the law.

But in the real world (TM) countries can and will do what they want to do whether or not there is a treaty. They just use a loophole or ignore it completely.

True, and most murders never result in a conviction. I'm not sure that means murder is the best way to go about removing my competition for best christmas lights on the block this year.

sebster wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Well yea, half the time I post I'm being silly.
Actually if they enter Italy illegally, asylum doesn't necessary apply.

If you enter a country by any means and apply for refugee status, you aren't actually breaking the law.
Depends on the country. Plus an asylum review procedure can be as simple as a soldier with an assault rifle going "shutup! request denied!" See, all forms have been obeyed.

But in the real world (TM) countries can and will do what they want to do whether or not there is a treaty. They just use a loophole or ignore it completely.

True, and most murders never result in a conviction. I'm not sure that means murder is the best way to go about removing my competition for best christmas lights on the block this year.

Thats a nonsequitor (ooh $5 word there). Countries do things to benefit their perceived self interest in the long run (unless their legislature is bought off or the US Congress, but I repeat myself). If Italy thinks its in its best interest to do so, it will. NOTE: I don't think Italy itself has said squat as this is some Brit saying something right?

Ah, Italy, the only nation where, when born, instead of swaddling clothes they dress the newborns in Armani suits.

Frazzled wrote:Countries do things to benefit their perceived self interest in whatever time interval they so choose

Fixed.

In the long run an enforceable body of international law benefits all developed nations, but developed nations rarely think in terms of the long run. Once you have power the onus of any action will always be on the maintenance of that power, which is a consideration of the present more than the future.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Countries do things to benefit their perceived self interest in whatever time interval they so choose

Fixed.

In the long run an enforceable body of international law benefits all developed nations, but developed nations rarely think in terms of the long run. Once you have power the onus of any action will always be on the maintenance of that power, which is a consideration of the present more than the future.

Not necessary. It only benefits the nations that have power and determine who it gets enforced against.

I think we're looking at a basic philophical viewpoint between myself and Dogma / Sebster. Both are valid points and right in some ways and at differing times.

*You believe in law and treaties as benefitting everyone.
*I believe that the law and any similar manmade construct benefits those who have power, unless those in power give up their ability to use it.
But that is all for a separate and much more interesting topic.

Frazzled wrote:

sebster wrote:[

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:Would have worked fine if he had the Roman Secret Service watching out for him.
Sweriously, what the feth do you think makes people abide by the law? Cops. Cops use---force.

The Italians can board the ships. If someone says I want asylum they can give them the thumb and ignore them.

You're being silly. We are talking about the law as it applies to accepting refugees. That is, Italy like most other countries signed an agreement, and to follow the law would to follow that agreement, which means properly verifying the claims of each individual application for refugee status. Whether or not a refugee is following the law is irrelevant*, just like policemen are still required to follow the law when apprehending criminals. You know this, everyone knows this, it's obvious.

Well yea, half the time I post I'm being silly.
...
...

The problem is, like with money spent on advertising, you don't know which half!

Frazzled wrote:
Not necessary. It only benefits the nations that have power and determine who it gets enforced against.

I think we're looking at a basic philophical viewpoint between myself and Dogma / Sebster. Both are valid points and right in some ways and at differing times.

*You believe in law and treaties as benefitting everyone.
*I believe that the law and any similar manmade construct benefits those who have power, unless those in power give up their ability to use it.
But that is all for a separate and much more interesting topic.

I think I'm somewhere between the two of you. In the long run international law benefits those in power as it is a (mostly) effective means of regulating the interaction between developed (powerful) states. If a developed nation ignores international law it has two effects:
1) It indicates that the state holds the law in contempt; making other developed nations less likely to deal with it.
2) It indicates that the state lacks confidence in its position, which invites other developed nations to challenge it.

Essentially the law matters only because it protects those who have power from similar entities. Sometimes it can also protect dissimilar ones, but that is an ancillary benefit.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

sebster wrote:[

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:Would have worked fine if he had the Roman Secret Service watching out for him.
Sweriously, what the feth do you think makes people abide by the law? Cops. Cops use---force.

The Italians can board the ships. If someone says I want asylum they can give them the thumb and ignore them.

You're being silly. We are talking about the law as it applies to accepting refugees. That is, Italy like most other countries signed an agreement, and to follow the law would to follow that agreement, which means properly verifying the claims of each individual application for refugee status. Whether or not a refugee is following the law is irrelevant*, just like policemen are still required to follow the law when apprehending criminals. You know this, everyone knows this, it's obvious.

Well yea, half the time I post I'm being silly.
...
...

The problem is, like with money spent on advertising, you don't know which half!

You're assuming I know? Only She Who Must Be Obeyed knows (or she just smacks my nose with a rolled up newspaper...I am not a bad dog dang it!)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:

I think I'm somewhere between the two of you. In the long run international law benefits those in power as it is a (mostly) effective means of regulating the interaction between developed (powerful) states. If a developed nation ignores international law it has two effects:
1) It indicates that the state holds the law in contempt; making other developed nations less likely to deal with it.
2) It indicates that the state lacks confidence in its position, which invites other developed nations to challenge it.

Essentially the law matters only because it protects those who have power from similar entities. Sometimes it can also protect dissimilar ones, but that is an ancillary benefit.

Oh my I think were in agreement and bow before your clarity. But hey don't you have a rich wife to go find? Whats that look over there (Frazzled runs off to be called a commie LIBURAL on another site)

Frazzled wrote:Thats a nonsequitor (ooh $5 word there).

I don't think many people tend to get my analogies. It's possible I'm not as pithy as I've assumed. Only 'possible', mind you.

Anyway, my point with the murder thing was to point out that there is also a moral imperative. Just as you'd probably get away with a murder, Italy may well face no immediate penalties for. But in the meantime you'd have genuine refugees being turned away, and that sucks.

Countries do things to benefit their perceived self interest in the long run (unless their legislature is bought off or the US Congress, but I repeat myself). If Italy thinks its in its best interest to do so, it will. NOTE: I don't think Italy itself has said squat as this is some Brit saying something right?

Countries do things for a lot of reasons and when it comes to small scale stuff they're often quite generous. Refugee acceptance in developed countries a long way from warzones is very small scale, certainly not on the scale that the far right pretends. Taking in 10,000 or 20,000 refugees is well within the capability of a country like the UK or Italy. However, people frequently pretend the issue is much, much bigger than it is. You often see rhetoric about refugees bankrupting the country, or being overwhelmed. The correlation between racist groups such as the BNP and refugee concerns should not be ignored.

Nick Griffiths is head of the British National Party.

The connection to Italy is that large numbers of illegal immigrants enter Europe through Italy because it is the closest country (apart from Spain) to north Africa and because the Italians are very slack about stopping them.

Frazzled wrote:
But in the real world (TM) countries can and will do what they want to do whether or not there is a treaty. They just use a loophole or ignore it completely.

Actually, not true. While Italy could easily get away with turning away a couple of thousand refugees if they paint the refugess out to be shady, there ARE repercussions for blatantly taking a dump all over the treaties. While only in the most EXTREME cases would military intervention from other countries occur (mabye mass genocide of refugees), if Italy contiues to trample on the pact it made, other countries will refuse to recognise it. Trade will be refused, no admittance or participation in sports, and other such no-no's.

I know it may not seem like much, but the populace would eventually get sick of it and demand change, even if it meant letting fugees in. Similar situation occured in South Africa against Aparteid. Almost no one would trade or play with White Supreme SA, things changed.

If you believe that I have a bridge to sell you, CHEAP!

?