Peter Ross via luv-talk wrote:
In case it is safe, he can be detained near the airport for up to 4 days. The lawfulness of this is disputed. However, I find it refreshing to talk about 4 days of detention while we mistreat people for 1000 days and counting.
They can't even get to the German airport, because Article 26 deliberately punishes carriers (i.e. aircraft, ferry, bus operators) who allow refugees to board in the first place. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_refugee_crisis#Carrier.27s_responsibi... This forces refugees to use dangerous, illegal, and expensive routes, e.g. €10,000-€12,000 instead of USD$400 for Turkey to Britain. I'm not condoning Australia's policy of illegally torturing refugees, but policies in the Schengen Zone aren't all beer and skittles, either. Merkel is a notable exception; good on her.
I still consider the article 1 of the German Constitution as the biggest gain I received in the process of unification. It starts with
"Human dignity shall be inviolable. To respect and protect it shall be the duty of all state authority."
It is a constitutional "insurance" I am actually missing here. The German Constitution sets a bar no politician in the country can lower. An independent Constitutional Court can invalidate laws if they found to be incompatible with the constitution.
For the case of refugees, I don't think that's necessary. Australia signed the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_Relating_to_the_Status_of_Refugees and the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_Relating_to_the_Status_of_Refugees, so our current policy is illegal. End of story. I'm not sure at a glance, but I'd also expect it to be covered by our (moral, not legal) obligations re https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights although that leads me to this, hmmm: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Covenant_on_Civil_and_Political_...