It's quite interesting to note how many posts were deleted or modified in this thread.

It is my fault; I started the OT DUI political stuff . . . :o

In some situations, non-citizens of a country do have an automatic right to enter another country whose citizenship they don't hold.

... and I'd be surprised if that which is applicable for some non-citizens when it comes to the US-Mexico border isn't also true for some when it comes to the US-Canadian border. And those aren't the only examples where automatic rights to enter another country have been memorialized in law before.

Well if you are an EU/EEA citizen you almost do have a right to enter another EU country(well UK denied entry to Geert Wilders, but I think a judge found it wrong). And you even have a right to work in another EU/EEA country. Unfortuntly that is not only positive. Infact in Norway we have had an invasion of beggars and criminals from Eastern Europe because of that. If we deport them they just come back because the Schengen system.

Many of them come to Canada now and claim to be refugees. Quite recently I was yelled at by a group of them demanding a limousine to take all fourteen of them to a five-star hotel. A lovely bunch indeed.

Due to the Zambrano case, it goes beyond being an intra-Schengen or even intra-EU mobility thing:

"[The ruling of the European Court of Justice] states that member states are required to allow third country nationals who are parents of an EU citizen child to live and work in the EU state, where a refusal to do so would deprive the child of the enjoyment of the rights of citizenship."

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/...291667585.html

As long as this ruling remains the law in the area, many non-EU citizens -- specifically many who have minor children living (primarily) in the EU as EU citizens -- have had their interests protected by the Zambrano ruling and have an automatic right to be in another country than that of their own citizenship -- that is with regard to a covered country in which their child is a citizen residing in the country of their own citizenship.

If the above named Dutch pol denied entry to the UK and then allowed into the UK (after another ruling) has a minor child who is a citizen of the UK residing in the UK, he has an automatic right of entry to the UK by way of this ruling.

Which five-star hotel?

They weren't specific. As long as it was on the government's dime any luxury hotel would do I suppose.

I believe that guy was denied entry because the Home Secretary certified that his presence in the UK was not conducive to public order.

Wow, I wish this was a criteria to send them back ASAP! I believe in offering refuge for true victims of their homelands, but abuse of the system is deplorable!

:rolleyes: What a SFC!!!

Yes, using the kind of blunt tool that is used against those suspected of being soccer hooligans, right?

I didn't like it when that Home order was applied to that Dutch pol (and I'm no fan of his) not do I like it when applied to lock in or lock out supposed "football hooligans" when being locked in or locked out is not part of a court-ordered sentence following conviction.

I'd welcome another ECJ ruling when some "football hooligan" with a child in another EU country is denied travel -- on the basis of these administrative orders restricting entry and/or exit -- to that other EU country in which they have a minor child whom they support.

Better than an ordinary Canadian government detention facility, so understandable. But then at a top-tier hotel, they likely wouldn't get free meals, free laundry and the like, so a pretty foolish request if not a joke of sort.

Trust me, they were expecting free room service.

Seeking out a great deal using OPM? This place is full of such. :D