Argentina demands more immigration rights into the Falklands

17 Oct

Yesterday in the Argentine Parliament a request was submitted to the Executive asking the Government to find ways in which to circumvent controls in the Falkland Islands which restrict immigration.

The request claimed that, contrary to Argentina’s own welcoming policy, the regime in the Falkland Islands imposes restrictions that are, “arbitrary, unilateral and discriminatory,” and which, “violates human rights and the basic rules governing the civilized world.”

“The Executive must include this point in claims to the United Nations. Argentines must have the right to settle in the Falklands”.

During the same session a draft statement was presented rejecting the right of the Falkland Islanders to hold a referendum on their future status, on the basis that, “this right arises for those people who have not been transplanted by force.”

Immigration to the all Non-Self-Governing Territories is subject to United Nations Resolution 35/118 of 1980 which states in Annex 9 that; “Member States shall adopt the necessary measures to discourage or prevent the systematic influx of outside immigrants and settlers into Territories under colonial domination, which disrupts the demographic composition of those Territories and may constitute a major obstacle to the genuine exercise of the right to self-determination and independence by the people of those Territories.”

The Falkland Islands were first claimed by Britain in 1765. Argentina dates its claim to 1833, accusing Britain of ousting an Argentine settlement on East Falkland Island. The pretensions of Buenos Aires at that time had been protested by Britain in 1829.


16 Responses to “Argentina demands more immigration rights into the Falklands”

  1. Robert Engish October 17, 2012 at 7:03 am #

    And till the Goverment in Argentina can respect and treat the Falklanders as a people ( rather than an inplanted group).

    Its only going to get worse for then they are makeing a rod for their own back !

  2. lornefirth October 17, 2012 at 11:08 am #

    dear argies Why should you be trusted, the last time you were marching up Ross rd armed to the teeth so much for your style of immigration.Do you have a goverment dept of stupid ideas

    • eric (@realaleisbest) November 2, 2012 at 9:08 pm #

      Yes they do have a department of stupid ideas, Head of department is Hector Timerman! They don’t come any more stupid than that.

  3. CLopez October 17, 2012 at 1:15 pm #

    It can be said that Argentina claimed the Malvinas as part of its territory since the first days of the revolution in 1810:

    At that time it was still occupied by Spanish troops, many of them ‘criollos’ of the new countries.

    Moreover, in 1820 they were formally took possession of, and the British didn’t protest. First attempts to colonize the islands began in 1824.

    • lordton1955 October 17, 2012 at 11:57 pm #

      It can be said – but it wouldn’t be tru. You need to check your facts about that obscure claim for wages. It was passed back to loyalist Montevideo!

      The Spanish troops only occupied the penal colony in Soledad. They left in 1811 having stayed loyal to Spain.

      There was no formal taking of possession in 1820. That didn’t happen until 1829.

      Vernet’s 1824 venture failed. When he went back in 1826 he had British permission.

      • CLopez October 19, 2012 at 6:41 pm #

        * Spanish troops patrolled both islands
        * David Jewett, November 1820
        * Exact date and circumstances under which the permission was given?

      • lordton1955 October 19, 2012 at 11:38 pm #

        Prove that Spanish troops patrolled both islands. They did not!

        Jewett had no orders and reported no claim back in BA.

        1825 – February 2nd. Treaty of Amity – Article 3, ” His Majesty the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland engages further, that in all his dominions situated out of Europe, the inhabitants of the United Provinces of Rio de la Plata shall have the like liberty of commerce and navigation, stipulated for in the preceding Article, to the full extent to which the same is permitted at present, or shall be permitted hereafter, to any other nation.”

      • CLopez October 25, 2012 at 3:02 pm #

        1. There are written orders and reports, orders under which they destroyed the remains of Port Egmont. If not, how do explain Port Egmont destruction?
        2. Irrelevant!
        3. You gotta be joking!! If that’s all you’ve got then I can be sure that Vernet didn’t ask for British permission till 1829.

      • lordton1955 October 25, 2012 at 11:06 pm #

        1. There is one written order that was not carried out for over 12 months. And there is no report or evidence that Port Egmont was actually destroyed. As some of the buildings can still be clearly seen, the extent of the destruction, if any, appears superficial.
        2. Jewett’s lack of orders and failure to mention his claim in the official report are hardly ‘irrelevant’.
        3. Vernet had British permission from 1825 and liased regularly with Parish after 1826. That’s all I need !

      • CLopez October 27, 2012 at 1:30 am #

        Hear yourself. Now you’re denying the destruction of Port Egmont and the removal of the British plaque. And you preach us about moral??

      • lordton1955 October 28, 2012 at 2:56 am #

        Please produce the report/ships log or whatever that proves that the order was carried out.

  4. CLopez October 17, 2012 at 1:19 pm #

    Oh and BTW, in Annex 9, “outside immigrants and settlers” refers to British immigration, as you are the colonial power injecting settlers.

    • Nick Lutwyche October 17, 2012 at 2:02 pm #


  5. Bloke October 17, 2012 at 3:20 pm #

    Dear Argentina,

    Lol no. Better luck next time.

    Yours sincerely,
    The Civilised World.

  6. Andy October 25, 2012 at 12:28 am #

    Wouldn’t Argentina do better and try to recover THERE SHIP which as been in pounded by an African 3rd world country for none payment of debts??? HOW EMBARRASSING

  7. Don Alberto November 1, 2012 at 12:29 am #

    “outside immigrants and settlers” refers to anyone – including the Spanish assault on the Américas and the later inflow of Italians and Spaniards in South America, including what is today Argentina.

    What really matter is,
    1. Annex 9 did not exist in 1833
    2. international law allowed title through conquest until 1928, with some restrictions dating to 1919.

    See contemporary international law:
    Henry Wager Halleck: “Elements of international law and laws of war” (1866), pp. 340ff

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: