asylum seekers must be better distributed

bormotello

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 8, 2008
Messages
12,251
From Euronews

The EU’s top migration official, Justice Commissioner Jacques Barrot said efforts to harmonise the member states’ rules on asylum processing seek to set common standards while allowing for constructive flexibility.

Barrot said: “Understood, if a member state has a tradition of asylum and generosity, it should continue. There’s no question of making it reduce the percentage of requests it accepts. Simply, I believe the asylum seekers must be better distributed, and then attention must be paid to see that each person asking for asylum is treated in a fair way, no matter which country he is in.”

The European Parliament has urged Europe to show “collective responsibility” for asylum seekers.
Several years of research in 11 EU countries has identified overcrowding and a lack of medical care and legal aid in detention centres as key concerns.
It recommends against policies of just detaining people, and encourages open centres rather than closed.



euronews | EU proposes asylum reponse office
 


dsmythy

Active member
Joined
Oct 9, 2006
Messages
134
I guess in theory it's a good idea to spread asylum seekers throughout the EU according to state size and population regardless of where they first arrived in the EU.

As for open centres... I think you'll find many going missing especially, and perhaps also worryingly, children.
 

Tiernanator

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 2, 2007
Messages
345
I think it is time to rethink the whole asylum/refugee multinational business. I call it a business because that it what it has become. I accept that there are genuine asylum seekers/refugees, however I refuse to accept that they and their descendants should be granted permanent leave to remain if their own land becomes less risky or violent. The problem is that after the emergency the host country is left with a population that it neither sought nor wanted in the first place, an annoyed local population and a disgruntled minority/minorities that feels put upon and who sometimes rightly rise up to say so.

In my opinion what we have witnessed over the past decades is massive economic migration on a scale previously unseen. The planet has never had so many people, so naturally this is the first time such numbers have moved from one place to another. I personally, have no problem with people seeking a better life in other lands however I do feel genuinely angered that people have abused the asylum and refugee systems for other ends. If they are economic migrants who want to move to "greener pastures" then let them do so by changing the system to permit economic migrants instead of continuing with the sham that exists now.

In the longer term it appears that vast sections of Africa and Asia will decant into Europe, US and Canada and Austrailia the impetus has been growing over the last number of decades. Again I have no problem with people of any colour, religion or race seeking a better life and perhaps the dwindling White European birthrates are a natural precusor to what might be described as inevitable demographic change. Yet I feel annoyed that neither the feelings of the natives nor the implications it might have for the descendants of the migrants are being considered by our betters. Hitler found an easy target in the Jewish people during WWII and the seeds are being sown for a new easy target in the future. The debate must be open and the usual suspects who shout "racist" etc must try to allow a reasoned discussion on what he future might be.

People are people and are therefore because of their humanity entitled to dignity. The system as it is neither affords this to the migrant or the host population/land.
 

florin

Well-known member
Joined
May 17, 2008
Messages
1,346
I also think that "differently attractive" countries such as Ireland should receive a higher proportion of the good-looking ones. To even things out.
 

Horace Horse

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 4, 2009
Messages
429
I also think that "differently attractive" countries such as Ireland should receive a higher proportion of the good-looking ones. To even things out.
I must have missed something, since I have seen no parade of beauty queens among migrant workers and asylum seekers. I suspect you haven't travelled very much throughout the world, have you?

But assuming what you say is correct, wouldn't the same result be achieved if people like you emigrated?
 

Tiernanator

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 2, 2007
Messages
345
I must have missed something, since I have seen no parade of beauty queens among migrant workers and asylum seekers. I suspect you haven't travelled very much throughout the world, have you?

But assuming what you say is correct, wouldn't the same result be achieved if people like you emigrated?


Are you gay Horace Horse...you should be! That was catty but cool.
 

FutureTaoiseach

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 20, 2005
Messages
7,980
Website
greatdearleader.blogspot.com
Open-centres are a bad idea, as they inevitably allow thousands of asylum-seekers and illegal-immigrants to go underground to avoid deportation. Recent figures in the press report that around 6,000 failed asylum-seekers are evading deportation. However this call from Brussels exposes a negative aspect of a certain model of a common immigration and asylum policy at EU level - namely the likelihood that Ireland - in defiance of the spirit of the Dublin II Regulations - will be asked to take other countries' e.g. Spain, Italy's asylum-seekers. In a time of severe recession where we are harder hit than other member states, this is not reasonable. However, I support a common asylum to the extent that I favour the initiate to set up EU asylum centres outside of the EU e.g. North Africa where asylum-seekers could claim asylum prior to entry to Europe. This seems a timely moment to also bring up the dangers of the Charter of Fundamental Rights with respect to asylum and immigration, in particular Articles 15 and 18. Article 18 binds Ireland to the 1952 Refugee/Geneva Convention, despite its abuse for economic-migration. The latter document was drawn up at a time when travel was far less available and affordable that in 2008, and is in desperate need of reform to take account of that reality. Article 18 also effectively hands jurisdiction over asylum-cases to the ECJ, stating that 'collective expulsions are forbidden'. The text of the Lisbon Treaty states that the Charter shall have the same bearing in EU law as the treaties, and with the ECJ the final arbitar of interpretation of EU laws, effectively that makes the ECJ the Federal Supreme Court of the EU with respect to the contents of the Charter, which also refer to matters such as the right to work (Article 15), which makes the sweeping generalisation that 'everybody has the right to work' - in spite of the fact that some member states - such as Ireland and Britain - deny that right to asylum-seekers. I favour our ban on such work, as it was being abused in the years up to 2003 when such work was allowed (11,000 came in 2002 for that reason). Article 15 effectively reintroduces this right to work at a time when the hardpressed Irish worker cannot find work. It is morally indefensible and unpatriotic to foist additional labour-competition from the developing world on the Irish people in a severe recession bordering on a depression. Vote no.
 

bormotello

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 8, 2008
Messages
12,251
However, I support a common asylum to the extent that I favour the initiate to set up EU asylum centres outside of the EU e.g. North Africa where asylum-seekers could claim asylum prior to entry to Europe.
Great idea, but I don’t see any country, which will allow create such centres.
 

Tiernanator

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 2, 2007
Messages
345
Great idea, but I don’t see any country, which will allow create such centres.
I suppose if it was made profitable for these countries then it might be possible. However as I stated in my previous post the real reason for most of the so-called asylum seekers being here was for work and a better life. Not against anyone for wanting that but there is a limit to how many people Europe can take.
 

commonman

Well-known member
Joined
May 29, 2010
Messages
5,296
We most be getting them all , please dont come to this country as we are broke a cant afford you and there no work.
 

redhead

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 11, 2007
Messages
6,664
We most be getting them all , please dont come to this country as we are broke a cant afford you and there no work.
Bump much. Are you using pigeon English deliberately?
 

papaquebec

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 24, 2010
Messages
1,941

Warren Poynt

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 25, 2010
Messages
2,122
We most be getting them all , please dont come to this country as we are broke a cant afford you and there no work.
Wir musta b gett-n demaul. Puleeze, nocum Paddyland. See, no spon Dulex anshuh. No bod eeh a Ford ewe. Days no jobz.

Marks out of 10 for real pidgin ?
 
Last edited:

Eire1976

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2010
Messages
13,764
I think it is time to rethink the whole asylum/refugee multinational business. I call it a business because that it what it has become. I accept that there are genuine asylum seekers/refugees, however I refuse to accept that they and their descendants should be granted permanent leave to remain if their own land becomes less risky or violent. The problem is that after the emergency the host country is left with a population that it neither sought nor wanted in the first place, an annoyed local population and a disgruntled minority/minorities that feels put upon and who sometimes rightly rise up to say so.

In my opinion what we have witnessed over the past decades is massive economic migration on a scale previously unseen. The planet has never had so many people, so naturally this is the first time such numbers have moved from one place to another. I personally, have no problem with people seeking a better life in other lands however I do feel genuinely angered that people have abused the asylum and refugee systems for other ends. If they are economic migrants who want to move to "greener pastures" then let them do so by changing the system to permit economic migrants instead of continuing with the sham that exists now.

In the longer term it appears that vast sections of Africa and Asia will decant into Europe, US and Canada and Austrailia the impetus has been growing over the last number of decades. Again I have no problem with people of any colour, religion or race seeking a better life and perhaps the dwindling White European birthrates are a natural precusor to what might be described as inevitable demographic change. Yet I feel annoyed that neither the feelings of the natives nor the implications it might have for the descendants of the migrants are being considered by our betters. Hitler found an easy target in the Jewish people during WWII and the seeds are being sown for a new easy target in the future. The debate must be open and the usual suspects who shout "racist" etc must try to allow a reasoned discussion on what he future might be.

People are people and are therefore because of their humanity entitled to dignity. The system as it is neither affords this to the migrant or the host population/land.
Fully agree,

Who is genuine and who isn't in the refugee and asylum game?

Those that make their own way all across Europe to claim asylum/refugee status in states that hand out generous benefits should not be considered genuine. This system should be changed straight away to the benefit credit card like Australia's new system. This will deter economic migrants.

The practice at present appears to be that if you claim asylum, you are likely to be allowed to stay especially if you have children while resident.

I cannot see how this system is fair to the native population of say Norway or Ireland. Why should these Countries be picking up the tab? No person who has made their way all across Europe and elsewhere to arrive in these states can possibly be considered genuine.

It should be explained to refugees and asylum applicants that they will be returned to their native country once the UN deems it safe(with ample funds of course to make a fresh start).

This is fair to all parties, as why should they need to stay abroad if their own Country is safe again?

While awaiting for normal conditions to return, they can be trained in areas best suited to the needs of their native land, so when they return they will be able to rebuild.
 

Sync

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
28,457
The practice at present appears to be that if you claim asylum, you are likely to be allowed to stay especially if you have children while resident.
What figures are you basing that on?
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top