Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Mediterranean migrants- specific questions

13567…50

Comments

  • #62
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,811 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    DulchieLaois wrote: »
    At the rate that this migrant crisis is happening, Europe will allow itself to be far right like Denmark is at the present moment.

    "The way to prevent xenophobia is to keep the bloody foreigners out."

    Brilliant.


  • #63
    Jelle1880
    Registered Users Posts: 9,839 ✭✭✭Jelle1880


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    Actually no, it doesn't make you eligible for refugee status. To succeed in a claim for asylum as a refugee you have to have a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality or the like. A well-founded fear of having the living shlt bombed out of you by people who are indifferent to your race, religion etc is not enough.
    The Corinthian wrote: »
    Actually it doesn't. To do that you need to show you were in danger of being specifically targeted and had no option but to flee the country.

    There's plenty of people living in dictatorships who live their lives without any persecution. And people who live in countries in conflict where they can move to parts where war is not present. Asylum is only for those who have no other choice but to flee the nation when seeking safety. Not a prosperous life - safety.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refugee#Definition
    The concept of a refugee was expanded by the Convention's 1967 Protocol and by regional conventions in Africa and Latin America to include persons who had fled war or other violence in their home country. European Union's minimum standards definition of refugee, underlined by Art. 2 (c) of Directive No. 2004/83/EC, essentially reproduces the narrow definition of refugee offered by the UN 1951 Convention; nevertheless, by virtue of articles 2 (e) and 15 of the same Directive, persons who have fled a war-caused generalized violence are, at certain conditions, eligible for a complementary form of protection, called subsidiary protection. The same form of protection is foreseen for people who, without being refugees, are nevertheless exposed, if returned to their countries of origin, to death penalty, torture or other inhuman or degrading treatments.
    The term refugee is often used to include displaced persons who may fall outside the legal definition in the Convention,[10] either because they have left their home countries because of war and not because of a fear of persecution, or because they have been forced to migrate within their home countries.[11] The Convention Governing the Specific Aspects of Refugee Problems in Africa, adopted by the Organization of African Unity in 1969, accepted the definition of the 1951 Refugee Convention and expanded it to include people who left their countries of origin not only because of persecution but also due to acts of external aggression, occupation, domination by foreign powers or serious disturbances of public order.[11]

    That makes it pretty clear actually, especially the part in bold.

    So yes, fleeing war is actually justifiable reason to be seen as a refugee and therefore eligible for asylum requests.


  • #64
    DulchieLaois
    Registered Users Posts: 466 ✭✭DulchieLaois


    Can I ask a question in relation to convention and laws

    Is encouraging people to take high risks which could result in death not a crime ?


  • #65
    Jelle1880
    Registered Users Posts: 9,839 ✭✭✭Jelle1880


    DulchieLaois wrote: »
    Can I ask a question in relation to convention and laws

    Is encouraging people to take high risks which could result in death not a crime ?

    Are you talking about the human traffickers or some countries urging people to come over (like Germany) ?

    If you mean the second: I don't think any country is urging them to take massive risks, there are other ways to head to Europe than trying to cross the Meditteranean. It's just faster that way.


  • #66
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    Jelle1880 wrote: »
    So yes, fleeing war is actually justifiable reason to be seen as a refugee and therefore eligible for asylum requests.
    If they are fleeing a war. Remember, just because there might be a war in a nation, does not mean you're affected by it, let alone need to flee it. For example, the Boko Haram insurgency is largely confined to the north east of Nigeria. Thus it may make sense to flee Maiduguri, but not Port Harcourt, at the other end of the country - this is a failure to satisfy the "war-caused generalized violence" clause in the definition you just quoted.

    Even if from Maiduguri then there is no reason to flee the country if they can be safe in another part of the country. Otherwise, you're essentially suggesting it would make sense for a Shetland Islander in the 1980's to claim asylum abroad because of the violence in Northern Ireland - indeed, the troubles are not a bad example of how conflict can be localized to a specific area.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    Jelle1880
    Registered Users Posts: 9,839 ✭✭✭Jelle1880


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    If they are fleeing a war. Remember, just because there might be a war in a nation, does not mean you're affected by it, let alone need to flee it. For example, the Boko Haram insurgency is largely confined to the north east of Nigeria. Thus it may make sense to flee Maiduguri, but not Port Harcourt, at the other end of the country - this is a failure to satisfy the "war-caused generalized violence" clause in the definition you just quoted.

    Even if from Maiduguri then there is no reason to flee the country if they can be safe in another part of the country. Otherwise, you're essentially suggesting it would make sense for a Shetland Islander in the 1980's to claim asylum abroad because of the violence in Northern Ireland - indeed, the troubles are not a bad example of how conflict can be localized to a specific area.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant#/media/File:Syrian,_Iraqi,_and_Lebanese_insurgencies.png

    Syria is for 2/3rds controlled by IS (the grey part of the map), the other parts are divided by government forces who are also not really that nice to civilians and the Kurds in the north. There have also been reports of refugee camps near the Syrian border in Turkey being attacked. I understand your point that if parts of the country are safe (Ukraine is a prime example where most refugees go to the safer west part of the country) then you have other options, but in Syria the situation really is dire all across the country.


  • #68
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    Jelle1880 wrote: »
    Syria is for 2/3rds controlled by IS (the grey part of the map), the other parts are divided by government forces who are also not really that nice to civilians and the Kurds in the north. There have also been reports of refugee camps near the Syrian border in Turkey being attacked.
    I was not referring to Syria, and frankly you really cannot trot out Syria, as if she is indicative of all nations where refugees originate from. The example I gave, Nigeria, is typical of this problem and with a long history of, sometimes high profile, fraudulent asylum cases.

    One of the major problems with the migrant crisis at present is that many are simply economic migrants - they don't need nor qualify for asylum. It's overloaded the system has done no favours for those, many of whom are from Syria, are genuinely fleeing persecutions. So just as to generalize about all migrants negatively is to be avoided, neither should we do the same in the opposite direction and talk only about Syria when the topic is raised, as if all migrants are Syrians.


  • #69
    Jelle1880
    Registered Users Posts: 9,839 ✭✭✭Jelle1880


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    I was not referring to Syria, and frankly you really cannot trot out Syria, as if she is indicative of all nations where refugees originate from. The example I gave, Nigeria, is typical of this problem and with a long history of, sometimes high profile, fraudulent asylum cases.

    One of the major problems with the migrant crisis at present is that many are simply economic migrants - they don't need nor qualify for asylum. It's overloaded the system has done no favours for those, many of whom are from Syria, are genuinely fleeing persecutions. So just as to generalize about all migrants negatively is to be avoided, neither should we do the same in the opposite direction and talk only about Syria when the topic is raised, as if all migrants are Syrians.

    The reason why I mentioned Syria is because that's what's currently in the news.

    I know not all people from other countries would be eligible for refugee status because of exactly what you said.


  • #70
    johnnyskeleton
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,526 Mod ✭✭✭✭johnnyskeleton


    Jelle1880 wrote: »
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refugee#Definition



    That makes it pretty clear actually, especially the part in bold.

    So yes, fleeing war is actually justifiable reason to be seen as a refugee and therefore eligible for asylum requests.

    It's a procedurally different step. A person can be refused refugee status but granted subsidiary protection. As a rough example, a Christian or political dissenter fleeing because he would be killed as a Christian/dissenter would be a refugee, whereas someone who is at risk of being killed indiscriminately by roving militias would be refused asylum but could get subsidiary protection afterwards.


  • #71
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    Jelle1880 wrote: »
    The reason why I mentioned Syria is because that's what's currently in the news.
    And in doing so you generalized just like every Alf Garnet in this thread.


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    Jelle1880
    Registered Users Posts: 9,839 ✭✭✭Jelle1880


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    And in doing so you generalized just like every Alf Garnet in this thread.

    Alf Garnet you say ?
    You could of course just say what you really mean: Those that disagree are racists.

    It's a sad mindset aimed at stifling any form of discussion. Sadly prevalent these days.


  • #73
    Rightwing
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,101 ✭✭✭Rightwing


    This problem needs tackling at source. I don't buy into allowing refugees in, as there can be tens of millions of them.

    Set up safe areas in Syria etc is the only solution. The situation at the moment is scandalous.

    America, you have a lot to answer for.


  • #74
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,811 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Rightwing wrote: »
    Set up safe areas in Syria etc is the only solution.

    ...how?


  • #75
    Rightwing
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,101 ✭✭✭Rightwing


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    ...how?

    Admittedly, easier said that done, perhaps something along the lines of the green zone in Baghdad.


  • #76
    halkar
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,262 ✭✭✭halkar


    Turkey has been asking for safe zones in northern Syria last few years. Only recently came into talks again and may get US\EU support.

    Link

    Link


  • #77
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    halkar wrote: »
    Turkey has been asking for safe zones in northern Syria last few years. Only recently came into talks again and may get US\EU support.

    Link

    Link

    Can't see troops going in there to protect those zones, tbh.


  • #78
    Jelle1880
    Registered Users Posts: 9,839 ✭✭✭Jelle1880


    Nodin wrote: »
    Can't see troops going in there to protect those zones, tbh.

    Could be combined with helping out the Kurds, who are still in control in northern Syria ?

    I read today that IS in february of this year claimed they would send thousands of their fighters into Europe in among the mass amounts of refugees they would send our way.

    Now, I know they may very well be talking crap, but I genuinely think it's a possibility. Which is why registration at the European borders is necessary, it baffles me that Germany thinks it's not a possibility.


  • #79
    Rightwing
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,101 ✭✭✭Rightwing


    Jelle1880 wrote: »
    Could be combined with helping out the Kurds, who are still in control in northern Syria ?

    I read today that IS in february of this year claimed they would send thousands of their fighters into Europe in among the mass amounts of refugees they would send our way.

    Now, I know they may very well be talking crap, but I genuinely think it's a possibility. Which is why registration at the European borders is necessary, it baffles me that Germany thinks it's not a possibility.

    They aren't really much good with politics and foreign policy. Better stick to making cars etc and let others decide on foreign policy.


  • #80
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,811 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Rightwing wrote: »
    They aren't really much good with politics and foreign policy. Better stick to making cars etc and let others decide on foreign policy.

    I suppose if we're going to make sweeping generalisations, it makes a change if they're about someone other than the refugees.


  • #81
    Rightwing
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,101 ✭✭✭Rightwing


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I suppose if we're going to make sweeping generalisations, it makes a change if they're about someone other than the refugees.

    Do you not see risks in allowing in up to 900,000 'refugees' this year into a country?


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,811 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Rightwing wrote: »
    Do you not see risks in allowing in up to 900,000 'refugees' this year into a country?

    Wait, there are risks?

    Hell with that, send the bastards home. At least that way, it's only them facing the risks.

    Europeans shouldn't have to face risks. Risks are for little people.


  • #83
    Rightwing
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,101 ✭✭✭Rightwing


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Wait, there are risks?

    Hell with that, send the bastards home. At least that way, it's only them facing the risks.

    Europeans shouldn't have to face risks. Risks are for little people.

    You have half it right, not the half you intended though.

    If someone is in a safe country ( e.g. Turkey) and decide to make a headless journey full of risk in a tiny boat, the consequences are theirs alone.


  • #84
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,811 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Rightwing wrote: »
    If someone is in a safe country ( e.g. Turkey) and decide to make a headless journey full of risk in a tiny boat, the consequences are theirs alone.

    Ah yes, the old "if they're not in imminent danger of dying in a civil war, they should shut up and be content with their lot in life" argument.


    It would definitely be better for Europe if they all just stayed in Turkey out of our way. Would it be better for Turkey? Who gives a crap, that's not our problem.


  • #85
    Rightwing
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,101 ✭✭✭Rightwing


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Ah yes, the old "if they're not in imminent danger of dying in a civil war, they should shut up and be content with their lot in life" argument.


    It would definitely be better for Europe if they all just stayed in Turkey out of our way. Would it be better for Turkey? Who gives a crap, that's not our problem.

    I'm not sure. Germany certainly need a younger population so there may be a motive behind their reasoning. As for Turkey/Lebanon, they've certainly put other countries to shame.


  • #86
    Wurzelbert
    Registered Users Posts: 1,804 ✭✭✭Wurzelbert


    Rightwing wrote: »
    I'm not sure. Germany certainly need a younger population so there may be a motive behind their reasoning. As for Turkey/Lebanon, they've certainly put other countries to shame.

    well yeah, some say so…yet germany certainly does not need loads of young illiterates from a completely foreign culture who will only ever be a liability for germany…the whole argument that germany “needs” those immigrants and that mass immigration is per se a good thing is but a leftist utopia, as proven beyond any doubt in germany, france and elsewhere in decades past…
    having said that, what germany (and all of europe) could use is skilled immigrants willing and able (!) to integrate, and therefore what we really need is immigration laws similar to canada’s…
    and the main reason none of the muslim countries like saudi arabia take in those refugees is crystal clear: spreading islam is their main goal…and what better way to achieve that than more muslim mass immigration into western europe…


  • #87
    Rightwing
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,101 ✭✭✭Rightwing


    Wurzelbert wrote: »
    well yeah, some say so…yet germany certainly does not need loads of young illiterates from a completely foreign culture who will only ever be a liability for germany…the whole argument that germany “needs” those immigrants and that mass immigration is per se a good thing is but a leftist utopia, as proven beyond any doubt in germany, france and elsewhere in decades past…
    having said that, what germany (and all of europe) could use is skilled immigrants willing and able (!) to integrate, and therefore what we really need is immigration laws similar to canada’s…
    and the main reason none of the muslim countries like saudi arabia take in those refugees is crystal clear: spreading islam is their main goal…and what better way to achieve that than more muslim mass immigration into western europe…

    Some will be illierates but many won't be.

    That's the risk as far as I see it, many of these could be ISIL and no one knows which ones.


  • #88
    Wurzelbert
    Registered Users Posts: 1,804 ✭✭✭Wurzelbert


    Rightwing wrote: »
    Some will be illierates but many won't be.

    That's the risk as far as I see it, many of these could be ISIL and no one knows which ones.

    yes, that is certainly the main danger, and even if they are not active is just yet, europe’s growing muslim ghettos and parallel worlds, overflowing with failed, badly integrated, hostile and disgruntled young people, will always be a fertile recruiting ground for isil and the like…


  • #89
    bb12
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 886 ✭✭✭bb12


    i believe there is some bigger game at play in this whole fiasco. angela merkel only a few weeks ago was telling a palestinian girl on live tv she had to go home because there wasn't enough room for migrants in germany. now a few weeks later, she's basically opened the borders for all and sundry...there's some political motivations behind this...could be something like introducing civil unrest into european countries so that stronger laws can be passed against civilians, free speech. anti government sentiments etc... i believe this is some kind of stunt to further erode our democratic rights in the western world. political leaders have some long term agenda in the works that people haven't copped on to yet.


  • #90
    Wurzelbert
    Registered Users Posts: 1,804 ✭✭✭Wurzelbert


    bb12 wrote: »
    i believe there is some bigger game at play in this whole fiasco. angela merkel only a few weeks ago was telling a palestinian girl on live tv she had to go home because there wasn't enough room for migrants in germany. now a few weeks later, she's basically opened the borders for all and sundry...there's some political motivations behind this...could be something like introducing civil unrest into european countries so that stronger laws can be passed against civilians, free speech. anti government sentiments etc... i believe this is some kind of stunt to further erode our democratic rights in the western world. political leaders have some long term agenda in the works that people haven't copped on to yet.

    yeah, well, that has crossed my mind as well…you think she got a call from washington or so? some will say this is crazy and should be moved to the nwo forum…might be the truth nonetheless…


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    creeper1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 696 ✭✭✭creeper1


    I Don't think there is any conspiracy at all here with merkel.

    These people are coming no matter what and neither continents or seas or oceans or anything is getting in their way.

    If Germany did get tough you'd hear cries of "gestapo"

    Germans have given up breeding like most of Europe. Many reasons for this but the 800000 coming to Germany next year will ensure that the typical German in 100 years time will be very different to the one we see today.

    Talk about this generation paying for the sins of the previous.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement