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
Comments
-
You will in my previous posts see that I make the same point that being in Germany is of course preferable, however being in the Gulf is preferable to being dead. Again, does not negate the original point no matter how many times the old, Germany > UAE is trotted out.Certainly international pressure should be brought to bear here as well but I suppose we don't hear much calls for it as it would be a waste of time. Those that are directly funding ISIS are not exactly open to the idea of bringing in displaced Syrians.
Which, again, underlines the point that this has utterly and completely nothing to do with the question raised by this thread, which is how the EU should respond to the asylum seekers. Why do they not go the Gulf states instead? Because they're not insane. Next question, please.0 -
Can you show me more data to the above as it contradicts the way the rules should have been enforced and the way most people understand who EU asylum seeking policy was meant to work. Most people understand rightly that the first EU country a asylum seeking reaches should be the one they apply to, you are saying that is not true, in contradiction to my links.In short can you show me explicitly that an Asylum Seeker can reach any EU country and travel intra-EU legally over land to claim asylum in a country of their choice.
1. All EU countries are parties to the Refugee Convention. In becoming parties to the Convention, they bind themselves to afford protection to refugees, defined as people who are outside their home country by reason of a well-founded fear of persecution on the grounds of race, religion, etc.
2. There is no exception, limitation, qualification or anything of the kind in the Convention to say that a party can decline afford protection to refugees on the grounds that they have passed through/could have sought protection in another country.
3. Nor does the Dublin Convention say that.
4. Therefore, there is no basis for the claim that people can be refused protection on this ground, and people who say that there is are talking through an orifice that nature intended for another purpose. If they are wise, they will not repeat this claim until they are in a position to point to the text of a treaty or law which says this.
5. Similarly, if they claim it is illegal to enter any EU country for the purpose of seeking asylum in that or any other country, they need to point to a law of that country which says so. And if they cannot find a law which says so, they might perhaps conclude that it is not quite so illegal as they had assumed.
6. They can save themselves the trouble of fruitlessly looking for such a law by reading the Refugee Convention, article 31 of which provides that parties may not impose penalties for illegal entry or presence on people who enter their territory as refugees, shall not unnecessarily restrict their movements and shall allow them to attempt to obtain access to other countries. So the chances that any EU country has on its books laws with make it illegal to enter that country for the purpose of claiming asylum there or in another country are zero.Ah, these migrants are by your definition only 'transiting' to the UK.
Unfortunately for you by definition under French law you are wrong, that only applies if one is in an airport not if they are camped for months on end on French soil waiting to jump on a passing trunk.
If you are on French soil (i.e. outside the airport) you need to have a valid visa.
http://www.ambafrance-au.org/IMG/pdf/exemption_ord_passport.pdf?8427/43d4a931e3d026ac756b2af812ee0abaa823e23a
Obviously most of these migrants would fall foul of this hence why they are illegal.
The key point you need to grasp is this: it’s not illegal to enter France (or most other countries) without a visa. That’s why we look in vain for the word “illegal” in the document you have linked. If you turn up without a visa you may be refused entry, but that’s an administrative matter. If you get in without a visa - say, by crossing the border from Italy, or because they simply fail to check your documents at the airport - you have committed no crime. You have done nothing illegal. This is no more illegal than entering a bar that the bouncer could have excluded you from, but didn’t.By all means show me the law where anyone from outside the EU can rock up at CDG airport, go up to the immigration, hand over the passport (if they have it) and say that you want to go into Paris's Gare du Nord and catch Eurostar from there to London as you want to apply for asylum in the UK. You can catch a plane of course as one is 'transiting' (you don't pass immigration), but go into Paris and get a train? Nope, well not legally anyway.
Once you’re in, you are free to seek to go to the UK - again, because the Refugee Conventions explicitly says that you are free to seek to do this, and France has accepted this.
(Note: The British don’t have to let you in. Consistently with the Dublin Convention, they can choose to afford protection to you by returning you to France to have your claim assessed there in accordance with the Refugee Convention. But it’s not illegal for you to seek entry to the UK. And the Dublin Convention allows the UK to refer you back to France; it doesn’t require the UK to do so.)You seem to be hung up on semantics. Firstly, yes anyone who applies for asylum is by definition an asylum seeker. I could rock up to the U.S. today and claim asylum and by that definition I would be one, yet after a review of my case it would be quickly thrown out and I would be deported. The vast vast number of cases in Ireland (well over 80%) and elsewhere in Europe are indeed thrown out because it is found the the asylum seekers case is not valid, hence THEN they would be correctly called economic migrants who are trying to scam the system.
In the second place, the fact that you would call an unsuccessful asylum seeker an “economic migrant who is trying to scam the system” probably tells us more about you and your judgmentalism than it does about the asylum seeker. All you actually know is that his claim to have a well-founded fear of persecution has been rejected. You do not know, you are simply assuming because it gratifies your prejudices, that he had an economic motivation for migration. His claim may have been rejected because his fear of persecution, though subjectively honest, was not objectively well-founded. Or, it may have been both honest and objectively well-founded when he advanced it, but by the time (years later) it was adjudicated political conditions in his home country may have changed so that it is now safe to return. Or, his motivation may have been neither fear of persecution nor a quest for economic advantage but something else entirely, such as a desire to join family or friends, or to pursue a romantic relationship.
It does you no credit that none of these possibilities appear to have even crossed your mind.What does waking up in Calais have to do with it? Well legalistic semantics and pedantry aside most ordinary people would view France as a pretty safe place that is not in any state of conflict nor under a dictatorship. Why not then claim asylum there, or Hungary, or Greece or Turkey....
Yes, yes, yes you are about to say that 'legally' they may not have to if they 'transit' through an airport and all that malarkey about this convention or this EU law.... (I dont want to go down the legalistic rabbit hole as these things can be viewed either way and I want to see proof of the first statement).
However, it is clear that with the aim that they are safe and secure, these migrants then make a choice to where they would like to settle. Its only natural to make a selfish decision to see what is best for yourself and your family if they are in tow. Hungary? Greece? 'Safe but meh no cigar'. Germany, UK, Sweden. Yes please, lets go there.
This is much the thought process of most of these migrants and refuges. Completely understandable but again, the asylum process was not designed to give someone a brand new life near the German Alps, it was designed to protect and keep people from harms way. Legalistic pedantry may give them the right to do what you say but that doesn't mean its right or it was designed to be used in this way.The more people go on about pedantry and semantics the more I am reminded of Irish TD's and Senators claiming huge expenses as sure, that was their 'right', whats the big deal, these are rules ya plebs, deal with it, nothing to see here....0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »What you call "the original point" is trite; being alive is better than being dead.
Yes being alive is certainly better then being dead, which fundamentally proves my point despite being trite. I am just adopting similar semantics and pedantry.Peregrinus wrote: »No. For obvious reasons, they fear that Syrian refugees from ISIS might bear a grudge, and might be disruptive.
Well they had no problem granting 120,000 residency permits to long term Syrian residents, so perhaps not so obvious.
http://gulfnews.com/news/mena/syria/kuwait-extends-residency-permits-for-syrians-1.1577117Peregrinus wrote: »Which, again, underlines the point that this has utterly and completely nothing to do with the question raised by this thread, which is how the EU should respond to the asylum seekers. Why do they not go the Gulf states instead? Because they're not insane. Next question, please.
Didn't realise this is a Q&A between you and everyone else and anyway, calls on Gulf member states to do more is more widespread then this very thread so its a valid topic of conversation in the scheme of things.0 -
Think before you write, Jank. Yes, Kuwait has extended the residency permits of Syrians already in the country, and unable to return because of the conflict. But that's quite different from accepting refugees from ISIS, who might foreseeably feel some animus towards a regime perceived as supportive of ISIS.
But I'm not sure what the point of all this is. Syrians seeking refuge would be unwise to apply in any state which has not ratified the Refugee Convention, or in any state which is perceived to be supportive of ISIS. The Gulf states tick both boxes. Therefore, Syrians seeking refuge do not apply there indicating that, whether or not they are persecuted, they are not insane.
But so what? How does this bear, if at all, on the issue of how a Convention state (as all the EU states are) should respond to Syrian refugees seeking protection? I really can't see that it has any bearing. Can you explain why you brought it up?0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
...
Firstly..
'The EU requires that each asylum claim be processed in the first EU country reached by the asylum seeker'
https://www.opensocietyfoundations.o...european-union
'The EU's Dublin Regulation places responsibility for examining an asylum seeker's claim with the first EU country that the migrant reached.'
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-24583286
An Asylum seeker who arrives in Hungary or France should not be processed here?
Or rather it is in some countries interest to turn a blind eye (e.g. Calais) and bus them to another border as Italy has been doing for months and let it become someone else's problem.Peregrinus wrote: »I think you’re making a basic error here, Janks. (Though, in your defence, it’s a very common error.)
The key point you need to grasp is this: it’s not illegal to enter France (or most other countries) without a visa. That’s why we look in vain for the word “illegal” in the document you have linked. If you turn up without a visa you may be refused entry, but that’s an administrative matter. If you get in without a visa - say, by crossing the border from Italy, or because they simply fail to check your documents at the airport - you have committed no crime. You have done nothing illegal. This is no more illegal than entering a bar that the bouncer could have excluded you from, but didn’t.
If you say it’s not illegal to enter France without the appropriate visa or paperwork then why in 2011 did the French authority expel 28,000 illegal migrants with a view to up this to 35,000
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2084790/France-reveals-deported-33-000-people-just-12-months.html#ixzz1qtU41BqC
http://plus.lefigaro.fr/note/illegal-immigration-expulsions-will-accelerate-20110802-522043
If you cross the border of Italy-France as a non EU citizens and you are without the appropriate visa/paperwork you have done so illegally. Are you trying to say that there are no illegal immigrants in the EU at present? If you confirm in the affirmative, then how in fact did they become illegal.Peregrinus wrote: »The law you’re looking for is the Refugee Convention, Janks. I have pointed to it many times in this thread. If, if the circumstances you outline, you say you’re a refugee and wish to apply for asylum, they’ll let you in. They have to, since they have accepted the Refugee Convention. You don’t have to say that you wish to apply in France, or only in France.
Once you’re in, you are free to seek to go to the UK - again, because the Refugee Conventions explicitly says that you are free to seek to do this, and France has accepted this.
(Note: The British don’t have to let you in. Consistently with the Dublin Convention, they can choose to afford protection to you by returning you to France to have your claim assessed there in accordance with the Refugee Convention. But it’s not illegal for you to seek entry to the UK. And the Dublin Convention allows the UK to refer you back to France; it doesn’t require the UK to do so.)
Isn’t this what the Dublin Convention tried to put a stop to, Asylum shopping? In essence one can arrive say in an Italian airport, arrive at immigration with no appropriate visa/paper work and say I want to claim asylum and be free to enter the country and in your own time claim asylum when it suits, but rather claim asylum in Italy cross over into France via a train, get another train to Calais and then claim asylum in the UK instead?
Generally one is brought straight away to be processed, not let roam the country for an indefinite time.Peregrinus wrote: »In the first place, the “vast majority” of cases in Ireland are not rejected. They are still pending. Ireland is extraordinarily slow in making decisions on asylum applications.
Well two issues here, firstly it the dysfunctional process no question, with appeal after appeal drawing the case out years. I have no problem with a much faster process of say 6 months, once of course the appeals fail the person is deported forthwith but that will be met with cries as well so dammed if you do dammed if you don’t.
Secondly, in 2013 Ireland had an approval rate of 8.6% of the 1,625 cases they saw that year. That is below the EU average of 25.2%.
http://www.thejournal.ie/ireland-asylum-seekers-eu-955725-Jun2013/
Both figures no matter how you mash it up indicate that indeed the vast majority are indeed not genuine asylum seekers. Which brings me to…Peregrinus wrote: »In the second place, the fact that you would call an unsuccessful asylum seeker an “economic migrant who is trying to scam the system” probably tells us more about you and your judgmentalism than it does about the asylum seeker. All you actually know is that his claim to have a well-founded fear of persecution has been rejected. You do not know, you are simply assuming because it gratifies your prejudices, that he had an economic motivation for migration. His claim may have been rejected because his fear of persecution, though subjectively honest, was not objectively well-founded. Or, it may have been both honest and objectively well-founded when he advanced it, but by the time (years later) it was adjudicated political conditions in his home country may have changed so that it is now safe to return. Or, his motivation may have been neither fear of persecution nor a quest for economic advantage but something else entirely, such as a desire to join family or friends, or to pursue a romantic relationship.
It does you no credit that none of these possibilities appear to have even crossed your mind.
If an Asylum Seeker is no longer classed as an Asylum seeker as their case has been dismissed, then what are they if they still want to remain in said country? To me, they are economic migrants who are trying leverage the Asylum process for their own economic gain. Maybe I am being pedantic now but if they are not an Asylum Seeker, what would call them? A failed asylum seeker?Peregrinus wrote: »It was designed to be used in precisely that way, and that is the way it has always been used. If you claim it was designed to be used in the way you wish it were used, evidence of the designers’ intention, please, and a credible explanation of why, if that was what they intended, they wrote something so very different? Or is this claim about design just one more “fact” that you have dreamed up?
The UN refugee convention of 1951 has been designed this way to be used as it is presently within the EU where both Merkel, Hollande and others have warned that the whole Schengen agreement is on the verge of collapse.
https://www.rt.com/news/314631-free-travel-schengen-refugees/
It has been designed to work this way that we are on Dublin Regulation version III with version IV or something else replacing like a quota system not too far away and currently we have a number of EU states that have closed borders to each other to perfectly working refugee treaties, never mind the suspension of the Dublin Regulation by Germany. Everything is fine and all is working as it was designed to work. Nothing to see here, only a little administrative backlog.
Are you saying therefore that the present situation is acceptable and does not need any reform or pan European agreement to fix whatever needs fixing?Peregrinus wrote: »A surprising confession, considering you are the one who has been banging on about pedantry and semantics.
Confession? No an apt comparison I think. Expenses for TD's is valid concept as is giving genuine people in danger Asylum is safe countries.
After the fact though when it transpires the TD's were enriching themselves using un-vouched expenses which was 'in their right to claim' one can rightly call them out on it, even though they have done 'nothing wrong', as its also right to call out the present rules governing Asylum seeking within the EU when its transpiring that most would be classed as economic migrants leveraging and abusing the agreed Asylum seeking rules and putting the whole Schengen agreement in danger.0 -
Advertisement
-
Peregrinus wrote: »Think before you write, Jank. Yes, Kuwait has extended the residency permits of Syrians already in the country, and unable to return because of the conflict. But that's quite different from accepting refugees from ISIS, who might foreseeably feel some animus towards a regime perceived as supportive of ISIS.
So, in essence the Gulf states do have the capacity to help... as they helped these Syrians and the sky did not fall in and they are now safe. Fair play to Kuwait by the way in this regard but they could do more, no?Peregrinus wrote: »But I'm not sure what the point of all this is. Syrians seeking refuge would be unwise to apply in any state which has not ratified the Refugee Convention, or in any state which is perceived to be supportive of ISIS. The Gulf states tick both boxes. Therefore, Syrians seeking refuge do not apply there indicating that, whether or not they are persecuted, they are not insane.
300,000 Kuwaitis sought asylum in near by Saudi when Saddam's Iraqi army invaded it in 1990. That is almost half the entire population. I suppose given the circumstances one wants to get to safety ASAP, not take out a monocle and examine in detail international treaties and conventions to weigh up the pros and cons of fleeing.
http://www.nytimes.com/1990/12/02/world/mideast-tensions-new-kuwait-refugees-tell-of-iraqi-killings-and-rapes.html.Peregrinus wrote: »But so what? How does this bear, if at all, on the issue of how a Convention state (as all the EU states are) should respond to Syrian refugees seeking protection? I really can't see that it has any bearing. Can you explain why you brought it up?
I must correct you, I did not bring it up. Another poster brought it up and I merely added a comment in agreement. Indeed a two line comment seemed suffice in upsetting someone hence why YOU are still talking about it... so what indeed.0 -
Jank, you started out by claiming that the asylum seekers were bound to apply in the first EU country they came to,
You now glide rather smoothly into a quite different claim; the first EU country they come to is bound to process their application.
Did you think we wouldn't notice your change of position?
You're wasting your time. You keep posting links to expressions of opinion that more-or-less conform to the claims you are making about what the law requires. But already in this thread we have links to the laws themselves. The don't back up either your original claims (that migrants are obliged to apply in the EU country of first entry) or your new claim (that the country of first entry is bound to process their applciation).
The actual truth is - and you know this already - that the country of first entry is bound to process the application if asked to do so by the country in which the application is made.
I'm afraid I don't have the patience to go through the rest of your post. I said before I was only going to explain the position to you one more time, and I'm sticking to that. Glancing through your post, I see you citing a Daily Mail report in support of your claim that people who enter France without visas do so illegally. I'm sorry, but but if your best cite in support of claims about the legal status of migrants is the Daily Mail, you can't be serious in advancing your argument, and you won't be surprised when nobody takes it seriously enough to rebut it. I have to conclude that you are not really looking for a response, at this point.
I have already suggested that if you want to argue that something is against the law in France then post a link to the French law saying that that conduct is illegal. This isn't an impossible ask; the entirety of the internet is at your disposal. If you can do that, I'll respond. In the meantime, I have something called a life. I need to get back to it.0 -
This is the end of europe in 20 years almost all European states will be unrecognisable, Ireland has the chance to get out while we still can but you can bet your last euro that the crazed leftist bleeding hearts yellow bellies will sell our country down the drain.0
-
So if all these migrants arrive with barely a shirt in their back, how so the Europeans prices the applications?
How can they know what nationality or background they are from, and determine their entitlements ?
Its a very interesting thread this, although I do lean towards limiting the number of immigrants to Ireland, charity starts at home.
Germany are only acting this way because with an open border, there's not much they can do0 -
Join Date:Posts: 22734
FelineOverLord wrote: »The logic is that it's the people who can least afford to be affected by the impact of refugees who will be affected by them. Our hospitals are chronically underfunded and these people, knowing our government, will be treated ahead of our own. We are not a wealthy country and the money to house, feed, clothe, educate, provide medical and dental care for, not to mention the extra social welfare payments they'll be entitled to, will have to come from some where.
It's not a zero-sum game though, where every penny spent on accepting refugees is a penny less for homeless Irish people or the health service. We spend plenty on other, less essential, areas, not to mention the fact we've flexibility in terms of borrowing and taxation.
Indeed, it's not even as if refugees are competing with Irish people for the same accommodation. Homeless Irish families get put up in hotels and B&Bs whereas refugees are going to be housed in makeshift dorms in the likes of old army barracks.
Anyway, I'm not sure if you're for persuading. You find it obscene. I find it commendable. There it is.0 -
Advertisement
-
This is the end of europe in 20 years almost all European states will be unrecognisable, Ireland has the chance to get out while we still can but you can bet your last euro that the crazed leftist bleeding hearts yellow bellies will sell our country down the drain.
yes indeed you are 100% right, as for Ireland, the men of 1916 died for nothing!0 -
keeponhurling wrote: »So if all these migrants arrive with barely a shirt in their back, how so the Europeans prices the applications?
How can they know what nationality or background they are from, and determine their entitlements ?
Its a very interesting thread this, although I do lean towards limiting the number of immigrants to Ireland, charity starts at home.
Germany are only acting this way because with an open border, there's not much they can do
It's only fair when you think about it.0 -
-
Peregrinus wrote: »Jank, you started out by claiming that the asylum seekers were bound to apply in the first EU country they came to,
You now glide rather smoothly into a quite different claim; the first EU country they come to is bound to process their application.
Did you think we wouldn't notice your change of position?
We? Who are 'we' as in do you represent a group or an organisation.
Anyway, I presume you are here to tell me that I am wrong on both and all accounts and that all the media reporting is indeed wrong on the EU rules governing asylum seeking.Peregrinus wrote: »You're wasting your time. You keep posting links to expressions of opinion that more-or-less conform to the claims you are making about what the law requires. But already in this thread we have links to the laws themselves. The don't back up either your original claims (that migrants are obliged to apply in the EU country of first entry) or your new claim (that the country of first entry is bound to process their applciation).
Then every journalist is wrong. Even the left leaning BBC made a short video explaining the rules, best write them a letter telling them they are wrong.
Link again.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-24583286
Open Soceity Foundation is wrongThe EU requires that each asylum claim be processed in the first EU country reached by the asylum seeker, under the so-called Dublin system
Even the Guardian is wrong.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/aug/01/calais-illegal-immigrant-uk-factsQ. Aren’t refugees supposed to seek asylum in the first European country they arrive in? So why can’t we send them back to Italy or Greece?
A. This is indeed what the Dublin Regulation says. But this is a lot harder in practice than in principle....
Also, you were wrong on this re transit.
From the Dublin Regulation.Application in an international transit area of an airport
Where a third-country national applies for asylum in an international transit area of an airport of a Member State, that Member State shall be responsible for examining the application.Peregrinus wrote: »The actual truth is - and you know this already - that the country of first entry is bound to process the application if asked to do so by the country in which the application is made.
I'm afraid I don't have the patience to go through the rest of your post. I said before I was only going to explain the position to you one more time, and I'm sticking to that. Glancing through your post, I see you citing a Daily Mail report in support of your claim that people who enter France without visas do so illegally. I'm sorry, but but if your best cite in support of claims about the legal status of migrants is the Daily Mail, you can't be serious in advancing your argument, and you won't be surprised when nobody takes it seriously enough to rebut it. I have to conclude that you are not really looking for a response, at this point.
I see you also ignored reports from other publications. Citing a report from a newspaper you may not like does not in of itself invalidate the facts but it sure gives one an 'out' because the facts are not convenient.
Channel 4 has this report stating that in 2014 there as been almost 300,000 illegal border crossing in the EU.
http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-europes-migration-crisis/21469
Back to France is Le Figaro highbrow enough for you.
http://plus.lefigaro.fr/note/illegal-immigration-expulsions-will-accelerate-20110802-522043
How about Le Monde?
https://translate.google.com.au/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=http://www.lemonde.fr/les-decodeurs/article/2014/10/23/la-france-connait-elle-une-vague-d-immigration-clandestine_4511499_4355770.html&prev=search
Huff Post?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/10/france-illegal-immigrants_n_1197101.html?ir=Australia
France24?
http://www.france24.com/en/20110630-tunisia-lampedusa-illegal-immigration-paris-france-vanier
Time?
http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1947471,00.html
Nah, ignore them all, sure there is no illegal migrants in France. How can there be?0 -
Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 39,192 CMod ✭✭✭✭Join Date:Posts: 37020
This is the end of europe in 20 years almost all European states will be unrecognisable, Ireland has the chance to get out while we still can but you can bet your last euro that the crazed leftist bleeding hearts yellow bellies will sell our country down the drain.
This is below the standard of posting expected here. Please read the charter before posting again.The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.
Leviticus 19:34
0 -
Ireland isn't doing enough here. We are talking the talk, and little else. I agree with Merkel.
Why not bring the ships to Ireland instead of the nearest port? Would our navy be so good then ?
A ridiculous situation at the moment.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 22734
-
these people will not be assimilated into the communities it is us who will be expected to fit in with them like the12 Christians they threw overboard to drown because when the boat was starting to sink they prayed to God and were told to stop when they did not they were thrown overboard, how many more of these do you want ?
We're taking Syrians, and those responsible were not Syrian. Secondly, why would you assume that everyone would be the same as those who carried out that crime?0 -
Jep Gambardella wrote: »It's not a zero-sum game though, where every penny spent on accepting refugees is a penny less for homeless Irish people or the health service. We spend plenty on other, less essential, areas, not to mention the fact we've flexibility in terms of borrowing and taxation.
Indeed, it's not even as if refugees are competing with Irish people for the same accommodation. Homeless Irish families get put up in hotels and B&Bs whereas refugees are going to be housed in makeshift dorms in the likes of old army barracks.
Anyway, I'm not sure if you're for persuading. You find it obscene. I find it commendable. There it is.
I'm not for persuading and I don't believe that they will be housed in makeshift dorms. If they're already approved and entitled to the same social welfare benefits as Irish people then they will be housed, most probably in private rented property paid for with tax payer money. This is not our problem and we should not be taking any in here. Christ on a bike, the best Enda could come up with is that we should take them because ISIS want to blow up Newgrange:D
I'm seeing lots of well nourished clean and healthy people on tv, not people who look like they've suffered anything and to be honest whether they suffered or not is not our problem. We're being told by the media that Europeans share some sort of collective guilt/responsibilty for the refugees/migrants. We don't, not our circus not our monkeys.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 22734
FelineOverLord wrote: »I'm not for persuading and I don't believe that they will be housed in makeshift dorms.
That's what they're looking into at present:Officials are also working with the Office of Public Works to examine what vacant State facilities are available and if they are suitable to house the thousands fleeing the Middle East.
Barracks in Kildare, Mullingar, Clonmel and Arbour Hill are being looked at as possibilities.
Something similar was done with the Bosnian and Kosovar refugees in the 1990s, where they created a reception centre in Cherry Orchard.0 -
Advertisement
-
Then every journalist is wrong.
If there is a clash between what a journalist says and what the law says, it is the journalist, not the law, that is wrong.
Journalists simplify all the time. They do so to make complex subjects more comprehensible. Even the best of them therefore leave out details and therefore can misrepresent a situation. The worst of them don't even bother to try to represent a situation accurately and unfortunately, uninformed journalists talking to other uninformed journalists frequently results in distorted stories.
As for this case, just consider Ireland's refugee applicants over the last decade. As many of 90% of them are believed to enter Ireland from the UK, yet if you notice, we - not the UK - ended up processing their applications. No one suggests either Ireland or the UK should be prosecuted at the ECJ for breeching the Dublin regulation because of course the regulation allows for this. Likewise, in the case of the current refugee applicants and Germany, there also is no breech of EU law.0 -
Jep Gambardella wrote: »That's what they're looking into at present:
Something similar was done with the Bosnian and Kosovar refugees in the 1990s, where they created a reception centre in Cherry Orchard.
So what happened to the Bosnian refugees when after they were housed in the Barracks? Presumably they didn't all go home so they had to be housed somewhere. I don't believe that they'll be kept in any kind of reception centre for long. It's too controversial to skip them all to the top of the Social Housing list so they'll probably be put in private rented property.
Also we have to consider the impact on the communities they will be dispatched to. Muslims do not have a habit of integrating well into the community. I saw as much when I used to work in Bradford and Leeds. The atmosphere was toxic and I was always relieved to get out of both places and get back to York away from it. As a woman I've experienced what it's like to work in a business that had a large number of Muslim,Indian and Pakistani male customers and I hated it. There is a very third world, condescending, arrogant and patronising feel to it that I don't want to live with here.0 -
Jep Gambardella wrote: »If you were someone fleeing a war zone, what would you pick? Saudi Arabia or Germany? I know where I'd want to go.
It shouldn't be the refugee's choice though - otherwise they would all go to Germany.
The UN should insist on even distribution but instead are putting all the pressure on the EU.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 22734
Saudi Arabia isn't even a signatory of the UN Refugee Convention, so even if people were fleeing there (which they aren't) the UN couldn't do anything in terms of forcing it to take them in.0 -
We're taking Syrians, and those responsible were not Syrian.
We have no way of knowing that the people Ireland and the rest of the EU are taking in are Syrian; that's the point. It's well known most of these people have no identification and others use fake identification. If we can't even tell what countries these people are from, how can we tell that they are genuine asylum seekers?
In a shocking development, even the Guardian are admitting that "shock horror" some of the migrants might not be genuine asylum seekers from Syria, something all of us who oppose these immigrations have been saying all along, while others here and the media kept insisting that none of these people are economic migrants.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/08/growing-concern-over-trade-in-fake-and-stolen-syrian-passports
It's almost as if there are bad people out there who might try to play the system. Hard to believe I know.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 22734
A Primal Nut wrote: »We have no way of knowing if they are Syrian...
Yes we do. They were immediately arrested:During the voyage, Christian migrants from Nigeria and Ghana were allegedly threatened with being abandoned at sea by the arrested passengers from the Ivory Coast, Senegal, Mali and Guinea Bissau.0 -
Jep Gambardella wrote: »Yes we do. They were immediately arrested:
Sorry I meant the people Ireland are taking in as Syrian asylum seekers...I'll edit it now.0 -
The only way to know for sure that asylum seekers are genuine is to take people directly from the camps who people working there can say for sure have been in the camps for long period of times (people who have been there longest should be given priority, obviously there is no way to know for sure, but people on the ground who work there can make recommendations).
It means a massive overhaul of asylum regulations but it's doable. A situation where thousands of people pass through Greece and Hungary every day for the next few years is not acceptable.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 22734
Aside from the fact that people who aren't living in a war-torn country are less inclined to up sticks and risk their life trying to get into Europe, it ought to be fairly easy to identify if someone isn't from Syria as soon as they open their mouths and find they aren't speaking Syrian Arabic.
The prospect of some non-refugees trying to take advantage of the crisis shouldn't put a bar on a humanitarian response. We know there's three-way war in Syria. We know tens of thousands of people are trying to flee the country. They aren't all disappearing into thin air.0 -
Advertisement
-
Tens of thousands he says haha. Stick around dude, you ain't seen nothing yet. The whole thing is an absolute scandal & is making a complete mockery of the EU, which was only ever a joke anyhow.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement