Should Ireland and the rest of Europe take in more migrants based in Turkey?

Lefty Bicek

alastair wrote: »

Their claims could theoretically be heard sure. But in reality - all those refugees have sought sanctuary somewhere, and most of them not in Europe.

But you've mentioned Lebanon already in this thread.

The logic of what you said about Lebanon suggests strongly that not only will Europe take more, but that Europe ought to take more.

It's not difficult to believe that this is then a pull factor and so inexorably leads to more, and more, and more.

enricoh

Ray Donovan wrote: »

https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/rape-victim-tells-court-two-convicted-men-have-robbed-her-of-last-five-years-of-her-life-986766.html

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/im-scared-hell-kill-woman-beaten-by-husband-demands-that-he-is-deported-39027212.html

Cultural Enrichment eh...?

Aye, the hell that is direct provision turned them into scum, neither case made rte news surprise surprise. Saw a knitting group with locals and asylum seekers featured last month tho!

jmreire

alastair wrote: »

Their claims could theoretically be heard sure. But in reality - all those refugees have sought sanctuary somewhere, and most of them not in Europe.

Most of the Syrian Refugee are located in Zaatari in Jordan, Suruç and Ceylanpınar camp's in Turkey. in Lebanon's Bekaa Valley and a 2nd camp close to the Syrian border, also in Lebanon. Their proximity to Syria was the main reason for their choice by fleeing Syrians, who did not have the resources to try and make it to Europe. And that's why the majority of them are still in those camp's, but if they could have managed it, I'm pretty sure the EU would be the first choice.That could all be about to change if Erdogan follows through on his threat's to drop them at the Greece border.

alastair

jmreire wrote: »

That would cover all of the Syrian's in all of the camps dotted around Syria. " Political Opinion" ( they disagree with the Regime) Religion ( they are mainly but not exclusively ) Sunni. Syrian Regime is Shia.
I'm not a legal expert by any means, but maybe when these Law's were being framed, the Nr's were manageable, in at the most, their 1'000's? Otherwise, nothing (legally) to stop a whole Nation transplanting itself into Europe? Far fetched, I know, but technically and legally possible ?

When the laws were being framed - they were in response to a scenario where millions of refugees were on the the move, post WWII.

Lefty Bicek

alastair wrote: »

When the laws were being framed - they were in response to a scenario where millions of refugees were on the the move, post WWII.

Time to change the laws then.

alastair

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

But you've mentioned Lebanon already in this thread.

The logic of what you said about Lebanon suggests strongly that not only will Europe take more, but that Europe ought to take more.

It's not difficult to believe that this is then a pull factor and so inexorably leads to more, and more, and more.

I have indeed mentioned it before. If you think that there should be arbitrary limits imposed on asylum at national level, then most of those those million refugees in a Lebanon (remember - half the size of Leinster), under the auspices if. It’s agreement with the UNHCR, and those greater numbers in Turkey - under the auspices of the EU/Turkey payment/visa deal, would presumably be moved on to somewhere else - now that’s a push factor greater than any pull that currently exists with the legal obligations imposed by the Refugee Act on the EU.

alastair

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

Time to change the laws then.

I see no reason to change them. Selfishness certainly isn’t a compelling argument.

jmreire

alastair wrote: »

I see no reason to change them. Selfishness certainly isn’t a compelling argument.

its all a question of Nr's...if they remain manageable, fine. But should they reach unmanageable Nr's. Then that will be a different story, regardless of what the International Law say's. Look at how Merkels Millions have changed the Political Landscape in Germany. It has been rocked to it's foundation's.

Lefty Bicek

alastair wrote: »

I have indeed mentioned it before. If you think that there should be arbitrary limits imposed on asylum at national level, then most of those those million refugees in a Lebanon (remember - half the size of Leinster), under the auspices if. It’s agreement with the UNHCR, and those greater numbers in Turkey - under the auspices of the EU/Turkey payment/visa deal, would presumably be moved on to somewhere else - now that’s a push factor greater than any pull that currently exists with the legal obligations imposed by the Refugee Act on the EU.

'Arbitrary', of course, having quite a pejorative sense. As you know.

Whereas I do think it is not beyond the wit of man to come up with some equitable system that avoids half of Leinster looking like Lebanon, a scenario which you are so insouciant about.

I certainly don't feel any need to appease the Turks either.

The legal obligations of the EU are man-made constructs. As such, can be re-written, amended, abandoned.

So, to open the horizons a bit - if there's room enough in Leinster, (pop. density 127.7/sq. km) there's infinitely more in Utah (33.6 ppl/sq. mile), Wyoming (6 ppl/sq. mile) or the eight states in between those figures.

Let the 'policeman of the world' do it.

Lefty Bicek

alastair wrote: »

I see no reason to change them. Selfishness certainly isn’t a compelling argument.

It's self-indulgent to keep them.

alastair

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

'Arbitrary', of course, having quite a pejorative sense. As you know.

Whereas I do think it is not beyond the wit of man to come up with some equitable system that avoids half of Leinster looking like Lebanon, a scenario which you are so insouciant about.

I certainly don't feel any need to appease the Turks either.

The legal obligations of the EU are man-made constructs. As such, can be re-written, amended, abandoned.

So, to open the horizons a bit - if there's room enough in Leinster, (pop. density 127.7/sq. km) there's infinitely more in Utah (33.6 ppl/sq. mile), Wyoming (6 ppl/sq. mile) or the eight states in between those figures.

Let the 'policeman of the world' do it.

If not arbitrary - what?
You don’t have to appease the Turks, but if they boot the refugees out - and they can, given that they’re not full signatories to the Refugee Act - then the refugees will go elsewhere - including the EU. They are rather unlikely to make it to Utah.
All laws are man made. That isn’t really any sort of argument against them.

alastair

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

It's self-indulgent to keep them.

Riiight.

4068ac1elhodqr

jmreire wrote: »

its all a question of Nr's...if they remain manageable, fine. But should they reach unmanageable Nr's. Then that will be a different story, regardless of what the International Law say's. Look at how Merkels Millions have changed the Political Landscape in Germany. It has been rocked to it's foundation's.

It's not even about numbers (which it is also), but about case validity.


Every single young lad interviewed on a BBC report said they were seeking a 'better life' for themselves, no mention of seeking any sort of refuge.



Most had fancy fashionalbe clothes, mobile phones, and wads of cash (the Greek forces may have relieved some of this, when sending back to Turkey).


Many (if not most) were from places such as Bangladesh, Pakistan, Iran, W.Africa, sub-Sahara and so on, most who are not even at war.

alastair

Abraham Happy Oaf wrote: »

It's not even about numbers (which it is also), but about case validity.


Every single young lad interviewed on a BBC report said they were seeking a 'better life' for themselves, no mention of seeking any sort of refuge.



Most had fancy fashionalbe clothes, mobile phones, and wads of cash (the Greek forces may have relieved some of this, when sending back to Turkey).


Many (if not most) were from places such as Bangladesh, Pakistan, Iran, W.Africa, sub-Sahara and so on, most who are not even at war.

Phones and cash have no bearing on asylum - persecution isn’t measured by poverty. If those people have no validity to their claim, they won’t get asylum status. And the actual top nationalities of those entering Greece currently are, as recorded by the UNHCR - Afghans, Syrians, Congolese and Iraqis. All countries with either ongoing wars or serious insurgencies.

Lefty Bicek

alastair wrote: »

If not arbitrary - what?

Reasoned.

All laws are man made. That isn’t really any sort of argument against them.

I didn't make an argument against laws. I made an argument for changing laws.

You are the one droning on about the current laws as though they were some kind of passive monolith.

alastair

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

Reasoned.



I didn't make an argument against laws. I made an argument for changing laws.

You are the one droning on about the current laws as though they were some kind of passive monolith.

You have suggested no reasoning whatsoever.
The laws are in existence. You can’t simply ignore them.

4068ac1elhodqr

alastair wrote: »

Phones and cash have no bearing on asylum - persecution isn’t measured by poverty. If those people have no validity to their claim, they won’t get asylum status.

Tell that to the couple of jokers messing around the courts in Ireland. One came in as a gay man (married with kids) all provided details were incorrect including name, alias, age, source country, and of course sexual pref. Went missing after an order was issued back in 2015, ... and he's still here.

The other one gave the wrong address, so his deportation order got lost in post, and now he gets to stay. Some joke it is.

Of course you've a vested fiscal interest in all this, a numbers game (backstories not important) minicabs/buses or something is it?
Maybe a handy catering or odd-job schooling gig, all on the back of a regular state cheque?

If not, maybe you can highlight your vested desire, to bring in anyone and everyone.

alastair

Abraham Happy Oaf wrote: »

Tell that to the couple of jokers messing around the courts in Ireland. One came in as a gay man (married with kids) all provided details were incorrect including name, alias, age, source country, and of course sexual pref. Went missing after an order was issued back in 2015, ... and he's still here.

The other one gave the wrong address, so his deportation order got lost in post, and now he gets to stay. Some joke it is.

Of course you've a vested fiscal interest in all this, a numbers game (backstories not important) minicabs/buses or something is it?
Maybe a handy catering or odd-job schooling gig, all on the back of a regular state cheque?

If not, maybe you can highlight your vested desire, to bring in anyone and everyone.

Just to burst your delusion - I’ve no vested interest in this at all.

And both of those instances you reference - they are being deported. So what am I supposed to tell them exactly?

Lefty Bicek

alastair wrote: »

You have suggested no reasoning whatsoever.
The laws are in existence. You can’t simply ignore them.

You can change them when they are not fit for purpose.

Laws that were formulated, shaped by, relevant to WW2 times, for example.

alastair

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

You can change them when they are not fit for purpose.

Laws that were formulated, shaped by, relevant to WW2 times, for example.

You’ll need to convince more that your wee echo chamber. I’ll not be holding my breath. It’s as appropriate a mechanism for asylum now as it was then. ✊

Montage of Feck

Surely the Corona virus outbreak should be the final nail in the literally ridiculous open door policy to refugees.

Richard Hillman

A selection of some countries that are closer to Syria than Ireland:
India
China
Kenya
Tanzania
Nigeria
Nepal
Cameroon
Rwanda

4068ac1elhodqr

alastair wrote: »

Just to burst your delusion - I’ve no vested interest in this at all.

Pull the other one.

alastair wrote: »

And both of those instances you reference - they are being deported

They were meant to have been deported before, and were not.
Unless someone actually takes them as hi-risk fraudsters, on a plane to a final destination in Nigeria or somehwere, then there is very little assurance they will be removed, when the courts will order for a 2nd time (at considerable expense).

4068ac1elhodqr

Montage of Feck wrote: »

Surely the Corona virus outbreak should be the final nail in the literally ridiculous open door policy to refugees.

France has just moved up to 3rd country most likely to leave (behind Italy/Greece), when lePen wins next time (Macron is making a mess of France currently), chances are the open door EU project will cease in it's tracks.

Lefty Bicek

alastair wrote: »

You’ll need to convince more that your wee echo chamber. I’ll not be holding my breath. It’s as appropriate a mechanism for asylum now as it was then. ✊

Your retreat into unoriginal insults is hardly convincing either.

All I said is that laws can be changed. Didn't you know ? And you so well-informed. about everything.

And alluded to an earlier reference of yours about WW2.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=112778245

If you concentrated on quality rather than quantity, you might remember more of what you post.

McGiver

jmreire wrote:

... but maybe when these Law's were being framed, the Nr's were manageable, in at the most, their 1'000's?

Signed after the WW2 and in the middle of the Korean war which saw millions on the move.

suicide_circus

i think europeans would be a lot more open to helping asylum seekers if they had assurances that it would be a temporary arrangement.

alastair

suicide_circus wrote: »

i think europeans would be a lot more open to helping asylum seekers if they had assurances that it would be a temporary arrangement.

There’s never any assurance that asylum will be a temporary arrangement - it depends entirely on the individual’s circumstances.

McGiver

Lefty Bicek wrote:

You can change them when they are not fit for purpose.

Can you please go to UN and get 180+ countries to sign a new refugee convention?
You can also write it yourself whilst you are en route.

suicide_circus

alastair wrote: »

There’s never any assurance that asylum will be a temporary arrangement - it depends entirely on the individual’s circumstances.

yes ineed