Mediterranean migrants- specific questions

Peregrinus

jank wrote: »

Well then you are more of an economic migrant than a genuine refugee fleeing a war-zone and the application process will or should reflect that.

It does reflect that. But a moment's thought will show that you won't know whether someone is more a refugee or an economic migrant until you have considered his application and investigated his situation.

jank wrote: »

Lets not even talk about the Dublin Convention where by EU law these 'refugees' by law should be seeking asylum in the first EU country they arrive in, that would be Hungary for the most part, yet it seems this is being ignored until some other ad-hoc arrangement is made up from thin air by our esteemed leaders.

No, let's do talk about it, in the hope that by doing so you might learn something about it.

The Dublin Convention does not require refugees to seek asylum in the first EU country they arrive in. How could it? Asylum seekers are not parties to it. All of the EU countries are party to the Refugee Convention and have accepted obligations to afford their protection to refugees who seek it. The Dublin Convention cannot (and does not attempt to) excuse EU member states from fulfilling the obligations they took on when they became parties to the Refugee Convention. An asylum seeker can apply for protection in any Convention country, including any EU country, in which he happens to find himself.

What the Dublin Convention says is that, if you apply for asylum in EU member state A, having already been in or passed through EU member state B, state A can afford you protection by sending you to state B for assessment of your claim. Nothing in the Refugee Convention says that a state has to afford protection to refugees by letting them settle in its own territory. It can make other arrangements, as long as they are effective to afford protection. The Dublin Convention is an agreement between EU member states for international co-operation in the provision of protection to refugees. Under the Dublin Convention state A can - not must, not should, but can if it chooses - send the asylum seeker to state B, and state B agrees to accept the asylum seeker from state A, and afford protection.

The Convention is coming under pressure because the arrangements it makes are simply unrealistic in the current circumstances. Large numbers of asylum seekers are arriving in Greece. It is wholly unrealistic to think that Greece can deal with them all,and resettle those of them whose claims are accepted. Hence, it's likely that in time the EU members states will revise the Dublin Convention and replace it with something more realistic. In the short term, Germany etc are simply not invoking their rights under the Dublin Convention to return claimants to Greece. And, as stated, while it remains in force, the Dublin does not prevent asylum seekers from applying in any EU member state.

FelineOverLord

Peregrinus wrote: »

It does reflect that. But a moment's thought will show that you won't know whether someone is more a refugee or an economic migrant until you have considered his application and investigated his situation.


No, let's do talk about it, in the hope that by doing so you might learn something about it.

The Dublin Convention does not require refugees to seek asylum in the first EU country they arrive in. How could it? Asylum seekers are not parties to it. All of the EU countries are party to the Refugee Convention and have accepted obligations to afford their protection to refugees who seek it. The Dublin Convention cannot (and does not attempt to) excuse EU member states from fulfilling the obligations they took on when they became parties to the Refugee Convention. An asylum seeker can apply for protection in any Convention country, including any EU country, in which he happens to find himself.

What the Dublin Convention says is that, if you apply for asylum in EU member state A, having already been in or passed through EU member state B, state A can afford you protection by sending you to state B for assessment of your claim. Nothing in the Refugee Convention says that a state has to afford protection to refugees by letting them settle in its own territory. It can make other arrangements, as long as they are effective to afford protection. The Dublin Convention is an agreement between EU member states for international co-operation in the provision of protection to refugees. Under the Dublin Convention state A can - not must, not should, but can if it chooses - send the asylum seeker to state B, and state B agrees to accept the asylum seeker from state A, and afford protection.

The Convention is coming under pressure because the arrangements it makes are simply unrealistic in the current circumstances. Large numbers of asylum seekers are arriving in Greece. It is wholly unrealistic to think that Greece can deal with them all,and resettle those of them whose claims are accepted. Hence, it's likely that in time the EU members states will revise the Dublin Convention and replace it with something more realistic. In the short term, Germany etc are simply not invoking their rights under the Dublin Convention to return claimants to Greece. And, as stated, while it remains in force, the Dublin does not prevent asylum seekers from applying in any EU member state.

What is realistic? We have what is essentially a massive mobile army of mainly young men of military age forcing there way across Europe, blatantly refusing to obey the laws of the countries they are passing through and rioting whenever they don't like the conditions they find themselves in while they're in Greece and Italy. Sure, it's all smiles and praise Angela right now, but what happens when Germany ships the majority of them out to the arsehole of nowhere in small insignificant rural communities that simply cannot cope with them?

They can't work until their claim is approved and then only when a national or european citizen isn't willing to take that job. So what we're looking at is providing them with perpetual free social housing, medical care, education, dental as well as feeding and clothing them. None of the countries the current wave have passed through have been able to document them all as they refuse to be documented and the volume is ridiculous. They have made it very clear that they are going to do what they want to do and Hungary and Austria have allowed them to because there's nothing they can do against a massive army of civilian refugees/migrants.

It's ridiculous and unsustainable and it needs to stop. Unless the problem is tackled on a ground level in Syria and Isis threatened countries it'll never end. What about the fact that all of the able bodied men and women have fled or are fleeing, who will fight the terrorists in those countries? What happens when there are no citizens to oppose terrorists in the Middle East and North Africa? Where do the funds to fight terrorism come from when it's already been spent on keeping the migrants in Europe and funding aid for those in refugee camps in the Middle East? Does anyone really believe that the young men and women will go back to fight for their country?, because I don't believe they will.

jank

Nodin wrote: »

You do realise that because somebody is a Sunni, it doesn't follow they are conservative wahabi monarchists or fundamentalists?

You mean they are not :eek::eek::eek:....

Seriously though, yes, I do realise this again however it does not negate the point as I and you both know the Saudi and other Gulf states have massive non-naturalised migrant workers. There should be no issues with Sunni Syrians going there to until Syria actually becomes a safe place to return to.

Peregrinus

FelineOverLord wrote: »

What is realistic? We have what is essentially a massive mobile army of mainly young men of military age forcing there way across Europe, blatantly refusing to obey the laws of the countries they are passing through and rioting whenever they don't like the conditions they find themselves in while they're in Greece and Italy.

Well, I would have thought that if the present policy is leading to riots and people "forcing their way across Europe", I'd have thought that's a pretty clear indication that the present policy is not realistic, wouldn't you?

FelineOverLord wrote: »

It's ridiculous and unsustainable and it needs to stop. Unless the problem is tackled on a ground level in Syria and Isis threatened countries it'll never end. What about the fact that all of the able bodied men and women have fled or are fleeing, who will fight the terrorists in those countries? What happens when there are no citizens to oppose terrorists in the Middle East and North Africa? Where do the funds to fight terrorism come from when it's already been spent on keeping the migrants in Europe and funding aid for those in refugee camps in the Middle East? Does anyone really believe that the young men and women will go back to fight for their country?, because I don't believe they will.

Again, if we're in the business of being realistic, we probably need to note that, worldwide, the number of terrorist problems which have been resolved with military force is vanishingly small.

Syria has the IS problem it has because the Americans tried to solve problems in Iraq with a war. The notion that if we try to solve problems in Syria with a war there will be a good outcome is not a very plausible one.

But an even less plausible notion is that we have to choose between offering refute to asylum seekers, and taking effective action to adress the problems that cause them to seek asylum in the first place. I don't pretend to know what action would be effective, but I can't see any sane argument for saying that if we provide protection to refugees we make it impossible to take whatever action that is.

jank

Peregrinus wrote: »

It does reflect that. But a moment's thought will show that you won't know whether someone is more a refugee or an economic migrant until you have considered his application and investigated his situation.

Oh of course. Everyone is entitled to ask for refuge, yet this does not automatically entitle you to it and a new life in the German alps.

Peregrinus wrote: »

No, let's do talk about it, in the hope that by doing so you might learn something about it.

The Dublin Convention does not require refugees to seek asylum in the first EU country they arrive in. How could it? Asylum seekers are not parties to it. All of the EU countries are party to the Refugee Convention and have accepted obligations to afford their protection to refugees who seek it. The Dublin Convention cannot (and does not attempt to) excuse EU member states from fulfilling the obligations they took on when they became parties to the Refugee Convention. An asylum seeker can apply for protection in any Convention country, including any EU country, in which he happens to find himself.

Firstly..
'The EU requires that each asylum claim be processed in the first EU country reached by the asylum seeker'
https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/explainers/understanding-migration-and-asylum-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
Video in the link also reiterates the above.

Secondly, if say an asylum seeker in Calais wants to claim asylum in the UK then they are a) there in France illegally and b) more of an economic migrant than an asylum seeker. Nobody wakes up and 'happens' to find themselves in a country.

Peregrinus wrote: »

The Convention is coming under pressure because the arrangements it makes are simply unrealistic in the current circumstances. Large numbers of asylum seekers are arriving in Greece. It is wholly unrealistic to think that Greece can deal with them all,and resettle those of them whose claims are accepted. Hence, it's likely that in time the EU members states will revise the Dublin Convention and replace it with something more realistic. In the short term, Germany etc are simply not invoking their rights under the Dublin Convention to return claimants to Greece. And, as stated, while it remains in force, the Dublin does not prevent asylum seekers from applying in any EU member state.

People have been on this board for years talking about how the Dublin Convention was not working, the years long situation in Calais made that clear. Germany took the unilateral decision to suspend it which more or less right now makes it null and void in terms of a pan EU piece of law. Something will replace it of course but can national governments put faith in what replaces it when other governments can simply ignore it on a whim?

Donny11

When people say that immigration is not working, what does that exactly mean?

European/US economic problems were in the financial sector.
Germany's economic problems were the result of a lost war.
Rome fell because it had corruption and too big of a border to sustain in those times.

What are some exact problems immigration causes other than a few frustrated individuals?
As I see it, the 'immigrant problem with crime' is as much a 'poverty problem with crime'?

Peregrinus

jank wrote: »

Oh of course. Everyone is entitled to ask for refuge, yet this does not automatically entitle you to it and a new life in the German alps.

Well, good, there's no disagreEment between us on that point.

jank wrote: »

Firstly..
'The EU requires that each asylum claim be processed in the first EU country reached by the asylum seeker'
https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/explainers/understanding-migration-and-asylum-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
Video in the link also reiterates the above.

The honours students will note that neither of your quotes say anything at all about what asylum seekers should do, and in particular do not say that they must apply for asylum in the first EU country that they reach. That country cannot refuse to assess them, but they are not obliged to apply there. They can apply anywhere.

jank wrote: »

Secondly, if say an asylum seeker in Calais wants to claim asylum in the UK then they are a) there in France illegally and b) more of an economic migrant than an asylum seeker. Nobody wakes up and 'happens' to find themselves in a country.

I'm not aware that it's a crime under French law to enter France with the objective of transiting to the UK to apply for asylum in the UK. If you assert that it is illegal point to the law which makes it so, please.

And I can't understand why you would think that adopting this strategy makes someone "more of an economic migrant than an asylum seeker". It may be true that "nobody wakes up and 'happens' to find themselves in a country", but what has that got to do with anything?

If they are seeking asylum, they are asylum seekers. If they have a well founded fear of persecution on the grounds of race, etc, etc, they are entitled to protection. The fact that they could have chosen to seek asylum in another country but did not do so is completely irrelevant to the question of whether they are entitled to protection under the Refugee Convention. What is so hard to grasp about this?

jank wrote: »

People have been on this board for years talking about how the Dublin Convention was not working, the years long situation in Calais made that clear. Germany took the unilateral decision to suspend it which more or less right now makes it null and void in terms of a pan EU piece of law. Something will replace it of course but can national governments put faith in what replaces it when other governments can simply ignore it on a whim?

Germany hasn't suspended it and it's not null and void. Germany is simply choosing not to exercise a right which it could exercise (to send asylum seekers back to the country of first entry). Other EU countries who wish o exercise the right are still free to do so - legally, that is. Of course, the practical and political considerations which lead Germany not to do this may weigh with other countries also.

FelineOverLord

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, I would have thought that if the present policy is leading to riots and people "forcing their way across Europe", I'd have thought that's a pretty clear indication that the present policy is not realistic, wouldn't you?


Again, if we're in the business of being realistic, we probably need to note that, worldwide, the number of terrorist problems which have been resolved with military force is vanishingly small.

Syria has the IS problem it has because the Americans tried to solve problems in Iraq with a war. The notion that if we try to solve problems in Syria with a war there will be a good outcome is not a very plausible one.

But an even less plausible notion is that we have to choose between offering refute to asylum seekers, and taking effective action to adress the problems that cause them to seek asylum in the first place. I don't pretend to know what action would be effective, but I can't see any sane argument for saying that if we provide protection to refugees we make it impossible to take whatever action that is.

Syria has the IS problem because the military left too soon. Not taking military action against Assad and IS will allow the problem to continue, thus leading to a never ending exodus from the Middle East.

Chips Lovell

It should be worth pointing out that while the Dublin convention entitles a Member State to return an asylum seeker to the Member State they entered irregularly for consideration of their application, it does not oblige them to do so. Article 17 states:

By way of derogation from Article 3(1), each Member State may decide to examine an application for international protection lodged with it by a third-country national or a stateless person, even if such examination is not its responsibility under the criteria laid down in this Regulation.

By opting to receive refugees who've entered through other countries, Germany and Austria aren't ignoring or suspending the Dublin Convention.

Peregrinus

FelineOverLord wrote: »

Syria has the IS problem because the military left too soon.

They were in Iraq for eight years. They created the problem by invading Iraq in the first place - it's not as if Iraq was a hotbed of Islamist terrorism before the US invasion - and if, having created a problem of a kind that generally cannot be solved by military means, they failed to solve it by military means in the space of eight years, it defies common sense to suggest that they could have solved it with a still longer military campaign.

Terrorism requires a political solution. We may not like that, but experience teaches us that it is so.

Donny11

Iraq was a bigger mistake than Vietnam.

I sometimes get the feeling George Bush went there only to make his dad proud. A bombing campaign without boots on the ground would have had the same effect and the Iraqi prime minister is also to blame. It's horrible to see ISIS in American army uniforms, tanks and Hummers.

FelineOverLord

Has the government changed the rules on Asylum seekers working in Ireland? Joan Burton told RTE that we should be helping the incoming ones to find work here. We have currently got high youth unemployment here and many of our own citizens continuing to emigrate. Other countries will not allow asylum seekers to take a job that one of their own citizens or any other European citizen is willing to take.

We currently have 130,000 people in this country waiting on the social housing list. At the moment there are 350 homeless families in Dublin alone. I don't have the figures for homeless families in the rest of the country, or for homeless individuals. Why is the State and Church on a campaign to find suitable vacant properties for them to live in? Why aren't they trying to alleviate the suffering of our own poor and needy?

Nodin

jank wrote: »

You mean they are not :eek::eek::eek:....

Seriously though, yes, I do realise this again however it does not negate the point as I and you both know the Saudi and other Gulf states have massive non-naturalised migrant workers. There should be no issues with Sunni Syrians going there to until Syria actually becomes a safe place to return to.

...who they often rather notoriously look down and treat like crap - in particular their alleged fellows in faith. No-one is going to want to go there, because its a bad idea. And the Kurds will have problems, regardless of their sect.

Nodin

FelineOverLord wrote: »

Syria has the IS problem because the military left too soon. Not taking military action against Assad and IS will allow the problem to continue, thus leading to a never ending exodus from the Middle East.

If the US military were still in Iraq, it would just be a recruit generator for various extremists.

What is realistic? We have what is(............)/migrants.

That kind of hyperbole really doesn't help.

Chips Lovell

FelineOverLord wrote: »

Has the government changed the rules on Asylum seekers working in Ireland? Joan Burton told RTE that we should be helping the incoming ones to find work here.

No, they haven't. But the refugees Burton was talking about are being treated as Programme Refugees and not ordinary asylum seekers. Effectively it means that their asylum application has been accepted, so they've already got the right to seek work or set up their own business.

Nichard Dixon

FelineOverLord wrote: »

Has the government changed the rules on Asylum seekers working in Ireland? Joan Burton told RTE that we should be helping the incoming ones to find work here. We have currently got high youth unemployment here and many of our own citizens continuing to emigrate. Other countries will not allow asylum seekers to take a job that one of their own citizens or any other European citizen is willing to take.

Once recognised as refugees these people will not be asylum seekers, their asylum will be granted and they can seek work.

We currently have 130,000 people in this country waiting on the social housing list. At the moment there are 350 homeless families in Dublin alone. I don't have the figures for homeless families in the rest of the country, or for homeless individuals. Why is the State and Church on a campaign to find suitable vacant properties for them to live in? Why aren't they trying to alleviate the suffering of our own poor and needy?

If the homeless in Dublin moved 100km, no sea travel required, they would find plenty of available accommodation.

FelineOverLord

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

No, they haven't. But the refugees Burton was talking about are being treated as Programme Refugees and not ordinary asylum seekers. Effectively it means that their asylum application has been accepted, so they've already got the right to seek work or set up their own business.

I find that obscene. I don't normally take an interest in this sort of thing, but I really do find it obscene. We have an exemption from taking them and yet instead of helping our own we will take at least 5000 from abroad. It's disgraceful.

FelineOverLord

Nichard Dixon wrote: »

Once recognised as refugees these people will not be asylum seekers, their asylum will be granted and they can seek work.



If the homeless in Dublin moved 100km, no sea travel required, they would find plenty of available accommodation.

By your logic the Asylum Seekers could stop and seek asylum in any country outside of Syria, no sea travel required.

Chips Lovell

I think you'll find we are helping our own. We're spending quite a bit on emergency accommodation for homeless Irish people as well.

FelineOverLord

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

I think you'll find we are helping our own. We're spending quite a bit on emergency accommodation for homeless Irish people as well.

How much will we spend on them when there's another 5000 mouths to feed and where will the funds to feed the extra 5000 come from?

Chips Lovell

I don't really see the logic there. There's nothing stopping us spending money on both at present. You'd probably have a point if the government was saying they couldn't provide emergency accommodation for homeless Irish people because of all the money they're spending on refugees, but that hasn't happened yet and I can't see it happening in the future.

foggy_lad

How can any civilised country consider allowing these people free entry?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2rmA9A7CEM

Also where are all the women and children?

FelineOverLord

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

I don't really see the logic there. There's nothing stopping us spending money on both at present. You'd probably have a point if the government was saying they couldn't provide emergency accommodation for homeless Irish people because of all the money they're spending on refugees, but that hasn't happened yet and I can't see it happening in the future.

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. All of that will mean that as a result of taking in a minimum 5000 extra mouths to feed that waiting lists for medical treatment, dental treatment and social housing will get longer for people already living here, and I don't just mean for Irish people who live and work here.

We have things like the Patient Purchase Transfer Fund because so many people are waiting much longer to see a consultant than they should do. We have so many people waiting on social housing that realistically will never be given social housing. We have schools doing bag packs to raise funds for their kids underfunded primary schools and those same schools will be squeezed even further when they have additional non-English speaking kids in their classes. No doubt teachers will have to be employed to teach the kids to speak English too.

Wurzelbert

foggy_lad wrote: »

How can any civilised country consider allowing these people free entry?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2rmA9A7CEM

Also where are all the women and children?

yes, the majority of migrants these days are indeed disgruntled young and mostly muslim men looking for work and adventure in europe, with actual refugees just a minority…funny enough, even the father of that poor drowned boy was able to return to kobane for the funeral and all; to me that doesn’t look like they had to flee from there to save their lives…though i can imagine people will want to get out of syria in the current situation…

Wanderer78

we needed to start building houses years ago. since this still isnt happening, we re fooked!

weisses

Here some comments from their "friends" in the region

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZbCK95Zu_0

jank

Nodin wrote: »

...who they often rather notoriously look down and treat like crap - in particular their alleged fellows in faith. No-one is going to want to go there, because its a bad idea. And the Kurds will have problems, regardless of their sect.

... I am still waiting for a substantive point that dismisses the idea that the Gulf states cannot take in any refuges apart from 'well its not a nice as Germany, so there'...

If it's a choice of being beheaded by ISIS or going to the UAE/Saudi one is not going to choose beheading.

Peregrinus

jank wrote: »

... I am still waiting for a substantive point that dismisses the idea that the Gulf states cannot take in any refuges apart from 'well its not a nice as Germany, so there'...

If it's a choice of being beheaded by ISIS or going to the UAE/Saudi one is not going to choose beheading.

Of course they can take in refugees. Any state can take in refugees.

But they haven't committed to affording protection to refugees; they are not parties to the Refugee Convention. Nobody arriving in the Gulf States has any legal right to protection; they can be refused entry, or even deported to the country they have left from, without any examination of their claim to be persecuted.

Thus the sane asylum seeker will prefer Germany to Bahrain.

jank

Peregrinus wrote: »

The honours students will note that neither of your quotes say anything at all about what asylum seekers should do, and in particular do not say that they must apply for asylum in the first EU country that they reach. That country cannot refuse to assess them, but they are not obliged to apply there. They can apply anywhere.

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.

Peregrinus wrote: »

I'm not aware that it's a crime under French law to enter France with the objective of transiting to the UK to apply for asylum in the UK. If you assert that it is illegal point to the law which makes it so, please.

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.

Airport transit arrangements apply when you remain in the airport’s international zone waiting for a connecting flight, in the same airport and during
daytime.If you have to catch your next flight in a different airport than the arrival one or that you have to spend the night in a hotel (airports are closed during
night-time in France and you are not allowed to stay in the international zone), short stay and no more airport transit regulations apply

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.

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.

Peregrinus wrote: »

And I can't understand why you would think that adopting this strategy makes someone "more of an economic migrant than an asylum seeker". It may be true that "nobody wakes up and 'happens' to find themselves in a country", but what has that got to do with anything?

If they are seeking asylum, they are asylum seekers. If they have a well founded fear of persecution on the grounds of race, etc, etc, they are entitled to protection. The fact that they could have chosen to seek asylum in another country but did not do so is completely irrelevant to the question of whether they are entitled to protection under the Refugee Convention. What is so hard to grasp about this?

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.

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....

jank

Peregrinus wrote: »

Of course they can take in refugees. Any state can take in refugees.

But they haven't committed to affording protection to refugees; they are not parties to the Refugee Convention. Nobody arriving in the Gulf States has any legal right to protection; they can be refused entry, or even deported to the country they have left from, without any examination of their claim to be persecuted.

Thus the sane asylum seeker will prefer Germany to Bahrain.

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.