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

EU Vote down Far Right in Hungary

Options
13»

Comments

  • Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,800 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    recedite wrote: »
    I am, yes. They should register, but its up to the country they are entering to make them register.
    I don't know why you're introducing arbitrary terminology, unless it's also agenda-driven. They don't "register", and countries don't "register" them; they apply for asylum. It's not complicated terminology.
    You're saying the Dublin regulation does not oblige the seekers to register. That is quite true.
    Well, that's a start.
    Its scope and purpose is to decide which EU country is responsible for processing them, which, as I pointed out, should be the first country that registered them.
    Let me rephrase your loaded terminology to be more accurate: the Dublin Regulation clarifies that the first country in which someone applies for asylum should be the country that processes that asylum claim, unless there are reasons why another country should do so.
    Greece was not exactly violating the Dublin agreement, it was more a case of evading it.
    You were doing so well.

    Greece wasn't "evading" the Dublin Regulation by not "registering" asylum seekers, because the only obligation imposed on Greece by Dublin is to process any asylum applications made to it.

    You've either misunderstood (possibly wilfully) the purpose of the Regulation, or you're peddling a falsehood.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Greece wasn't "evading" the Dublin Regulation by not "registering" asylum seekers, because the only obligation imposed on Greece by Dublin is to process any asylum applications made to it.

    You've either misunderstood (possibly wilfully) the purpose of the Regulation, or you're peddling a falsehood.
    Its a game of two halves, and two halves make a whole.
    The first half; anyone walking into a country without a valid immigration visa or permit is an illegal immigrant, unless they declare themselves to be a refugee and register an application for asylum. So either they are an asylum seeker, or they are an illegal immigrant, depending on whether they have decided to register. This half is not covered by the Dublin Agreement, but every country has their own laws, which amount to basically the same thing; you don't allow unidentified randomers to just wander into your country, and then, if they don't like the look of it, to just wander off somewhere else.

    The second half; if they did register as an asylum seeker, the first country that registered them is the one that processes the claim and looks after them. That is where the Dublin agreement comes in.
    Two halves gives the whole picture.

    Hungary was doing everything by the book. Greece was not.


  • Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,800 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    recedite wrote: »
    The first half; anyone walking into a country without a valid immigration visa or permit is an illegal immigrant, unless they declare themselves to be a refugee and register an application for asylum. So either they are an asylum seeker, or they are an illegal immigrant, depending on whether they have decided to register.
    I can see you've decided to make a habit of being wrong.

    You're an illegal immigrant in a country when you've taken up residence in that country in contravention of that country's immigration laws.
    This half is not covered by the Dublin Agreement, but every country has their own laws, which amount to basically the same thing...
    No. Just no. You don't get to say that two unrelated things "amount to the same thing" - a country's immigration laws, and how it chooses to enforce them, has pretty much nothing whatsoever to do with a Regulation that determines which country should process an asylum application.
    The second half; if they did register as an asylum seeker, the first country that registered them is the one that processes the claim and looks after them. That is where the Dublin agreement comes in.
    Two halves gives the whole picture.
    If you're going to continue using loaded language about "registering" people, I'll be forced to stop postponing the inevitable conclusion that you're more interested in relentlessly pushing a xenophobic agenda than in having a meaningful discussion.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    You're an illegal immigrant in a country when you've taken up residence in that country in contravention of that country's immigration laws. No. Just no.
    Come off it, these guys are not tourists. If you don't like the term "illegal immigrant" you can use whatever terminology you like - unauthorised migrant, irregular migrant, whatever.

    They don't have residency because, well, they are migrants not residents. Every country has its own immigration rules.


    For example in Germany; the law refers to "unlawful entry; foreigners not possessing a necessary residency title and a right of residence are required to leave the federal territory" (from the Aufenthaltgesetz or Residency law)


    or in Poland; the law refers to "Nelegalni (illegal) crossing of the border". (from the Act on Aliens)


    The only way for them to avoid this is to register as an asylum seeker. Anyway, you are taking us down a rabbithole with all this. Lets try to stay on topic.


  • Registered Users Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    recedite wrote: »
    https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2013/604/oj
    As Greece was not bothering to register them, Hungary was the first EU country that attempted to do so. But Merkel said they were being too slow about it. Orban said they were just being thorough. We wouldn't want jihadis slipping through, would we. Innocent Europeans might get killed if that happened.
    This is extremely misleading and, I don't believe purposely so; I think you don't understand what you're talking about here.

    The section you quote deals directly with "normal" asylum applications where a person crosses a border seeking asylum. There is clear provision for "irregular border crossings"
    Article 13 wrote:
    1. Where it is established, on the basis of proof or circumstantial evidence as described in the two lists mentioned in Article 22(3) of this Regulation, including the data referred to in Regulation (EU) No 603/2013, that an applicant has irregularly crossed the border into a Member State by land, sea or air having come from a third country, the Member State thus entered shall be responsible for examining the application for international protection. That responsibility shall cease 12 months after the date on which the irregular border crossing took place.

    2. When a Member State cannot or can no longer be held responsible in accordance with paragraph 1 of this Article and where it is established, on the basis of proof or circumstantial evidence as described in the two lists mentioned in Article 22(3), that the applicant — who has entered the territories of the Member States irregularly or whose circumstances of entry cannot be established — has been living for a continuous period of at least five months in a Member State before lodging the application for international protection, that Member State shall be responsible for examining the application for international protection.

    If the applicant has been living for periods of time of at least five months in several Member States, the Member State where he or she has been living most recently shall be responsible for examining the application for international protection.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 38,683 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    Can we get back to Hungary and the EU please? Thanks.

    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



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,570 ✭✭✭RandomName2


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    You seem to have a bizarre view on how the world should work. Apparently being able to appeal to a crowd gives an elected leader the right to unilaterally ignore the terms of a treaty to which his country has freely signed up, because "democracy".

    You also appear to have the strange idea that democracy is a function of cheering crowds, not of boring old voting.

    Salvini's party is the most popular in Italy. Orban's party is the most popular in Hungary.

    Before a witty person like yourself who doesn't have an agenda might retort that Salvini's party only has the second largest number of seats, i'll save the necessity of the post by pointing out, in advance, that Salvini's coalition is the largest in Italy, and were there an election tomorrow, would increase their share of the vote.

    I'm not really sure why democracy is being brought up in relation to the EU. The decision by the commission has nothing to do with democracy, it is the sparring of two different political alignments. Poland and Bulgaria aren't backing up Hungary because they support the will of the Hungarian people, no more than France and Germany wish to protect Hungary's rule of law.

    We all know this, but the dance goes on, because most people seem to think that everyone but themselves is naive enough to take things at face value.
    recedite wrote: »

    Meanwhile in Hungary, it seems that Brussels is in technical breach of the EU rules this time. Two can play at this game.

    Rules are only as good as their interpretation. This is why independent courts are usually used for such.


Advertisement