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

10-03-2020 1:02pm

McGiver wrote: »

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.

Or just work around it. Ireland, and other countries, have control over who gains access to their countries. Simply block/reduce illegal immigration in a more effective manner and the numbers of refugees will plummet. They'll shift their sights to a country that is less difficult to enter.

For example, Fine airlines that allow people to fly without valid Visas. or implement other forms of punishment for companies that allow unregistered/unapproved migrants to arrive in Ireland.

The point is that Ireland can make it far more difficult for migrants to appear in Ireland to claim asylum. And it's all legal to do so.

Just as it's Ireland's responsibility to ensure that fighters/military/etc are not allowed into a refugee zone, so the rules could be used to exclude most applicants who are unable to prove otherwise. A reasonable precaution considering where most of them are coming from. Its already being done to a limited degree, but they could widen the scope of the rule to cover far more people, thus reducing the numbers further.

alastair · 10-03-2020 1:38pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Or just work around it. Ireland, and other countries, have control over who gains access to their countries. Simply block/reduce illegal immigration in a more effective manner and the numbers of refugees will plummet. They'll shift their sights to a country that is less difficult to enter.

For example, Fine airlines that allow people to fly without valid Visas. or implement other forms of punishment for companies that allow unregistered/unapproved migrants to arrive in Ireland.

The point is that Ireland can make it far more difficult for migrants to appear in Ireland to claim asylum. And it's all legal to do so.

Just as it's Ireland's responsibility to ensure that fighters/military/etc are not allowed into a refugee zone, so the rules could be used to exclude most applicants who are unable to prove otherwise. A reasonable precaution considering where most of them are coming from. Its already being done to a limited degree, but they could widen the scope of the rule to cover far more people, thus reducing the numbers further.

There’s been fines for airlines carrying passengers without valid visas for years - in most EU countries (if not all). It covers ALL Non EEA passengers. I guess that’s why asylum claims have stopped. 🙄

10-03-2020 2:21pm

alastair wrote: »

There’s been fines for airlines carrying passengers without valid visas for years - in most EU countries (if not all). It covers ALL Non EEA passengers. I guess that’s why asylum claims have stopped. &#55357;&#56900;

There can always be greater efforts made to reduce the numbers who do arrive without documentation at source. As was said earlier, Ireland is bound by the convention it signed up to, and international law. While withdrawal from the convention isn't practical, there are other things which could be done to reduce/manage those applying for asylum.

However, I can see that you would object to any measure to restrict or prevent such migration.

And Asylum claims are only going to increase... I doubt anyone believes that they're ever going to stop, or decline over an extended period of time.

alastair · 10-03-2020 2:37pm

Deleted User wrote: »

There can always be greater efforts made to reduce the numbers who do arrive without documentation at source. As was said earlier, Ireland is bound by the convention it signed up to, and international law. While withdrawal from the convention isn't practical, there are other things which could be done to reduce/manage those applying for asylum.

However, I can see that you would object to any measure to restrict or prevent such migration.

And Asylum claims are only going to increase... I doubt anyone believes that they're ever going to stop, or decline over an extended period of time.

The measures you’re suggesting have been in place for more than a decade. I’m objecting to your suggestion of placing rubber roundy things on the corners of cars to allow them greater mobility.

Cordell · 10-03-2020 3:18pm

alastair wrote: »

There’s been fines for airlines carrying passengers without valid visas for years - in most EU countries (if not all). It covers ALL Non EEA passengers. I guess that’s why asylum claims have stopped. 🙄

What about swift deportation (like actual deportation, not just an order) carried out without any involvement of the courts and/or justice department? Being removed from somewhere you don't have a right to be doesn't violate any of your rights, it's not a conviction, so it's not a problem, right?

alastair · 10-03-2020 3:47pm

Cordell wrote: »

What about swift deportation (like actual deportation, not just an order) carried out without any involvement of the courts and/or justice department? Being removed from somewhere you don't have a right to be doesn't violate any of your rights, it's not a conviction, so it's not a problem, right?

It’s the right of everyone to appeal their deportation from a jurisdiction, under Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights.

Cordell · 10-03-2020 3:49pm

alastair wrote: »

It’s the right of everyone to appeal their deportation from a jurisdiction, under Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights.

Of course and they can still do it after the fact from the other side and at their own expense.

Also, nothing in that article is about deportation

Article 8 – Right to respect for private and family life

1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

And further: https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Guide_Art_8_ENG.pdf

331. The Court has affirmed that a State is entitled, as a matter of international law and subject to
its treaty obligations, to control the entry of aliens into its territory and their residence there
(Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. the United Kingdom, § 67; Boujlifa v. France, § 42). Moreover,
the Convention does not guarantee the right of a foreign national to enter or to reside in a particular
country. Thus, there is no obligation for the domestic authorities to allow an alien to settle in their
country (Jeunesse v. the Netherlands [GC], § 103). The corollary of a State’s right to control
immigration is the duty of aliens such as the applicant to submit to immigration controls and
procedures and leave the territory of the Contracting State when so ordered if they are lawfully
denied entry or residence (ibid., § 100). However, the Court has found a violation of Article 8 where
the authorities had failed to secure the applicant’s right to respect for his private life by not putting
in place an effective and accessible procedure, which would have allowed the applicant’s asylum
request to be examined within a reasonable time, thus reducing as much as possible the
precariousness of his situation (B.A.C. v. Greece, § 46)

So not having a quick procedure is what actually violates this article.

alastair · 10-03-2020 3:57pm

Cordell wrote: »

Of course and they can still do it after the fact from the other side and at their own expense.

Also, nothing in that article is about deportation

Nope. It’s already been established in law.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-40272323

The Supreme Court ruled that deporting the men before appeal breaches their human rights as it is likely to significantly weaken their case.
It ruled:
■ The men and their lawyers would face difficulties in giving and receiving instructions before and during an appeal hearing
■ A factor in an effective appeal is the ability of the applicant to give live evidence on their family ties in the UK and whether they are a reformed character
■ Evidence via video link may suffice but the financial and logistical barriers to giving evidence that way from abroad are insurmountable
The court ruled that the home secretary had failed to establish that the 'deport first, appeal later' rule struck a fair balance between the rights of the men and the interests of the community.

Cordell · 10-03-2020 4:02pm

That only applies to the UK. Same can be deemed lawful (and probably will be) in other jurisdictions.

alastair · 10-03-2020 4:03pm

Cordell wrote: »

That only applies to the UK. Same can be deemed lawful (and probably will be) in other jurisdictions.

Nope - it’s European law - applicable to all Member states.

http://brophysolicitors.ie/c-i-v-the-minister-for-justice-equality-and-law-reform-a-g-and-ireland/

Cordell · 10-03-2020 4:15pm

That's different again, it's discussing cases in which deportation will remove them from an established life in a community, which is again a consequence of not having a quick deportation procedure.
And this time I agree - if an illegal migrant was allowed to stay a number of years and managed to (re)build its life here, then maybe is better for everyone to make all legal rather than proceeding with the deportation.

alastair · 10-03-2020 4:30pm

Cordell wrote: »

That's different again, it's discussing cases in which deportation will remove them from an established life in a community, which is again a consequence of not having a quick deportation procedure.
And this time I agree - if an illegal migrant was allowed to stay a number of years and managed to (re)build its life here, then maybe is better for everyone to make all legal rather than proceeding with the deportation.

The minimum time required for an asylum assessment these days is around two years - sufficient time for anyone to claim that their private life social ties were being impinged.

ECHR rulings on previous case law are that:

where there is an arguable claim that expulsion would violate Art 8, Art 13 with Art 8 require that the state make available the effective possibility of challenging the deportation and of having the relevant issues examined with sufficient procedural safeguards and thoroughness with guarantees of independence and impartiality.

Cordell · 10-03-2020 4:50pm

state make available != state must pay for it
effective possibility != the potential deportee gets to stay for years
guarantees of independence and impartiality != it must be a judge, it can very well be a commission in the dept of justice

alastair · 10-03-2020 5:05pm

Cordell wrote: »

state make available != state must pay for it
effective possibility != the potential deportee gets to stay for years
guarantees of independence and impartiality != it must be a judge, it can very well be a commission in the dept of justice

Except that ECJC rulings make very clear that adjudication must be within the law - so no, a non judicial mechanism won’t suffice.

Cordell · 10-03-2020 5:21pm

That is simply not true, there is nothing in the ruling that requires a judicial (that is, in front of a judge) mechanism. It only have to be an "effective possibility of challenging the deportation and of having the relevant issues examined with sufficient procedural safeguards and thoroughness with guarantees of independence and impartiality".

An immigration officer will do just that when refusing entry even when holding a valid visa.

alastair · 10-03-2020 5:34pm

Cordell wrote: »

That is simply not true, there is nothing in the ruling that requires a judicial (that is, in front of a judge) mechanism. It only have to be an "effective possibility of challenging the deportation and of having the relevant issues examined with sufficient procedural safeguards and thoroughness with guarantees of independence and impartiality".

An immigration officer will do just that when refusing entry even when holding a valid visa.

Except we’re not talking about refusing entry. We’re talking about denying an appeal to deportation once within the State. And the legal mechanism for appealing is a judicial one.

1st dalkey dalkey · 10-03-2020 11:32pm

alastair wrote: »

Your caveats are contrary to international law.

Then international law needs to be changed.

That it is technically possible for millions of to apply for asylum in a small country like Ireland shows how unfit for purpose those laws are.

We limit spending through our budgets on our health, housing and education services, yet this 'international law' requires us to have no limits on spending for refugees and asylum seekers.

Neither fair nor reasonable.

Time to change those laws, or abandon them.

McGiver · 11-03-2020 12:11am

1st dalkey dalkey wrote:

We limit spending through our budgets on our health, housing and education services, yet this 'international law' requires us to have no limits on spending for refugees and asylum seekers.

How many asylums were granted last year? How much did it cost?

Woodsie1 · 11-03-2020 12:57am

McGiver wrote: »

How many asylums were granted last year? How much did it cost?

How many is too much?

AlekSmart · 11-03-2020 7:29am

1st dalkey dalkey wrote: »

Then international law needs to be changed.

That it is technically possible for millions of to apply for asylum in a small country like Ireland shows how unfit for purpose those laws are.

We limit spending through our budgets on our health, housing and education services, yet this 'international law' requires us to have no limits on spending for refugees and asylum seekers.

Neither fair nor reasonable.

Time to change those laws, or abandon them.

Those Laws have changed.

The Covid situation has dei-facto changed everything.

Irrespective of what is contained in the many varieties of Legislation,countries are now entering a far more basic survival mode.

Greece is the first location to be forced to get physical,but you can expect a lot more Border Confrontations where military and civil resources are used to physically prevent an influx of potentially health threatening entrants.

There is now a new reality which will reinforce the Islationist principle around the developed World.

Like it or not.

alastair · 11-03-2020 12:06pm

AlekSmart wrote: »

Those Laws have changed.

The Covid situation has dei-facto changed everything.

Irrespective of what is contained in the many varieties of Legislation,countries are now entering a far more basic survival mode.

Greece is the first location to be forced to get physical,but you can expect a lot more Border Confrontations where military and civil resources are used to physically prevent an influx of potentially health threatening entrants.

There is now a new reality which will reinforce the Islationist principle around the developed World.

Like it or not.

The laws have not changed. Coronavirus or no Coronavirus.

suicide_circus · 11-03-2020 12:20pm

this rigid appeal to the law strikes me as odd in progressive leaning people.

at one stage it was "the law" that a husband couldn't be charged with raping his wife

it was "the law" that gay sex was punishable in the courts

were those laws right?

alastair · 11-03-2020 12:40pm

suicide_circus wrote: »

this rigid appeal to the law strikes me as odd in progressive leaning people.

at one stage it was "the law" that a husband couldn't be charged with raping his wife

it was "the law" that gay sex was punishable in the courts

were those laws right?

You’re advocating an al a carte approach to law then?
Law reform is driven by democratic advocacy - and there’s no evidence of any support for abandoning refugee rights.

suicide_circus · 11-03-2020 1:04pm

alastair wrote: »

You’re advocating an al a carte approach to law then?

No its that an unshakable faith in the law just seems odd to me given that we know how grotesquely wrong law makers have gotten it in the past, it's more an abstract point i suppose

alastair · 11-03-2020 1:22pm

suicide_circus wrote: »

No its that an unshakable faith in the law just seems odd to me given that we know how grotesquely wrong law makers have gotten it in the past, it's more an abstract point i suppose

Except I’ve seen nobody assert an unshakable faith in the law. But this law is a matter of fact, and there’s nothing to suggest it needs change, or has any popular moment behind reform.

suicide_circus · 11-03-2020 1:24pm

thems the rules.

tjhook · 11-03-2020 1:38pm

alastair wrote: »

Except I’ve seen nobody assert an unshakable faith in the law. But this law is a matter of fact, and there’s nothing to suggest it needs change, or has any popular moment behind reform.

I can see a few potential triggers that could be interpreted as a call for change:

1. Resistance from the public to existing law. Obviously that level of resistance varies between countries, but laws imposed on a disagreeable public generally don't last.

2. When the law starts to be worked-around or ignored. If a law or agreement ceases to be observed, then it's a sign it needs to be reexamined. See the Paris Agreement, or the historic laws in Ireland against gay activities. Or in the case of migration, countries physically preventing migrants from entering.

alastair · 11-03-2020 1:57pm

tjhook wrote: »

I can see a few potential triggers that could be interpreted as a call for change:

1. Resistance from the public to existing law. Obviously that level of resistance varies between countries, but laws imposed on a disagreeable public generally don't last.

2. When the law starts to be worked-around or ignored. If a law or agreement ceases to be observed, then it's a sign it needs to be reexamined. See the Paris Agreement, or the historic laws in Ireland against gay activities. Or in the case of migration, countries physically preventing migrants from entering.

The Paris Agreement isn’t a law. It’s voluntary, and there’s no sanction for opting out of it. And sure - democratic advocacy is a mechanism for law reform - but there’s no democratic mandate for reform of refugee law. Greece’s temporary suspension of administering asylum claims is illegal, and they will be sanctioned for it - albeit after the fact. Asylum laws aren’t being ignored - they’re being applied on a daily basis, worldwide.

tjhook · 11-03-2020 2:09pm

alastair wrote: »

Greece’s temporary suspension of administering asylum claims is illegal, and they will be sanctioned for it - albeit after the fact. Asylum laws aren’t being ignored - they’re being applied on a daily basis, worldwide.

We'll see. Europe is sending money to support the strengthening of Greece's border with Turkey, directly because of what's happening there. I think any people looking at events there thinking "That's grand, Turkey should keep sending migrants this way" are in the minority.

IMO (and it's only my opinion), it's Turkey that's more likely to face repercussions. They've already been burning bridges with NATO, and now with the EU. They'll be dependent on Putin for support, and that's not a stable position to be in.

alastair · 11-03-2020 2:31pm

tjhook wrote: »

We'll see. Europe is sending money to support the strengthening of Greece's border with Turkey, directly because of what's happening there. I think any people looking at events there thinking "That's grand, Turkey should keep sending migrants this way" are in the minority.

IMO (and it's only my opinion), it's Turkey that's more likely to face repercussions. They've already been burning bridges with NATO, and now with the EU. They'll be dependent on Putin for support, and that's not a stable position to be in.

Strengthening the border isn’t counter to any refugee law. Turkey isn’t a signatory to the full refugee law, and Erdogan is leveraging the EU to weigh in behind him in negotiating a Syrian deal with Putin. He doesn’t really care what eggs get broken in the process.

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

Comments