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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Mediterranean migrants- specific questions

13567…30

Comments

  • #102
    Stealthfins
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,141 ✭✭✭Stealthfins


    I remember refugees from Libya been welcome to Shannon town.
    That was during the 80's they mixed well and we used to play football with them out in the green.

    Ennis is another place where there's a lot of emigrants,they set up businesses and mix well with the locals.
    Barbours,kebab shops,restaurants,cafes and some of them volunteer in charity shops.

    Looking back at this over the past 20 years,there has been no negative impact on the integration of Africans and Middle eastern people into Ennis.

    Times were different back then,anyway I think a town like Ennis wouldn't tolerate trouble makers or racism.

    The atmosphere in Ennis is good too,it's a well planned town,the populace areas are all within walking distance of the town,and there's a good mixture of schools Steiner,Catholic,Educate together.

    I can see how it works right,during the 90's the idea of refugees in Ennis was a novelty where they were welcomed.

    It's probably a different story now,maybe if it's managed right it may work.

    Might be better to scatter families throughout the country maybe a few in each village and town and have them living a distance from one another,so Muhammad's family are a ten minute walk from Ibrahim's family.

    So to get from one side of the village or town they both can meet locals see the goings on such as paddy and his dog in the tractor,old Mary outside doing the flowers and experience the rural Irish life.

    Sounds better to me than lumping them all together into a ghetto style situation.

    My fear is that's what will happen.


  • #103
    FelineOverLord
    Closed Accounts Posts: 415 ✭✭FelineOverLord


    I've never been a believer in conspiracy theories, I always thought they were nutters. That being said, I've seen videos posted on various forums showing footage that isn't being aired by mainstream media. For example, we had constant coverage by Sky of migrants sitting on a train in Hungary and the emphasis was most definitely biased in favour of the migrants and we were not shown the images of police distributing food and water which was subsequently dumped on the tracks by the migrants, most of it was refused by the adults, with little or no regard for the few children that were there, in fact in the footage I saw it was only the children who were accepting food. The police were being portrayed in a very negative light and unjustifiably so.

    Belgium has extremist muslim groups who are publically open in their plans to make Belgium an Islamic state by 2030, they're well on the way with 40% of kids in Belgian schools and the most popular boys name in Belgium for the past 4 years running being Muhammad. I heard one extremist say they intend to out breed the Belgian people and impose Sharia law on the Belgian people.

    The migrants are commiting a huge amount of violent crime in all of the countries that they've arrived in, obviously not all migrants, and I use the word migrant because that is what I believe them to be until they can prove that they have a genuine case for asylum, are scumbags but many are. Italy and Greece can't cope with them and the people have had enough but we aren't being shown that on Sky, BBC, Channel 4, ITV, or RTE, in fact the coverage is a constant spoon fed message of 'migrants/refugees good'. The same can be said of various discussion sites. Don't tow the line and you're labelled a xenophobe and gagged. Why are the mainstream broadcasters burying the negative behaviour of migrants? Why is the Europe wide media message pro migrant? Who is behind it pulling the strings and why?


  • #104
    dlouth15
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,169 ✭✭✭dlouth15


    The problem is that Schengen only works while the perimeter is secured.

    Germany isn't really willingly taking large numbers of refugees. The refugees are simply arriving and Germany can't say no without suspending the Schengen agreement; something Merkel is reluctant to do.

    What politicians are not admitting is that what we are seeing is a breakdown in agreed systems such as Schengen and Dublin. This breakdown is been dressed up as a humanitarian response to the crisis but it is not.

    A true humanitarian response would involve taking refugees, the most vulnerable of them, directly from overcrowded camps in Lebanon, Jordan etc. Lets be honest here. We did not really care as the numbers were rising in these camps. Neither did other European countries. We only care when large numbers start crossing the Mediterranean.

    Ireland should not get involved in the problems of Schengen countries. We are not a member of that system and it is up to them to secure their perimeter if they don't want large numbers turning up.

    Ireland's humanitarian response should be to take part in official UN refugee programmes taking refugees directly from conflict areas.


  • #105
    A Primal Nut
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,949 ✭✭✭A Primal Nut


    weisses wrote: »
    Don't forget Israel who according to good aul Benjamin is "to small" to accomadate refugees ... Instead he wants to build a big fence

    If only European leaders had his courage.


  • #106
    Wurzelbert
    Registered Users Posts: 1,804 ✭✭✭Wurzelbert


    A Primal Nut wrote: »
    If only European leaders had his courage.

    courage is no longer a european trait…not sure who still has it, not us europeans anyway…


  • #107
    A Primal Nut
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,949 ✭✭✭A Primal Nut


    With regard to Lebanon and Turkey, yes they have a lot of refugees but most of them are stuck in camps in terrible conditions. European countries are expected to give these people a similar standard of living to Irish people. The requirements for each refugee are completely different. Not to mention that if they come here they will be here permanently, whereas they would be happy to return home from Lebanon and Turkey.


  • #108
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Rightwing wrote: »
    Those countries have gone above and beyond what one would expect.

    However, the Gulf States are Kuwait, Saudi, Bahrain, UAE. They have taken 0, depsite being very wealthy.

    The question remains, why?


    Because they're nasty sectarian monarchies? And who in their right mind (other than a strict wahabi) would want to be stuck in Saudi?


  • #109
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    Jelle1880 wrote: »
    Alf Garnet you say ?
    You could of course just say what you really mean: Those that disagree are racists.

    It's a sad mindset aimed at stifling any form of discussion. Sadly prevalent these days.
    Nonsense. By that definition, I'd also be racist as most of my posts in this thread are critical of the 'open door' attitude that many have - even the post you responded to was criticizing a generalization by someone who favoured taking in migrants in larger numbers, and I was pointing out to them that they are no better by those who generalize in the opposite direction, and there's been a few of them too.

    So do try to read through what's actually said rather than responding with a knee jerk response that gets it all wrong, in future.


  • #110
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    Nodin wrote: »
    Because they're nasty sectarian monarchies? And who in their right mind (other than a strict wahabi) would want to be stuck in Saudi?

    It still does not negate the point. If you are Sunni then surely you can find safety and security there. Sure in the grand scheme of things its much better to be Munich with a view of the alps but this is not how it works.


  • #111
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,690 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Rightwing wrote: »
    Those countries have gone above and beyond what one would expect.

    However, the Gulf States are Kuwait, Saudi, Bahrain, UAE. They have taken 0, depsite being very wealthy.

    The question remains, why?
    The question may well remain, but it has no bearing whatsoever on rights of those seeking asylum or on the obligations of other countries towards asylum seekers. Nobody is obliged to seek asylum in any particular country, and it's not relevant to a claim for asylum that it could have been made in another country.


  • Advertisement
  • #112
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,690 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    jank wrote: »
    It still does not negate the point. If you are Sunni then surely you can find safety and security there. Sure in the grand scheme of things its much better to be Munich with a view of the alps but this is not how it works.
    That is exactly how it works. There is nothing in the Refugee Convention that says that you must apply in the country that Janks wishes you to apply in. You can apply in any country that is a party to the Refugee Convention.

    (As it happens, none of the Gulf states are parties to the Convention, which explains why people might prefer to apply in Germany.)


  • #113
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    That is exactly how it works. There is nothing in the Refugee Convention that says that you must apply in the country that Janks wishes you to apply in. You can apply in any country that is a party to the Refugee Convention.

    (As it happens, none of the Gulf states are parties to the Convention, which explains why people might prefer to apply in Germany.)


    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. 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.

    In Summary this post sums it up best.
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=96842543&postcount=30
    just because an asylum seeker may want to find the best place to start a new life, economically, that does not mean they have a right to. The asylum process is there to take them out of harms way, not guarantee them a wonderful new life


  • #114
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,269 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    If you were someone fleeing a war zone, what would you pick? Saudi Arabia or Germany? I know where I'd want to go.


  • #115
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    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.

    The choice is not binary so its a false proposition. If I were fleeing war-zone, I would be fleeing that first and foremost, the nation I would ended up in after the fact once I am safe is another story entirely.


  • #116
    foggy_lad
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,373 ✭✭✭✭foggy_lad


    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.

    If I was told by Authorities to go to Saudi Where I would be helped I would go there as I Could/would expect NOTHING if I went to Germany!


  • #117
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,269 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    Exactly.

    BTW, Saudi Arabia isn't even a signatory of the UN Refugee Convention.


  • #118
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    It is not exactly a secret that the gulf states are not topping the list of the best places in the world to live in, however, it should be used as context to the overall issue that for some justifiably the western/European response has been dissorganised and poor, at least many of these nations are willing to help and have offered taxpayer funded clothes, food, water and shelter, when in the cold hard light of day, they have no real obligation to (legal treaties are meaningless as we are finding out by the day)..... meanwhile their rich Arab neighbors in the Gulf it seems couldn't give a $hit and are in fact funneling money to ISIS to continue their barbaric ways of burning people alive and dipping people into acid as if its business as usual.

    So, the next time people go on about 'the West sucks, rabble rabble rabble, have we no shame rabble rabble rabble' comparatively to the rest of the world we, The West (Europe/US/Canada/NZ/OZ) are the only ones that actually give a **** in the first place.

    Australia has committed to talking in a few thousand Syrians it seems. Will other rich East Asian countries offer this help? Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, China, Hong Kong, Singapore...? (its a genuine question as I am willing to leave the story develop until I pass judgment) Most of these countries are not exactly open to migration, never mind migration from Muslim countries (China is hugely sensitive to it) so I expect not.

    As an aside, I do notice on my FB feed with irony may I add, many of the usual Anti-Water brigade who boil over in rage at the prospect at paying 100 euro a year for clean drinkable water are now the same people who want to being over an undetermined about of Syrian refugees. Perhaps the refugees can pay for their clean water or are things like national budgets and revenue/expenses foreign to them as well?


  • #119
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,269 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    Wouldn't disagree at all that European states have responded much better than Gulf states.


  • #120
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    jank wrote: »
    It still does not negate the point. If you are Sunni then surely you can find safety and security there. Sure in the grand scheme of things its much better to be Munich with a view of the alps but this is not how it works.

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


  • Advertisement
  • #121
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    That is exactly how it works. There is nothing in the Refugee Convention that says that you must apply in the country that Janks wishes you to apply in. You can apply in any country that is a party to the Refugee Convention.

    (As it happens, none of the Gulf states are parties to the Convention, which explains why people might prefer to apply in Germany.)

    Precisely.


  • #122
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,690 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #123
    FelineOverLord
    Closed Accounts Posts: 415 ✭✭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.


  • #124
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #125
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,690 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #126
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • Advertisement
  • #127
    Donny11
    Registered Users Posts: 5 ✭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'?


  • #128
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,690 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #129
    FelineOverLord
    Closed Accounts Posts: 415 ✭✭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.


  • #130
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,269 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #131
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,690 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • #132
    Donny11
    Registered Users Posts: 5 ✭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.


  • #133
    FelineOverLord
    Closed Accounts Posts: 415 ✭✭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?


  • #134
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #135
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #136
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,269 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #137
    Nichard Dixon
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 386 ✭✭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.


  • #138
    FelineOverLord
    Closed Accounts Posts: 415 ✭✭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.


  • #139
    FelineOverLord
    Closed Accounts Posts: 415 ✭✭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.


  • #140
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,269 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #141
    FelineOverLord
    Closed Accounts Posts: 415 ✭✭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?


  • Advertisement
  • #142
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,269 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #143
    foggy_lad
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,373 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • #144
    FelineOverLord
    Closed Accounts Posts: 415 ✭✭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.


  • #145
    Wurzelbert
    Registered Users Posts: 1,804 ✭✭✭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…


  • #146
    Wanderer78
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,903 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


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


  • #147
    weisses
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,560 ✭✭✭weisses


    Here some comments from their "friends" in the region

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


  • #148
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #149
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,690 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #150
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭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....


  • Advertisement
  • #151
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭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.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement