What Are The Key Differences Between...
Business & Finance0 min ago
Immigrants
122 Answers
Answers
Then they should make their way to the nearest safe country mikey- I'm crap at geography but I'm pretty sure the UK isn't the nearest one.
10:30 Fri 04th Sep 2015
Yes they do want to avoid registration - anywhere other than in the destination of their choice, that is.
As I said yesterday, if they were genuine refugees fleeing for their safety they would have no qualms about registering anywhere once they were out of peril. But many of these migrants are not genuine refugees and even those that are have been given to believe that it is for them to choose where they settle.
I think I'm going to give up joining in questions on this topic because it is clear to me that there is a fundamental misunderstanding about the process that has been decreed by the UN and the EU on the treatment of refugees. However disagreeable they may find their first safe haven refugees are not entitled to demand free passage to their chosen destination. They are not entitled to refuse to be registered in the place they find themselves. The deal is that they leave the place where they are imperilled and seek refuge at the first opportunity. The “Great Trek” upon many of them are now embarking is not part of that deal. The problem with those being detained in Hungary is that it has come as a shock to them that they are being compelled to comply with the protocol. Hungary may not be pleasant enough for the refugees but it presumably less unpleasant than the place they left and less so than the other safe (but non-EU) nations they have already passed through to get there.
Being a refugee means seeking refuge or safety. It does not mean seeking a new life in the destination you find most agreeable. If the EU is prepared to allow its member states to opt out of that UN principle (effectively treating the bloc as a single entity contrary to the EU’s own treaty on the matter) then they should ask the citizens of the individual states whether or not they agree. Meanwhile countries such as Hungary should be applauded for upholding the terms of the UN Convention and the EU’s Dublin Agreement.
The reason those travelling from Turkey to Greece in rubber boats are being drowned is because they are not fleeing danger but instead are seeking to reach somewhere they know they are not entitled to travel to. If the UK is to accpet refugees from Syria (as it now says it will and as I forecast it would yesterday) the should be taken direct from Syria. Those roaming across Europe do not qualify for refugee status.
As I said yesterday, if they were genuine refugees fleeing for their safety they would have no qualms about registering anywhere once they were out of peril. But many of these migrants are not genuine refugees and even those that are have been given to believe that it is for them to choose where they settle.
I think I'm going to give up joining in questions on this topic because it is clear to me that there is a fundamental misunderstanding about the process that has been decreed by the UN and the EU on the treatment of refugees. However disagreeable they may find their first safe haven refugees are not entitled to demand free passage to their chosen destination. They are not entitled to refuse to be registered in the place they find themselves. The deal is that they leave the place where they are imperilled and seek refuge at the first opportunity. The “Great Trek” upon many of them are now embarking is not part of that deal. The problem with those being detained in Hungary is that it has come as a shock to them that they are being compelled to comply with the protocol. Hungary may not be pleasant enough for the refugees but it presumably less unpleasant than the place they left and less so than the other safe (but non-EU) nations they have already passed through to get there.
Being a refugee means seeking refuge or safety. It does not mean seeking a new life in the destination you find most agreeable. If the EU is prepared to allow its member states to opt out of that UN principle (effectively treating the bloc as a single entity contrary to the EU’s own treaty on the matter) then they should ask the citizens of the individual states whether or not they agree. Meanwhile countries such as Hungary should be applauded for upholding the terms of the UN Convention and the EU’s Dublin Agreement.
The reason those travelling from Turkey to Greece in rubber boats are being drowned is because they are not fleeing danger but instead are seeking to reach somewhere they know they are not entitled to travel to. If the UK is to accpet refugees from Syria (as it now says it will and as I forecast it would yesterday) the should be taken direct from Syria. Those roaming across Europe do not qualify for refugee status.
I Wonder Why?
I wonder why it is Europe that again picking up the bill. The Americans made huge profits from both World wars. Indeed some historians would say that it was their making. I seem to remember that the boast was that they would bomb Iraq into the stone age. Well they managed that. To say nothing about Libya, and all the other adventures. Refugees? Not their problem though is it. Why are they not contributing to the much needed solutions at least in a monetary sense?
22:54 Wed 02nd Sep 2015
I wonder why it is Europe that again picking up the bill. The Americans made huge profits from both World wars. Indeed some historians would say that it was their making. I seem to remember that the boast was that they would bomb Iraq into the stone age. Well they managed that. To say nothing about Libya, and all the other adventures. Refugees? Not their problem though is it. Why are they not contributing to the much needed solutions at least in a monetary sense?
22:54 Wed 02nd Sep 2015
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
I've just lost several hundred words on this! Ed?
NJ Please, please do not stop posting on this subject. You are the one with facts at his fingertips and it is, quite honestly, vital. This is nothing less than an invasion, probably orchestrated by ISIL by making living conditions impossible for people. With even more Islamic pockets weakening European culture and tradition, Europe will be a 'walk over' in a few years. I know it is a bind for you, but you are playing your part in raising awareness ans starting a fight-back. We are entitled to hold our own lands, customs and religions (or not, if we wish) whatever - you are in the front line of ratiocination and reason. :)
NJ Please, please do not stop posting on this subject. You are the one with facts at his fingertips and it is, quite honestly, vital. This is nothing less than an invasion, probably orchestrated by ISIL by making living conditions impossible for people. With even more Islamic pockets weakening European culture and tradition, Europe will be a 'walk over' in a few years. I know it is a bind for you, but you are playing your part in raising awareness ans starting a fight-back. We are entitled to hold our own lands, customs and religions (or not, if we wish) whatever - you are in the front line of ratiocination and reason. :)
-- answer removed --
Yes I agree, db, the convention on treatment of asylum seekers was not drawn up with today’s circumstances in mind. But that is the protocol still governing such matters. Furthermore, the EU’s own Dublin Convention (which largely reinforces the UN Convention’s principles) was only introduced as recently as 1997. Another convention – The European Convention on Human Rights – was also drawn up about the same time and to cover very different circumstances to those prevailing today. But if any signatory suddenly decided to arbitrarily and unilaterally discard one of its main principles I think there may be a slightly different reaction to that of Germany with the migrant fiasco. But I do agree that this influx has taken the form of a hostile invasion. I first suggested that at the start of the summer when large numbers began pitching up in Lampedusa and I was told not to be silly. Well the scenes in Hungary, in Greece and in and around Calais exhibit all the signs of hostility to me. Migrants are "demanding" this and that, they are using force to compel the authorities to allow them to travel across the continent and their tactics are becoming increasingly demanding and hostile. So I don’t think I was silly at all.
Much of this has been caused by the EU and its ridiculous free movement principles. There was never any safeguard in those arrangements (particularly Schengen) to prevent people not entitled to be in Europe at all from roaming all over the continent. It stems from the Euromaniacs’ belief that the EU should be considered as a single nation state. Additionally it should be remembered that the UN Convention covers all nations, not just those in the EU. I cannot imagine that migrants landing in say, Brazil, would believe they are entitled to move freely to Columbia, Argentina, Uruguay or anywhere else on that continent and even if they did suffer that misapprehension it would certainly be short lived. They too have been falsely led to believe that Europe is one big nation which affords the freedom for them to roam about at will.
Germany has taken diabolical liberties with the agreements that are supposed to bind behaviour of EU states. Their actions in allowing in tens of thousands of migrants to enter largely unchecked will resound across the EU – particularly the wealthier nations - because those people are not all going to remain in Germany. Those who seek to formalise their status will quickly be free to move wherever they wish and those who don't will do so anyway courtesy of Schengen. If Germany wants to play Father Christmas to those people that is their affair but the other EU governments should insist that none of them receive full EU citizenship and that their status is restricted to that of temporary migrants to Germany only.
Much of this has been caused by the EU and its ridiculous free movement principles. There was never any safeguard in those arrangements (particularly Schengen) to prevent people not entitled to be in Europe at all from roaming all over the continent. It stems from the Euromaniacs’ belief that the EU should be considered as a single nation state. Additionally it should be remembered that the UN Convention covers all nations, not just those in the EU. I cannot imagine that migrants landing in say, Brazil, would believe they are entitled to move freely to Columbia, Argentina, Uruguay or anywhere else on that continent and even if they did suffer that misapprehension it would certainly be short lived. They too have been falsely led to believe that Europe is one big nation which affords the freedom for them to roam about at will.
Germany has taken diabolical liberties with the agreements that are supposed to bind behaviour of EU states. Their actions in allowing in tens of thousands of migrants to enter largely unchecked will resound across the EU – particularly the wealthier nations - because those people are not all going to remain in Germany. Those who seek to formalise their status will quickly be free to move wherever they wish and those who don't will do so anyway courtesy of Schengen. If Germany wants to play Father Christmas to those people that is their affair but the other EU governments should insist that none of them receive full EU citizenship and that their status is restricted to that of temporary migrants to Germany only.
