Im not sure, Markjones posted that UN convention which has taught me something new. I dont know if the UN overrides the Dublin Regulations. I would imagine it does because they oversee international rules for this sort of thing but am not aware of the specific ins and outs.
The EU over-rides the UN in practice, because the countries of the EU agreed between themselves that they would send AS back to the country of entry (if they chose). There have been challenges, but in reality international law cannot override it because there is nothing wrong with it in principle:
"The aim of the Regulation is to the ensure that one Member State is responsible for the examination of an asylum application, to deter multiple asylum claims and to determine as quickly as possible the responsible Member State to ensure effective access to an asylum procedure. The recast Dublin Regulation entered into force in July 2013 and is aimed at increasing the system’s efficiency and ensuring higher standards of protection for asylum seekers falling under the Dublin procedure. "
So it was designed to ensure that countries could not play 'pass the parcel' with asylum seekers and that the AS themselves could not 'pick and choose' where they went. However it doesn't work, not because the AS are abusing it (they can't, because they have no power to change the law and are subject to a 'Dublin Removal' if the country they try to claim in decides to enforce it. As so many AS are coming into a few EU countries (perhaps something that was not envisaged when Dublin was created) those countries are actively encouraging AS to move on, even giving them the fare! It is a complete mess and the current mechanism makes things worse for everybody, including the AS.
Wrong answer, McFly. All such action would do would be to make a load of people seriously p*ssed off with the West for not coming to their aid. These groups of people would then either join up with terrorist groups in a 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em' kind of deal OR conspire together to enter by force. And I mean actual force and not a couple of hundred dudes running down a tunnel.
As if they would go "we can't come in? Oh well, nevermind." These are desperate people.
The safest course of action for everyone is to let them in. In the short term things will be difficult, but in the long run it is the only effective solution.
I didn't say they couldn't come in. If this was properly organised and contained by the EU at the points of entry and coordinated with the UN, they are building more refugee camps in neighbouring countries, no-one needs to stay in Europe. The asylum seekers are sent to camps in their neighbouring countries.The economic migrants are sent back to wherever they came from. If done properly as it desperately needs to be, it would put a halt to anyone wanting to come to Europe that way, if they knew they couldn't stay and the new camps will be there for them. Don't you think most refugees want to get back to their own countries whenever they can? They do.
I don't rule anything out. I don't rule out the plan for Bill Gates to buy a huge island (discussed on the late R4 news a couple of days ago).
A couple of years living like a peasant on arable land would certainly be a good test of the motivation to leave the war zone. And would ensure the motivation to return home at the earliest safe opportunity.
The only thing I rule out is trying to persuade someone who is terrified not to get into a boat.
I would not do that.
Nor would I use a Megaphone to try to persuade a man not to jump out of a Skyscraper if I could clearly see that his hair was on fire.
Centres, sub-standard council accommodation and what used to be known as dosshouses. Unaccompanied children will go to foster parents.Centrally funded as far as I know. It's all answered in the thread, if you can muster the energy to look.
Yes and some of them have the gall to complain about where they are living. You would have thought they would be grateful to be free from all this "persecution"?
Yes and some of them have the gall to complain about where they are living. You would have thought they would be grateful to be free from all this "persecution"?
At the moment migration doesn't affect the so called elite of this country, protected by their money, private schools, hospitals and country estates, but one day when immigrant numbers become so high that they actualy begin to affect their lives directly, then that's when the Government and those in power will act, until then there's much we can do other than wait.
Are you confusing asylum seekers with legal immigrants? The numbers are tiny by comparison.
The EU over-rides the UN in practice, because the countries of the EU agreed between themselves that they would send AS back to the country of entry (if they chose). There have been challenges, but in reality international law cannot override it because there is nothing wrong with it in principle:
"The aim of the Regulation is to the ensure that one Member State is responsible for the examination of an asylum application, to deter multiple asylum claims and to determine as quickly as possible the responsible Member State to ensure effective access to an asylum procedure. The recast Dublin Regulation entered into force in July 2013 and is aimed at increasing the system’s efficiency and ensuring higher standards of protection for asylum seekers falling under the Dublin procedure. "
So it was designed to ensure that countries could not play 'pass the parcel' with asylum seekers and that the AS themselves could not 'pick and choose' where they went. However it doesn't work, not because the AS are abusing it (they can't, because they have no power to change the law and are subject to a 'Dublin Removal' if the country they try to claim in decides to enforce it. As so many AS are coming into a few EU countries (perhaps something that was not envisaged when Dublin was created) those countries are actively encouraging AS to move on, even giving them the fare! It is a complete mess and the current mechanism makes things worse for everybody, including the AS.
Thanks Jesaya. I was puzzled because I'd read the DR couldn't be legally enforced.
I didn't say they couldn't come in. If this was properly organised and contained by the EU at the points of entry and coordinated with the UN, they are building more refugee camps in neighbouring countries, no-one needs to stay in Europe. The asylum seekers are sent to camps in their neighbouring countries.The economic migrants are sent back to wherever they came from. If done properly as it desperately needs to be, it would put a halt to anyone wanting to come to Europe that way, if they knew they couldn't stay.
Ok, sorry, I misinterpreted your original post. I think what you are proposing is a viable short term solution but the never-ending turmoil in those regions means you are forever addressing symptoms. Whereas Europe fought for its freedom Africans and Middle-Easterns have the option of simply knocking on Europe's door than to stay and fight. The risk in closing Europe's borders are whether you end up fueling anti-West sentiment for groups such as ISIS to feed from.
Are you confusing asylum seekers with legal immigrants? The numbers are tiny by comparison.
Legal, illegal, refugees, asylum, in the long run it makes no difference really, people who move here from outside Europe tend to have large families, they have kids and then those kids also have large families because in their culture it's common place to do so, and so on and so on..............
Ok, sorry, I misinterpreted your original post. I think what you are proposing is a viable short term solution but the never-ending turmoil in those regions means you are forever addressing symptoms. Whereas Europe fought for its freedom Africans and Middle-Easterns have the option of simply knocking on Europe's door than to stay and fight. The risk in closing Europe's borders are whether you end up fueling anti-West sentiment for groups such as ISIS to feed from.
It's a permanent solution if done properly. Any EU countries who choose to take refugees can do so, but in the proper manner manner, like working with UNCHR. Most asylum seekers enter the UK by air with visas and also into other countries. That can't change.
It's not closing Europe's borders, it's closing the chaotic and dangerous way of entering Europe by sea, for one thing.. It's also helping to stop the exploitation and abuse by people traffickers. We certainly can't carry on the way it's going, a virtually uncontrolled chaotic mess with the numbers ever increasing.
Legal, illegal, refugees, asylum, in the long run it makes no difference really, people who move here from outside Europe tend to have large families, they have kids and then those kids also have large families because in their culture it's common place to do so, and so on and so on..............
Legal, illegal, refugees, asylum, in the long run it makes no difference really, people who move here from outside Europe tend to have large families, they have kids and then those kids also have large families because in their culture it's common place to do so, and so on and so on..............
Exactly, which is why I said the numbers don't stack up. The numbers aren't even in our (well to do, good ol' fashioned English gentlemen, lover of animals, tea, cricket and fair play) favour within Britain whilst the feckless reproduce like rabbits unless you operated some kind of maximum child policy which would never take off.
Thanks Jesaya. I was puzzled because I'd read the DR couldn't be legally enforced.
It can't be enforced if the 'first country' cannot or refuses to provide adequate facilities. And of course that is where the problem starts - if Greece and Italy (for example) don't have, or say they don't have, a place for the person then the other country cannot transfer them. So Dublin works for countries with adequate provisions (like the UK, Germany etc) but fails with the very countries which are the main points of entry. Overall, it is a waste of time and energy and isn't the solution at all.
There isn't really. Ultimately they're all looking for better ways of life and they believe that migrating is the answer. The only differences are arbitrary definitions and labels applied by middle-aged white men whose silly petty bureaucracies they couldn't care less about.
When you can't an NHS dentist because they're all over subscribed or your child can't get a place at their local school because it's full, then it doesn't really make any difference.
When you can't an NHS dentist because they're all over subscribed or your child can't get a place at their local school because it's full, then it doesn't really make any difference.
Look don't waste yer breath these people won't put them up and more than likely don't live in immigrant zones so they don't see any negative side to them coming in because it won't have any effect on them.
Look don't waste yer breath these people won't put them up and more than likely don't live in immigrant zones so they don't see any negative side to them coming in because it won't have any effect on them.
Lol, thanks for the advice, I know I might as well just go bang my head off a brick wall, even as Britain sinks beneath the waves and only our heads are left above the water some will say "but we still have room for some more!".
There isn't really. Ultimately they're all looking for better ways of life and they believe that migrating is the answer. The only differences are arbitrary definitions and labels applied by middle-aged white men whose silly petty bureaucracies they couldn't care less about.
And what about poorer working class Brits,who inevitably end up living in the same street as them - Do they not count ?
Comments
The EU over-rides the UN in practice, because the countries of the EU agreed between themselves that they would send AS back to the country of entry (if they chose). There have been challenges, but in reality international law cannot override it because there is nothing wrong with it in principle:
"The aim of the Regulation is to the ensure that one Member State is responsible for the examination of an asylum application, to deter multiple asylum claims and to determine as quickly as possible the responsible Member State to ensure effective access to an asylum procedure. The recast Dublin Regulation entered into force in July 2013 and is aimed at increasing the system’s efficiency and ensuring higher standards of protection for asylum seekers falling under the Dublin procedure. "
http://www.ecre.org/topics/areas-of-work/protection-in-europe/10-dublin-regulation.html
So it was designed to ensure that countries could not play 'pass the parcel' with asylum seekers and that the AS themselves could not 'pick and choose' where they went. However it doesn't work, not because the AS are abusing it (they can't, because they have no power to change the law and are subject to a 'Dublin Removal' if the country they try to claim in decides to enforce it. As so many AS are coming into a few EU countries (perhaps something that was not envisaged when Dublin was created) those countries are actively encouraging AS to move on, even giving them the fare! It is a complete mess and the current mechanism makes things worse for everybody, including the AS.
I didn't say they couldn't come in. If this was properly organised and contained by the EU at the points of entry and coordinated with the UN, they are building more refugee camps in neighbouring countries, no-one needs to stay in Europe. The asylum seekers are sent to camps in their neighbouring countries.The economic migrants are sent back to wherever they came from. If done properly as it desperately needs to be, it would put a halt to anyone wanting to come to Europe that way, if they knew they couldn't stay and the new camps will be there for them. Don't you think most refugees want to get back to their own countries whenever they can? They do.
A couple of years living like a peasant on arable land would certainly be a good test of the motivation to leave the war zone. And would ensure the motivation to return home at the earliest safe opportunity.
The only thing I rule out is trying to persuade someone who is terrified not to get into a boat.
I would not do that.
Nor would I use a Megaphone to try to persuade a man not to jump out of a Skyscraper if I could clearly see that his hair was on fire.
Yes and some of them have the gall to complain about where they are living. You would have thought they would be grateful to be free from all this "persecution"?
Do you have a link?
Are you confusing asylum seekers with legal immigrants? The numbers are tiny by comparison.
Have you never heard of any of the rioting that goes on in detention centres?
Thanks Jesaya. I was puzzled because I'd read the DR couldn't be legally enforced.
Do you know what a detention centre is or understand what they are rioting about?
Legal, illegal, refugees, asylum, in the long run it makes no difference really, people who move here from outside Europe tend to have large families, they have kids and then those kids also have large families because in their culture it's common place to do so, and so on and so on..............
It's a permanent solution if done properly. Any EU countries who choose to take refugees can do so, but in the proper manner manner, like working with UNCHR. Most asylum seekers enter the UK by air with visas and also into other countries. That can't change.
It's not closing Europe's borders, it's closing the chaotic and dangerous way of entering Europe by sea, for one thing.. It's also helping to stop the exploitation and abuse by people traffickers. We certainly can't carry on the way it's going, a virtually uncontrolled chaotic mess with the numbers ever increasing.
There's a huge difference.
You said "complaints" so I'd like a link to that.
It can't be enforced if the 'first country' cannot or refuses to provide adequate facilities. And of course that is where the problem starts - if Greece and Italy (for example) don't have, or say they don't have, a place for the person then the other country cannot transfer them. So Dublin works for countries with adequate provisions (like the UK, Germany etc) but fails with the very countries which are the main points of entry. Overall, it is a waste of time and energy and isn't the solution at all.
When you can't an NHS dentist because they're all over subscribed or your child can't get a place at their local school because it's full, then it doesn't really make any difference.
The majority, I believe, don't want any of them here.....we certainly don't need them.
Look don't waste yer breath these people won't put them up and more than likely don't live in immigrant zones so they don't see any negative side to them coming in because it won't have any effect on them.
This is current.
Migrants over-run French help centre where they have been staying since June, saying it is more like 'detention'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3184708/Eurotunnel-passengers-face-two-half-hour-delays-operators-inspect-tunnel-days-2-500-migrants-stormed-crossing-French-minister-pleads-British-help.html
Lol, thanks for the advice, I know I might as well just go bang my head off a brick wall, even as Britain sinks beneath the waves and only our heads are left above the water some will say "but we still have room for some more!".
And what about poorer working class Brits,who inevitably end up living in the same street as them - Do they not count ?
To some on this forum those working class Brits should just put up and shut up, basically.