Follow @PoliticsIE
 
 
 
Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 45

Thread: asylum seekers must be better distributed

  1. #1
    Politics.ie Member bormotello's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    12,051
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default asylum seekers must be better distributed

    From Euronews

    The EU’s top migration official, Justice Commissioner Jacques Barrot said efforts to harmonise the member states’ rules on asylum processing seek to set common standards while allowing for constructive flexibility.

    Barrot said: “Understood, if a member state has a tradition of asylum and generosity, it should continue. There’s no question of making it reduce the percentage of requests it accepts. Simply, I believe the asylum seekers must be better distributed, and then attention must be paid to see that each person asking for asylum is treated in a fair way, no matter which country he is in.”

    The European Parliament has urged Europe to show “collective responsibility” for asylum seekers.
    Several years of research in 11 EU countries has identified overcrowding and a lack of medical care and legal aid in detention centres as key concerns.
    It recommends against policies of just detaining people, and encourages open centres rather than closed.



    euronews | EU proposes asylum reponse office

  2. #2
    Politics.ie Member dsmythy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Swords
    Posts
    134
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    I guess in theory it's a good idea to spread asylum seekers throughout the EU according to state size and population regardless of where they first arrived in the EU.

    As for open centres... I think you'll find many going missing especially, and perhaps also worryingly, children.

  3. #3
    Politics.ie Member Tiernanator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    345
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    I think it is time to rethink the whole asylum/refugee multinational business. I call it a business because that it what it has become. I accept that there are genuine asylum seekers/refugees, however I refuse to accept that they and their descendants should be granted permanent leave to remain if their own land becomes less risky or violent. The problem is that after the emergency the host country is left with a population that it neither sought nor wanted in the first place, an annoyed local population and a disgruntled minority/minorities that feels put upon and who sometimes rightly rise up to say so.

    In my opinion what we have witnessed over the past decades is massive economic migration on a scale previously unseen. The planet has never had so many people, so naturally this is the first time such numbers have moved from one place to another. I personally, have no problem with people seeking a better life in other lands however I do feel genuinely angered that people have abused the asylum and refugee systems for other ends. If they are economic migrants who want to move to "greener pastures" then let them do so by changing the system to permit economic migrants instead of continuing with the sham that exists now.

    In the longer term it appears that vast sections of Africa and Asia will decant into Europe, US and Canada and Austrailia the impetus has been growing over the last number of decades. Again I have no problem with people of any colour, religion or race seeking a better life and perhaps the dwindling White European birthrates are a natural precusor to what might be described as inevitable demographic change. Yet I feel annoyed that neither the feelings of the natives nor the implications it might have for the descendants of the migrants are being considered by our betters. Hitler found an easy target in the Jewish people during WWII and the seeds are being sown for a new easy target in the future. The debate must be open and the usual suspects who shout "racist" etc must try to allow a reasoned discussion on what he future might be.

    People are people and are therefore because of their humanity entitled to dignity. The system as it is neither affords this to the migrant or the host population/land.

  4. #4
    Politics.ie Member florin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,360
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    I also think that "differently attractive" countries such as Ireland should receive a higher proportion of the good-looking ones. To even things out.

  5. #5
    Politics.ie Member Tiernanator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    345
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by florin View Post
    I also think that "differently attractive" countries such as Ireland should receive a higher proportion of the good-looking ones. To even things out.
    You have a point there florin.

  6. #6
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    429
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by florin View Post
    I also think that "differently attractive" countries such as Ireland should receive a higher proportion of the good-looking ones. To even things out.
    I must have missed something, since I have seen no parade of beauty queens among migrant workers and asylum seekers. I suspect you haven't travelled very much throughout the world, have you?

    But assuming what you say is correct, wouldn't the same result be achieved if people like you emigrated?

  7. #7
    Politics.ie Member Tiernanator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    345
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Horace Horse View Post
    I must have missed something, since I have seen no parade of beauty queens among migrant workers and asylum seekers. I suspect you haven't travelled very much throughout the world, have you?

    But assuming what you say is correct, wouldn't the same result be achieved if people like you emigrated?


    Are you gay Horace Horse...you should be! That was catty but cool.

  8. #8
    Politics.ie Member FutureTaoiseach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Dept. of FutureTaoiseach
    Posts
    7,992
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Open-centres are a bad idea, as they inevitably allow thousands of asylum-seekers and illegal-immigrants to go underground to avoid deportation. Recent figures in the press report that around 6,000 failed asylum-seekers are evading deportation. However this call from Brussels exposes a negative aspect of a certain model of a common immigration and asylum policy at EU level - namely the likelihood that Ireland - in defiance of the spirit of the Dublin II Regulations - will be asked to take other countries' e.g. Spain, Italy's asylum-seekers. In a time of severe recession where we are harder hit than other member states, this is not reasonable. However, I support a common asylum to the extent that I favour the initiate to set up EU asylum centres outside of the EU e.g. North Africa where asylum-seekers could claim asylum prior to entry to Europe. This seems a timely moment to also bring up the dangers of the Charter of Fundamental Rights with respect to asylum and immigration, in particular Articles 15 and 18. Article 18 binds Ireland to the 1952 Refugee/Geneva Convention, despite its abuse for economic-migration. The latter document was drawn up at a time when travel was far less available and affordable that in 2008, and is in desperate need of reform to take account of that reality. Article 18 also effectively hands jurisdiction over asylum-cases to the ECJ, stating that 'collective expulsions are forbidden'. The text of the Lisbon Treaty states that the Charter shall have the same bearing in EU law as the treaties, and with the ECJ the final arbitar of interpretation of EU laws, effectively that makes the ECJ the Federal Supreme Court of the EU with respect to the contents of the Charter, which also refer to matters such as the right to work (Article 15), which makes the sweeping generalisation that 'everybody has the right to work' - in spite of the fact that some member states - such as Ireland and Britain - deny that right to asylum-seekers. I favour our ban on such work, as it was being abused in the years up to 2003 when such work was allowed (11,000 came in 2002 for that reason). Article 15 effectively reintroduces this right to work at a time when the hardpressed Irish worker cannot find work. It is morally indefensible and unpatriotic to foist additional labour-competition from the developing world on the Irish people in a severe recession bordering on a depression. Vote no.

  9. #9
    Politics.ie Member bormotello's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    12,051
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FutureTaoiseach View Post
    However, I support a common asylum to the extent that I favour the initiate to set up EU asylum centres outside of the EU e.g. North Africa where asylum-seekers could claim asylum prior to entry to Europe.
    Great idea, but I don’t see any country, which will allow create such centres.

  10. #10
    Politics.ie Member Tiernanator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    345
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bormotello View Post
    Great idea, but I don’t see any country, which will allow create such centres.
    I suppose if it was made profitable for these countries then it might be possible. However as I stated in my previous post the real reason for most of the so-called asylum seekers being here was for work and a better life. Not against anyone for wanting that but there is a limit to how many people Europe can take.

Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •