Sweden to deport 106-year-old Afghan woman

[anon4546543]

7 hours ago, Scott said:

The family has been screened out and denied refugee status.   There is no first country to return to.   The next destination is Afghanistan.   It's sad, but that's how it works.  

 

Sweden could allow the old lady to stay on humanitarian grounds, but that would not extend to the remainder of her family.  

 

Since they have appealed, there could be at least one less person on the trip back, given her age and the length of the appeal process.  

 

I am not sure how it works but it seems to me that she may be too old to travel by plane. What if she were to suffer some misfortune on the journey?

No other form of return journey seems possible either. I suspect she and her family may be allowed to stay on condition no further family is allowed to

apply to relocate from Afghanistan. Of course there may be many more family members in the pipeline.

It certainly is a tricky dilemma for all EU countries in particular. It seems to have been compounded by a Ms Merkel.

 

[i claudius]

To old to travel by plane.well then the family will just have to tske her back the way they came.

Sent from my SM-A720F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[Dumbastheycome]

10 hours ago, Blue Muton said:

 

Horrendus!

What  are  the  road  fatalities,  domestic  violence, suicide, workplace  accident , accidental  death from  possession of   firearms, drownings, extreme  sports,   "Acts  of  God "....lightening  strikes....rock  falls, etc by  comparison?

For  sure a 106 year  old  refugee  with  such a  long  lifetime  of  insidious  information  of  hordes  of   terrorists   motives  needs  be   tossed  back !

Or  should  we  all feel  good  about  the  faceless  propagandist   non  humanitarian  concerns of  discrimination ?

[Trouble]

12 hours ago, topt said:

Thanks for the links. Supposing that you were not being disingenuous in some way take it as a learning experience that if you make statements like that it is always good to back them up in some way.........

 

Interesting in quickly perusing most of the links the evidence is mainly positive about EU migrants. It would be useful (although probably too soon) to see the effects from migrants specifically from Africa and the Middle East for example (in the last 5-10 years). I suspect, but have no evidence, that it may tell a different story.

The left will alway find justification for allowing the immigration issue to go full speed ahead.  Here in the USA, the left is going full bore on immigrants rights (even when they are illegally living in the country).  While I don't blame the immigrants for making an attempt to live in a better place and the left seems to advocate for them, they do it without regard for the rest of the population that ends up suffering.  Sure some sectors want more immigration but in my mind until there is nearly full employment why would a country need more people?  The effect of the massive immigration is that it keeps wages low. If McDonald's had a problem getting workers maybe the wages would go up. That's supply and demand working.  So how is this 106 year old Afghan woman going to help out Sweden.  Her contribution to Swedish society is nothing. She will suck up health and welfare benefits that's it.  Now if the compassionate left wants to help her out, I suggest they take her into their home and foot the bill for her.  It's not that I don't have any compassion for the plight of refugees, however what the left will not and cannot answer is how many refugees and immigrants should be allowed to move to anyone country before it won't work anymore. You will never get the left to answer the question.  

[anon4546543]

After Ms Merkel open invitation for anyone to invade Europe, one literal group of backpackers made it to the nearest safe haven.  Apparently that was Sweden. They backpacked a 106 year old woman from Afghanistan to Sweden. Tenacious and opportunistic. But that seems to be the nearest safe haven they could find....All the way from Afghanistan? The rights of legitimate refugees has been abused for too long. I worked for a mining company where some Zimbabweans worked.  Their complaint was that they had left a hostile and failed country, applied for the various visas, provided full identity checks, complied with all legal requirements and yet others in invading Europe, felt it was a right to "relocate".  Despite being somewhat distasteful, the Australian Government seems to have got it mostly right.

 Sure, apply for refugee status, but do not expect much sympathy if you have destroyed your identity, destroyed identity of your country of birth and origin and want to turn up in a foreign country expecting medical, education and welfare benefits. 

In this case, returning a 106 year old to Afghanistan seems ludicrous, in that she got there in the first place.

Lots of heads should be made accountable, and the former communist educated Ms Merkel should be near the top of the list.

[Grouse]

1 hour ago, spiderorchid said:

After Ms Merkel open invitation for anyone to invade Europe, one literal group of backpackers made it to the nearest safe haven.  Apparently that was Sweden. They backpacked a 106 year old woman from Afghanistan to Sweden. Tenacious and opportunistic. But that seems to be the nearest safe haven they could find....All the way from Afghanistan? The rights of legitimate refugees has been abused for too long. I worked for a mining company where some Zimbabweans worked.  Their complaint was that they had left a hostile and failed country, applied for the various visas, provided full identity checks, complied with all legal requirements and yet others in invading Europe, felt it was a right to "relocate".  Despite being somewhat distasteful, the Australian Government seems to have got it mostly right.

 Sure, apply for refugee status, but do not expect much sympathy if you have destroyed your identity, destroyed identity of your country of birth and origin and want to turn up in a foreign country expecting medical, education and welfare benefits. 

In this case, returning a 106 year old to Afghanistan seems ludicrous, in that she got there in the first place.

Lots of heads should be made accountable, and the former communist educated Ms Merkel should be near the top of the list.

Unpleasant, irrational and incorrect.

 

No comment

[anon4546543]

30 minutes ago, Grouse said:

Unpleasant, irrational and incorrect.

 

No comment

But you cannot explain why. I wrote about people from Zimbabwe seeking sanctuary in Aust. True, fact and only unpleasant because of the country they escaped from. Aust take 10's of thousands of legitimate refugees every year.

As a result it is arguably the most multi cultural country in the world.  The people from Zimbabwe are now Aust citizens because they applied through appropriate channels.

The charter for refugees asks that they apply for sanctuary at the nearest safe haven, not pick and choose a country half a world away.  Then you say no comment after you have already made a silly comment.

[simple1]

4 hours ago, spiderorchid said:

But you cannot explain why. I wrote about people from Zimbabwe seeking sanctuary in Aust. True, fact and only unpleasant because of the country they escaped from. Aust take 10's of thousands of legitimate refugees every year.

As a result it is arguably the most multi cultural country in the world.  The people from Zimbabwe are now Aust citizens because they applied through appropriate channels.

The charter for refugees asks that they apply for sanctuary at the nearest safe haven, not pick and choose a country half a world away.  Then you say no comment after you have already made a silly comment.

How many are migrants versus claiming refugee status as an asylum seeker outside of Zimbabwe. You may find the URL below interesting. Also suggest you look up the UN legal definition of a safe country. At the time of the crisis I seriously doubt Greece would have complied, and highly likely reason why Merkel temporarily waived the Dublin Agreement and definitely not countries such as Iran, Turkey and Lebanon.

 

https://www.dss.gov.au/our-responsibilities/settlement-and-multicultural-affairs/programs-policy/a-multicultural-australia/programs-and-publications/community-information-summaries/the-zimbabwe-born-community

 

[Scott]

The topic is about a 106 year old Afghani woman who may soon be deported.   Let's stick to that subject.  

 

[12DrinkMore]

14 hours ago, simple1 said:

The number you quote for Afghanistan is 'only' for civilian deaths, not the total number of deaths on all sides throughout the country due to armed conflict. As a speculative comment there would be a lot of unreported civilian deaths in Afghanistan e.g. ethnic cleansing

 

if you're interested in the deep South, which is Off Topic,  have a read of...

 

http://www.defence.gov.au/ADC/Publications/Shedden/2012/SheddenPapers12_120306_ConflictinThailand_Nurakkate.pdf

 

 

Thanks.

 

A new figure (for me) came out of that paper. In addition to the civilian casualties I did not realise that

 

Quote

It is also taxing on the lives of Thai security personnel.  The government has lost many personnel; almost 700 casualties per year. 

 

[Blue Muton]

52 minutes ago, 12DrinkMore said:

 

Thanks.

 

A new figure (for me) came out of that paper. In addition to the civilian casualties I did not realise that

 

 

You still haven't come up with an explanation as to how this makes Afghanistan safe. You do have an explanation, don't you?

[Scott]

I think we need to stay on topic.   Afghanistan is not a safe country and people in those countries are at risk.   Likewise, many of the people coming from South Sahara Africa are very poor.   Neither of those situations entitles a person to be a refugee.   Unless this lady and her family are targeted for one of the convention reasons, then they are not genuine refugees.

 

Countries are not under any obligation to deport people.   Many countries have provisions for humanitarian parole for people who might face excessive hardship if they returned.  

 

I genuinely feel sorry for this lady and her family, but it does not mean that they are refugees.   Ultimately, how Sweden decides to deal with is an internal affair.   They can allow her to stay, but she may not be comfortable with only one or two of her family being allowed to remain with her.  

[Guest]

8 hours ago, spiderorchid said:

But you cannot explain why. I wrote about people from Zimbabwe seeking sanctuary in Aust. True, fact and only unpleasant because of the country they escaped from. Aust take 10's of thousands of legitimate refugees every year.

As a result it is arguably the most multi cultural country in the world.  The people from Zimbabwe are now Aust citizens because they applied through appropriate channels.

The charter for refugees asks that they apply for sanctuary at the nearest safe haven, not pick and choose a country half a world away.  Then you say no comment after you have already made a silly comment.

Are you talking about Austria or Australia?

Why not write the full name of the country you are talking about?

 

 

[12DrinkMore]

3 hours ago, Blue Muton said:

You still haven't come up with an explanation as to how this makes Afghanistan safe. You do have an explanation, don't you?

 

It does not make Afghanistan safe.

 

However I will defer judgement of what is "safe enough" to the Swedish government and, indeed, the many countries in Europe that deny asylum to Afghans from parts of the country considered safe. I am sure that they have more information and are able to assess to risks much better than I can.

 

I can sympathise with the general unlawfulness, poverty and higher risks, but that does not mean that developed countries that have progressed from tribal battles, serfdom and poverty should have a responsibility to accept the hundreds of millions of people on the planet who would like come and live in better conditions.

 

There has to be a line drawn somewhere.

 

 

[scorecard]

On 9/5/2017 at 6:40 AM, Andaman Al said:

It seems crazy when you look at all the young male refugees causing big problems in Sweden right now. Are they getting rid of this woman on principle because all her relatives would then be entitled to join her? At 106 I imagine she has quite a few. All very sad, humanity is the loser.

 

I add, where is the UN and why haven't they make a lot of progress since their start up nearly 100 years ago towards establishing a civil world where every human being enjoys the same level of freedom, good educational and opportunities, justice and good / same level health care, and a good quality of life?

 

Seems to me that's why the UN was formed but they lost focus generations ago. 

 

 

[simple1]

1 hour ago, 12DrinkMore said:

 

It does not make Afghanistan safe.

 

However I will defer judgement of what is "safe enough" to the Swedish government and, indeed, the many countries in Europe that deny asylum to Afghans from parts of the country considered safe. I am sure that they have more information and are able to assess to risks much better than I can.

 

I can sympathise with the general unlawfulness, poverty and higher risks, but that does not mean that developed countries that have progressed from tribal battles, serfdom and poverty should have a responsibility to accept the hundreds of millions of people on the planet who would like come and live in better conditions.

 

There has to be a line drawn somewhere.

 

 

Compare the number of refugees hosted by Western countries to the developing world. You will very quickly come to the realisation where the vast majority of refugees reside. In fact, in comparison, Western countries host a relatively small number of refugees.

 

[Andaman Al]

On 9/5/2017 at 10:51 AM, FreddieRoyle said:

 I can't see the problem here. If Sweden was the 1st "safe" country she set foot on after fleeing the war zone, then she must be allowed to remain, as per European law.

And I can't see how Sweden can be the first 'safe' country she set foot in. It is a geographical impossibility for a land traveller.

[Blue Muton]

6 minutes ago, Andaman Al said:

And I can't see how Sweden can be the first 'safe' country she set foot in. It is a geographical impossibility for a land traveller.

In any event the statement that "If Sweden was the 1st "safe" country she set foot on after fleeing the war zone, then she must be allowed to remain, as per European law" is incorrect, member states make decisions on what is or is not a "safe" country of origin, not the EU.