There was a recent thread about Germany firing the head of the asylum agency amid a scandal in which an internal review found one of the branches had disregarded legal regulations.   Although the thread is specific to Germany, which of the following best describes your attitude toward asylum/refugee laws?

 

For the purpose of discussion, those seeking asylum are those that show up at a border and request protection from deportation.    Those simply sneaking into a country and not presenting themselves to authorities are illegal immigrants.  

 

Please feel free to leave a comment.

 

For further information, this is the thread about Germany:

 

 

 

 

I am not a religious person, but I would hate to be the one who refused Joseph and Mary a place at the inn.

 

Asylum, as opposed to illegal immigration, is a simple demonstration of humanity. Yes, there needs to be a process, there needs to be some checking out of a story, there needs to be a hearing of some sort, but to refuse people who have a 'well-founded fear of persecution' is not very compassionate.

 

And, I would prefer to live in a compassionate society.

 

It is easy to say 'I have mine and I am not willing to share now that I have made it' or words to that effect, but it behooves all of us to remember that, perhaps one day, we might be on the other side of that fence.

 

A reasonable and thorough process before asylum is granted? Yes

 

Grant asylum after that reasonable and thorough process? Yes.

 

The first thing is to sort out genuine asylum seekers versus economic immigrants, the term economic immigrants refers to those leave their own country, travel to a second country where they are safe and then move to a third country to claim asylum as it looks better.  The UN convention supports asylum seekers, not economic immigrants.

 

The other problem is that criminals have seized on providing the transportation which literally sees hundreds every year die trying.  The examples of this are the boat people to Australia from Indonesia, economic immigrants who left say Afghanistan, went to Pakistan (a safe place) to Indonesia (another safe place) then paid smugglers to take their chances on the high seas.  Stopped the boats, stopped the deaths, effective, but not universally popular. 

 

The latest is where well meaning people are operating boats to pick up people of the coast of Libya and (were) taking them to Italy.  The smugglers are putting people on anything that floats and getting them not far offshore and relying on the do-gooders.  How many are dying every year, hundreds if not thousands.  So is this the correct approach, probably not.

 

Whilst it is commendable to have christian or charitable beliefs it is an unfortunate fact of life that not 100% of the population will share or adhere to similar beliefs, and as soon as money is involved the percentage who will adhere to theirs beliefs plummets.

 

Pretty much every country has immigration quotas where they aim to take in genuine refugees, the economic immigrants must be regarded as queue jumpers and sent back to the original safe location and the boats must be stopped to save lives.

 

Cheers

Asylum laws are about geopolitical interests of the host country.  There are not uniform in there nature and unfortunately as we find out, Western countries seem to be especially willing to assist those who would be deemed to be criminals in their own countries (for crimes like embezzlement and fraud) to accepting 'undocumented' hardened criminals (murder, robbery, rape) but turn a blind eye if it suits their over-arching national interests.  The concept of asylum laws is noble, but there general application is anything but. 

For what country?

2 hours ago, Litlos said:

The first thing is to sort out genuine asylum seekers versus economic immigrants, the term economic immigrants refers to those leave their own country, travel to a second country where they are safe and then move to a third country to claim asylum as it looks better.  The UN convention supports asylum seekers, not economic immigrants.

 

The other problem is that criminals have seized on providing the transportation which literally sees hundreds every year die trying.  The examples of this are the boat people to Australia from Indonesia, economic immigrants who left say Afghanistan, went to Pakistan (a safe place) to Indonesia (another safe place) then paid smugglers to take their chances on the high seas.  Stopped the boats, stopped the deaths, effective, but not universally popular. 

 

The latest is where well meaning people are operating boats to pick up people of the coast of Libya and (were) taking them to Italy.  The smugglers are putting people on anything that floats and getting them not far offshore and relying on the do-gooders.  How many are dying every year, hundreds if not thousands.  So is this the correct approach, probably not.

 

Whilst it is commendable to have christian or charitable beliefs it is an unfortunate fact of life that not 100% of the population will share or adhere to similar beliefs, and as soon as money is involved the percentage who will adhere to theirs beliefs plummets.

 

Pretty much every country has immigration quotas where they aim to take in genuine refugees, the economic immigrants must be regarded as queue jumpers and sent back to the original safe location and the boats must be stopped to save lives.

 

Cheers

 

The convention allows asylum seekers to move through safe countries if there was not a realistic opportunity for them to approach authorities such as legally entering at an official border, being smuggled through a border does not amount to a realistic opportunity and thus asylum seekers passing through safe countries clandestinely are not returned to those countries.  And passing through a safe country to get to another does not automatically make them economic migrants, many do so out of cultural affinity, knowing the language of their chosen destination or because they have contacts or family who are already there.  Retirees who chose to move abroad to make their pensions go further are by definition economic migrants, it is a broad term that is used to define those who move abroad to better their standard of living, but those who cannot be returned due to persecution in their country of origin are defined as refugees, you do not set the definition of these already defined terms.

 

 

16 minutes ago, dotpoom said:

For what country?

 

Perhaps all countries that are signatory members of the Convention on Refugees, rather than the 43 that are not.

Quote

For the purpose of discussion, those seeking asylum are those that show up at a border and request protection from deportation.    Those simply sneaking into a country and not presenting themselves to authorities are illegal immigrants.  

 

For the purpose of discussion we are to ignore the actual definition as defined in the convention that we are effectively voting on.  Why not stick to the definition, why make one up?  Or is that what you want us to discuss?

Firstly I would like to point out that the accusation against BAMF appears, from a media report, to be primarily related to allegedly not following protocol when assisting Iraqi Yazidi asylum seekers who are not Muslim; many were saved from genocide by ISIS by US coalition members.

 

Corruption scandal at BAMF

On April 20, 2018, a number of employees at the regional BAMF office in Bremen were accused of having illegally accepted hundreds of asylum applicants between 2013 and 2017, mainly from Iraq's Yazidi community. Bremen public prosecutors announced that six people, including the former director of the Bremen BAMF office, were under investigation for alleged corruption in about 1,200 cases.

 

One of the primary causes of the German situation in 2015 was the failure of the international community to adequately support countries hosting millions of asylum seekers / refugees with no hope in countries such as Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan and so on. The result being EU frontline countries such as Greece being swamped with their processing procedures being overwhelmed, the rest is history.

 

As of 2016 there were around 17.2 million refugees globally with only 1% resettled p.a. by UNHCR in a limited amount of countries. Since that time some countries have drastically reduced their allocation of intakes. According, yes, the global asylum seeker processing procedures and policy need to be overhauled with adequate funding / resources to be allocated. Regrettably , among others, the US is following a trend of inward looking nationalism / protectionism without leadership for global challenges. In this regards I do admire Merkel and some other leaders in their brave search for solutions

 

 

deleted duplicate post

Edited June 17, 20188 yr by simple1

8 hours ago, dotpoom said:

For what country?

The Whole World

They are coming in the boat loads and land in only one of a few countries, as I understand it they are the responsibility of the first safe country they reach.

 

Obviously the countries they arrive in may not be able to cope and then they must be shared out with other countries, also are they refuges or just economic migrants?

 

My thoughts.

• Firstly all refugees should have their bio-metrics recorded and be documented in whichever country they first arrive coordinated by the UN Refugee Agency.
• Then none genuine refugees should be filtered out and sent back to where they came from, refugees giving false information could have their asylum status immediately rescinded.
• The UN Refugee Agency should coordinate needed international aid.
• Where the country of arrival is unable to cope the other countries must help with each country agreeing a quota, if a refugee has a genuine reason to go to a country because of family connections then they would get preferential treatment but no country would be expected to exceed it quota so the others would be allocated a country by lottery.
• Refugees would not necessarily travel immediately to their allocated country but remain in transit camps providing shelter, food and schooling, funded and run by the country they are going to. 
• By taking the bio-metrics in the first instance will stop asylum seekers not liking the country the have been allocated or the rejected economic migrants reapplying.

 

7 minutes ago, Basil B said:

They are coming in the boat loads and land in only one of a few countries, as I understand it they are the responsibility of the first safe country they reach.

 

Obviously the countries they arrive in may not be able to cope and then they must be shared out with other countries, also are they refuges or just economic migrants?

 

My thoughts.

• Firstly all refugees should have their bio-metrics recorded and be documented in whichever country they first arrive coordinated by the UN Refugee Agency.
• Then none genuine refugees should be filtered out and sent back to where they came from, refugees giving false information could have their asylum status immediately rescinded.
• The UN Refugee Agency should coordinate needed international aid.
• Where the country of arrival is unable to cope the other countries must help with each country agreeing a quota, if a refugee has a genuine reason to go to a country because of family connections then they would get preferential treatment but no country would be expected to exceed it quota so the others would be allocated a country by lottery.
• Refugees would not necessarily travel immediately to their allocated country but remain in transit camps providing shelter, food and schooling, funded and run by the country they are going to. 
• By taking the bio-metrics in the first instance will stop asylum seekers not liking the country the have been allocated or the rejected economic migrants reapplying.

 

 

Quote

Refugees would not necessarily travel immediately to their allocated country but remain in transit camps providing shelter, food and schooling, funded and run by the country they are going to. 

Why would they be put into camps, what for?

1 minute ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

Why would they be put into camps, what for?

As I understand it the UK last year or maybe the year before agreed to take a quota of refugees but we would have to stagger it over a few years as we could not accept them all at once, lot easier to house them where it is warm than in the UK where we have no immediate housing for them, we have only just manged to rehouse 90% of those who lost their homes after Grenfell over a year ago.

 

The transit camps would provide shelter, food and schooling, in providing schooling no only children but adults too, teaching English and the way of life in the UK... 

13 minutes ago, Basil B said:

As I understand it the UK last year or maybe the year before agreed to take a quota of refugees but we would have to stagger it over a few years as we could not accept them all at once, lot easier to house them where it is warm than in the UK where we have no immediate housing for them, we have only just manged to rehouse 90% of those who lost their homes after Grenfell over a year ago.

 

The transit camps would provide shelter, food and schooling, in providing schooling no only children but adults too, teaching English and the way of life in the UK... 

 

We take in over 20,000 refugees every year, the Syrian refugee quota was just about appeasing voters who were concerned with immigration, nothing to do with housing as we have 24,000 empty council houses.  We could have housed the Grenfell Tower homeless in any of the 7,500 empty council houses in London, but we put them up in hotels and b&b's and generally messed it up.  Try not to confuse inemptitude with a lack of resources.

15 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

We take in over 20,000 refugees every year, the Syrian refugee quota was just about appeasing voters who were concerned with immigration, nothing to do with housing as we have 24,000 empty council houses.  We could have housed the Grenfell Tower homeless in any of the 7,500 empty council houses in London, but we put them up in hotels and b&b's and generally messed it up.  Try not to confuse inemptitude with a lack of resources.

My understanding re Grefill tower,sub letting took the task of identification to levels that could not be accounted for,still unidentified(official inquiry to report further). The Grenfill tower homeless would more than likely be made further homeless by Universal Credit being applied.  Basically the majority residents Genfill Tower were spongers,note the ones in prison and awaiting sentence or already in jail probably to be kicked out of the UK,as most of them should

2 minutes ago, altcar bob said:

My understanding re Grefill tower,sub letting took the task of identification to levels that could not be accounted for,still unidentified(official inquiry to report further). The Grenfill tower homeless would more than likely be made further homeless by Universal Credit being applied.  Basically the majority residents Genfill Tower were spongers,note the ones in prison and awaiting sentence or already in jail probably to be kicked out of the UK,as most of them should

 

Yòu think most of the Grenfell Tower homeless should be kicked out of the UK? 

Just now, Kieran00001 said:

 

Yòu think most of the Grenfell Tower homeless should be kicked out of the UK? 

Nothing to do with the UK,spongers all,all the hard work done for them,ie taxpaying population,never will they contribute anything to UK society   ..but YES

1 minute ago, altcar bob said:

Nothing to do with the UK,spongers all,all the hard work done for them,ie taxpaying population,never will they contribute anything to UK society   ..but YES

 

What are you basing this on?  How do you know they were spongers?

3 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

What are you basing this on?  How do you know they were spongers?

Ie  not one of them had jobs ,all on pension credits,or welfare the non-white homeless,yes Vietnam sponger(now in jail) guess he is white,but put it another way around,do you personally know any victim or otherwise in gainful employment paying full rent/  even the guy who created it was tax dodger     PS  however I do suggest you follow the inquiry now being held so it will enable you to follow the events and events in closer detail to avoid asking questions that officially have already be asked and answered

Edited June 17, 20188 yr by altcar bob

8 hours ago, altcar bob said:

Ie  not one of them had jobs ,all on pension credits,or welfare the non-white homeless,yes Vietnam sponger(now in jail) guess he is white,but put it another way around,do you personally know any victim or otherwise in gainful employment paying full rent/  even the guy who created it was tax dodger     PS  however I do suggest you follow the inquiry now being held so it will enable you to follow the events and events in closer detail to avoid asking questions that officially have already be asked and answered

As you're making the claim you need to provide the proof. However, once again demonstrating your total lack of empathy by attacking the victims of a terrible residential fire. Grenfell Towers was used for social housing, so not a surprise a lot on welfare, though some did have mortgages on their property.

 

Getting back on topic what does the Grenfell Tower disaster have to with the OP?

Edited June 17, 20188 yr by simple1

What i find with asylum seekers, that they're always, but always, ask for an asylum from a rich nation, never a small or not so well to do nation or country, is economic security plays a part here?  why is that, why are they, the people who afraid for their lives always go to countries like the EU and Australia and never to countries in Africa or Arab/muslim country?....

10 minutes ago, ezzra said:

What i find with asylum seekers, that they're always, but always, ask for an asylum from a rich nation, never a small or not so well to do nation or country, is economic security plays a part here?  why is that, why are they, the people who afraid for their lives always go to countries like the EU and Australia and never to countries in Africa or Arab/muslim country?....

Wealthier nations are usual signatories to the UN Convention for Refugees, who have legally recognised documented policies and procedures providing protection, poorer countries often do not. There are millions of asylum seekers / refugees / IDPs hosted in Muslim countries e.g. Turkey, Lebanon, Iraq, Jordan, Malaysia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and others. Those countries not signatories to the Convention, e.g. Saudi Arabia, are not reported on by UNHCR from which media primarily get their stats.

Edited June 17, 20188 yr by simple1

Stay on topic.  

I voted that countries should not allow any refugees in. And I would like the opportunity to explain why I voted this way.

 

 There is no question that vulnerable people genuinely fleeing from unwarranted persecution should be given refuge in a safe country. That is beyond question. BUT. The events over the last 5 years have been so incredibly tragic that the whole "refugee" situation is now poison. Against the chorus of stop this open border fiasco and properly vet the incomers, which was refused by our political masters who let in anyone and everyone that crossed the Med in the name of multiculti diversity which we apparently needed because our cultures were considered boring and even offensive by our leaders.

  So we had thousands of vile ideologists and terrorists, and men in their 30s and even older - balding, greying, with crows feet by their eyes- pretending to be children and they were all let in, and logical doubters were called racists and bigots and nazis, and then we had a spate of terror attacks by these people and it keeps going downhill. Mass sexual assaults in Cologne by gangs of "refugees", and "refugees" driving HGV trucks through German Christmas markets, and "refugees" bombing trains in London, or driving trucks through pedestrians in Stockholm and Nice, or chopping up families on a train in Germany with an axe, and the Bataclan, and Arianne Grande, and all the ones swept under the carpet - the explosion in so called mental illness causing violence. Our countries existence is in dire threat now thanks to this letting in of so many barbarians. The word refugee is now toxic and the whole sorry fiasco may well end up splitting up the EU or even civil wars. 

Tragic that those in charge of refugees poisoned the whole affair by their intolerant haughtiness and end of the day, their stupidity that led to this terrible handling of a just cause.

 

 

Two posts against forum rules have been removed.

On 6/17/2018 at 7:55 AM, Samui Bodoh said:

I would hate to be the one who refused Joseph and Mary a place at the inn

Joseph and Mary were not seeking asylum. They were citizens returning to register. Nobody was going to throw them out of the country. The so-called inn was full and so they were given what was available. 

5 hours ago, zydeco said:

Joseph and Mary were not seeking asylum. They were citizens returning to register. Nobody was going to throw them out of the country. The so-called inn was full and so they were given what was available. 

 

And do you know the story beyond the bit that every kindergarten kid knows?  After Jesus was born the shepherds went to the king and told him a new king had been born, the king then sent his men to every village to kill every new born boy, but Mary, Joseph and Jesus had already escaped to Egypt where they were given asylum until they decided it was safe to return home.

On 6/17/2018 at 11:36 AM, Kieran00001 said:

 

The convention allows asylum seekers to move through safe countries if there was not a realistic opportunity for them to approach authorities such as legally entering at an official border, being smuggled through a border does not amount to a realistic opportunity and thus asylum seekers passing through safe countries clandestinely are not returned to those countries.  And passing through a safe country to get to another does not automatically make them economic migrants, many do so out of cultural affinity, knowing the language of their chosen destination or because they have contacts or family who are already there.  Retirees who chose to move abroad to make their pensions go further are by definition economic migrants, it is a broad term that is used to define those who move abroad to better their standard of living, but those who cannot be returned due to persecution in their country of origin are defined as refugees, you do not set the definition of these already defined terms.

 

 

This from the UK Independent appears to state it differently and seems to be a balanced interpretation:

"What is an economic migrant?

Another label that frequently gets invoked in the current debate is that of the “economic migrant”. An economic migrant is not a legal classification, but rather an umbrella term for a wide array of people that move from one country to another to advance their economic and professional prospects.

For example, Mark Carney, governor of the Bank of England, could be classified as an economic migrant just as much as a young Senegalese man trying to jump on a lorry in Calais.

If a claim is allowed, the applicant receives the refugee status and is generally granted a five-year stay in the UK. (AP)

The UK, like most countries with advanced economies, has specific policies in place to facilitate the mobility of highly skilled professionals and investors into their respective national economy. These people are considered desirable migrants and are identified as expatriates.

When the term economic migrants is used, it generally refers to the unskilled and semi-skilled individuals from impoverished countries in the global south. Economic migrants are not eligible for asylum under the 1951 Geneva Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. However, any migrant arriving on UK territory has the right to have their asylum claim reviewed. This is a human right."

 

Cheers

3 minutes ago, Litlos said:

This from the UK Independent appears to state it differently and seems to be a balanced interpretation:

"What is an economic migrant?

Another label that frequently gets invoked in the current debate is that of the “economic migrant”. An economic migrant is not a legal classification, but rather an umbrella term for a wide array of people that move from one country to another to advance their economic and professional prospects.

For example, Mark Carney, governor of the Bank of England, could be classified as an economic migrant just as much as a young Senegalese man trying to jump on a lorry in Calais.

If a claim is allowed, the applicant receives the refugee status and is generally granted a five-year stay in the UK. (AP)

The UK, like most countries with advanced economies, has specific policies in place to facilitate the mobility of highly skilled professionals and investors into their respective national economy. These people are considered desirable migrants and are identified as expatriates.

When the term economic migrants is used, it generally refers to the unskilled and semi-skilled individuals from impoverished countries in the global south. Economic migrants are not eligible for asylum under the 1951 Geneva Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. However, any migrant arriving on UK territory has the right to have their asylum claim reviewed. This is a human right."

 

Cheers

 

Quote

economic migrants, it is a broad term that is used to define those who move abroad to better their standard of living

Quote

an economic migrant is not a legal classification, but rather an umbrella term for a wide array of people that move from one country to another to advance their economic and professional prospects.

Sorry, what is the difference and lack of balance in my definition?