Europe’s leaders weigh in on best way to deal with migrant crisis

[webfact]

Europe’s leaders weigh in on best way to deal with migrant crisis
By Sarah Joanne Taylor | With REUTERS, UNHCR



NEW YORK: -- The build-up of thousands of migrants on Greece’s northern border has created further tensions among European countries.

As the United Nations announced border closures were putting the continent “on the cusp of a largely self-induced humanitarian crisis,” Europe’s leaders have given their opinions on what is going wrong.

“When half-a-million people come to Austria because they believe that they can continue towards Germany, then Austria is a waiting room, stuck in the middle – [with migrants] waved through on the one side, stopped on the other side. That’s why we were saying in February and now in March: This policy of waving through must be stopped. This disorganised chaos must be stopped,” Austrian Chancellor, Werner Faymann, told a press conference.

Last month, Austria limited the number of migrants it lets through daily to 3,200.

Other countries along the Balkan route have also enforced tighter border restrictions.

The knock-on effect has left at least 24,000 people stuck in Greece, the UN’s refugee agency (UNHCR) reports.

Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras gave his view on what needs to be done.

“We have to deal with a problem that surpasses the powers of the country, a problem that surpasses the strength of a government and the innate weaknesses of an entire Union,” he said.

“The European Union, it seems, cannot confer on the critical issues in order to find effective solutions and justly distribute the weight.”

EU member states committed to relocating 66,400 refugees from Greece. However, they have so far pledged only 1,539 spaces and just 325 people have actually been relocated, according to UNHCR spokesman Adrian Edwards.

In January and February, 2016, alone around a 131,000 migrants reached Europe.

The European Commission is to float a plan to allocate 700 million euros over three years — including 300 million in 2016 — to help any EU state deal with such humanitarian crises.


-- (c) Copyright Euronews 2016-03-02

[terryp]

it took 700 years to get rid of them from Mainland Europe now they let them in thro the front door with welcome written on it; plus free housing money etc etc while tax payers are told they must work until up to 75 years of age ............MADNESS

[ALLSEEINGEYE]

Put them on trains and ship them back home!!!

[Martied]

These are not migrants but an invading army.

[Ulic]

Simple......Have Merkel announce to the world, Germany is no longer accepting migrants.

The front gate is locked shut to everyone. If Germany wants to address its population/birthrate

shortfall open up direct immigration to Germany. Of course Germany cannot do that easily

without England also being allowed to control its migration.

[peergin]

I have never before seen so many politicians who are so incredibly incompetent. I am, of course, referring to Brussels (the EU criminals such as Tusk, Timmermans and the like) and those in most other European countries. They have literally destroyed Europe. It beggars believe.....!

[arjunadawn]

Announcing to the world that national policies have changed and there will no longer be free handouts will not work any longer; welcome to the silent zone just before the "tipping point*). They will keep coming. When they come nations will be forced to call the bluff, or not. When they call the bluff and begin restricting the jizya- the tax- the payment- the benefits- all it will do is progress things to the next inevitable stage of this process, sooner rather than later- confrontation (the only next step such a thing can produce).

In the shape of protest, "for the children," equality, islamophobia, etc, they will protest, rail, set fire, turn over cars, gather in the street, align with the left and NGOs to speak out, leverage guilt, hold hostage their host, and present in such a way that what is clear is that open violence in now on the table if they do not receive or continue to receive equal and/or special accommodation. Nothing short of confrontation will end this debacle because, after all, confrontation has always been where all of this was going in any event. I am not advocating violence. Pay attention: I am saying that this is one of the largest grand larcenies in history and when the victim stops giving up lunch money the bullies will start taking it.

Once again we observe the photo in the OP. The choice of such photos overtly torques the reader's intellectual arm behind the back, up between the emotional shoulder blades, and demands you read from the emotive. A young boy, intentionally positioned as a prop... as a prop positing the defenseless with the jack booted thugs of the State. A boy, made emblamtic of the weak, the helpless, the hopeless...BS! By definition, OPs like this lose legitimacy at creation with such contrived manipulation woven into the news.

* Malcolm Gladwell

Edited March 2, 2016 by arjunadawn

[jacko45k]

The picture of a child faced by six or so guards in riot gear is hardly representative of the scenes at the borders.

But very representative of media reports of it!

[Ghostnigel]

They need someone strong enough to say "balls to the human rights treaty" and i know a man that can...Nigel Farage. Have you seen his speeches to the eu? Watch them on YouTube, he even makes Merkel cringe when his name is mentioned to speak....

[tomacht8]

This uncontrolled madness must be stopped immediately.
All politicians who have violated the applicable EU laws must be sued.
Until now there has never been after the 2nd world war such a stupid policy in the EU.
Betrayal of the native population, in many EU countries.
Are the wimp politicians in Brussels all are totaly crazy or what?
It is the best to dissolve the EU immediately and every country defends its own borders.
The external border Surveillance from the EU has totally failed and in the middle of Europe shouting a confused Merkel:
Everybody welcome!
The import of mostly economic refugees will destroy Europe and all its social and cultural security systems.
It does not needs an armed war, super stupid EU politicians are enough to kill europes future.

I have spoken with many EU citizens of England, France, Belgium, Spain, Italy, Greece, Poland, Germany. Not one supports this idiotic EU policy.
In this situation it is important that any EU citizen showing this political EU idiots the red card.
Everybody should stand up and fight for the future of his country.

Edited March 5, 2016 by tomacht8

[Scott]

They need someone strong enough to say "balls to the human rights treaty" and i know a man that can...Nigel Farage. Have you seen his speeches to the eu? Watch them on YouTube, he even makes Merkel cringe when his name is mentioned to speak....

There is no need to forgo any of the human rights treaties to deal with people who are in a country illegally. If they have claimed asylum, then screen them and resettle those with a verified claim, most of the remaining economic migrants can be returned to their home country.

It is not in the interest of Europe or the migrants to left without a solution to their situation for extended periods of time. The longer they are gone from their homes, the harder it is to reintegrate.

[Ghostnigel]

They need someone strong enough to say "balls to the human rights treaty" and i know a man that can...Nigel Farage. Have you seen his speeches to the eu? Watch them on YouTube, he even makes Merkel cringe when his name is mentioned to speak....

There is no need to forgo any of the human rights treaties to deal with people who are in a country illegally. If they have claimed asylum, then screen them and resettle those with a verified claim, most of the remaining economic migrants can be returned to their home country.

It is not in the interest of Europe or the migrants to left without a solution to their situation for extended periods of time. The longer they are gone from their homes, the harder it is to reintegrate.

They soon get their feet under the carpet soon enough. Why should a very small minority be allowed to dictate to a large majority (in their own country)what they should eat? or adhere to their laws, which given the opportunity, they would force on us?

Would they let us do that in a muslim country?

...don't think so.

[Grouse]

Wow, there are some rabid dogs on here

It would be useful if refugees were separated from economic migrants

I would force some level of integration by banning these silly get-ups

But, it is humane to offer temporary refuge

I can only assume that many contributors have suffered dreadfully in their sad lives. Why not help people. Or at least stop snarling and slavering like Rabid dogs

[Scott]

They need someone strong enough to say "balls to the human rights treaty" and i know a man that can...Nigel Farage. Have you seen his speeches to the eu? Watch them on YouTube, he even makes Merkel cringe when his name is mentioned to speak....

There is no need to forgo any of the human rights treaties to deal with people who are in a country illegally. If they have claimed asylum, then screen them and resettle those with a verified claim, most of the remaining economic migrants can be returned to their home country.

It is not in the interest of Europe or the migrants to left without a solution to their situation for extended periods of time. The longer they are gone from their homes, the harder it is to reintegrate.

They soon get their feet under the carpet soon enough. Why should a very small minority be allowed to dictate to a large majority (in their own country)what they should eat? or adhere to their laws, which given the opportunity, they would force on us?

Would they let us do that in a muslim country?

...don't think so.

I have no idea what you are talking about. If your country is allowing a minority to dictate how your country is run, then you might want to look at changing your leaders. Nobody makes you, or them eat anything they chose not to eat. No one makes you adhere to any law other than the laws of your country and if they do, then again you might want to take that to the ballot box.

Refugees are generally expected to integrate into the resettlement country. That doesn't mean they have to give up everything about their culture, but where there is a conflict between them and the laws of the resettlement country, the law wins.

Refugees needed to leave. Economic migrants decided to leave. There is a difference and it is not the refugees fault that the gov'ts can't or won't separate the two groups and deal with those that are truly in need.

[Ghostnigel]

They need someone strong enough to say "balls to the human rights treaty" and i know a man that can...Nigel Farage. Have you seen his speeches to the eu? Watch them on YouTube, he even makes Merkel cringe when his name is mentioned to speak....

There is no need to forgo any of the human rights treaties to deal with people who are in a country illegally. If they have claimed asylum, then screen them and resettle those with a verified claim, most of the remaining economic migrants can be returned to their home country.

It is not in the interest of Europe or the migrants to left without a solution to their situation for extended periods of time. The longer they are gone from their homes, the harder it is to reintegrate.

They soon get their feet under the carpet soon enough. Why should a very small minority be allowed to dictate to a large majority (in their own country)what they should eat? or adhere to their laws, which given the opportunity, they would force on us?

Would they let us do that in a muslim country?

...don't think so.

I have no idea what you are talking about. If your country is allowing a minority to dictate how your country is run, then you might want to look at changing your leaders. Nobody makes you, or them eat anything they chose not to eat. No one makes you adhere to any law other than the laws of your country and if they do, then again you might want to take that to the ballot box.

Refugees are generally expected to integrate into the resettlement country. That doesn't mean they have to give up everything about their culture, but where there is a conflict between them and the laws of the resettlement country, the law wins.

Refugees needed to leave. Economic migrants decided to leave. There is a difference and it is not the refugees fault that the gov'ts can't or won't separate the two groups and deal with those that are truly in need.

Oh come on....take a realistic view of it...

scenario, its late saturday afternoon, you go to buy lamb, or beef, (can you get halal pork? 555) and everyone else has filtered through the stock to find a non-halal joint of meat....what is left near the end of the day? Just halal sh!t....ok, so you will now say, "go earlier then", but thats not an option for me.

WE follow OUR laws, but they have a law of their own, its like a tram line, our law is one rail, and their law is the other rail.

You cannot tell me, and even if you did i wouldn't believe it, that muslims follow our laws? You know full well, the Imams make their laws, even in our world....they gang up in their territories, and force 'locals' to live by sharia law or get out. Don't just look at the big picture, look at the smaller things that are on local streets, that is what matters to ordinary folk. (Not in our backyard, is a saying which springs to mind).

As for voting for a political party that will sort this out, again you are wrong. As America, there just 2 main parties, and both are as bad as one another, the way the voting system is set up, another party (ie, UKIP) got one third of the votes, but got only one seat in parliament, but were able to become MEP's quite easily.

I assume you are American, so now you are gonna have to choose between 'Hitlery' Clinton and Donut Trump, see what i mean? What other choice will YOU have? If one gets in, you will have refugees coming out your ears, and at war with the Saudis, and if the other gets in, you will have no refugees, but be at war with everyone...good luck with that mate...so the moral of the story is, we are all basically screwed....?

Edited March 9, 2016 by Ghostnigel

[Saradoc1972]

They need someone strong enough to say "balls to the human rights treaty" and i know a man that can...Nigel Farage. Have you seen his speeches to the eu? Watch them on YouTube, he even makes Merkel cringe when his name is mentioned to speak....

There is no need to forgo any of the human rights treaties to deal with people who are in a country illegally. If they have claimed asylum, then screen them and resettle those with a verified claim, most of the remaining economic migrants can be returned to their home country.

It is not in the interest of Europe or the migrants to left without a solution to their situation for extended periods of time. The longer they are gone from their homes, the harder it is to reintegrate.

But that is actually the point.

Let's say you enact new legislation to deport all Afghans safe for a minority of deserving cases on grounds of Afghanistan not being dangerous enough, and get Afghanistan to actually accept involuntary returnees. Let's further assume you stay within the present system, i.e. don't change your country's constitution, or abrogate ECHR and the UN Convention of 1951, or make use of the emergency clauses in there. And let's put all of this within the frame of the German justice system, because there it matters most and I can actually say something about it.

You could legislate it succinct enough to stand up in the normal court, as judges in ordinary courts are bound by the wording up to a point. Would obviously take some time to go through the system when each migrant invokes the courts, then appeals. Which is what is happening now in Germany, the administrative courts are swamped by motions to cancel deportation orders, mostly without any reasoning or chance of success. With new legislation in place, one or a couple of cases would make its way up to federal court to get a decision the lower courts can refer to in future. Takes extra-long, 3y no problem.

Somewhere along the way some judge will defer the matter to the ECJ, as the UN Convention is explicitly referred to in Art. 18 of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, hence binding and directly effective law for all member states, and can replace local legislation even going against a provision's wording. Might take in excess of 2 years to get back to the original court, in the meantime there will be 100.000 cases put on hold waiting for the ECJ. Then, after exhausting all recourse to ordinary courts, the matter could be brought before the German Federal Constitutional Court. Maybe they are quick with a view to the urgency of the matter, 3-4 months. Or 3-4 years. After that, an individual complaint can be lodged to the ECHR, can take 2-5 years, with the possibility of an appeal. After that there is recourse to the UN itself to determine the lawfulness of the local interpretation of that Convention, which is not binding (see Assange), but still.

That's easily 10 years up to now with 3 different opportunities to throw out national legislation until anything happens, until anyone knows if national emergency legislation will hold up in court, and in the worst case it's then for the next try.

And as for the screen them part, Germany has massively stocked up on asylum deciders, but up to 400k people are not even registered presently and some 700l are waiting for their final decision, just by the administration, not the courts. This is taking too long.

[Scott]

They need someone strong enough to say "balls to the human rights treaty" and i know a man that can...Nigel Farage. Have you seen his speeches to the eu? Watch them on YouTube, he even makes Merkel cringe when his name is mentioned to speak....

There is no need to forgo any of the human rights treaties to deal with people who are in a country illegally. If they have claimed asylum, then screen them and resettle those with a verified claim, most of the remaining economic migrants can be returned to their home country.

It is not in the interest of Europe or the migrants to left without a solution to their situation for extended periods of time. The longer they are gone from their homes, the harder it is to reintegrate.

But that is actually the point.

Let's say you enact new legislation to deport all Afghans safe for a minority of deserving cases on grounds of Afghanistan not being dangerous enough, and get Afghanistan to actually accept involuntary returnees. Let's further assume you stay within the present system, i.e. don't change your country's constitution, or abrogate ECHR and the UN Convention of 1951, or make use of the emergency clauses in there. And let's put all of this within the frame of the German justice system, because there it matters most and I can actually say something about it.

You could legislate it succinct enough to stand up in the normal court, as judges in ordinary courts are bound by the wording up to a point. Would obviously take some time to go through the system when each migrant invokes the courts, then appeals. Which is what is happening now in Germany, the administrative courts are swamped by motions to cancel deportation orders, mostly without any reasoning or chance of success. With new legislation in place, one or a couple of cases would make its way up to federal court to get a decision the lower courts can refer to in future. Takes extra-long, 3y no problem.

Somewhere along the way some judge will defer the matter to the ECJ, as the UN Convention is explicitly referred to in Art. 18 of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, hence binding and directly effective law for all member states, and can replace local legislation even going against a provision's wording. Might take in excess of 2 years to get back to the original court, in the meantime there will be 100.000 cases put on hold waiting for the ECJ. Then, after exhausting all recourse to ordinary courts, the matter could be brought before the German Federal Constitutional Court. Maybe they are quick with a view to the urgency of the matter, 3-4 months. Or 3-4 years. After that, an individual complaint can be lodged to the ECHR, can take 2-5 years, with the possibility of an appeal. After that there is recourse to the UN itself to determine the lawfulness of the local interpretation of that Convention, which is not binding (see Assange), but still.

That's easily 10 years up to now with 3 different opportunities to throw out national legislation until anything happens, until anyone knows if national emergency legislation will hold up in court, and in the worst case it's then for the next try.

And as for the screen them part, Germany has massively stocked up on asylum deciders, but up to 400k people are not even registered presently and some 700l are waiting for their final decision, just by the administration, not the courts. This is taking too long.

It's not generally considered to be fair to put people in detention, but once they are screened out, they are technically an illegal alien. If they wish to fight it, that may be their right, but it does not mean that they should be allowed to run freely around Europe.

First there has to be a determination of who might be eligible and who might not. As a class of people, there are people from countries that are not likely to qualify, including some of the African countries. Unless they can articulate a claim to persecution, they should be in a class of people who are not considered as refugees. Screen them, then those not meeting any criteria should be detained, pending deportation.

Unaccompanied minors should be screened first, followed by families with children.

Secondly, you will get court challenges and special courts should be established within the legal framework to deal with challenges in an expedited manner.

Some of this bounces pretty close to the edge on the human rights scale, especially detention, but it would appear that Europe is close to a crisis point. The situation is one that falls under the umbrella of national security and what may be at stake is the future of Europe.

A lot of countries sweeten the pot for those screened out and offer them a cash payment if they voluntarily repatriate. If they do not, they will be returned forcibly with no cash benefit.

It is not in the interest of the genuine refugees to allow this massive influx to continue and to not protect those facing real persecution. The status quo does not seem to be acceptable to most Europeans either.

.....or everyone can do nothing and wait and see what happens.

[prestburypark]

I have never before seen so many politicians who are so incredibly incompetent. I am, of course, referring to Brussels (the EU criminals such as Tusk, Timmermans and the like) and those in most other European countries. They have literally destroyed Europe. It beggars believe.....!

Or, more chilling, it is exactly going to plan. The imminent granting of access to Schengen countries to Turkey, now an Islamic state in all but name, run by a tyrant, is a cure worse than the disease.(80 million Turks, 97% muslim).

The plan is to create total chaos, civil unrest on a massive scale, probably war with Russia, see how that country is being demonised. Perhaps turn Europe into a muslim area and control the masses through religion and fear.

Cant think why else they would do this, it is not beyond the wit of europe to stop this madness.

The nation states demise is the stated aim of the European project. regional areas will be set up instead. How best to do this?

Change the nation states beyond all recognition, introduce clashing cultures that will never get on, create a "solution" to the problem that they created: one world government,

police force, army, take away cash money and totally control individuals ...slavery by any other name. welcome to the new work order folks, its getting very real now.

[Rancid]

EU is so PC, more Muslims will keep arriving while overpaid unelected bureaucrats do nothing, why would they, it won't be their upscale neighbourhoods being Islamified.

My sympathies to those whose countries are being invaded by stealth, thank your leaders.