Denmark just ended Asylum Seeker last May. And there are some more countries in Europe that will end it too. I bet Finland, Poland, Romania and Czech Republic has already ended too. Any other countries in Europe in your opinion that also end Asylum Seeker or is just these 5?

hannah9898 wrote:

Denmark just ended Asylum Seeker last May. And there are some more countries in Europe that will end it too. I bet Finland, Poland, Romania and Czech Republic has already ended too. Any other countries in Europe in your opinion that also end Asylum Seeker or is just these 5?

None, it would violate the terms of the EU membership: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/about-pa ... he%20Union.

best regards
Thomas

hannah9898 wrote:

Denmark just ended Asylum Seeker last May. And there are some more countries in Europe that will end it too. I bet Finland, Poland, Romania and Czech Republic has already ended too. Any other countries in Europe in your opinion that also end Asylum Seeker or is just these 5?

Do you have any sources to support your claim? I live in Denmark (albeit currently studying in Switzerland) and I have heard no such thing as a total ban on granting people asylum.

fallap wrote:

Do you have any sources to support your claim? I live in Denmark (albeit currently studying in Switzerland) and I have heard no such thing as a total ban on granting people asylum.

He's probably thinking of this, which isn't a ban, but a change in procedures:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/ ... ide-europe

hannah9898 wrote:

Denmark just ended Asylum Seeker last May. And there are some more countries in Europe that will end it too. I bet Finland, Poland, Romania and Czech Republic has already ended too. Any other countries in Europe in your opinion that also end Asylum Seeker or is just these 5?

We didn't. We began deporting rejected asylum seekers from peaceful areas of Syria back to Syria, and parliament approved of plans to process asylum seekers at new asylum centres that will be located outside Denmark (Rwanda as it looks right now). It is still possible to apply for asylum.

tommy1808 wrote:

hannah9898 wrote:

Denmark just ended Asylum Seeker last May. And there are some more countries in Europe that will end it too. I bet Finland, Poland, Romania and Czech Republic has already ended too. Any other countries in Europe in your opinion that also end Asylum Seeker or is just these 5?

None, it would violate the terms of the EU membership: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/about-pa ... he%20Union.

best regards
Thomas

And the Refugee confention of the UNHCR. Would indeed be quite a serious thing if Denmark would have done that. Not even Orban dares to make such a move, formally.

VSMUT wrote:

hannah9898 wrote:

Denmark just ended Asylum Seeker last May. And there are some more countries in Europe that will end it too. I bet Finland, Poland, Romania and Czech Republic has already ended too. Any other countries in Europe in your opinion that also end Asylum Seeker or is just these 5?

We didn't. We began deporting rejected asylum seekers from peaceful areas of Syria back to Syria, and parliament approved of plans to process asylum seekers at new asylum centres that will be located outside Denmark (Rwanda as it looks right now). It is still possible to apply for asylum.

Honestly surprised this move came from a social democrat led government. Everyone would have expected such a move from the far right, but not the soc dems..

tommy1808 wrote:

hannah9898 wrote:

Denmark just ended Asylum Seeker last May. And there are some more countries in Europe that will end it too. I bet Finland, Poland, Romania and Czech Republic has already ended too. Any other countries in Europe in your opinion that also end Asylum Seeker or is just these 5?

None, it would violate the terms of the EU membership: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/about-pa ... he%20Union.

best regards
Thomas

Lest we forget: knee-jerk Merkel created this mess. If read your own link, it mentions "temporary protection" and Dublin Agreement, which Germany unilaterally violated.

AirPacific747 wrote:

VSMUT wrote:

hannah9898 wrote:

Denmark just ended Asylum Seeker last May. And there are some more countries in Europe that will end it too. I bet Finland, Poland, Romania and Czech Republic has already ended too. Any other countries in Europe in your opinion that also end Asylum Seeker or is just these 5?

We didn't. We began deporting rejected asylum seekers from peaceful areas of Syria back to Syria, and parliament approved of plans to process asylum seekers at new asylum centres that will be located outside Denmark (Rwanda as it looks right now). It is still possible to apply for asylum.

Honestly surprised this move came from a social democrat led government. Everyone would have expected such a move from the far right, but not the soc dems..

The Social Democratic Party of Denmark has moved so far to the right in terms of immigration policies that they ressemble any other right winged party.

AirPacific747 wrote:

VSMUT wrote:

hannah9898 wrote:

Denmark just ended Asylum Seeker last May. And there are some more countries in Europe that will end it too. I bet Finland, Poland, Romania and Czech Republic has already ended too. Any other countries in Europe in your opinion that also end Asylum Seeker or is just these 5?

We didn't. We began deporting rejected asylum seekers from peaceful areas of Syria back to Syria, and parliament approved of plans to process asylum seekers at new asylum centres that will be located outside Denmark (Rwanda as it looks right now). It is still possible to apply for asylum.

Honestly surprised this move came from a social democrat led government. Everyone would have expected such a move from the far right, but not the soc dems..

Is it really? Social Democratic core voters were moving to DF in droves. Immigration has never been a core socialist value. The welfare state is only possible if the people pull a share of the burden, and immigrants are the most unemployed and work shy part of the population, a drain on public finances. Immigrants aren't even good voters, they vote significantly less than practically every other group in society. Everything spoke for the Social Democrats doing something to curb further immigration.

L410Turbolet wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

hannah9898 wrote:

Denmark just ended Asylum Seeker last May. And there are some more countries in Europe that will end it too. I bet Finland, Poland, Romania and Czech Republic has already ended too. Any other countries in Europe in your opinion that also end Asylum Seeker or is just these 5?

None, it would violate the terms of the EU membership: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/about-pa ... he%20Union.

best regards
Thomas

Lest we forget: knee-jerk Merkel created this mess. If read your own link, it mentions "temporary protection" and Dublin Agreement, which Germany unilaterally violated.

The Dublin agreement gives nation the right to return asylum seekers to the the country the entered the EU though, it doesn´t create a requirement to do so. No Dublin Agreement violation there, in fact article 17 of the Dublin Agreement gives member states the right to accept asylum seekers they could return quite explicitly. So not just no violation, but following the Dublin Agreement to the letter.

And it was Victor Orban that commandeered public transport to give refugee seekers a free and convenient trip through Hungry that started the whole mess, which is in deed a treaty violation. I only wonder what his cut was from the trafficking profits.... Germany only reacted to his treaty violation.

https://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06 ... edirect=uk

best regards
Thomas

fallap wrote:

AirPacific747 wrote:

VSMUT wrote:

We didn't. We began deporting rejected asylum seekers from peaceful areas of Syria back to Syria, and parliament approved of plans to process asylum seekers at new asylum centres that will be located outside Denmark (Rwanda as it looks right now). It is still possible to apply for asylum.

Honestly surprised this move came from a social democrat led government. Everyone would have expected such a move from the far right, but not the soc dems..

The Social Democratic Party of Denmark has moved so far to the right in terms of immigration policies that they ressemble any other right winged party.

As was meanwhile explained to you, the idea that a Social Democrat should be soft on immigration is dead wrong.
In fact, they should be exactly the opposite, as their core business is to defend a strong social security, something which is only possible if a country's mandatory social security system remains self-funded and thus largely closed off from all too many lateral entry / direct entry beneficiaries who immediately start to draw from it from the moment they arrive, all without ever having contributed and with a high risk of never contributing in future either.

Look at it this way:
a country's social security system is nothing but a sort of a collective fire insurance for its citizens whenever things go wrong on a personal level.
Just as with a private insurance for any material belongings you may have, mandatory social security should only cover you IF you've somehow been contributing to it BEFORE calling upon it.
Social security affiliation is mandatory, so basically everybody born in a country has been and will be contributing for his entire life, but this is not the case for any direct entrants of course!

Asylum seeking effectively leads to the odd situation where people (in need) who've never previous contributed to a country's social security system flow in laterally and can immediately start drawing from it: while it can be allowed for individuals on compassionate grounds, and it can be allowed on a reciprocity basis (within the EU to the citizens of the 27 member states) it can not be let to happen continuously and in massive numbers to outsiders or it simply bankrupts a country's social secutriy system itself in the end.

And yet that is exactly what is at risk of happening when hundreds of thousands of people suddenly want to move to a country.
Surely it is no surprise asylum seeking happens most in rich (and generous) countries, with the asylum seeker often traveling half way round the globe for it even, crossing through tens of 'safe' yet far less generous countries...
People from Syria, Iraq, Afganistan etc were perfectly safe the moment they crossed the border with say Turkey or Pakistan: as from then on, there never was a need for them to move thousands of kms further up north and west, other than that life would be much better there than it would have been in Turkey or Pakistaan.
But the critirium to seek asylum is NOT to get the best possible new life, it is to live your life safely.
The moment you're in safety, and move further, you effectively become an economic immigrant, rather than an asylum seeker.

I think the Social Democrats in Denmark realised they would forever have lost their core voters, which are the people closest to the imigration/integration problems, to the populist right if they didn't bypass the international solidarity-part of social domocratic ideology for a while.

In denmark, they have gone to far with this, but I do see us having to move somewhat in that direction here as well. I live in one of the most multi-cultural areas in my country, and there is a delicate balance between it adding to society, and being destabilizing to some of our core values of equality non-religious public sphere and democracy.

So, 10-15 years time with very restrictive immigration policies, while we stabilize things and figure out how to do better with integration, housing policies, language training etc. the next time around is something I think a lot of the core voters on the moderate left would be quite in favour of.

sabenapilot wrote:

fallap wrote:

AirPacific747 wrote:

Honestly surprised this move came from a social democrat led government. Everyone would have expected such a move from the far right, but not the soc dems..

The Social Democratic Party of Denmark has moved so far to the right in terms of immigration policies that they ressemble any other right winged party.

As was meanwhile explained to you, the idea that a Social Democrat should be soft on immigration is dead wrong.
In fact, they should be exactly the opposite, as their core business is to defend a strong social security, something which is only possible if a country's mandatory social security system remains self-funded and thus largely closed off from all too many lateral entry / direct entry beneficiaries who immediately start to draw from it from the moment they arrive, all without ever having contributed and with a high risk of never contributing in future either.

Look at it this way:
a country's social security system is nothing but a sort of a collective fire insurance for its citizens whenever things go wrong on a personal level.
Just as with a private insurance for any material belongings you may have, mandatory social security should only cover you IF you've somehow been contributing to it BEFORE calling upon it.
Social security affiliation is mandatory, so basically everybody born in a country has been and will be contributing for his entire life, but this is not the case for any direct entrants of course!

Asylum seeking effectively leads to the odd situation where people (in need) who've never previous contributed to a country's social security system flow in laterally and can immediately start drawing from it: while it can be allowed for individuals on compassionate grounds, and it can be allowed on a reciprocity basis (within the EU to the citizens of the 27 member states) it can not be let to happen continuously and in massive numbers to outsiders or it simply bankrupts a country's social secutriy system itself in the end.

And yet that is exactly what is at risk of happening when hundreds of thousands of people suddenly want to move to a country.
Surely it is no surprise asylum seeking happens most in rich (and generous) countries, with the asylum seeker often traveling half way round the globe for it even, crossing through tens of 'safe' yet far less generous countries...
People from Syria, Iraq, Afganistan etc were perfectly safe the moment they crossed the border with say Turkey or Pakistan: as from then on, there never was a need for them to move thousands of kms further up north and west, other than that life would be much better there than it would have been in Turkey or Pakistaan.
But the critirium to seek asylum is NOT to get the best possible new life, it is to live your life safely.
The moment you're in safety, and move further, you effectively become an economic immigrant, rather than an asylum seeker.

We are having the same debate in the US, particularly among new legislators who have no professional experiences or qualifications. They haven't yet realized that unlimited social benefits cannot be combined with unlimited in-migration.

We are also dealing with misuse of the "asylum" definition by economic migrants. New justifications include things like hopelessness, routine crime and low wages.

M564038 wrote:

I think the Social Democrats in Denmark realised they would forever have lost their core voters, which are the people closest to the imigration/integration problems, to the populist right if they didn't bypass the international solidarity-part of social domocratic ideology for a while.

It's not just that. It was threatening to dismantle other things and causing big and lasting damage. A vote for the right-wing nationalist DPP for whatever reason is also a vote to a party that wants to dismantle the European Union and is more than willing to impose hamfisted rules that prevent large employers (like Lego, Maersk, Novo Nordisk, Siemens Windpower, Universal Robots and Vestas) from importing specialised labour and expertise from abroad.

LCDFlight wrote:

We are having the same debate in the US, particularly among new legislators who have no professional experiences or qualifications. They haven't yet realized that unlimited social benefits cannot be combined with unlimited in-migration.

The US has traditionally been a land of immigration, but it was also a land without any collective social security system.
In such a country, immigration -whereas it can still be a toxic political issue- is no fiscal issue: immigrants do not pose a significant burden on the goverment's budget as they won't be entitled to much anyway. The same can not be said of Europe, where basically the government takes care of social matters (schooling, medical insurances, pensions) from cradle to grave.[/quote]

LCDFlight wrote:

We are also dealing with misuse of the "asylum" definition by economic migrants. New justifications include things like hopelessness, routine crime and low wages.

A country not bordering another country which is suffering from mass emigration should not see mass immigration numbers based on direct asylum claims.(*)
It it does, it means all those asylum seekers have either transited through safe third countries, or have flown in: both of which put into question the claim they are still in risk of losing their life which is at the basis of their demand for asylum: shopping for the most favourable social secuty system is NOT part of the rights of an asylum seeker.

(*) within the EU there's the solidarity mechanism of redistribution of asylum seekers to alleviate the burden on the sholders of those memberstates situated at the outside borders, but other than that, it still is the same: an aAfghan asylum seeker in the EU has crossed through at least 2 perfectly safe countries before making it to Greece for instance.

VSMUT wrote:

M564038 wrote:

I think the Social Democrats in Denmark realised they would forever have lost their core voters, which are the people closest to the imigration/integration problems, to the populist right if they didn't bypass the international solidarity-part of social domocratic ideology for a while.

It's not just that. It was threatening to dismantle other things and causing big and lasting damage. A vote for the right-wing nationalist DPP for whatever reason is also a vote to a party that wants to dismantle the European Union and is more than willing to impose hamfisted rules that prevent large employers (like Lego, Maersk, Novo Nordisk, Siemens Windpower, Universal Robots and Vestas) from importing specialised labour and expertise from abroad.

Indeed, if common sense is thrown overboard by those in power for purely ideological reasons, the taboo topic is being picked up by extreme parties who have a whole bunch of completely ridiculous concepts ready up their sleeves as well. And they will obviously only highlight the common sense topics of their party program to people voting for them, assuming they will ditch all the rest...
As Brexit has shown us: that is not the case with extremists and a vote to have them end mass immigration CAN and WILL actually lead to an act of economic self mutilation in the end.
It needn't though as the Social Democrats in Denmark are successfully showing.

Saying "asylum seekers don't contribute to the system" is wrong. If they're integrated correctly they do contribute, and that doesn't cost that much to do. Plenty of jobs nobody in advanced countries want to do, that these people will take up. You also have doctors and engineers among asylum seekers.
And of course coming as adults, they haven't cost the country anything in education, healthcare etc. In France education costs the country 100000€ on average just to get kids to the end of high school.

With that said, not all asylum seekers deserve asylum, and in Europe many illegal immigrants come from safe countries, that's a big problem. I mean in France we have tons of legal immigrants from Algeria, due to specific deals with that country (that should be thrown in the bin, IMHO), yet we also have tons of illegal immigrants from there, too ! That's unacceptable.

I think the EU could take a good number of asylum seekers without issue, and have them integrate and contribute, but having too big a flow of illegal immigrants causes all kinds of issues, including a rejection of legitimate candidates.

What Denmark is talking about doing is already happening in a way in Turkey, Tunisia, Libya. We're paying or supporting these countries to keep people instead of letting them across to our borders.

I'm not sure why Rwanda is involved, it doesn't seem like the most obvious country for this scheme, to me.

Aesma wrote:

Saying "asylum seekers don't contribute to the system" is wrong. If they're integrated correctly they do contribute, and that doesn't cost that much to do. Plenty of jobs nobody in advanced countries want to do, that these people will take up. You also have doctors and engineers among asylum seekers.

Danish experience indicates the opposite. They are expensive to integrate and get into work. There are very few jobs for the poorly educated, and those are more often than not filled with cheap labour from eastern Europe. The doctors and engineers have educations that are invalid here, they simply aren't authorized. We simply can't verify if the certificates from the university in Damascus are real or fake, or acquired through bribery. As of 2015, it took 4 years to approve a Syrian doctor or dentist. In practice, many don't live up to Danish standards either, and they also don't speak Danish. Crime is another issue. Non-western immigrants only make up 5% of the population, but in 2018 made up 30% of the prison population and an even higher proportion in the closed prisons.

Aesma wrote:

And of course coming as adults, they haven't cost the country anything in education, healthcare etc. In France education costs the country 100000€ on average just to get kids to the end of high school.

That's assuming they even have an education, which many of the immigrants arriving here don't have. They also need to learn the language, which is probably less of an issue for France.

For asylumseekers, in 2015 it cost Denmark just shy of €30.000 per year.
https://www.bt.dk/danmark/se-de-helt-ny ... er-danmark

In 2018, immigrants and offspring from non-western countries on average incurred a net cost to society of €4700 per year per person. For comparison, immigrants from western countries contributed €4100 and ethnic Danes cost €130.
https://www.regeringen.dk/nyheder/2018/ ... -aar-2100/

Aesma wrote:

I'm not sure why Rwanda is involved, it doesn't seem like the most obvious country for this scheme, to me.

Because they were willing to accept the deal and it is far from Denmark.

VSMUT wrote:

AirPacific747 wrote:

VSMUT wrote:

We didn't. We began deporting rejected asylum seekers from peaceful areas of Syria back to Syria, and parliament approved of plans to process asylum seekers at new asylum centres that will be located outside Denmark (Rwanda as it looks right now). It is still possible to apply for asylum.

Honestly surprised this move came from a social democrat led government. Everyone would have expected such a move from the far right, but not the soc dems..

Is it really? Social Democratic core voters were moving to DF in droves. Immigration has never been a core socialist value. The welfare state is only possible if the people pull a share of the burden, and immigrants are the most unemployed and work shy part of the population, a drain on public finances. Immigrants aren't even good voters, they vote significantly less than practically every other group in society. Everything spoke for the Social Democrats doing something to curb further immigration.

You don't have to convince me, but considering the soc dems invited turkish guest workers by the thousands to Denmark in the 80s and let in heaps of immigrants and asylum seekers in the 90s, it is kinda surprising to me that they made this move.

sabenapilot wrote:

fallap wrote:

AirPacific747 wrote:

Honestly surprised this move came from a social democrat led government. Everyone would have expected such a move from the far right, but not the soc dems..

The Social Democratic Party of Denmark has moved so far to the right in terms of immigration policies that they ressemble any other right winged party.

As was meanwhile explained to you, the idea that a Social Democrat should be soft on immigration is dead wrong.
In fact, they should be exactly the opposite, as their core business is to defend a strong social security, something which is only possible if a country's mandatory social security system remains self-funded and thus largely closed off from all too many lateral entry / direct entry beneficiaries who immediately start to draw from it from the moment they arrive, all without ever having contributed and with a high risk of never contributing in future either.

Look at it this way:
a country's social security system is nothing but a sort of a collective fire insurance for its citizens whenever things go wrong on a personal level.
Just as with a private insurance for any material belongings you may have, mandatory social security should only cover you IF you've somehow been contributing to it BEFORE calling upon it.
Social security affiliation is mandatory, so basically everybody born in a country has been and will be contributing for his entire life, but this is not the case for any direct entrants of course!

Asylum seeking effectively leads to the odd situation where people (in need) who've never previous contributed to a country's social security system flow in laterally and can immediately start drawing from it: while it can be allowed for individuals on compassionate grounds, and it can be allowed on a reciprocity basis (within the EU to the citizens of the 27 member states) it can not be let to happen continuously and in massive numbers to outsiders or it simply bankrupts a country's social secutriy system itself in the end.

And yet that is exactly what is at risk of happening when hundreds of thousands of people suddenly want to move to a country.
Surely it is no surprise asylum seeking happens most in rich (and generous) countries, with the asylum seeker often traveling half way round the globe for it even, crossing through tens of 'safe' yet far less generous countries...
People from Syria, Iraq, Afganistan etc were perfectly safe the moment they crossed the border with say Turkey or Pakistan: as from then on, there never was a need for them to move thousands of kms further up north and west, other than that life would be much better there than it would have been in Turkey or Pakistaan.
But the critirium to seek asylum is NOT to get the best possible new life, it is to live your life safely.
The moment you're in safety, and move further, you effectively become an economic immigrant, rather than an asylum seeker.

Again, you don't have to convince me of the stricter policies, just surprised it came from the soc dems.. but as someone else mentioned, the soc dems realized that they were bleeding voters to the DPP on the far right.

tommy1808 wrote:

And it was Victor Orban that commandeered public transport to give refugee seekers a free and convenient trip through Hungry that started the whole mess, which is in deed a treaty violation. I only wonder what his cut was from the trafficking profits.... Germany only reacted to his treaty violation.

Wrong. Orban had to react on the mess which Merkel created in his country with her "Wir schaffen das" statement. And that's what he did.

tommy1808 wrote:

L410Turbolet wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

None, it would violate the terms of the EU membership: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/about-pa ... he%20Union.

best regards
Thomas

Lest we forget: knee-jerk Merkel created this mess. If read your own link, it mentions "temporary protection" and Dublin Agreement, which Germany unilaterally violated.

The Dublin agreement gives nation the right to return asylum seekers to the the country the entered the EU though, it doesn´t create a requirement to do so. No Dublin Agreement violation there, in fact article 17 of the Dublin Agreement gives member states the right to accept asylum seekers they could return quite explicitly. So not just no violation, but following the Dublin Agreement to the letter.

Europe had a mutually agreed and quite restrictive immigration policy, yet Merkel without any consultation of other EU countries basically invited migrants to come to Germany (and thus Europe) by saying they will manage it; ‘Wir schaffen das’.

Most Europeans are sick and tired of Germans trying to forcefully change Europe’s demographics. Most NGO ships that transport migrants in the Mediterranean fly under German flag and are staffed by Germans as well.

Aesma wrote:

Saying "asylum seekers don't contribute to the system" is wrong. If they're integrated correctly they do contribute, and that doesn't cost that much to do.

It isn’t mostly a financial issue, some migrants have such incompatible values that no amount of money can make them a desirable participant of a western society.

prebennorholm wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

And it was Victor Orban that commandeered public transport to give refugee seekers a free and convenient trip through Hungry that started the whole mess, which is in deed a treaty violation. I only wonder what his cut was from the trafficking profits.... Germany only reacted to his treaty violation.

Wrong. Orban had to react on the mess which Merkel created in his country with her "Wir schaffen das" statement. And that's what he did.

you got the timeline wrong:

Orban Express first
We can´t shot them, so "Wir schaffen das", next.

Jetty wrote:

Europe had a mutually agreed and quite restrictive immigration policy,

Nope, each Member state has its own Asylum policy, the Dublin Agreement only is about who has to take the refugees (that is the party Orban violated) and minimum standards (that Orban violated).

yet Merkel without any consultation of other EU countries basically invited migrants to come to Germany (and thus Europe) by saying they will manage it; ‘Wir schaffen das’.

Which, as i already pointed out, is nonsense. Hungry decided to violate the Dublin Agreement and provided transit service into Europe for free, Merkel consulted with the other impacted party, Austria, and both agreed that the only way to stop the tide of refugees (that Orban had transported to their borders) would be to open fire on them, and that they can´t do that.

Its not like the times line isn´t documented very well, despite the persistent attempts of right wing hate merchants to shield the responsible parties (Hungry and the other European countries that refused to aid in stemming the tide in Greece in Italy, with Orban turning into a human trafficker) from the blame they so rightfully deserve.

Hungry stopped abiding with the Dublin Agreement on June 23rd 2015 https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-euro ... ZB20150623
Germany stopped trying to return refugee to Hungry and started processing them on August 24th https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... 70062.html
Merkel didn´t say "Wir schaffen das" before August 31st: https://www.bpb.de/apuz/312826/vom-ents ... ines-topos

So your alternate history is off by more than two months (!), you may very well believe Trump won the 2020 election in a land slide and will be reinstated later this year, it wouldn´t be more off the rockers.

best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

Jetty wrote:

Europe had a mutually agreed and quite restrictive immigration policy,

Nope, each Member state has its own Asylum policy, the Dublin Agreement only is about who has to take the refugees (that is the party Orban violated) and minimum standards (that Orban violated).

Absolute nonsense. I’ll simply quote the EU itself:

The Treaty of Lisbon, which entered into force in December 2009, changed the situation by transforming the measures on asylum from establishing minimum standards into creating a common system comprising a uniform status and uniform procedures.

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/factshee ... lum-policy

yet Merkel without any consultation of other EU countries basically invited migrants to come to Germany (and thus Europe) by saying they will manage it; ‘Wir schaffen das’.

Which, as i already pointed out, is nonsense. Hungry decided to violate the Dublin Agreement and provided transit service into Europe for free, Merkel consulted with the other impacted party, Austria, and both agreed that the only way to stop the tide of refugees (that Orban had transported to their borders) would be to open fire on them, and that they can´t do that.

It wasn’t only Austria that was impacted, the whole of Europe got a huge influx of immigrants after Merkel spoke. Let alone there is a huge middle ground between shooting and saying Germany/Europe can manage a huge influx of immigrants; it was an issue without a binary solution.

Its not like the times line isn´t documented very well, despite the persistent attempts of right wing hate merchants to shield the responsible parties (Hungry and the other European countries that refused to aid in stemming the tide in Greece in Italy, with Orban turning into a human trafficker) from the blame they so rightfully deserve.

The biggest wave of immigrants happened after Merkel incited illegal immigration, this has been very well documented as well.

Jetty wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

Jetty wrote:

Europe had a mutually agreed and quite restrictive immigration policy,

Nope, each Member state has its own Asylum policy, the Dublin Agreement only is about who has to take the refugees (that is the party Orban violated) and minimum standards (that Orban violated).

Absolute nonsense. I’ll simply quote the EU itself:

Maybe try reading it? "Minimum standard", is not the same as "required procedure". Those minimum standards where violated by Hungry, and what Germany did is explicitly covered by the Dublin III agreement, no violation anywhere.

It wasn’t only Austria that was impacted, the whole of Europe got a huge influx of immigrants after Merkel spoke. Let alone there is a huge middle ground between shooting and saying Germany/Europe can manage a huge influx of immigrants; it was an issue without a binary solution.

Maybe Hungry and Orban should have thought about that before violating the Lisbon treaty and the Dublin Agreement, or refused to make any alternative arrangements .... it was an absolute binary solution: shot refuges, or make sure they are treated according to those minimum standards. Invading Hungry to make them abide with treaties they signed wasn´t exactly an option, and charging Orban with human trafficking, while prudent and absolutely justified, would not have changes anything either.

The biggest wave of immigrants happened after Merkel incited illegal immigration, this has been very well documented as well.

Yes, after Orban became a human trafficker, violated treaties and refused to, alongside a few other eastern European member states, agree to any solution because it may cost a little money. Orban blew up the damn, the rest was just handling of a flood.

best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

The biggest wave of immigrants happened after Merkel incited illegal immigration, this has been very well documented as well.

Yes, after Orban became a human trafficker, violated treaties and refused to, alongside a few other eastern European member states, agree to any solution because it may cost a little money. Orban blew up the damn, the rest was just handling of a flood.

best regards
Thomas

The German government stopped following the Dublin agreement on the 24th of August. The same week Merkel announced that Germany would provide aid to all that came. Merkel came with the "Wir schaffen das" statement on the 31st of August. The Hungarians started letting them go to the border on the 3rd of September and let them cross on the 4th. Germany and Sweden screwed up, there is no way around it.

VSMUT wrote:

The Hungarians started letting them go to the border on the 3rd of September and let them cross on the 4th.

The decisions to accept refugees under blanket terms was taken in the night from September 4th to the 5th, after Chief trafficker Orban deposited them on the border.

https://www.zeit.de/2016/35/grenzoeffnu ... ettansicht

There where rumors to that effect between "Wir schaffen das" and the arrival or the Orban trafficking express, but those where rumors and explicitly denied: https://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschl ... 50917.html

There is no spinning who violated the Lisbon Treaty or the Dublin agreement.

best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

VSMUT wrote:

The Hungarians started letting them go to the border on the 3rd of September and let them cross on the 4th.

The decisions to accept refugees under blanket terms was taken in the night from September 4th to the 5th, after Chief trafficker Orban deposited them on the border.

https://www.zeit.de/2016/35/grenzoeffnu ... ettansicht

There where rumors to that effect between "Wir schaffen das" and the arrival or the Orban trafficking express, but those where rumors and explicitly denied: https://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschl ... 50917.html

There is no spinning who violated the Lisbon Treaty or the Dublin agreement.

best regards
Thomas

The official decision was taken that night but Merkel and her government started talking openly about it over a week before. The migrants don't wait for an official confirmation, they hear a rumour and they go. These are people that don't even speak the language or know the political culture, it is a bit ridiculous to assume they would understand the difference.

VSMUT wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

VSMUT wrote:

The Hungarians started letting them go to the border on the 3rd of September and let them cross on the 4th.

The decisions to accept refugees under blanket terms was taken in the night from September 4th to the 5th, after Chief trafficker Orban deposited them on the border.

https://www.zeit.de/2016/35/grenzoeffnu ... ettansicht

There where rumors to that effect between "Wir schaffen das" and the arrival or the Orban trafficking express, but those where rumors and explicitly denied: https://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschl ... 50917.html

There is no spinning who violated the Lisbon Treaty or the Dublin agreement.

best regards
Thomas

The official decision was taken that night but Merkel and her government started talking openly about it over a week before. The migrants don't wait for an official confirmation, they hear a rumour and they go. These are people that don't even speak the language or know the political culture, it is a bit ridiculous to assume they would understand the difference.

It takes more than a week (way more) for a person to leave Syria and arrive in Germany through illegal channels.

tommy1808 wrote:

you got the timeline wrong:

Orban Express first
We can´t shot them, so "Wir schaffen das", next.

But the public perception will always be that Orban was trying to stem the tide, while Merkel opened the floodgates.

Braybuddy wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

you got the timeline wrong:

Orban Express first
We can´t shot them, so "Wir schaffen das", next.

But the public perception will always be that Orban was trying to stem the tide, while Merkel opened the floodgates.

Populists have the distinct advantage of mostly doing away with context and nuance. Slogans and soundbits is what they do best.

It helps that the attention span of the public gets shorter by the passing year.

Hungary?

tommy1808 wrote:

Jetty wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

Nope, each Member state has its own Asylum policy, the Dublin Agreement only is about who has to take the refugees (that is the party Orban violated) and minimum standards (that Orban violated).

Absolute nonsense. I’ll simply quote the EU itself:

Maybe try reading it? "Minimum standard", is not the same as "required procedure". Those minimum standards where violated by Hungry, and what Germany did is explicitly covered by the Dublin III agreement, no violation anywhere.

Nowhere did I say those were the same, or that Hungary didn't violate minimum standards. But that doesn't absolve Merkels responsibility for basically inviting migrants to come to Europe. Article 78 TFEU calls for a common policy on asylum (the Dublin agreement isn't the only relevant law as you seem to think). That common policy never included the idea that Europe 'can manage it' to receive millions of immigrants from Muslim countries. With open borders in Schengen Merkel and Germany should have toned down their extreme pro-immigration stance because the rest of Europe wasn't that much in favor of immigration but did have to share the burden of Germans policies. An immigrants that Merkel invited committed a terror attack in my city (Amsterdam) i.e. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-45419445

tommy1808 wrote:

VSMUT wrote:

The Hungarians started letting them go to the border on the 3rd of September and let them cross on the 4th.

The decisions to accept refugees under blanket terms was taken in the night from September 4th to the 5th, after Chief trafficker Orban deposited them on the border.

https://www.zeit.de/2016/35/grenzoeffnu ... ettansicht

There where rumors to that effect between "Wir schaffen das" and the arrival or the Orban trafficking express, but those where rumors and explicitly denied: https://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschl ... 50917.html

There is no spinning who violated the Lisbon Treaty or the Dublin agreement.

best regards
Thomas


In general, I can say that the problem of human trafficking is one of the most important problems in modern society and we should pay more attention to it. On the WritingBros website, I read some very useful articles that provide constructive information on statistics and facts that are related to human trafficking.

Thank you very much for sharing these links.

Dutchy wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

hannah9898 wrote:

Denmark just ended Asylum Seeker last May. And there are some more countries in Europe that will end it too. I bet Finland, Poland, Romania and Czech Republic has already ended too. Any other countries in Europe in your opinion that also end Asylum Seeker or is just these 5?

None, it would violate the terms of the EU membership: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/about-pa ... he%20Union.

best regards
Thomas

And the Refugee confention of the UNHCR. Would indeed be quite a serious thing if Denmark would have done that. Not even Orban dares to make such a move, formally.

It's a very old and now outdated treaty, in 1951 when the convention was ratified it was never intended to be abused to the level it's been abused over the last couple of decades. The number of refugees back then was a pittance compared to today, we needs to be scrapped or significantly revised.

LCDFlight wrote:

sabenapilot wrote:

fallap wrote:

The Social Democratic Party of Denmark has moved so far to the right in terms of immigration policies that they ressemble any other right winged party.

As was meanwhile explained to you, the idea that a Social Democrat should be soft on immigration is dead wrong.
In fact, they should be exactly the opposite, as their core business is to defend a strong social security, something which is only possible if a country's mandatory social security system remains self-funded and thus largely closed off from all too many lateral entry / direct entry beneficiaries who immediately start to draw from it from the moment they arrive, all without ever having contributed and with a high risk of never contributing in future either.

Look at it this way:
a country's social security system is nothing but a sort of a collective fire insurance for its citizens whenever things go wrong on a personal level.
Just as with a private insurance for any material belongings you may have, mandatory social security should only cover you IF you've somehow been contributing to it BEFORE calling upon it.
Social security affiliation is mandatory, so basically everybody born in a country has been and will be contributing for his entire life, but this is not the case for any direct entrants of course!

Asylum seeking effectively leads to the odd situation where people (in need) who've never previous contributed to a country's social security system flow in laterally and can immediately start drawing from it: while it can be allowed for individuals on compassionate grounds, and it can be allowed on a reciprocity basis (within the EU to the citizens of the 27 member states) it can not be let to happen continuously and in massive numbers to outsiders or it simply bankrupts a country's social secutriy system itself in the end.

And yet that is exactly what is at risk of happening when hundreds of thousands of people suddenly want to move to a country.
Surely it is no surprise asylum seeking happens most in rich (and generous) countries, with the asylum seeker often traveling half way round the globe for it even, crossing through tens of 'safe' yet far less generous countries...
People from Syria, Iraq, Afganistan etc were perfectly safe the moment they crossed the border with say Turkey or Pakistan: as from then on, there never was a need for them to move thousands of kms further up north and west, other than that life would be much better there than it would have been in Turkey or Pakistaan.
But the critirium to seek asylum is NOT to get the best possible new life, it is to live your life safely.
The moment you're in safety, and move further, you effectively become an economic immigrant, rather than an asylum seeker.

We are having the same debate in the US, particularly among new legislators who have no professional experiences or qualifications. They haven't yet realized that unlimited social benefits cannot be combined with unlimited in-migration.

We are also dealing with misuse of the "asylum" definition by economic migrants. New justifications include things like hopelessness, routine crime and low wages.

Milton Friedman said, “you can have a welfare state or open borders, but not both.” The US had very liberal immigration but no welfare state; but we had a huge economic expansion needing workers and the expectation was you became an American.

Kiwirob wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

None, it would violate the terms of the EU membership: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/about-pa ... he%20Union.

best regards
Thomas

And the Refugee confention of the UNHCR. Would indeed be quite a serious thing if Denmark would have done that. Not even Orban dares to make such a move, formally.

It's a very old and now outdated treaty, in 1951 when the convention was ratified it was never intended to be abused to the level it's been abused over the last couple of decades. The number of refugees back then was a pittance compared to today, we needs to be scrapped or significantly revised.

Ok, I'll bite, what would your proposal be? How would it be amended?

Dutchy wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

And the Refugee confention of the UNHCR. Would indeed be quite a serious thing if Denmark would have done that. Not even Orban dares to make such a move, formally.

It's a very old and now outdated treaty, in 1951 when the convention was ratified it was never intended to be abused to the level it's been abused over the last couple of decades. The number of refugees back then was a pittance compared to today, we needs to be scrapped or significantly revised.

Ok, I'll bite, what would your proposal be? How would it be amended?

Disband it in its entirety, the developed nations cannot and should not be the end game for everyone who isn't happy with their country of birth. Lets face it the system has been abused, it was never envisioned when set up in the 1950's for the numbers of refugees we see today.

Kiwirob wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

It's a very old and now outdated treaty, in 1951 when the convention was ratified it was never intended to be abused to the level it's been abused over the last couple of decades. The number of refugees back then was a pittance compared to today, we needs to be scrapped or significantly revised.

Ok, I'll bite, what would your proposal be? How would it be amended?

Disband it in its entirety, the developed nations cannot and should not be the end game for everyone who isn't happy with their country of birth. Lets face it the system has been abused, it was never envisioned when set up in the 1950's for the numbers of refugees we see today.

Ok, so no refugees at all, never. Does that included all countries in the world or 'just' developed nations?

Dutchy wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Ok, I'll bite, what would your proposal be? How would it be amended?

Disband it in its entirety, the developed nations cannot and should not be the end game for everyone who isn't happy with their country of birth. Lets face it the system has been abused, it was never envisioned when set up in the 1950's for the numbers of refugees we see today.

Ok, so no refugees at all, never. Does that included all countries in the world or 'just' developed nations?

It's so open to abuse I'd stop it completely until the process can be refined and made fair for everyone. IMO it would be much more efficient helping refugees in there own countries rather than traipsing halfway round the world looking for the country who will offer them the most benefits, which is what happens.

Kiwirob wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

Disband it in its entirety, the developed nations cannot and should not be the end game for everyone who isn't happy with their country of birth. Lets face it the system has been abused, it was never envisioned when set up in the 1950's for the numbers of refugees we see today.

Ok, so no refugees at all, never. Does that included all countries in the world or 'just' developed nations?

It's so open to abuse I'd stop it completely until the process can be refined and made fair for everyone. IMO it would be much more efficient helping refugees in there own countries rather than traipsing halfway round the world looking for the country who will offer them the most benefits, which is what happens.

They flee their countries because of war, because of being prosecuted, because of human rights abuse, because of natural disaster, because of lawlessness, or any other reason you can claim asylem on basis of the Refugee Convention - UNHCR. How do you propose that we help them in the country which they have fled?

Kiwirob wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

Disband it in its entirety, the developed nations cannot and should not be the end game for everyone who isn't happy with their country of birth. Lets face it the system has been abused, it was never envisioned when set up in the 1950's for the numbers of refugees we see today.

Ok, so no refugees at all, never. Does that included all countries in the world or 'just' developed nations?

It's so open to abuse I'd stop it completely until the process can be refined and made fair for everyone. IMO it would be much more efficient helping refugees in there own countries rather than traipsing halfway round the world looking for the country who will offer them the most benefits, which is what happens.

Unfortunately, their "own countries" have often been ravaged by Western intervention. You can't expect people to sit around the smoldering ruins of their own home and be happy about it. They will pack up the bags and leave for greener pastures.
In fact, something like this happened with the Europeans after WW-II too. Many people had lost everything and decided it was best to emigrate away from Europe, to Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the US. These were the "original refugees".

But the numbers today dwarf WW II's refugees. https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars ... s_01.shtml
From the BBC -
"By 1959 some 900,000 European refugees had been absorbed by west European countries. In addition, 461,000 had been accepted by the USA, and a further 523,000 by other countries."

And back in the 50's there was very little social welfare for immigrants.
As Milton Friedman is quoted -
"It is one thing to have free immigration to jobs. It is another thing to have free immigration to welfare. And you cannot have both. If you have a welfare state, if you have a state in which every resident is promised a certain minimal level of income, or a minimum level of subsistence, regardless of whether he works or not, produces it or not. Then it really is an impossible thing.”
― Milton Friedman

Dutchy wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Ok, so no refugees at all, never. Does that included all countries in the world or 'just' developed nations?

It's so open to abuse I'd stop it completely until the process can be refined and made fair for everyone. IMO it would be much more efficient helping refugees in there own countries rather than traipsing halfway round the world looking for the country who will offer them the most benefits, which is what happens.

They flee their countries because of war, because of being prosecuted, because of human rights abuse, because of natural disaster, because of lawlessness, or any other reason you can claim asylem on basis of the Refugee Convention - UNHCR. How do you propose that we help them in the country which they have fled?

Some do.

Most asylum seekers I have encountered have been economic migrants abusing the asylum system.

noviorbis77 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

It's so open to abuse I'd stop it completely until the process can be refined and made fair for everyone. IMO it would be much more efficient helping refugees in there own countries rather than traipsing halfway round the world looking for the country who will offer them the most benefits, which is what happens.

They flee their countries because of war, because of being prosecuted, because of human rights abuse, because of natural disaster, because of lawlessness, or any other reason you can claim asylem on basis of the Refugee Convention - UNHCR. How do you propose that we help them in the country which they have fled?

Some do.

Most asylum seekers I have encountered have been economic migrants abusing the asylum system.

those aren't asylum seekers, as you say they are economic migrants. So do something about that. Don't abandon a system altogether, just for someone who abuses the system.

It is pretty easy to argue that gangs or corrupt police make your migration necessary. And they are allowed in to the United States.

The rules written post WWII were to deal with the Holocaust and then the forced expulsion of Germans from areas of Eastern Europe where Germans had lived for generations. Historians debate the number of German refugees killed by vengeful people - but it was in the hundreds of thousands. "The death toll attributable to the flight and expulsions is disputed, with estimates ranging from 500,000–600,000[14][15] and up to 2 to 2.5 million.[ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_an ... %80%931950)

Really IMO no one in the Western Hemisphere meets that same criteria.

MohawkWeekend wrote:

It is pretty easy to argue that gangs or corrupt police make your migration necessary. And they are allowed in to the United States.

The rules written post WWII were to deal with the Holocaust and then the forced expulsion of Germans from areas of Eastern Europe where Germans had lived for generations. Historians debate the number of German refugees killed by vengeful people - but it was in the hundreds of thousands. "The death toll attributable to the flight and expulsions is disputed, with estimates ranging from 500,000–600,000[14][15] and up to 2 to 2.5 million.[ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_an ... %80%931950)

Really IMO no one in the Western Hemisphere meets that same criteria.

In raw numbers, no. But in terms of people targeted and labeled guilty by association? Yes. ‘Gangs’ simplifies the issue terribly when narcotrafficking operations are in cahoots with either government or paramilitary antigovernment forces. Some unfortunate Colombians, Nicaraguans, Hondurans, Salvadorans, and recent Mexicans would take particular issue with your claim. I suggest researching the last five decades of Latin American history more thoroughly.

I am not in any way down playing that people are suffering in those countries. There are a lot of people who die in the US from drug violence too. But are you suggesting that because those countries have these issues , most of their tens of million residents have the right of asylum in the US? Then you better add Brazil and Venezuela to that list too because they have the same issues.

From 1940 to 1946 there was a systematic slaughter of 10 million people by Governments and their lackeys. Your fate was based on religion, ethnicity, political views and sexual orientation. I believe the whole Jewish populations of the Baltic's was eliminated. After the war, the Germans met the same fate in Eastern Europe.
We aren't seeing ethnic cleansing in the Western Hemisphere. And that's what IMO the post war laws were written for.