European migrant crisis [Megathread]

[Forogil]

I said EU is entitled to send illegal refugees back, so long as someone, in this case Turkey, is willing to accept them.

Go read Geneva Convention and end your ignorance. The Geneva convention mentions nothing even remotely close to "losing refugee status" or anything when you change a country.

Illegal meaning changed country without getting permission to do so.


And also:

They are refugees seeking for better conditions. Eastern Europe is too poor to provide proper accommodations. All countries in EU has signed Geneva conventions, in which refugees are entitled to move from Turkey to Europe without actually losing their refugee status, contrary to popular belief. The same convention also bans imposing any sort of penalties if a refuge illegally enters to a country.

[Kuntantee]

Illegal meaning changed country without getting permission to do so.

Compare this with that quotation. How that quotation implies this is beyond me. Here is your claim:

but you incorrectly claimed that EU could sent refugees back to Turkey just because Turkey accepted them - while that only applies to refugees that are illegally in the country - contrary to claims that entering illegally was unproblematic.

[Renyo]

Can anyone find an article in the Geneva Convention about whether and in which case the entry can be denied? I only found an article saying that there should be no penalties for the illegal entry or presence if they come "directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1". That could implicate that they can be sent back after they entered (which is done in Europe through the Dublin treaty) but it does not say whether the entry has to be enabled or denied.
I guess there are some laws in the EU regulating the entry etc., maybe I'll look into that if I have the time.

[luckydevours]

Didnt take you long to resort to godwin didnt it? If arguments fail bring up bullshit Nazi comparisons, it is that simple.

You bring up a Nazi plan and i cannot call it what it is? Not my problem if you don't have any knowledge of history...

[Forogil]

Can anyone find an article in the Geneva Convention about whether and in which case the entry can be denied?

There isn't anything stating that entry is allowed at all - and thus Turkey, Lebanon, Macedonia, etc deny them entry across land-borders without violating the treaty.

Additionally practically all countries deny them entry in some way or another - that's why a denied asylum seeker can take a Lufthansa flight back to Iraq, but wouldn't be able to take the plane in other direction to flee from Is.

[Kuntantee]

There isn't anything stating that entry is allowed at all - and thus Turkey, Lebanon, Macedonia, etc deny them entry across land-borders without violating the treaty.

Additionally practically all countries deny them entry in some way or another - that's why a denied asylum seeker can take a Lufthansa flight back to Iraq, but wouldn't be able to take the plane in other direction to flee from Is.

Turkey can't deny refugees access because they are under immediate threat in Turkish-Syrian border. Can't remember the article (or perhaps a different convention) but there should be one covering that.

[Deleted]

Turkey can't deny refugees access because they are under immediate threat in Turkish border. Can't remember the article (or perhaps a different convention) but there should be one covering that.

different convention.

[Forogil]

different convention.

Well, at least it is not in the refugee convention.

[tumppu]

Can anyone find an article in the Geneva Convention about whether and in which case the entry can be denied? I only found an article saying that there should be no penalties for the illegal entry or presence if they come "directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1". That could implicate that they can be sent back after they entered (which is done in Europe through the Dublin treaty) but it does not say whether the entry has to be enabled or denied.
I guess there are some laws in the EU regulating the entry etc., maybe I'll look into that if I have the time.

The Dublin treaty has been so thoroughly fucked all through this "crisis" that it should (and has been, in same cases) be scrapped. 30000+ "refugees" came to Finland from SWEDEN and we're supposed to accept that they're fleeing from persecution? Bullshit. They were simply told that their chances for asylum application being accepted were better in Finland, than in <insert other country>. It's simply moving where you want, instead of "fleeing from conflict". Also, apparently we need to cough up the money to return them, IF they feel like leaving. Apparently forcibly returning them is not an option, which makes all this even more ridiculous.

[Slant]

Both actually. Coming from a country that is at war isn't the end all of factors to be considered.

A person claiming he's a refugee isn't the same as a person that is actually a refugee. You can absolutely be sent back if your situation doesn't warrant the status refugee. The Geneva Convention has an entire catalogue about that, if I'm not mistaken. So it does make a difference.

What you're right about is that the country he transits doesn't need to be at war for the refugee status to be valid. If your home country is in enough trouble for you to be considered a refugee, going through a safe country doesn't suddenly make you a non-refugee anymore.

- - - Updated - - -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propos...a_Jewish_state
Many Jews were not picky.

I don't particularly care - its never going to stop being unstable until they stop being the problem.
Their problem, is their problem.
And moving them here does not help, because as we see, they continue to be problems (i.e, not integrating, which for the purposes of this conversation means assimilate).

You are grossly ignoring free will in your statements. Jews relocating to their chosen destination and building a state there is voluntary. Resettling refugees on some island by force is... involuntary. Same with immigration vs. refugees. People from Turkey, for instance, choose to come to Germany without an urgent need to leave Turkey. If they have a problem, that is indeed their problem. Refugees fleeing from an all out threesome civil war do not have a choice. And they're not meant to integrate, they technically just need to live somewhere until they can be sent back.

Technically. I realise real life doesn't always reflect that, but that's the idea at least.

[Deleted]

A person claiming he's a refugee isn't the same as a person that is actually a refugee. You can absolutely be sent back if your situation doesn't warrant the status refugee. The Geneva Convention has an entire catalogue about that, if I'm not mistaken. So it does make a difference.

What you're right about is that the country he transits doesn't need to be at war for the refugee status to be valid. If your home country is in enough trouble for you to be considered a refugee, going through a safe country doesn't suddenly make you a non-refugee anymore.

- - - Updated - - -



You are grossly ignoring free will in your statements. Jews relocating to their chosen destination and building a state there is voluntary. Resettling refugees on some island by force is... involuntary. Same with immigration vs. refugees. People from Turkey, for instance, choose to come to Germany without an urgent need to leave Turkey. If they have a problem, that is indeed their problem. Refugees fleeing from an all out threesome civil war do not have a choice. And they're not meant to integrate, they technically just need to live somewhere until they can be sent back.

Technically. I realise real life doesn't always reflect that, but that's the idea at least.

Exactly. The claim goblinp was making that "they're not coming from a country at war so they're not refugees", is by all means false. And it has been for the last few months.
"Not coming from a country at war" is not the end all factor deciding refugee status. And this is the reason we have refugees in Europe NOW that aren't from countries at war.

[Deleted]

You are grossly ignoring free will in your statements. Jews relocating to their chosen destination and building a state there is voluntary.

The Russian Jews voluntarily left the soviet union?

Resettling refugees on some island by force is... involuntary. Same with immigration vs. refugees. People from Turkey, for instance, choose to come to Germany without an urgent need to leave Turkey. If they have a problem, that is indeed their problem.
Refugees fleeing from an all out threesome civil war do not have a choice. And they're not meant to integrate, they technically just need to live somewhere until they can be sent back.

How about an island?

- - - Updated - - -

Exactly. The claim goblinp was making that "they're not coming from a country at war so they're not refugees", is by all means false. And it has been for the last few months.

No, their legal determination has not been made yet, thus they are not refugees.
We wont know until their asylum application has either been rejected or accepted.
That's the legal argument.
As for the non legal argument, then no.

"Not coming from a country at war" is not the end all factor deciding refugee status. And this is the reason we have refugees in Europe NOW that aren't from countries at war.

These are two different topic here just to be clear - As for refugee status, you can only be a refugee if your country either is in total war, or your particular identity is oppressed.
But this leaves a lot of wiggle room - Take Iraqis and Afghanis, both could be sent back (and there are EU countries that do this) because the whole country is not at war, thus they are internal refugees.
Another popular non war one is Eritrea where a lot of men are fleeing the draft - if only our politicians knew that the draft does not count as oppression.

[Deleted]

The Russian Jews voluntarily left the soviet union?


How about an island?

- - - Updated - - -


No, their legal determination has not been made yet, thus they are not refugees.
We wont know until their asylum application has either been rejected or accepted.
That's the legal argument.
As for the non legal argument, then no.

These are two different topic here just to be clear - As for refugee status, you can only be a refugee if your country either is in total war, or your particular identity is oppressed.
But this leaves a lot of wiggle room - Take Iraqis and Afghanis, both could be sent back (and there are EU countries that do this) because the whole country is not at war, thus they are internal refugees.
Another popular non war one is Eritrea where a lot of men are fleeing the draft - if only our politicians knew that the draft does not count as oppression.

Yes and as such, your claim "they can't be refugees because not from a place at war" is false because, as you said yourself there are other factors at play.

[Runenwächter]

You bring up a Nazi plan and i cannot call it what it is? Not my problem if you don't have any knowledge of history...

Are you that daft? Talk about motive attribution asymetry....

There are no native people or citizens being forcefully removed, no families torn apart, no people being dispossessed. We are talking about illegal immigrants being denied entry or being deported. Migration is not a human right. Those points alone is enough to dismiss your insulting and dumb comparison twice over.

[Deleted]

Are you that daft? Talk about motive attribution asymetry....

There are no native people or citizens being forcefully removed, no families torn apart, no people being dispossessed. We are talking about illegal immigrants being denied entry or being deported. Migration is not a human right. Those points alone is enough to dismiss your insulting and dumb comparison twice over.

Migration is not a human right but migrants still have human rights and if we are to live in a state of law and follow the rules, that idea you're proposing is simply illegal.

[Slant]

Are you that daft? Talk about motive attribution asymetry....

There are no native people or citizens being forcefully removed, no families torn apart, no people being dispossessed. We are talking about illegal immigrants being denied entry or being deported. Migration is not a human right. Those points alone is enough to dismiss your insulting and dumb comparison twice over.

No, we're not. We're talking about refugees. What you think they are or what they think they are doesn't matter very much at this stage. Fact is that they are in Europe because someone recognised them as "legal refugees". And any discussion about them must be based on that status, not what you or they think they are. Because if we think about "immigration", there is no question that they can be sent back. However, you cannot just deport refugees. Whereto?

I mean just for giggles, did you guys know that Madagascar is an actual country? It's not like you can dump boatloads of unwanted people there...

- - - Updated - - -

The Russian Jews voluntarily left the soviet union?


How about an island?

Who cares why they left? I'm talking about them settling in what is now Israel. They could've settled anywhere on the planet, but they chose to congregate in that area. That is hardly equal to "Russians putting them in a truck and dumping them behind Syria in the desert" as you seem to insinuate.

About "an island"... which island? Earth is pretty much at 100% population, except a few very rare islands that are pretty much untouched. Newsflash: Most of those are by now under some sort of protection so they stay that way. The rest of the "islands"? Populated and owned by some country. So, which island?

[Runenwächter]

No, we're not. We're talking about refugees. What you think they are or what they think they are doesn't matter very much at this stage. Fact is that they are in Europe because someone recognised them as "legal refugees". And any discussion about them must be based on that status, not what you or they think they are. Because if we think about "immigration", there is no question that they can be sent back. However, you cannot just deport refugees. Whereto?

I mean just for giggles, did you guys know that Madagascar is an actual country? It's not like you can dump boatloads of unwanted people there...

The sovereign state of Germany has the right to ask any non citizen to leave the country, if laws and contracts do not declare otherwise. I still dont see proof that the "refugees" as you call them are extended these specific rights or covered under contractual obligations.

You know you sound retarded when you assume that just because they successfully passed the border, they have now somehow attained the right to stay? Thats not how this works. This isnt Ludo.

- - - Updated - - -

Migration is not a human right but migrants still have human rights and if we are to live in a state of law and follow the rules, that idea you're proposing is simply illegal.

No its not. next.

[Renyo]

The sovereign state of Germany has the right to ask any non citizen to leave the country, if laws and contracts do not declare otherwise. I still dont see proof that the "refugees" as you call them are extended these specific rights or covered under contractual obligations.

You know you sound retarded when you assume that just because they successfully passed the border, they have now somehow attained the right to stay? Thats not how this works. This isnt Ludo.

- - - Updated - - -



No its not. next.

The moment a foreigner sets foot on German soil he has the right to seek for asylum. If he does that an asylum process must start until a decision is made.

[Runenwächter]

The moment a foreigner sets foot on German soil he has the right to seek for asylum. If he does that an asylum process must start until a decision is made.

you cant claim asylum under this law if you enter germany from a safe country. every member state of the eu is regarded as a safe country. so is turkey.

[Renyo]

you cant claim asylum under this law if you enter germany from a safe country. every member state of the eu is regarded as a safe country. so is turkey.

Even then you can seek for asylum. The BAMF will check whether your were registered in another country. If you are then they will initiate a Dublin transfer by asking the other state to take him back. That other state has some weeks to accept that or protest against it.
If the asylum seeker ist not registered the BAMF tries to find out which country was the first you set foot on European soil. If they think they can prove it they will initiate a Dublin transfer.

If they came into Europe through Greece they will not be sent back to Greece because since some years it is not legal to send people back to Greece. The situation is so bad that the ECHR (European Court of Human Rights) decided that it is not legal to send any asylum seeker to Greece.

The Court held that asylum conditions in Greece were so bad that not only Greece had violated the ECHR [European Convention on Human Rights], but also Belgium for having transferred an asylum seeker back to Greece.

Source: https://ec.europa.eu/anti-traffickin...-no-3069609_en

If they cannot prove the country the asylum seeker enters first they cannot initiate a Dublin transfer even if it is illogical that the person got to Germany without entering any other country first.

Edit: It is correct that if someone comes out of a european or safe country they have no right to asylum by the Grundgesetz, but that is not the only legislation that determines who and how someone gets protection. There is also the Geneva Refuge Convention, the Dublin Treaty and several EU directives.