EU will restrict visas for states not taking back migrants

[Astalnar]

What's this? EU finally discovered other diplomatic means besides bending over? Color me surprised. Only time will tell if this is more of the same grandstanding and posturing, or instead serious business.

[Freighter]

The theory just doesn't reflect reality or doesn't that even matter then?

We are discussing people who were not granted asylum and as such are not considered refugees. Refugees have no bearing on this at all and are irrelevant.

[TwistedSkull]

We are discussing people who were not given asylum and as such are not considered refugees. Refugees has no bearing on this at all and are irrelevant.

So you are saying that we should let the refugees drown with the immigrants who sail together on the boats?

[Freighter]

So you are saying that we should let the refugees drown with the immigrants who sail together on the boats?

Did you even read my other post? I do not support the current system. There would be no refugees sailing if we were to apply the system I favor.

Do you support the current system? If so, how do you justify it?

[Deleted]

So you are saying that we should let the refugees drown with the immigrants who sail together on the boats?

Haven't you read Freighter's posts? If someone ends up being caught on a human trafficking chain and thrown into the sea on a lifeboat, it's his/her own fault.

[Freighter]

Haven't you read Freighter's posts? If someone ends up being caught on a human trafficking chain and thrown into the sea on a lifeboat, it's his/her own fault.

It's obvious that you did not read my posts.

[Deleted]

It's obvious that you did not read my posts.

I'm pretty sure everyone on this thread read the exact same thing as I did, but keep trying to deny the victim shaming.

[TwistedSkull]

Did you even read my other post? I do not support the current system. There would be no refugees sailing if we were to apply the system I favor.

Europe doesn't choose which way the refugees travel. If they are persecuted i don't think they stop and consider their options. And if they travel alongside immigrants do you expect the autherities pick out the refugees and let the rest drown when they can't tell them apart?

Just to be on record i don't want anyone to drown. Every one in peril on the seas should be helped.

[Freighter]

I'm pretty sure everyone on this thread read the exact same thing as I did, but keep trying to deny the victim shaming.

Misrepresenting my post in this manner can only mean 2 things: 1) You either did not understand what I wrote or 2) You're intentionally and maliciously misunderstanding my post to rail against people with another opinion than yours.

[Deleted]

Misrepresenting my post in this manner can only mean 2 things: 1) You either did not understand what I wrote or 2) You're intentionally and maliciously misunderstanding my post to rail against people with another opinion than yours.

Nope, it's pretty much what I said on the post you quoted and I'm not the only one noticing it.

But keep going with your criminal and victim shaming drivel. I'm done answering to you.

[Freighter]

Europe doesn't choose which way the refugees travel.

They can though. If they offered the option to apply for asylum in refugee camps, at embassies or such then you wouldn't have refugees risking their lives to make their way to Europe. As it stands, the laws requiring you to be inside the country to apply for asylum are abhorrent. They basically have the expectation that enough people will not be able to make it there, either because they don't want to undertake the journey, don't have the means to or because they die on their journey, to prevent them from being flooded. Either way, they're morally abhorrent as they put refugees lives at risk by not providing means of safe travel for them.

- - - Updated - - -

Nope, it's pretty much what I said on the post you quoted and I'm not the only one noticing it.

Nope.

That just means you're more people who misrepresent my post.

[TwistedSkull]

Haven't you read Freighter's posts? If someone ends up being caught on a human trafficking chain and thrown into the sea on a lifeboat, it's his/her own fault.

All i have gathered from her responses is that she likes herself some anarchy. Where law, ethics and morality is out the window.

[Freighter]

All i have gathered from her responses is that she likes herself some anarchy. Where law, ethics and morality is out the window.

Wow, to make this claim while I support a safer option for refugees than you seemingly do, you have to be really misunderstanding my posts. You'd rather have them risk their lives than provide them the means to travel safely.

[Deleted]

They can though. If they offered the option to apply for asylum in refugee camps, at embassies or such then you wouldn't have refugees risking their lives to make their way to Europe.

Uh... It already happens, that's exactly how the system works with Turkey and EU. And still doesn't stop the human trafficking.

The fact that you oblivious of how things works says volumes. I'm done now.

[Freighter]

Uh... It already happens, that's exactly how the system works with Turkey and EU. And still doesn't stop the human trafficking.

They can't go to an embassy in india and apply for asylum in germany from there. With the system I proposed, they can. It won't become reality though, do you know why? Because the laws are made in such a way that they expect people to be deterred from making their way to the country, either because they lack the means to, because they don't want to risk it or because they think enough people will die as to not flood the country.

[Deleted]

They can't go to an embassy in india and apply for asylum in germany from there. With the system I proposed, they can.

You need to work your geography better, because India not even close to Syria or Europe.

And your understanding of "migrant" and "refugee", because a migrant can't ask asylum, simple as that. Which is the case of the topic.

[Freighter]

You need to work your geography better. And your understanding of "migrant" and "refugee", because a migrant can't ask asylum, simple as that.

Geography has nothing to do with whether someone is a refugee or not.

You need to work your geography better, because India not even close to Syria or Europe.

Afghanistan and Myanmar is though. They'd be able to apply for asylum in various countries from their embassies in india.

[Deleted]

Geography has nothing to do with whether someone is a refugee or not.

[Xargoth6634]

Is Libya even considered safe?

I'm all for sending them home once caught, but not if doing so is a death sentence.

So we should just take in an unlimited number of refugees from any "unsafe" place? That's our moral responsibility now?

[Freighter]

So? Are syrians the only refugees? There exists no refugees from Myanmar, which is close to India or from Afghanistan, which is close to India? India was just an example either way, you'd be able to apply at embassies in any country.