Support NeoGAF

[Protome]

They did not sign up for this deal, they voted against it. They are being forced to take foreign nationals because the southern EU states can't (won't) secure their borders.

They can leave the EU if they don't want the benefits of it anymore.

The reality of "securing borders" against these refugees would result in thousands of deaths. That's not a realistic solution to a problem, although Hungary probably wouldn't mind it.

 

[Jasup]

It's one thing to accept free movement of EU nationals, but the forced relocation of non-EU citizens to your country? Is that an obligation that the Hungarians and Slovaks signed up for?

Actually yes.
This is from the European Court of Justice's press release:

The Court holds in that connection that Article 78(3) TFEU enables the EU institutions to adopt all the provisional measures necessary to respond effectively and swiftly to an emergency situation characterised by a sudden inflow of displaced persons. Those measures may also derogate from legislative acts, provided, in particular, that their material and temporal scope is circumscribed and that they have neither the object nor the effect of replacing or permanently amending legislative acts. Those conditions are met in the present case.

TFEU referenced here is Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

 

[leatherhat]

They can leave the EU if they don't want the benefits of it anymore.

Or they could pressue the EU to do its job and secure the Schengen.

The reality of "securing borders" against these refugees would result in thousands of deaths. That's not a realistic solution to a problem, although Hungary probably wouldn't mind it.

How many people have drowned in the Med because of Western Europe's "If you can get here, you're in" mentality.

 

[Protome]

Or they could pressue the EU to do its job and secure the Schengen.

Accepting refugees rather than letting them die is not inherently breaching Schengen. It was something that was always done, far more were accepted because far more were coming due to instability in other countries. you can't just go "We made this quota before, that's the one we'll always have forever" because that's not how the real world works.

If Hungary refuses to accept that, they can fuck right off.

 

[jakonovski]

Or they could pressue the EU to do its job and secure the Schengen.

It's not the EU's job to pander to Orban's delusional paranoia.

 

[Royal_Phalanx]

Honestly Hungary is a net drain. The EU is better off without them. Good riddance. There's no reason not to accept refugees that have gone through the proper application processes and have been approved already, other than bigotry. People defending Orban here seem to have forgot that he would roll out the welcome mat to Christian refugees. Don't like the EU? Then fuck off.

 

[Irminsul]

They did not sign up for this deal, they voted against it.

Did you know that, in a democracy, there still can be things enacted even if you voted against it? Outrageous, I know.

And if Hungary doesn't like it, they can always leave. But Orban would never do that, because then the Hungarian economy would be in even more shambles than it already is.

 

[Onlinehero]

Hungary built a border wall and put guards on it to secure a pass that tens of thousands of people were using to come into Europe. That path is now effectively closed while other avenues remain open.

And what a bang up job the failed state of Hungary managed.

In the judgment, the ECtHR [European Court of Human Rights] held that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 1 due to the unlawful detention of the HHC’s clients in the transit zone; a violation of Article 5 § 4 due to the lack of possibilities to challenge the lawfulness of the detention; a violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 3 due to the lack of effective remedy to complain about the conditions of detention in the transit zone; and a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of their expulsion to Serbia.

http://www.helsinki.hu/wp-content/uploads/HHC-Info-Update-rule39.pdf

By your logic other states have a "reponsibility" to go against European Convention on Human Rights, and I think that makes you a bit of a wanker.

 

[leatherhat]

It's not the EU's job to pander to Orban's delusional paranoia.

It is exactly their job to secure the external borders

https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/borders-and-visas/schengen_en

take responsibility for controlling the external borders on behalf of the other Schengen States and for issuing uniform Schengen visas

Its a membership requirement for joining the Schengen

 

[Westbahnhof]

They did not sign up for this deal, they voted against it.

Wait, voting against something means that a positive outcome doesn't apply to you?
Someone tell the remainers and everyone who didn't vote Trump, they'll be so happy!

 

[Onlinehero]

It is exactly their job to secure the external borders

https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/borders-and-visas/schengen_en



Its a membership requirement for joining the Schengen

Ahaha, you have no idea what you're talking about. Good.

 

[IdreamofHIME]

If Hungary refuses to accept that, they can fuck right off.

Don't like the EU? Then fuck off.

Interesting

 

[Royal_Phalanx]

Or they could pressue the EU to do its job and secure the Schengen.




How many people have drowned in the Med because of Western Europe's "If you can get here, you're in" mentality.

Do you really care about these people, or do you just see them as vermin who should never set foot on this continent?

 

[ClosingADoor]

Well did the germans or french sign up to subsidize poland or hungary?

The relocation of refugees was decided with a majority in the EU. If you want to get money from the EU you're bound by it's decisions. Easy as that.

If you can't be arsed to help your fellow europeans why should they be arsed to give you money?

Actually, yes, we did sign up for that, to subsidize them and then hopefully in the long term they would become net payers.

Accepting refugees rather than letting them die is not inherently breaching Schengen. It was something that was always done, far more were accepted because far more were coming due to instability in other countries. you can't just go "We made this quota before, that's the one we'll always have forever" because that's not how the real world works.

If Hungary refuses to accept that, they can fuck right off.

Hungary's stance is that the people coming in now are not refugees with their lives in danger. With the Syrian refugee crisis that was a lot harder to defend of course, but the current immigrants are not from Syria at all.

 

[WedgeX]

Good. Federalism and humanitarianism are a powerful combined force.

 

[leatherhat]

Do you really care about these people, or do you just see them as vermin who should never set foot on this continent?

Its possible to not want illegal immigration and at the same time not want said illegals to die in droves during transit.

 

[jakonovski]

It is exactly their job to secure the external borders

https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/borders-and-visas/schengen_en



Its a membership requirement for joining the Schengen

That's exactly it, Orban's Hungary is one of the crazy uncles of the EU. Their "interpretation" of Schengen (and just about everything else) is evil and shitty and no one should listen to them. If that means expelling the budding dictatorship that is Hungary from the EU, then so be it. I mean, they're practically a fifth column when dealing with Russia already.

 

[D4Danger]

edit: misread.

 

[Royal_Phalanx]

Actually, yes, we did sign up for that, to subsidize them and then hopefully in the long term they would become net payers.


Hungary's stance is that the people coming in now are not refugees with their lives in danger. With the Syrian refugee crisis that was a lot harder to defend of course, but the current immigrants are not from Syria at all.

IIRC Orban would gladly accept Christian refugees. And not being from Syria doesn't mean your country is safe. If you disagree, feel free to move to Afghanistan and see if you feel safe or not. Not being from Syria doesn't mean your case shouldn't be heard. If you don't have a legit claim, then by all means send them back promptly but humanely.

 

[leatherhat]

That's exactly it, Orban's Hungary is one of the crazy uncles of the EU. Their "interpretation" of Schengen (and just about everything else) is evil and shitty and no one should listen to them. If that means expelling the budding dictatorship that is Hungary from the EU, then so be it. I mean, they're practically a fifth column when dealing with Russia already.

So what's your interpretation of securing the Schengen?

 

[Onlinehero]

Hungary's stance is that the people coming in now are not refugees with their lives in danger. With the Syrian refugee crisis that was a lot harder to defend of course, but the current immigrants are not from Syria at all.

And how do they decide that by not providing an appropriate asylum process, and instead detain and deport people unlawfully?

Oh it's because they look like that, you see.

You can't decide if a person has a claim for asylum before their claim has been processed. You're also wrong in that A) people still come from Syria and B) there are more things happening in the world than Syria, and your need for protection has a ton of variables depending on where you live.

So what's your interpretation of securing the Schengen?

How about the whole text that you quoted and not just an out of context excerpt?

Countries must also fulfil a list of pre-conditions, such as be prepared and have the capacity to:

take responsibility for controlling the external borders on behalf of the other Schengen States and for issuing uniform Schengen visas

It doesn't say anything about unlawful detention and breaching the European Convention on Human Rights, now does it? Jesus dude.

 

[leatherhat]

And how do they decide that by not providing an appropriate asylum process, and instead detain and deport people unlawfully?

Oh it's because they look like that, you see.

You can't decide if a person has a claim for asylum before their claim has been processed. You're also wrong in that A) people still come from Syria and B) there are more things happening in the world than Syria, and your need for protection has a ton of variables depending on where you live.

A. Very few

B. How feasible is it for Europe to take in people from every bad spot on the globe. It would be hundreds of millions of people.

 

[jakonovski]

So what's your interpretation of securing the Schengen?

I'm not here to debate you, I'm here to stand against Orban and his ilk. The wider EU will provide a superior interpretation, however bad it is.

 

[Onlinehero]

B. How feasible is it for Europe to take in people from every bad spot on the globe. It would be hundreds of millions of people.

HAHAHA. Wow, yeah I guess you have me there.

Shut it all down! Hail Orban!

Or be reasonable, you're completely out of it.

 

[Royal_Phalanx]

Its possible to not want illegal immigration and at the same time not want said illegals to die in droves during transit.

Simply "just not letting them in" isn't a sustainable solution. With global warming the 3rd world is going to get worse. Also their governments are failing their citizens completely. The sustainable way is to solve the problems that make people want to leave in the first place. If you were in their situation your views probably wouldn't be the same. You would be thinking "EUROPE PLEASE LET ME IN". Make their countries better and maybe you'd see much less illegal migration. Easier said than done, of course.

 

[hodgy100]

Can we please not conflate immigrants with asylum seekers :/

I can understand people being mad with others immigrating illegally. But these EU members absolutely have to help out with housing and looking after the people that have been displaced by the events in Syria and other similar events.

 

[leatherhat]

I'm not here to debate you, I'm here to stand against Orban and his ilk. The wider EU will provide a superior interpretation, however bad it is.

Ok then.

 

[Reckheim]

Slovakia is pretty nice.

so is Germany, where a refuge would get paid a lot more.

Even if these countries were to accept these refugees there is no reason to stay there if you have a choice.

 

[leatherhat]

Simply "just not letting them in" isn't a sustainable solution. With global warming the 3rd world is going to get worse. Also their governments are failing their citizens completely. The sustainable way is to solve the problems that make people want to leave in the first place. If you were in their situation your views probably wouldn't be the same. You would be thinking "EUROPE PLEASE LET ME IN". Make their countries better and maybe you'd see much less illegal migration. Easier said than done, of course.

Mass migration is what's not sustainable. It will overwhelm Europe (it already has really) and does nothing to help any of the source countries. Europe cannot adopt the world.

Largely impossible, even with the massive amount of foreign aid the west has given out over the decades. And certainly not something that solves any thing short term. The best way to end illegal immigration is to send a clear message that illegal immigrants will be stopped and sent back. The exact opposite message Europe has been sending to the world.

HAHAHA. Wow, yeah I guess you have me there.

Shut it all down! Hail Orban!

Or be reasonable, you're completely out of it.

I'm fine. Are you alright?

 

[Muffin1611]

Mass migration is what's not sustainable. It will overwhelm Europe (it already has really) and does nothing to help any of the source countries. Europe cannot adopt the world.

Largely impossible, even with the massive amount of foreign aid the west has given out over the decades. And certainly not something that solves any thing short term.

Stop with your "So you're saying Europe should adopt the whole world" strawman nonsense. There is not even a single EU country in the top ten of refugee hosting countries.

 

[Royal_Phalanx]

Mass migration is what's not sustainable. It will overwhelm Europe (it already has really) and does nothing to help any of the source countries. Europe cannot adopt the world.

Largely impossible, even with the massive amount of foreign aid the west has given out over the decades. And certainly not something that solves any thing short term.



I'm fine. Are you alright?

What would you do to help the source countries? Or are you just going to ignore the problem entirely? You're just going to hope that those governments will actually become competent and properly look after their citizens? Desperate people are just going to keep trying and trying until they succeed. The US has sure done a 'good' job blocking Mexican citizens from living there illegally. Funny thing is less people are doing it now because Mexico is getting better. They even have instituted universal healthcare very recently. So why go to the US? Seems like you need to have a more balanced point of view. This 'not my problem fam' view condemns millions to living shitty lives. The west is already paying loads of money to develop poor countries and create opportunities there in return for them taking back rejected asylum seekers. Also, Hungary is overreacting. They're not even receiving very many people via this program.

 

[berzeli]

but the current immigrants are not from Syria at all.

First time asylum applicants and first instance decisions on asylum applications: first quarter 2017:

Citizens of 143 countries sought asylum for the first time in the EU in the first quarter of 2017. Syrians, Afghans and Nigerians were the top 3 citizenships of asylum seekers, lodging 22 500, 12 500 and 11 500 applications respectively

???

 

[Onlinehero]

Ok then.

I'm fine [debatable]. Are you alright? [yes, very much so]

Ok then.

I'll debate you, what's your source for "hundreds of millions", or anything else you've been wrong about so far?

The UN managed to claim 65 million world wide in 2016.

The Global Trends 2015 compiled by the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) notes that 65.3 million people were displaced at the end of 2015, an increase of more than 5 million from 59.5 million a year earlier.
[...]
While the spotlight last year was on Europe's challenge to manage more than one million refugees and migrants who arrived via the Mediterranean

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=54269#.WbAi9rJJaHs

Where are your extra hundreds of millions emigrating from, and why are they coming to Europe?

Your misconceptions about EU law is one thing, that's hard to understand without proper education and understanding. How come your figure here is so completely and utterly wrong, making it seem like you're just spewing xenophobic bullshit?

 

[leatherhat]

Stop with your "So you're saying Europe should adopt the whole world" strawman nonsense. There is not even a single EU country in the top ten of refugee hosting countries.

The countries in the top ten are immediate neighbors to countries in the middle of wars (Iraq, syria, Afghanistan and Sudan). Obviously they will have the most.

 

[Kuldar]

Or Holland, Sweden, Denmark, Austria, France, Germany. Everyone has been sitting on their ass for years while Greece and Italy saw large numbers of people coming in.

Yeah, as a French citizen I am ashamed of the little number of refugees we took.

 

[leatherhat]

What would you do to help the source countries? Or are you just going to ignore the problem entirely? You're just going to hope that those governments will actually become competent and properly look after their citizens?

Less interference from the west would be a good start (less arms sales, less war). They aren't stupid, there is no reason why African and Middle Eastern countries can't improve and become functional. There is probably very little the west can do to actually help though.

Your misconceptions about EU law is one thing, that's hard to understand without proper education and understanding. How come your figure here is so completely and utterly wrong, making it seem like you're just spewing xenophobic bullshit?

Because I'm looking at the long term picture, and the population growth occurring in Africa.

 

[leatherhat]

doublepost

 

[jakonovski]

Less interference from the west would be a good start (less arms sales, less war). They aren't stupid, there is no reason why African and Middle Eastern countries can't improve and become functional. There is probably very little the west can do to actually help though.

Not supporting Putin would be a start.

 

[Tempy]

being a member of the EU doesn't mean a country must give up its sovereignty on how it controls who it accepts or not.

it's bad enough that many countries had to change their industries due to production quotas in certain agricultural sectors, now individual countries have to compromise on sovereignty?

on this issue, I side with the individual country's rights to decide how it wants to accept immigration.

a one size fits all approach for all members is highly unrealistic.

They want no refugees at all. They want all the benefits of the EU but none of the obligations. They can stuff their right wing conservative ass right up their mother's poopchute.

Remember this thread is about refugees, not immigrants. No derailing.

Also didn't expect Orban shills here, but I shouldn't be surprised when there are Duterte death squad supporters on GAF.

 

[Onlinehero]

Because I'm looking at the long term picture, and the population growth occurring in Africa.

Ah I see, so making shit up while not having a single clue.

Got it! Thanks for playing.

Where's that "dunce drawing a graph"-picture when you need it?

*Ah here it is.

Look, that's literally your argument.

 

[ClosingADoor]

IIRC Orban would gladly accept Christian refugees. And not being from Syria doesn't mean your country is safe. If you disagree, feel free to move to Afghanistan and see if you feel safe or not. Not being from Syria doesn't mean your case shouldn't be heard. If you don't have a legit claim, then by all means send them back promptly but humanely.

I am not saying I like Orban. I am saying the situation is a little bit more nuanced then Hungary = evil, EU = good guys. There are very real problems with the whole process and how the EU is going about it. It is not for nothing that Italy is in the process of stopping charities from rescuing people near their coast, or that France is in talks with African nations about stopping the immigration streams. Multiple countries have also done the same as Hungary with protecting their border, but not gotten nearly the same amount of hate over it, like Bulgaria and Macedonia.

And how do they decide that by not providing an appropriate asylum process, and instead detain and deport people unlawfully?

Oh it's because they look like that, you see.

You can't decide if a person has a claim for asylum before their claim has been processed. You're also wrong in that A) people still come from Syria and B) there are more things happening in the world than Syria, and your need for protection has a ton of variables depending on where you live.

You can tell that in part by looking at the stats where people are coming from at the moment. Yes, there are more things happening in the world. But that does not mean that all those people should flee to Europe. Why did almost as many Moroccans as Syrians try to cross the Mediterranean this year for example? Why do people need to come in from Nigeria, a very large country where we can set up local help with the government there?

This is not such a black and white issue as some of you make it out to be. Is Hungary in the wrong for shutting the door to everyone? Yes. But they also have legitimate claims that the EU is not handling the situation properly.

First time asylum applicants and first instance decisions on asylum applications: first quarter 2017:

???

People applying for asylum now doesn't mean they are the recent immigrants I think.

UN says this: http://data2.unhcr.org/en/situations/mediterranean

Syria is 5th. Total 125,989 arrivals tracked, Syria accounts for 7,688. Not even 10%.

Also, your numbers show that for Q1 is was just over 10% or so for Syria. So yes, almost 90% are not from Syria, proving my point.

 

[leatherhat]

Ah I see, so making shit up while not having a single clue.

Got it! Thanks for playing.

Where's that "dunce drawing a graph"-picture when you need it?

The population in Africa isn't growing rapidly? This is big news.

 

[Muffin1611]

The countries in the top ten are immediate neighbors to countries in the middle of wars (Iraq, syria, Afghanistan and Sudan). Obviously they will have the most.

That still doesn't make your question make any more sense.

Or Holland, Sweden, Denmark, Austria, France, Germany. Everyone has been sitting on their ass for years while Greece and Italy saw large numbers of people coming in.

I'm either missing something, or what you wrote is nonsense?

Germany for example had the lions share of asylum applications and accepted quite many, about as much as Italy and Greece combined:

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Asylum_statistics#Asylum_applicants

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statis...m_statistics#Decisions_on_asylum_applications

 

[ClosingADoor]

I'm either missing something, or what you wrote is nonsense?

Germany for example had the lions share of asylum applications and accepted quite many, about as much as Italy and Greece combined:

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Asylum_statistics#Asylum_applicants

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statis...m_statistics#Decisions_on_asylum_applications

Talking about the situation before the crisis. Greece and Italy have been dealing with large numbers of people coming in for years. Not until they were literally crossing the borders in the tens of thousands towards Germany did we start caring. Now those countries act like they have the moral high ground, while they were perfectly fine with ignoring the situation until it reached their own doorstep.

 

[Muffin1611]

Talking about the situation before the crisis. Greece and Italy have been dealing with large numbers of people coming in for years. Not until they were literally crossing the borders in the tens of thousands towards Germany did we start caring.

Ah, gotcha. Yeah, that's entirely true.

Merkels decision came shortly after reports of people at the border camping in the snow were amassing iirc.

 

[Onlinehero]

You can tell that in part by looking at the stats where people are coming from at the moment. Yes, there are more things happening in the world. But that does not mean that all those people should flee to Europe. Why did almost as many Moroccans as Syrians try to cross the Mediterranean this year for example? Why do people need to come in from Nigeria, a very large country where we can set up local help with the government there?

This is not such a black and white issue as some of you make it out to be. Is Hungary in the wrong for shutting the door to everyone? Yes. But they also have legitimate claims that the EU is not handling the situation properly.

You're also making it sound easier than it is. What if you don't even know where the person is coming from? What if this person happens to come from a persecuted group that has no protection from the government? The main rule is that you can't deport a person unless you're absolutely sure that he or she won't be persecuted or sent to a third country where that could happen. It's upp to the person making claims to prove such persecution, but it's up to the state to try the evidence and provide a robust legal process for doing so.

The population in Africa isn't growing rapidly? This is big news.

Reciepts dude, stop acting like an opinion pulled from your ass is worth anything.

 

[Chmpocalypse]

It's one thing to accept free movement of EU nationals, but the forced relocation of non-EU citizens to your country? Is that an obligation that the Hungarians and Slovaks signed up for?

Literally yes. They knew their obligations when opting into the benefits. It seems, like the racist and xenophobic morons in the UK who supported leaving the EU, they want all of the benefits with none of the responsibilities.

The court told them to get fucked, as they should.

 

[ClosingADoor]

No, you're making it sound easier than it is. What if you don't even know where the person is coming from? What if this person happens to come from a persecuted group that has no protection from the government? The main rule is that you can't deport a person unless you're absolutely sure that he or she won't be persecuted or sent to a third country where that could happen. It's upp to the person making claims to prove such persecution, but it's up to the state to try the evidence and provide a robust legal process for doing so.

This is why France wants to set up centers in for example Libya, so we don't have people entering Europe in large numbers with no clue who they are. I am not pretending it is simple. It is a very complicated situation, which is why I can't fault some countries too much for not going along with whatever the EU decides right now.

The population in Africa isn't growing rapidly? This is big news.

Fertility rate is declining, which will continue depending on how the economic development of the continent goes. But the population itself will keep growing for some time indeed. Should not be a problem, it's a gigantic land mass, but again, depends on how the economy goes mostly.

 

[Onlinehero]

This is why France wants to set up centers in for example Libya, so we don't have people entering Europe in large numbers with no clue who they are. I am not pretending it is simple. It is a very complicated situation, which is why I can't fault some countries too much for not going along with whatever the EU decides right now.

If you actually look at what Hungary has been doing to keep people out, and how it has violated several conventions in doing so while countries who actually took people in are dealing with matters much better I don't think you have an argument for not going along with what the EU decides if you are a part of it, no.

 

[leatherhat]

Reciepts dude, stop acting like an opinion pulled from your ass is worth anything.

I'm a little confused, are you trying to say that Africa's population isn't increasing?

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/25/africa/africa-population-growth-un/index.html

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=57028#.WU1IaVPytZ0

Is the UN a dunce drawing a graph?

Fertility rate is declining, which will continue depending on how the economic development of the continent goes. But the population itself will keep growing for some time indeed. Should not be a problem, it's a gigantic land mass, but again, depends on how the economy goes mostly.

Fertility rate is still 4.7 though.