So freedom of movement for refugees once they have asylum in one state?
That’s utter madness, we are nowhere near integrated economically to allow that.
2 Likes
Once accepted as refugees people should be on a path to citizenship and will have free movement anyway. Either allow movement or agree a fair system of sharing asylum reception across the EU. Requiring people to stay where they land makes no sense.
Standardise the amount of money they receive then. And if they get refused asylum in one they get refused in them all.
2 Likes
But they aren’t citizens, when they are they can enjoy that right. Same goes for people who move to different European countries on visas.
1 Like
That sounds stupid.
Did you know that refugees are more economically productive than natives? I read that somewhere.
You’d be a mug to get a visa to come to Ireland now. Get a fake passport and dump it on the way. Walk in then
Why would it not be standard across the EU?
Because the cost of living is different in different places. Duh.
Would you accept asylum seekers from safe countries?
I think the bigger point he’s making is that if they can move to wherever they want to claim asylum more than likely they’ll all go to the place that offers the most , which leads to its own problems …
2 Likes
That is the point I’m making yes
1 Like
If you want to have a system of Europeans sharing asylum responsibilities, you would have to have differing rates across Europe BUT you’d have to strictly enforce a system that you cannot move Europe wide once given asylum.
A lottery system that dispassionately moves people across Europe. The only way you can alter that is you can prove emphatically that you have an immediate kin relative in other country. The principle being that the EU requires a certain standard for all countries who are members of the bloc so if you’re safe in one, you’re safe in all.
Of course we are a million miles from that, we’d have to have standardised rules across Europe which would require harmonised laws on the matter.
I don’t think we could ever get to such a system.
That’s not necessarily true at all. People may have language or other skills that suit them to x or y country. People want to work. Requiring them to stay at whatever point they land, generally a poorer southern European state where their opportunities to work are limited, really makes no sense.
1 Like
Not really. A simple burden sharing system would be easy to achieve, and would have been done years ago if we didn’t have Hungary or Poland.
The population of Lisdoonvarna jumped from 500 to 1,400. Every hotel full of refugees. Tourism dead. Pubs and restaurants empty. The locals are most displeased with the hoteliers, and one well-known individual in particular.
1 Like
Really? Where do you funnel asylum seekers to?
We tried Turkey for Syria, but that is only a fraction of them. And human rights organisations hated it.
You can’t stop people rocking up at ports and airports with international travel, and then the various laws of countries will kick into gear.
I think we’d need to harmonise an awful lot of things for it to be an effective cross border solution.
Let’s look at the real world.
Different countries have different standards of living. English speaking is a holy grail. There is a reason why Ireland has so many more per capita than most of the rest of Western Europe in Ukrainian refugees.
If you want to engage a policy of cross EU shared responsibility, it has to be on the basis of a dispassionate burden sharing scheme.
It’s not a wish list … they’re fleeing for their lives … you seem to have a concept where prospective countries should do a presentation to them as to why they should come …
2 Likes
The sewage system is falling apart in Lisdoon, and that is the least of their worries. Whites Castle and the Hydro turned into professional refugee centres, courtesy of the Irish taxpayer
Turkey has 3.6m syrian refugees mate, its a large fraction
1 Like