No European country can be 'exempt' from taking in refugees, says French President

[atatwolf]

French President Francois Hollande holds a press conference at the Tanger-Med port on September 20, 2015, in the northeastern Moroccan coastal city of Tangier. (AFP Photo)
No European country can get out of taking in refugees who have the right to asylum, French President François Hollande said Sunday, amid a growing row over how to fairly distribute a massive influx of migrants across the continent.

The re-distribution "must involve all European countries -- no one can be exempt or we would no longer belong to the same union built on values and principles," Hollande said during a visit to Morocco, ahead of Wednesday's EU crisis summit on a contentious proposal to spread 120,000 refugees across member states.

Hollande told a press conference in Tangiers he had instructed his Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve to defend the plan for mandatory quotas at a meeting of his counterparts on Tuesday ahead of Wednesday's full summit of all 28 EU leaders.

"We will ensure that this mechanism is effective regardless of its terms, that commitments can be kept and that it's not always the same countries who are receiving the refugees," the French leader said.

A number of eastern European countries, notably Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovakia, have rejected the idea of accepting a share of migrants under national quotas that reflect populations and economic strength.
No European country can be exempt from taking in refugees, says French President - Daily Sabah

@flamer84 seems like EU has the final say about this. What are you going to do?

 

[Penguin]

No European country can get out of taking in refugees who have the right to asylum, French President François Hollande said Sunday, amid a growing row over how to fairly distribute a massive influx of migrants across the continent.

The re-distribution "must involve all European countries -- no one can be exempt or we would no longer belong to the same union built on values and principles," Hollande said during a visit to Morocco, ahead of Wednesday's EU crisis summit on a contentious proposal to spread 120,000 refugees across member states.

A number of eastern European countries, notably Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovakia, have rejected the idea of accepting a share of migrants under national quotas that reflect populations and economic strength.
No European country can be exempt from taking in refugees, says French President - Daily Sabah

Who does the 1951 UNHCR Convention protect?
The 1951 UNHCR Convention protects refugees. It defines a refugee as a person who is outside his or her country of nationality or habitual residence; has a well-founded fear of being persecuted because of his or her race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion; and is unable or unwilling to avail him—or herself of the protection of that country, or to return there, for fear of persecution (see Article 1A(2)). People who fulfill this definition are entitled to the rights and bound by the duties contained in the 1951 Convention.

What is the difference between a refugee and a migrant?
Refugees are forced to flee because of a threat of persecution and because they lack the protection of their own country. A migrant, in comparison, may leave his or her country for many reasons that are not related to persecution, such as for the purposes of employment, family reunification or study. A migrant continues to enjoy the protection of his or her own government, even when abroad.

Is refugee protection permanent?-
The protection provided under the 1951 Convention is not automatically permanent. A person may no longer be a refugee when the basis for his or her refugee status ceases to exist. This may occur when, for example, refugees voluntary repatriate to their home countries once the situation there permits such return. It may also occur when refugees integrate or become naturalized in their host countries and stay permanently.

Can someone be excluded from refugee protection?
Yes. The 1951 Convention only protects persons who meet the criteria for refugee status. Certain categories of people are considered not to deserve refugee protection and should be excluded from such protection. This includes persons for whom there are serious reasons to suspect that:
• they have committed a crime against peace, a war crime, a crime against humanity or a serious non-political crime outside their country of refuge; or
• they are guilty of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

What rights do refugees have under the 1951 Convention?-
The 1951 Convention contains a number of rights and also highlights the obligations of refugees towards their host country. The cornerstone of the 1951 Convention is the principle of non-refoulement contained in Article 33. According to this principle, a refugee should not be returned to a country where he or she faces serious threats to his or her life or freedom. This protection may not be claimed by refugees who are reasonably regarded as a danger to the security of the country, or having been convicted of a particularly serious crime, are considered a danger to the community

Can a country that has not signed the 1951 Convention refuse to admit a person seeking protection?
The principle of non-refoulement, which prohibits the return of a refugee to a territory where his or her life or freedom is threatened, is considered a rule of customary international law. As such it is binding an all States, regardless of whether they have acceded to the 1951 Convention or 1967 Protocol. A refugee seeking protection must not be prevented from entering a country as this would amount to refoulement.

THere is more here
http://www.unhcr.org/pages/49da0e466.html
specifically UNHCR - The 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol

Convention relating to the Status of Refugees - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[flamer84]

That we're going to take a maximum of 1785 as we've anounced.We reject mandatory quotas,and,most importantly,these are not refugees according to international law.

 

[atatwolf]

That we're going to take a maximum of 1785 as we've anounced.

I don't think the other member states are going to accept that. Everybody will get their fair share.

 

[flamer84]

I don't think the other member states are going to accept that. Everybody will get their fair share.

It doesn't matter what they will accept,they don't have a legal leg to stand on and can't force us.They're bluffing but EE will call their bluff,EU be damned if they really want this.It's political suicide in EE to cave in to Western demands.

 

[atatwolf]

It doesn't matter what they will accept,they don't have a legal leg to stand on and can't force us.They're bluffing but EE will call their bluff,EU be damned if they really want this.It's political suicide in EE to cave in to Western demands.

If member states don't follow common policy there is no use of an union. Romania will succumb to the wishes of Brussels at the end. Other pressures are too big. It has bigger problems such as Russia who is assuming positions behind you.

 

[flamer84]

If member states don't follow common policy there is no use of an union. Romania will succumb to the wishes of Brussels at the end. Other pressures are too big. It has bigger problems such as Russia who is assuming positions behind you.

The EU doesn't even help with Russia,we have US for that.They're far more reliable.

 

[Penguin]

That we're going to take a maximum of 1785 as we've anounced.We reject mandatory quotas,and,most importantly,these are not refugees according to international law.

If that is the case made by the Romanian government
Then:
a) it is up to the Romanian government to make its case to the relevant international bodies and
b) to document it i.e. to show that ' they' are not refugees.

If that is the position, it is strange Romania is taking in ANY at all, since none would be refugees.
Assuming a serious assessment, the only explanation for those 1785 is the fact that some are and others are not considered refugees. Just sticking to a number like 1785 (beyond which Romania is apparently 'full') actually suggests that there is not a serious assessment made wrt who is or isn't a refugee, that it is a matter of limited capacity ("money", "willingness"): can't afford to take in more or is unwilling to take in more for some other 'cultural' reason.

Romania’s membership in the United Nations dates from 14 December 1955, when it became the 74th member. United Nations SYSTEM in Romania

 

[Jungibaaz]

If member states don't follow common policy there is no use of an union. Romania will succumb to the wishes of Brussels at the end. Other pressures are too big. It has bigger problems such as Russia who is assuming positions behind you.

This is the truth, smaller Eastern European nations cannot withstand pressure if both France and Germany press enough.
The UK isn't taking its fair share either, though it isn't as vulnerable to such pressure, although I think we should do more to take in our fair share.

 

[atatwolf]

The EU doesn't even help with Russia,we have US for that.They're far more reliable.

You are not in an union with the US but with Europe. I know Romanians from personal life. It is not in your nature to not submit.

This is the truth, smaller Eastern European nations cannot withstand pressure if both France and Germany press enough.
The UK isn't taking its fair share either, though it isn't as vulnerable to such pressure, although I think we should do more to take in our fair share.

They know that majority of them will go to UK or France so they don't want to take all the weight. To be honest, these small countries have no fault and shouldn't be forced to take refugees but UK and France wants to let others pay for their mistakes.

 

[Penguin]

The EU doesn't even help with Russia,we have US for that.They're far more reliable.

Maybe that has to do (also) with the hospitality Romania alledgedly extended to the CIA in this millennium?

 

[flamer84]

If that is the case made by the Romanian government
Then:
a) it is up to the Romanian government to make its case to the relevant international bodies and
b) to document it i.e. to show that ' they' are not refugees.

If that is the position, it is strange Romania is taking in ANY at all, since none would be refugees.
Assuming a serious assessment, the only explanation for those 1785 is the fact that some are and others are not considered refugees. Just sticking to a number like 1785 (beyond which Romania is apparently 'full') actually suggests that there is not a serious assessment made wrt who is or isn't a refugee, that it is a matter of limited capacity ("money", "willingness"): can't afford to take in more or is unwilling to take in more for some other 'cultural' reason.

Romania’s membership in the United Nations dates from 14 December 1955, when it became the 74th member. United Nations SYSTEM in Romania

That is the number we can accomodate,provide medical assistance and integration into society.Beyond that we're full.That is the case Romania will be arguing to the next European meeting on migration,we are rejecting mandatory quotas.You better brush up on your international law ,these peope are refugees in the first safe country they enter,beyond that they are illegal migrants.It really isn't so hard to comprehend,you just can't argue that fleeing Turkey,Serbia,Greece,etc ,which are safe countries,makes you a runaway from a war zone.

Heck,we fulfilled all Schengen criterias years ago but your country and Germany still denied us acces,contrary to EU law.We have no reason to show solidarity with your politicians.

Maybe that has to do (also) with the hospitality Romania alledgedly extended to the CIA in this millennium?

Yeah,we probably gave them some facilities to torture some nutters,I really don't care.The ideea is that while Germany is enlarging its North Stream pipeline with Russia as we speak,the US is building military bases in Romania.It doesn't take a genius to see who your real allies are.

 

[Audio]

According to the latest statement from the Austrian interior minister, only about a third can prove with documents that they are Syrians. Rest are just tagging along and will be denied. They even found Brazilians mixed in there.
I hope with the speeding up of the asylum seeker process the numbers EU as a whole will "have to" accomodate will be significantly lower than the numbers being circulated around in the press these days.

 

[Declein]

Who died and made Hollande king? )

 

[Götterdämmerung]

Who is twitter-luring refugees to Germany?

Counties mentioned in tweets containing #Refugees hashtag, percent

Analysis of 5704 original tweets containing #RefugeesWelcome” hashtag and a country name lead to even larger gap between Germany and the rest of Europe:

The next step is to study the source twitter accounts where the hashtag #RefugeesWelcome + Germany originate. Next diagram shows the countries of origin of the relevant twitter accounts (where they could be identified):

As you see, only 6,4% of all tweets with “#RefugeesWelcome”+Germany came from Germany itself.Almost half of them were originated from UK, USA and Australia! Looks like your remote planetmates are blushlessly inviting guests to visit your home without inquiring your opinion beforehand!

Evidently, the logic behind this campaign is to deteriorate social situation in Germany and undermine its economic development. Another target is the social structure of German society. 1 million of refugees coming annually there and supplementing existing 31% of local familieshaving at least one migrant parent, would definitely disbalance the voting structure and secure a loyal leadership in Germany for the decades to come. On the other hand that would instigate ultra-right sentiments within the indigenous population and cause furious clashes between migrants and German radicals. Both processes would result in weakened Germany and diminished EU.

That is the real agenda behind innocent tweeting…


Source: Who is twitter-luring refugees to Germany? | Oriental Review