Comments by "Nigel Johnson" (@nigeljohnson9820) on "Hungary ruling: EU court rules Budapest broke law by blocking asylum seekers" video.
-
@davidgallo32 ,you have a point. A refugee should claim asylum in the first safe country they reach,. Difficult to see how those who reach Poland or Hungary have not already passed through a safe country first. That makes them economic migrants, and not refugees. If they then enter, they do so illegally.
The same argument can be applied to those in France trying to cross to the UK. The implications is that France is not a safe countryz nor are any of the European countries they must have passed through to reach the french coast.
For those who are not true refugees, there is a visa system for those wishing to enter a country. Any attempt to enter illegally is likely to result in arrest, and imprisonment, followed by deportation.
The EU must now consider the distinction between refugee and economic migrant, as the latter entering a country illegally are subject to arrest, imprisonment and deportation. It is the normal conversion, that economic migrants wishing to enter legally, must first apply for a visa, BEFORE, entering the host country.
Does this argument mean the both Poland and Hungary were acting within their rights under international law?
3
-
2
-
1
-
@Alessandro F. that assumes that all are entitled to a visa. If applying for and obtaining visa was just a formality, there would be no point having them. A visa would be a comp!Steph redundant document and there would be no restrictions on entry.
This is equivalent of saying the the locks should be removed from every home. The harsh reality is that the Western nations have a right to say who can enter and how long they can stay. Rather they leave their country of origin, maybe they should try and improve them. Some migrants come to the west with a sense of entitlement and the intention to change the host nation government.
By analogy, this is not only removing all the lock on home doors, but allowing anyone in who wants access, and then allowing them to totally change the décor. Migrants can not seek refuge in a host country and then demand it changes its culture to match theirs.
Another point is that even life rafts have a limit on the number of people allowed onboard. Without these restrictions, the life boat sinks and everyone drowns.
Some who come from broken countries played a part in breaking them. Are they then to be allowed to set up home in a new country and return to their old ways?
There must be a distinction between an economic migrant and a true refugee. The latter have no choice but to seek shelter or they risk immediate death, as a result of war or natural disaster. The former and just not happy with their current circumstances and want to try their luck elsewhere.
The fewer refugees the better, as then the host nation will have sufficient resources to school and integrate them into the host society with minimum social and economic disruption. A mass wave of economic migration will just spread destruction around the world.
If you are looking for reasons for the migrant crisis, look no further than globalisation, crime and greed. It is the iniquity of globalisation that has allowed the poorer parts of the planet to be exploited and natural resources destroyed. It is the mis-functioning of the global economy that has allowed the world's wealth to be concentrated in a decreasing number of the hyper wealthy elite.
It is corrupt governments, making unfair laws, that has allowed this to happen. All compounded by mediaeval superstition masquerading as religion, perpetuated by selfserving zealots.
1