|
|
Post by dappy on Jul 12, 2023 8:37:49 GMT
This is the Mind Zone. I understand this is the area where sensible debate is encouraged. Lets see if we can achieve that with the emotive subject of asylum.
Asylum seekers come in many different guises. Some clearly have genuine reasons for fleeing their home country, some are simply seeking a better life but are quite safe at home, for some its more nuanced. I think we all would agree that those simply seeking a better life can not be accommodated. There is more debate about those that do have a valid reason for fleeing. So lets focus on them.
Haval and Asmira are both 25. They are in law Syrian but are ethnically Kurdish. There is a war going on in their home area as Turkey and Syria fight over their home area. Bombs regularly fall and rule of law is weak. Their two year old child and both sets of parents have been killed in the conflict and their home badly damaged. They decide to flee with their remaining baby son. The route out is through Turkey (but Syrian Kurds are not safe there) and on to Greece. They have arrived by irregular means in Athens. Asmira has suffered sexual abuse en route and Haval has been beaten up.
Haval has a brother living legally in Germany who has offered to help him. He and Asmira speak fluent English but speak no other non-Kurdish language. They believe they would have the best chance of rebuilding their lives in the UK. Lets assume Greece would be considered a "safe" country.
Under pretty much any jurisdiction, this family would be entitled to be granted asylum.
So what should happen now?
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Jul 12, 2023 9:35:58 GMT
They should stay in Greece on one of the outer islands until such time as it is deemed safe for them to return to Kurdistan.
There is no compulsion on any state which may provide temporary sanctuary to provide them with 'a better life' or make any special effort to integrate them into the host population.
|
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Jul 12, 2023 10:09:57 GMT
That's a fair answer Dan.
Your view of the world is that the perfect system for such people is to leave the responsibility entirely with one country who happens to be nearest to the conflict area, to treat the people affected as badly as possible and to leave them (if I read you correctly) dependent on that state for basic living needs.
Anyone agree with Dan?
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Jul 12, 2023 10:24:58 GMT
I would say that the underlying principle should be that refugee status is a temporary state and does not confer the right to settlement.
|
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Jul 12, 2023 10:41:16 GMT
I get your view Dan.
I dont agree with you as I think that is inhumane after a period but I respect your right to disagree.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Jul 12, 2023 10:49:54 GMT
It depends whether you put the interests of the host society above those of supplicants.
For me, the former weigh heavier in the balance even if only because of the need for population control and to maintain cultural hegemony.
|
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Jul 12, 2023 10:57:55 GMT
I think I understand your agenda, Dan  I don't think it benefits anyone - neither refugee or host society to have people unable to put down roots and engage in society without the fear that one day big brother will come knocking on the door to throw them out. your desire would make it hard for them to gain employment, buy a house, for their kids to marry and have kids of their own etc etc. Not a real world solution for me. Thanks for engaging in a grown up conversation though. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jul 12, 2023 11:06:48 GMT
I tend to agree with Dan - they stay in a holding camp until they can return.
If the argument is that Kurds should automatically be given asylum in the UK then there are 45 million in that queue.. After all you could make exactly the same claim about the Palestinians - and not even the Arab states want to give all of them asylum.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Jul 12, 2023 11:19:11 GMT
I think dappy's argument is that not only should they be given asylum but they should have immediate access to the 'settlement track'.
Even the present regulations, lax as they are are, don't go that far.
Refugee status is granted for a period of five years after which refugees are given the option of returning home or settling permanently in the UK. It doesn't take much imagination to guess what usually happens.
|
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Jul 12, 2023 11:25:13 GMT
No Dan I didn't say immediate. I said "after a period". Lets not misrepresent each other.
I just don't agree with you that people should live in fear of a knock on the door in twenty years time and their life thrown up in the air through no fault of their own.
|
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on Jul 12, 2023 11:29:21 GMT
What happens in cases where there is little prospect of a return to peace in an asylum seeker's home country?
You are condemning families to a life of internment camps with little or no prospect of ever returning to a normal life.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Jul 12, 2023 11:35:08 GMT
That's what most refugees experience, the lucky few who land on the UK red carpet are very much the exception.
Are you proposing that all should have a shot at claiming asylum in the UK? I think that's what dappy would like to see.
|
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Jul 12, 2023 11:50:37 GMT
And why would any of you think it will make an iota of difference? When it is long past the point of no return.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Jul 12, 2023 11:59:31 GMT
I take issue thar it’s an emotive issue.
It is arguably an emotive to the ones who want to encourage a high level of immigration( ie a need to hold a moral high ground or virtue signalling ) but the ones who want to restrict immigration tend to come from a practical and objective point of view
|
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on Jul 12, 2023 12:14:44 GMT
That's what most refugees experience, the lucky few who land on the UK red carpet are very much the exception. Are you proposing that all should have a shot at claiming asylum in the UK? I think that's what dappy would like to see. I'm saying that condemning refugees to a life of internment with little or no chance of ever going home is neither productive or humane. These are not criminals who need locking up they are innocent victims of failed states and authoritarian regimes. |
|
