Bavaria to sue angela Merkel over migrant crisis

We should help those who need our help and not turn them away,especially women and children.

If you're escaping war, then I'd imagine choosing which country you can get to is simply a case of where you can leave for as soon as possible, rather than which first country you'd prefer - presuming of course you're actually escaping war, rather than one of the 80% (I think that's the right figure) who are just using the situation to try and get to Western Europe. And they haven't just gone to Germany at all, I presume you've seen/heard about the massive numbers of people trying to get into Britain through Calais.

Don't misunderstand me (as I think a fair few people have), I don't blame the migrants for doing what they're doing. Of course they want to get themselves to Germany/Britain/France, it's a better life. It's only natural that they'd rather live in one of those countries than say Greece or Turkey. But that doesn't mean we just wave them in! As I said, the law is perfectly clear on this. They stopped being asylum seekers the moment they arrived in Greece/Italy/Turkey/wherever. So why on earth shouldn't they be subject to the same migration rules as people from, say, Australia? And you can't use the whole 'escaping war' argument, because they've already escaped war once they arrived in Greece/Italy/Turkey/wherever!

Germany invited them.
None really have come to Britain.
France is a viable first safe country.

We're trying to have an intelligent conversation, lets not be glib. Of course France is a viable first safe country, but we know that the vast majority of people are coming via turkey. You know it, I know it, so don't come out with ******** like 'france is a viable first safe country', when you know full well most of them have travelled through plenty of countries to arrive in western europe.

The overwhelming majority of the migrants have entered europe via turkey. Once they entered turkey, they were no longer asylum seekers as turkey is a perfectly safe country. Hence, if they decided to make the journey across europe, they were economic migrants. Whether germany was inviting them or not (and I'm fairly sure the invitation was retracted fairly sharpish), they are economic migrants. And for the record, the posted article suggests Merkel's invitation may not have even been legal.

Now unless you can contest any part of the logic I just spelled out, then you must agree they are economic migrants, not asylum seekers. Hence I ask, why should they receive preferential treatment over people seeking to enter Britian/France/Germany from a country like Australia?

No doubt, or in Greece even, but one is innocent until proven guilty. Can the authorities prove any given asylum seeker in France came via another country?

Plus I would say Libya to Corsica is a realistic journey.

I suppose the solution is simple: the UN should apply a distance criterion to overseas asylum applications.

Within the first safe country rule, it is impossible not to be an economic migrant when one has to, whether one wants to or not, make some sort of choice which country to head for. All asylum seekers are economic migrants. Instead of saying asylum seeker/economic migrant you should instead say first safe country/non first safe country.

They do not receive "preferential treatment" over say Australians in entering Britain, and in fact barely any of them have attempted to come here under the banner of asylum or immigration. As for France and Germany: as I have said, under the rules, and in the absence of evidence of a stop-over elsewhere, France is a first safe country; and Germany specifically invited them - so these are poor examples.

I understand Merkel's invitation may not have been legal, in fact this is my intuition too. Nevertheless, it was made, and in practice people have immigrated there.

But this isn't about accusing any given migrant. All I'm saying that we know the vast majority of those in Germany/France/Britain are economic migrants, so saying they're there to escape war is a poor justification.

That is precisely my point. If you're leaving your home country to escape the very real threat of death, I'd imagine you couldn't give a rats ass where you end up, so long as it's a safe place. The difference between Turkey and Greece should be academic, because the only reason you're leaving is to not die!

Not all asylum seekers are economic migrants, just read the law. You are an asylum seeker when you arrive in the first safe country. So anyone who has remained in the country they first arrived at to be processed, before governments then decide where they should go, is a totally legitimate asylum seeker. Anyone who avoided being processed so they could try to get to a more affluent country, they are economic migrants.

They have most definitely received preferential treatment in attempting to start living in Britain/France/Germany. If an Aussie wants to live here, they have to go through the visa application process from which they could very easily be rejected!

http://www.economist.com/news/europe/21692916-under-pressure-reverse-her-refugee-policy-angela-merkel-faces-court-case-welcome

Bavaria looks to have a pretty strong case. Finally she will be held accountable for her reckless actions.

Look. You leave your house in Aleppo and go to the seaside. There you are faced with four smugglers each saying they will take you to the following first safe countries: Turkey for 10,000 dinars, Greece for 20,000, Italy for 30,000 and France for 40,000. You will make your economic decision. The only way not to be an economic migrant in this situation, even for the noblest and purest of refugees, would be to put on a blindfold and earplugs and stumble down the jetty into any random boat you find. It's just not realistic to separate asylum seeking from economic migration, and bespeaks a view of asylum seekers as "noble savages" who turn tail and run like animals.



Yes, I know, but if someone turns up on a boat in France there is no way to tell whether they came from Syria (or Libya) without stopping or if they stopped over somewhere.

As I said, the burden of proof is on the French state to prove they are claiming fraudulently rather than on them to prove they are claiming fairly (not least because it's impossible to prove you didn't stop over in Greece, it's only possible to prove you did).

What is the point of saying "you are bad and evil you are an economic migrant because you must have stopped over" when it can't be proven?

So there should be a distance criterion introduced in the UN guidance relating to overseas asylum claims.

See, a simple legalistic equitable solution that doesn't require us to get all shouty and start blaming perfectly normal people doing perfectly rational things.



France is a first safe country according to geographical possibility, since, as I keep saying, it is impossible to prove a stop-over anywhere else.
Britain has not received any refugees, asylum seekers or economic migrants from this really, and I have seen no evidence of preferential treatment.
Germany invited them in so it doesn't apply, it advertised that it would be giving preferential treatment.

Stop using bad examples.

I don't think you're actually reading what I'm saying. I'm not talking about accusing any given migrant of having broken the law with regards first safe country; as you've said yourself, actually proving this would be incredibly difficult by the time they've actually got to, for instance, france. Of course, anyone on a landlocked european country could be immediately dealt with, but that's by the by. What i'm saying is that irrespective of whether we can prove any given person who has moved to france or germany of hungary or wherever, is a legitimate asylum seeker, we know that as an entity the vast majority of those who have moved to these countries are in fact economic migrants. As such, government/EU policy should be based on treating these people as economic migrants, which is why I would support measures like strengthening border security and deporting those who commit crimes. Just cause you allow someone to enter as an economic migrant doesn't mean you're obliged to let them stay or provide for them. Now as you agree with me that these are predominantly economic migrants, I don't really see which bit of this you're contesting.

And for what it's worth, I actually think the distance criterion is a pretty good idea, except I suppose you'd then have the issue of everyone flooding the most affluent country within the specified distance. I think the first safe country is a pretty solid idea, but it needs to be enforced by proper border security and registering the people who arrive in the country. Of course, the issue here is that the sheer number of people entering europe makes processing them all a nightmare and idiotic statements from people like Merkel which fly in the face of actual international law.

The bit I am contesting is it is prejudicial to assume they must all be economic migrants. Until you can prove this either for each asylum seeker or in toto, you have no reason to refuse asylum applications and to do so would be unlawful.



Europe is literally the richest continent in the world and has received an order of magnitude fewer refugees than Jordan and Lebanon - with two orders of magnitude more population. If those countries can figure it out it's a bit pathetic if we can't.

I do agree about Merkel, although to be fair the EU is so cumbersome and so prone to veto etc that they were never going to agree on a redistribution plan in time, so given that something had to be done you can see why she gave out her unilateral invitation.

But I'm not talking about assuming they're all economic migrants. I'm talking about assuming that they are mostly economic migrants (especially when it's only some 20% actually coming from Syria) and so developing policy on that basis. And I've also not said to refuse asylum applications, I've said to strengthen border security, deport those who commit crimes and anyone on a landlocked european country should be dealt with as an economic migrant.

You're using a strawman argument at this point. At no point have I said that we should treat all, or indeed any, individuals who have moved to, for instance France, as economic migrants. And nor have I said that we should deny their claims for asylum. My opinion is that government and EU policy should be based on the fact that the clear majority of those who have made the journey are economic migrants, and so strengthening border controls - amongst other measures - is totally legitimate. Also, I imagine you could quite easily prove plenty of those in France or Germany or wherever were economic migrants, because if their country of origin is not at war, then they have no right to claim asylum anyway.

And that's an appeal to emotion. The reason why more of them are in lebanon and jordan is because they're the nearest safe countries. In fact, I'd suggest the vast majority of legitimate asylum seekers should be in those two countries! If governments agree to then distribute these people to share the burden, then that's fair enough. But that's entirely different to the people just deciding 'sod it, I'd much rather live in Europe' and heading on their way

The failings of the EU are a slightly different issue, although I agree that it's utterly useless and in fact I happen to think we should leave.

So what you are actually saying is France should accept their asylum applications, so that they are in law claiming asylum, and then change the rules so that these asylum seekers can be deported back to the country whose persecution they fled from if they commit a crime. This is an even worse infringement of international law than denying them asylum status in the first place.

We are not discussing either those in landlocked countries, who must have crossed another country, or those whose country of origin is not at war/under tyranny, who cannot be asylum seekers, so stop confounding the argument.



It's not the nearest safe country, it's the first safe country. France, Italy, Greece and Turkey are just as much first safe countries as Jordan and Lebanon. Indeed, Syrians from the north will have to cross the war zone to get to Jordan, if not Lebanon. My idea of a distance requirement when claiming asylum overseas is the best and most equitable solution.



Well what a surprise that is.

The EU has not been able to respond coherently not because of Brussels but largely because of member state governments having too much power to veto plans, this actually being a concession to people like yourself. More qualified majority voting is needed in those competency areas where it makes sense to stop intransigent governments, like the UK, from obstructing things.

If you are half Italian, why do you identify as an Arab? Just curious... there is very little difference anyway between southern Italians and Arabs, I'd have though