•

Explained: Why a new European pact on migration and asylum is controversial

https://www.firstpost.com/explainers/european-union-asylum-migration-pact-controversy-13758531.html

Europe’s migration laws are set for an overhaul. The EU Migration and Asylum Pact hardens border procedures, speeds up the return of irregular migrants to their home countries, and forces the bloc’s 27 nations to share responsibility. The reforms have been objected to by the far right and left

Explained: Why a new European pact on migration and asylum is controversial

11 comments

taanegl

•

We should make a system dependant upon culpability. If France helps in the downfall of some country, causing a migrant crisis in the process, then their quota for asylum seekers should go up to accommodate their stupid geopolitical tomfoolery.

It's a geo-political "put your money where you mouth is" kind of system.

federalreverse

•

We all are causing migration by buying fossil fuels from autocracies, then burning them and also by furthering unfair trade. I guess we need to take in refugees.

taanegl

•

That's pretty one sided though. It's like saying the autocrats don't burn an insane amount of fuel, thereby also exacerbating the issue. If they were all using solar panels, scaling down their fossil fuel industries and actually gave a damn about the environment, then we'd be in agreement.

Oh there will be climate refugees, no doubt about it. But whitewashing the autocrats use of petroleum and using it to justify breaking a system meant to moderate something makes me think you're the left wing equivalent of republicans.

You do not game systems, you reform them, or even replace them... so pass laws that put embargos and sanctions on imported petroleum instead.

Good luck with that.

federalreverse

•

I didn't say anything about the behavior of autocracies, why are you dragging that in? Nobody expects moral behavior from them anyway.

I am just saying that a lot of evils are in the world simply because democracies ignore their supposed values whenever convenient. This tends to come back.

realitista

•

I've said this exact thing in the past. The ones calling for war in Syria or Iraq or Afghanistan should be the ones taking the refugees. And they should be housed in the politicians houses that supported it :-)

brainrein

•

Freedom of Movement is a human right! Everywhere. For everybody. In every direction!

realitista

•

It's a nice sentiment but it would cause a lot of issues.

brainrein

•

I think it would solve a lot of issues, at least in the long run.

realitista

•

Probably would in the long run but we'd have to live through decades of upheaval as workers in rich countries saw their wages plummet to 10% or less of what they were. Even just tiny amounts of immigration cause ultra right wing movements to start taking majorities. We would be living under fascism, and fascism isn't easy to get rid of.

nivenkos

•

Make legal immigration easier, and punish illegal immigration and crime.

It's time to end the refugee treaties entirely, they aren't fit for purpose.

Bukele is the way.

poVoq

•

While I agree that these "refugee treaties" that aim to retain refugees in unsafe 3rd countries (like Libya) are a human rights violation, it is simply wrong to call refugees "illegal" immigrants. Both national asylum laws and international ones (Geneva Convention) clearly recognize refugees as legitimate.

Furthermore, criminalizing immigrants that don't fall into the narrow legal refugee statue, for example "climate refugees" is absolutely counter-productive and also a human rights violation.