Cyprus-Forum.com

[Maximus]

Syrians only made up about 5% of the crowd....

There rest are illegal economic migrants looking for free hand outs and accommodation from the EU taxpayer.

The Eu better get their act together and start deporting any of these chancres that are in the migrant centers.

It only matters if these people have a genuine legal claim to asylum or not. Indeed the EU should get its act together. It should efficiently and swiftly process these people and grant asylum to those who meet the criteria and spread them fairly across EU nations and expel those who do not. That would be the legal thing to do. The moral thing to do. Instead what it is doing is NOT processing these people efficiently. It is actively doing the opposite to try and discourage those who have a valid claim and right to asylum to not claim such from EU countries but to bugger off and claim such elsewhere, anywhere other than Europe. imo.

Are you under the impression that every refugee or anyone seeking asylum in the world has a right to come to Europe Erolz?

I am aware of the legal international conventions and protocols, what rights they grant to individuals and obligations they place on states and who is or is not signatory to these international laws. The choice of where an individual refugee can seek asylum is theirs. All signatories are required to consider such an application fairly. They can agree amongst themselves if they want to do this in a cooperative manner, with things like the Dublin agreement or the EU / Turkey deal but they can not just say, nah I do not want to meet my legal obligations.

You havent exactly answered the question.

A request for asylum can be denied if the applicant is in a "safe third party country".

The EU regards Turkey as a "safe third party country". the asylum applications of all irregular migrants who entered the Greek islands (for example) from Turkey after the 20th of March 2016 can be ruled inadmissible on the grounds that Turkey can be considered a "safe third country". In this case, they will be returned to Turkey.

Is that true?

[erolz66]

A request for asylum can be denied if the applicant is in a "safe third party country".

That is not what the legal international agreements say. If I am wrong then just show where in the Geneva convention of 1951, or the protocol of 1967, it says this.

The EU regards Turkey as a "safe third party country".

Which in itself is indicative of the EU's (and your) hypocrisy, which was my original comment on this whole topic - that the whole issue is shrouded in hypocrisy. In 2011 the ECHR ruled Greece was not such a country. By 2015 all of a sudden Turkey is.

the asylum applications of all irregular migrants who entered the Greek islands (for example) from Turkey after the 20th of March 2016 can be ruled inadmissible on the grounds that Turkey can be considered a "safe third country". In this case, they will be returned to Turkey.

Is that true?

Look an 'irregular migrant' or 'economic migrant' has no rights at all. Any country is free to let them in or not as they want. Refugees DO have rights under international laws. Refugees can not be returned to Turkey on the basis that Turkey is a 'safe country' unless Turkey agrees to such via bi lateral agreement with the state returning them, if international law means anything.

[Maximus]

So basically, what you are saying is that all refugees have a right to go Europe.

All Syrian refugees can pass through Turkey and settle in the EU and there is nothing the EU can do about it. And Turkey is only obliged to take refugees from the EU.

Is that right?

[erolz66]

So basically, what you are saying is that all refugees have a right to go Europe.

All Syrian refugees can pass through Turkey and settle in the EU and there is nothing the EU can do about it. And Turkey is only obliged to take refugees from the EU.

Is that right?

I am saying what international law says. All refugees have the right to seek asylum in whatever country they may choose (that is a signatory to the laws). They can choose to seek asylum in Turkey and if they do Turkey is morally obliged to offer such if they are in fact refugees and can demonstrate that. There is no international law that mandates they must seek asylum in Turkey and only Turkey. They get to choose. That is their right under the law.

This idea that this therefore means all of them will choose to come to Europe is a notion based on fear, not data. The data shows, not just from Syria but from every conflict before that has created refugees that they do not all choose to seek asylum in Europe. 14 million displaced people as the result of the conflict in Syria. The vast majority have chosen to remain in Syria. Of those that have sought sanctuary outside , the vast majority of those have sought it in neighbouring countries. These ratios are true of Syria. They are true of Afghanistan and Iraq before it. They are true of the Cypriot refugees created by conflicts in Cyprus. After 74 all those GC displaced by Turkey could have chosen to seek sanctuary in Europe. Most did not. Most stayed in Cyprus having been displaced. Some did seek sanctuary outside Cyprus. Some went to the UK - typically those with connections to the UK. Some went to Australia, typically those who had connections to Australia. Some went to US. To NZ. What did not happen is they all chose to move to Europe and seek sanctuary there.

[Paphitis]

So basically, what you are saying is that all refugees have a right to go Europe.

All Syrian refugees can pass through Turkey and settle in the EU and there is nothing the EU can do about it. And Turkey is only obliged to take refugees from the EU.

Is that right?

I am saying what international law says. All refugees have the right to seek asylum in whatever country they may choose (that is a signatory to the laws). They can choose to seek asylum in Turkey and if they do Turkey is morally obliged to offer such if they are in fact refugees and can demonstrate that. There is no international law that mandates they must seek asylum in Turkey and only Turkey. They get to choose. That is their right under the law.

This idea that this therefore means all of them will choose to come to Europe is a notion based on fear, not data. The data shows, not just from Syria but from every conflict before that has created refugees that they do not all choose to seek asylum in Europe. 14 million displaced people as the result of the conflict in Syria. The vast majority have chosen to remain in Syria. Of those that have sought sanctuary outside , the vast majority of those have sought it in neighbouring countries. These ratios are true of Syria. They are true of Afghanistan and Iraq before it. They are true of the Cypriot refugees created by conflicts in Cyprus. After 74 all those GC displaced by Turkey could have chosen to seek sanctuary in Europe. Most did not. Most stayed in Cyprus having been displaced. Some did seek sanctuary outside Cyprus. Some went to the UK - typically those with connections to the UK. Some went to Australia, typically those who had connections to Australia. Some went to US. To NZ. What did not happen is they all chose to move to Europe and seek sanctuary there.

Not correct!

As a result of events occurring before 1 January 1951 and owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.

These refugees are not allowed to seek asylum by flooding the Greek border or by illegally crossing any border illegally.

there are exceptions of course to actual refugees who are actually fleeing a war torn country like Syria when let's say for argument sake they are fleeing certain death or hardship and persecution from terrorists like say ISIL.

In which case they probably could cross the Turkish Border for safety and ask for asylum there, or approach any countries embassy of their choice and ask asylum in that country.

Signatories are then obligated to evaluate their status under the 1951 Geneva Convention and grant that person a TEMPORARY PROTECTION VISA. The provisions of this VISA are that they are to return back to Syria when that country stabilizes and they no longer have concerns for their safety.

No one is allowed to enter a country from Turkey by simply crossing a border. Greece is well within its rights to keep them out as is Australia which will intercept any boat or ship carrying illegal immigrants before they enter into Australian Territorial waters.

One time, a Norwegian Ship rescued a sinking boat with about 200 illegal immigrants and was headed for Fremantle Perth. The Norwegian Flagged Ship asked for Australian Assistance and the Ship that was scheduled to dock in Fremantle was turned back. The Norwegian Ship still made way for Fremantle despite Australia instructing the ship to go away and back to Indonesia. It continued and the Ship was boarded by SAS Soldiers from a Royal Australian Navy Ship. The illegal immigrants ended up in a detention center for years and are NEVER allowed to enter Australia under any circumstances, not even as a tourist. Once you are caught breaking immigration laws here, you are permanently banned.

Every country has that right.

[erolz66]

Paphitis why not let the grown up talk for a bit ?

[Paphitis]

Paphitis why not let the grown up talk for a bit ?

I'm sorry but I couldn't allow you to mislead people with false claims.

crossing a border from Turkey to Greece isn't the way to seek asylum in Greece which has every right to assess the merits of each case.

because Greece isn't really the desired country for them to seek asylum, then they should go back to Ankara and seek asylum through the correct channels to their desired country. the reason why they have not done so is because they are probably not legitimate refugees and the applicant state will tell them to seek asylum from the first safe state which in this case is Turkey.

[erolz66]

Paphitis why not let the grown up talk for a bit ?

I'm sorry but I couldn't allow you to mislead people with false claims.

You being unable to comprehend does not equate to me misleading people. It equates to you being a fuckwit.

crossing a border from Turkey to Greece isn't the way to seek asylum in Greece which has every right to assess the merits of each case.

Of course Greece has the right to assess the merits of each case. Firing water cannons and tear gas at people approaching your border is not 'assessing the merits of each case'.

because Greece isn't really the desired country for them to seek asylum,

Someone turning up at Greece's border does not have a right to demand to be let through so they can seek asylum in a state further along. They do have a right to seek asylum in that state. That state can chose to let them pass through but is not obliged under law to do so.

then they should go back to Ankara and seek asylum through the correct channels to their desired country.

Show me where it says this in the Geneva convention of 51 or the protocol of 63 ? You will not be able to do so because it does not say this. You are saying this because it suits you which is not the same thing as what is legal under international law. The UN has yet to pass the convention that states whatever Paphitis says is binding international law.

the reason why they have not done so is because they are probably not legitimate refugees and the applicant state will tell them to seek asylum from the first safe state which in this case is Turkey.

If they are not legitimate refugees then where ever they might seek asylum and whoever they might seek from, it will not be granted. A state might chose to give them rights to remain but they are not legally obliged to do so and if a state does give them right to remain they will remain not with a granted status of refugee.

Now please just let the grown up talk for a change.

[repulsewarrior]

...sadly, many make the discrepancy between, the displaced, and refugees, to dismiss their plight; as is the case with Cypriots.

...refugees, the difference is, can never return, such is their displacement.

...why can't Syrians return to their homes? Is it because houses are easier to build? And Justice seen, what do these displaced/refugees, say?

...illegal migrants, are another issue altogether different, although it is hard to ignore the misery that caused them to flee as well.

...what is clear is that the clash was not with Syrians fleeing for their lives; and that its cause was Erdogan's disappointment with Russia really, in a pique, because the EU and NATO have not come to his aid.

[Paphitis]

Paphitis why not let the grown up talk for a bit ?

I'm sorry but I couldn't allow you to mislead people with false claims.

You being unable to comprehend does not equate to me misleading people. It equates to you being a fuckwit.

crossing a border from Turkey to Greece isn't the way to seek asylum in Greece which has every right to assess the merits of each case.

Of course Greece has the right to assess the merits of each case. Firing water cannons and tear gas at people approaching your border is not 'assessing the merits of each case'.

because Greece isn't really the desired country for them to seek asylum,

Someone turning up at Greece's border does not have a right to demand to be let through so they can seek asylum in a state further along. They do have a right to seek asylum in that state. That state can chose to let them pass through but is not obliged under law to do so.

then they should go back to Ankara and seek asylum through the correct channels to their desired country.

Show me where it says this in the Geneva convention of 51 or the protocol of 63 ? You will not be able to do so because it does not say this. You are saying this because it suits you which is not the same thing as what is legal under international law. The UN has yet to pass the convention that states whatever Paphitis says is binding international law.

the reason why they have not done so is because they are probably not legitimate refugees and the applicant state will tell them to seek asylum from the first safe state which in this case is Turkey.

If they are not legitimate refugees then where ever they might seek asylum and whoever they might seek from, it will not be granted. A state might chose to give them rights to remain but they are not legally obliged to do so and if a state does give them right to remain they will remain not with a granted status of refugee.

Now please just let the grown up talk for a change.

They are not allowed to walk across the border. That is not what is meant by assessing the merits.

they have to walk through the front door at the Hellenic Consulate in Ankara or Istanbul.

And the assessments will likely be negative assessments unless they can prove persecution from Turkey.

That's the law. Whether you try and illegally cross the Greek Border, the US/Mexican Border or come to Australia illegally.

Greece, and every other EU country have embassies in Turkey.

Don't come through the window. You will be met with Security Forces (Military), Police with batons, water cannons, and anyone who manages to cross will be arrested and go to jail, will likely be convicted and deported.

There is no chance in hell to have an open border and it's even more important to lock down borders now.

Anyone who illegally walks across the border from Turkey, is unlikely to be granted refugee status as they came from Turkey. But they are free to apply for it through any number of consulates in turkey but can only do that with 1 country at a time.

The few that managed to cross, are now in prison. Those few that managed to cross the Bulgarian Border are also in prison.