Cyprus-Forum.com

[erolz66]

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

You walk up to the border and say 'I request asylum'. Not across.

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

There is nothing in law that says this. You are just making up 'laws'.

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

Making up the law again. If someone has fled one country , sought and then been granted refugee status in a second, then they can not go on and claim asylum in a third , if the second is safe. They are not required by law however to seek asylum in the second and only the second country. They have the legal RIGHT to seek asylum in any country they wish.

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

No it is not the law , international law. If it were you could simply link to the text of the law that says this. You do not and can not because you are as ever just making things up. Australia leads the world in ignoring international law and it's commitments towards refugees. You just have to google 'Australia violations of international law on asylum' to see this.

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

No one is saying you have to just open your borders to anyone and everyone. Many are saying you should abide by international agreements that you have signed and not just ignore such when you do not like them.

There is this constant refrain that these people, the vast majority of them, do not do x or y o z because they are not genuine asylum seekers and know they will not be granted refugee status. The truth is the opposite. EU countries do not want them to even be able to reach their borders because they know that millions of them ARE genuine asylum seekers and that if they can reach their borders they will have legal obligations to these people. Better then to prevent them from being able to reach the border at all so they can not exercise their rights. If it really is true that they are 95% economic migrants and not genuine asylum seekers the solution is simple. Process them quickly and efficiently and send them on their way. The EU could easily process, if it had the will, 10,000s on it's borders and establish within days if they have legitimate asylum claims or not. They do not do this because despite the propaganda they know that vast numbers of them ARE genuine asylum seekers and they do not want to have to meet their legal obligations to such people.

[Maximus]

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.

The refugees have to request to seek asylum in Turkey to cross the border in the first place. For them to enter Turkey, they must request asylum at the Turkish border and Turkey is obliged to offer such and process their application for asylum in Turkey.

They dont go to the Turkish border and ask the border authorities for asylum but in Australia, for example.

They dont fight with the border authorities to enter the country, then move on to another country and fight their border authorities and then another and another.



This is not asylum seeking, it is something else entirely and should expect to get an appropriate response.

(genuine) refugees in Turkey can have their application denied in another country or at their border because they are either already approved for asylum or are coming from a "safe third party country".

Maybe it is you that does not want to comprehend this simple basic logic of genuinely seeking asylum.

This idea that this therefore means all of them will choose to come to Europe is a notion based on fear, not data.

it is a notion based on economics and liberties. people will naturally want to go to the best and richest countries. Which is highly unsustainable for those countries.

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.

Because they cant all seek asylum in Europe. You cant turn up at the border of one country and ask for asylum but in another country. that first safe country is obliged to register and process their application for asylum in that country

Anything else is not asylum seeking,

[Kikapu]

I don’t know how any country is expected to handle tens of thousands of people on their border all at once to seek an asylum. The answer is one cannot. There are two choices. One you let them all in unprocessed not knowing who these people are or where they are once in that country or where they are going or second choice is to close the border. Greece choice to close it’s border with Turkey because that is the only way to protect it’s sovereignty and it’s citizens. It may be contrary to certain appendixes in International law regarding refugees and migrants which I do not know, but until they are processed we don’t know to which category these people at the border belong to. However, once these people try to gate crash the border, they are committing a criminal act and the border guards have every means available to them to prevent illegal entry into the country. This is where we are now on the Turkish/Greece border.

If it was legal for Turkey to close it’s borders for these people to leave the country until a month ago, then why would it be illegal for Greece to close it’s borders to the same people. If the border is closed, then these people still have the choice to apply for asylum through the embassy of the country they wish to seek an asylum from in Turkey. These people are not being denied to be processed to their claims. They are denied entry through a closed border. Greece has been processing asylum seekers before a month ago in an orderly manner as much as possible, but not when tens of thousands are deliberately bused to the border by Erdogan for political purposes.

For Greece it was choice 1 or 2.

They choice number 2 as any other country would have done. Turkey invited these people from Syria from the time the war started there, therefore it is for Turkey to look after them. As for migrants in Turkey from other countries, it is up to Turkey to process them and send them back to their country of origin for being in Turkey illegally unless they ask for asylum. If they have been given asylum by Turkey, then their cases are closed.

[erolz66]

The refugees have to request to seek asylum in Turkey to cross the border in the first place. For them to enter Turkey, they must request asylum at the Turkish border and Turkey is obliged to offer such and process their application for asylum in Turkey.

No they do not. You keep saying they have to do this yet can not show the law that says this. That is just making up law. When they arrive at Turkey and if they do not choose, as is their right, to seek asylum there, it is up to Turkey to decide if it will let them cross Turkish territory or not. This is exactly what many countries did in 2015 both those that were not party to Dublin agreement and some that were party to that agreement, which was a breach of that agreement but not a breach of the international laws on asylum.

(genuine) refugees in Turkey can have their application denied in another country or at their border because they are either already approved for asylum or are coming from a "safe third party country".

If the CHOOSE to seek asylum in Turkey and are granted refugee status in Turkey then what you say is true, having sought and gained such status in Turkey they forgo the right to then go and do the same in some subsequent country but they are not obliged or required by the international laws on asylum to seek asylum in and only in the first country they can do so. There is no international law that says this. Your instance that that they must do this is not based on existing international laws. It is based on you making up what the requirements are to suit yourself regardless of what international law says.

it is a notion based on economics and liberties. people will naturally want to go to the best and richest countries. Which is highly unsustainable for those countries.

This is not true. If it was there would be 14 million Syrians seeking asylum in Europe and there is not. If it were true then 200,000 GC from 74 would all have moved to Germany. They did not.

You cant turn up at the border of one country and ask or asylum but in another country.

You can turn up at one boarder and ask for permission to travel through it in order to seek asylum in a country further on. It is up to that country to decide if it will allow such or not and that is the same principal of rights of states to control it's own boarders. If a state wants to allow that, other states can not tell it it is illegal to do so, outside of any bilateral agreement between such countries. Many countries did just this in 2015 including EU states and states that were signatories to the Dublin agreement.

[Maximus]

Its you that does not want to comprehend the simple basic logic of seeking asylum.

Turkey is obliged to process and grant asylum requests in Turkey to anyone turning up at the Turkish border and requesting to seek asylum.

This is turning out to be a long winded debate for something so simple.

[Maximus]

You can turn up at one boarder and ask for permission to travel through it in order to seek asylum in a country further on. It is up to that country to decide if it will allow such or not and that is the same principal of rights of states to control it's own boarders. If a state wants to allow that, other states can not tell it it is illegal to do so, outside of any bilateral agreement between such countries. Many countries did just this in 2015 including EU states and states that were signatories to the Dublin agreement.

This is the way to illegal and irregular migration.

Your argument is full of contradictions by the way. You are blaming the EU and Greece for closing its borders, with "legal" arguments and then saying it is up to them to keep them closed if they want to.

[erolz66]

I don’t know how any country is expected to handle tens of thousands of people on their border all at once to seek an asylum. The answer is one cannot. There are two choices. One you let them all in unprocessed not knowing who these people are or where they are once in that country or where they are going or second choice is to close the border. Greece choice to close it’s border with Turkey because that is the only way to protect it’s sovereignty and it’s citizens. It may be contrary to certain appendixes in International law regarding refugees and migrants which I do not know, but until they are processed we don’t know to which category these people at the border belong to. However, once these people try to gate crash the border, they are committing a criminal act and the border guards have every means available to them to prevent illegal entry into the country. This is where we are now on the Turkish/Greece border.

This is nonsense Kiks, imo. An entity like the EU, working in true solidarity that had the desire and will to follow both the letter and the spirit of the international laws on asylum could process 10,000 of applications in a day and make fair decisions within weeks, including a fair right to appeal initial decision, for the 99.9 % of such asylum seekers. That they instead allow the camps in places like Greek islands to become overfull to 10 times their capacity and take years to 'process' applications is not because this is a physical limit on what is possible. It is a political decision based on trying to avoid legal obligations of the treaties they have signed up to. This is not about 'appendixes' to the laws on asylum, this about the very core principles of of it. That the EU does not do this, can not demonstrate solidarity on these issue, that states like Austria and Poland seek to fuck Greece as Greece and they seek to fuck asylum seekers, is the biggest existential threat to the continued existence of the EU as a political entity and the principles it is founded on.

If it was legal for Turkey to close it’s borders for these people to leave the country until a month ago, then why would it be illegal for Greece to close it’s borders to the same people.

Turkey has the sovereign right to decide who (of those who have not requested asylum there) it lets in to Turkey and who it lets out of Turkey, just as any and every country does. Just as they have the right to decide who can visit Turkey under a 90 day tourist visa and the like. Greece can do likewise. What it should not be able to do but does do is ignore its legal obligations to asylum seekers.

Greece has been processing asylum seekers before a month ago in an orderly manner as much as possible, but not when tens of thousands are deliberately bused to the border by Erdogan for political purposes.

This is just nonsense and akin to the RoC decision that nationals can only return to Cyprus currently if they first obtain a piece of paper that it is impossible to obtain. You talk about it being physically impossible to process 10,000 of people if they arrive at the borders of the EU and then claim such could be easily processed at embassies in Turkey. The notion is ludicrous. Now the EU could have and still could set up 'application centres' in Turkey that could and would fairly process 10,000s of applications for asylum within Europe quickly and efficiently and if they had of done then we would not have 10,000s turning up at borders and Erdogan would not be able to blackmail the EU by exploiting these peoples suffering. The EU has not and does not do this, not because it is impossible but because they DO NOT WANT TO GIVE THESE PEOPLE THEIR RIGHTS if it means they end up in Europe. At best they prefer to try and pay others to take them so they can avoid these obligations and at worst they seek to subvert international law entirely.

They choice number 2 as any other country would have done. Turkey invited these people from Syria from the time the war started there, therefore it is for Turkey to look after them. As for migrants in Turkey from other countries, it is up to Turkey to process them and send them back to their country of origin for being in Turkey illegally unless they ask for asylum. If they have been given asylum by Turkey, then their cases are closed.

You either respect and believe in international law and the principle of asylum or you do not kiks. From what you have written you do not.

[erolz66]

You can turn up at one boarder and ask for permission to travel through it in order to seek asylum in a country further on. It is up to that country to decide if it will allow such or not and that is the same principal of rights of states to control it's own boarders. If a state wants to allow that, other states can not tell it it is illegal to do so, outside of any bilateral agreement between such countries. Many countries did just this in 2015 including EU states and states that were signatories to the Dublin agreement.

This is the way to illegal and irregular migration.

Your argument is full of contradictions by the way. You are blaming the EU and Greece for closing its borders, with "legal" arguments and then saying it is up to them to keep them closed if they want to.

The confusion is all yours in your inability or unwillingness to be able to distinguish between and asylum seeker and an illegal migrant. You are way to intelligent for lack of intelligence to be the cause of this confusion of yours which makes it appear to me to be confusion with intent.

[Paphitis]

The refugees have to request to seek asylum in Turkey to cross the border in the first place. For them to enter Turkey, they must request asylum at the Turkish border and Turkey is obliged to offer such and process their application for asylum in Turkey.

No they do not. You keep saying they have to do this yet can not show the law that says this. That is just making up law. When they arrive at Turkey and if they do not choose, as is their right, to seek asylum there, it is up to Turkey to decide if it will let them cross Turkish territory or not. This is exactly what many countries did in 2015 both those that were not party to Dublin agreement and some that were party to that agreement, which was a breach of that agreement but not a breach of the international laws on asylum.

(genuine) refugees in Turkey can have their application denied in another country or at their border because they are either already approved for asylum or are coming from a "safe third party country".

If the CHOOSE to seek asylum in Turkey and are granted refugee status in Turkey then what you say is true, having sought and gained such status in Turkey they forgo the right to then go and do the same in some subsequent country but they are not obliged or required by the international laws on asylum to seek asylum in and only in the first country they can do so. There is no international law that says this. Your instance that that they must do this is not based on existing international laws. It is based on you making up what the requirements are to suit yourself regardless of what international law says.

it is a notion based on economics and liberties. people will naturally want to go to the best and richest countries. Which is highly unsustainable for those countries.

This is not true. If it was there would be 14 million Syrians seeking asylum in Europe and there is not. If it were true then 200,000 GC from 74 would all have moved to Germany. They did not.

You cant turn up at the border of one country and ask or asylum but in another country.

You can turn up at one boarder and ask for permission to travel through it in order to seek asylum in a country further on. It is up to that country to decide if it will allow such or not and that is the same principal of rights of states to control it's own boarders. If a state wants to allow that, other states can not tell it it is illegal to do so, outside of any bilateral agreement between such countries. Many countries did just this in 2015 including EU states and states that were signatories to the Dublin agreement.

There is no law or provision in the Geneva Convention that permits anyone to illegally enter a country by attempting to cross the border at all.

The 1951 Geneva Convention only gives refugees the right to cross a border ONLY if they are fleeing violence.

And even then, a country can choose to ignore the Geneva Convention even as a signatory because there is no legal means of enforcement. So basically, a country will just enforce its own laws and policies and even make it up as they go along.

That is exactly what Australia and the US did. Australia has even quarantined its own territory from the Commonwealth and declared it outside its own immigration zone and built detention centers (prisons) to jail illegal immigrants and stop them from requesting asylum.

And on top of that, it will permanently ban anyone from ever entering again, and it will not take an asylum application or even evaluate it if they simply get on a boat and come.

There is nothing the UN or anyone can do about it.

[erolz66]

There is no law or provision in the Geneva Convention that permits anyone to illegally enter a country by attempting to cross the border at all.

The 1951 Geneva Convention only gives refugees the right to cross a border ONLY if they are fleeing violence.

Go and read the conventions and protocols. They do not give a right to 'cross borders' to anyone. They give refugees, those for whom the risks to their safety and life were so great that they felt they had no choice but to leave and seek safety outside their country because their own government cannot or will not protect them from those dangers, a right to international protection.