Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Asylum right - reform or abolish altogether?
I wonder why the EU wont do this

Quote:[Image: dsc_0234.jpg]©

Published January 12, 2020 at 10.51 am
COLUMN. The asylum system does not work in Sweden, but also in many other countries. Marginal adjustments are not enough, but a radical overhaul is needed that removes the system errors. Asylum is not a "right" but a favor that a recipient country can give or not give. Here is a text about some of the shortcomings that characterize the current system, writes Jan Tullberg.

A fundamental mistake is that a country cannot get rid of the people who get no on their application.
The very term "regulated immigration" is based on the fact that one can control it, not that it becomes what it becomes,
regardless of what the country's government and people believe.

The EU should soon end with the plans for forced distribution of all those who have penetrated into Europe.
Instead, the countries of origin should be required to take back their own citizens, regardless of whether they want to
move home or not.

Those countries that do not accept this condition are excluded from the possibility of obtaining visas to European countries
and receive reduced aid. This is a requirement, not something that can be used to extort European governments.

Persons who cannot be returned to their country of origin should be deported to a refugee camp in a third country.
For that service, the EU should pay, but it is a low cost, perhaps SEK 5,000 per person per year. Such constructive proposals,
about safe heavens, have been launched a long time ago, but inability has prevented implementation.

Few people will stay in these camps for any length of time without returning to their home country, even though, in their own
words, they "flee for their lives". Australia has successfully solved the problem of asylum seekers by allocating them to other

An asylum application should not be a mysterious right. That type of pledge in international conventions should therefore be
terminated. If the relevant authority, such as the Swedish Migration Agency, said no, then it is no.

The system of appeal to higher courts in Sweden with migration courts and overmigration courts shall be abolished.
It only contributes to bureaucracy and widespread abuse. The goal of that reform in 2006 was that "increased legitimacy" would
make those who are expelled more likely to obey the decision. But the percentage deviations increased instead.
The reform is a failure which precedes other failures. Redo, put down.

Criminals who have been granted asylum or are seeking asylum should be expelled regularly for life without the opportunity to return.
There is a long queue of people who want to come here. If you misbehave, you should not get a second chance, when so many
have not received their first.

In many countries, serious criminals sit and manage to remain in the paralyzed host country. Somewhere there is a destructive
bureaucrat who believes that it is impossible to prosecute or expel because of the rules and the politicians, through incapacity
and incompetence, are unable to change the rules for the better.

The Migration Board should make demands directly on applications. An entirely unreasonable situation is that the applicant does
not identify himself. The system is so unhealthy that applicants gain an advantage by searching in the false name because they
can then easily saddle and tell a new sniffing story if the first one fails.

90 percent of the applicants have in some strange way gotten rid of their identity documents. However, they may emerge later if
and when the applicant thinks it may be beneficial. Sweden must demand that applicants are honest and see cheating and fraud
as directly disqualifying.

The current international rules are that an asylum application requires that you first smuggle into the country.
This should be changed so that smuggling does not provide an added benefit to smugglers - and smugglers. The qualification
requirements for applicants must be comprehensive and weighed against what the recipient country sees as an acceptable volume
and what migrants can add.

It should be made clear that asylum is for a few people who need special protection, or a base for conducting a desirable opposition
to the regime in their home country. There is no reason to grant asylum to people with destructive purposes for their home country
or for Sweden.

The word "asylum law" seems to arouse strong emotions and blocks analytical thinking. But there is no human right to move to
another country, it is only a favor. Human rights are not a universal obligation to care for people in all countries, but a declaration
by states that they must follow these guidelines in their own country's policy towards their own citizens.

Many governments want to increase their legitimacy by stating that they exercise moderate power in the interests of citizens.
Rights are seen as a promise to citizens who promise respect and frameworks for policy intervention in citizens' lives.
Rights used to support democracy, but have now been transformed into rules that prevent democratic decision-making.

The UN adopted a silly declaration against torture. The stupid thing is not to be against torture, but to urge all countries not
to expel people who might be subjected to torture. This applies to terrorists as well as serious criminals. How did you thin
 about this decision?

The reasonable answer is that they did not think about the consequences at all, but felt that it sounded humanitarian and good
as a symbolic policy, even though in practice this meant protecting criminals and helping them escape justice.

Many democracies wanted to send even more kind signals and banned the deportation of people who risked the death penalty.
Of course, one can be for or against this punishment, but in this and other issues one should have an openness to other opinions
and tame one's own goodness.

The death penalty is not a senseless punishment, but one that is supported by a majority of the world's population.
However, the prevailing establishment in Europe is convinced that the death penalty is barbaric. They drive their idea
imperialist and ignore that the effect of this naive prohibition is that justice is prevented.

The Swedish state, of course, has every right to ban the death penalty in the country and the minority who want such
a punishment must accept this decision, but Sweden must also accept that other countries have a different penalty scale
than the Swedish one.

The key to international cooperation is to capture criminals and to expel the suspects to their home countries so that they
can be brought to justice, since the care and justice of crime victims requires the villains not go free.

It should be a priority, not a misguided concern about suspected criminals.
The world's states have legal systems with various weaknesses: for severe punishments, for mild punishments, corruption,
poor prisons, and prisons with poor guard.
It is destructive to put your nose in the weather and appoint Swedish criminal justice to a global standard.

The world's states have legal systems with various weaknesses: for severe punishments, for mild punishments, corruption,
poor prisons, and prisons with poor guard.
It is destructive to put your nose in the weather and appoint Swedish criminal justice to a global standard.
The world's states have legal systems with various weaknesses: for severe punishments, for mild punishments, corruption,
poor prisons, and prisons with poor guard.
It is destructive to put your nose in the weather and appoint Swedish criminal justice to a global standard.

One effect of the poor asylum policy is that thousands of migrants drown on the Mediterranean.
For stupid reasons, the sea rescues import some of those salvaged to Europe. There will be more or less developed
cooperation between the smugglers and the guard vessels.

This increases the chances of achieving a life in Europe and it motivates more migrants to take the opportunity to cross
the sea. If the authorities tightened up, thought about and stopped playing humanitarian theater, they would return the
migrants to North Africa.

If the asylum search process were tightened up and deportations were carried out, the magnet Europe would lose its traction
and the drowning accidents would cease. The Syrians who suffered the war there had a 2 per cent risk of death.
Those who try to cross the Mediterranean have about the same death risk, 2 percent.

The various weaknesses reinforce each other.
There are strong destructive features in politics and many citizens wonder what the authorities are doing.
Are they just generally incompetent? Or are they driven by ethnomasochistism and consciously trying to undermine democracy
and national independence?

A government's first task is to maintain order within the country and protect borders, but many politicians and bureaucrats seem
to be striving to sabotage this ability. The asylum system showed its inability already during the Balkan crisis of the 1990s, but it
is not being reviewed.

It is patched and repaired, but if you add up the deterioration and improvement then the deterioration is considered and an
increasing abuse becomes more and more normal. The result is directly dangerous to society.

The "asylum right" is so lousy that it should be abolished and replaced with a general asylum stop.
"Asylum" is being abused by people who just want to migrate elsewhere, and bypass the legitimate immigration system. Because of that, it probably should be abolished altogether - it's not MY problem if you don't want to work to make your country a better place to be - that does not automatically grant a "right" for anyone who desires to invade my country and create the same conditions in my country they had in theirs. There is no such thing as a right to invade someone else's country.

That the system is being abused is evident in the sheer numbers of asylum seekers. If their own country was that bad, then that many people working to make it better would have to have an effect. Instead, they want to invade a host country and ruin it, too.

Because of that, I think "asylum" should no longer be a thing at all. Furthermore, a host country should be able to turn immigrants away for any reason they like, or no reason at all - it's THEIR country to run, not an outsider's country to invade. Host countries should not even have to give a reason for saying "no". just saying no should be sufficient.

Some people will whine about my policy, but I don't care - they should not have set the system up for abuse to begin with, and drastic measures would not have to be taken.

I have a different take on criminal immigrants as well. I don't care where they go, they just can't stay here. To implement that policy and assist them in deciding to be elsewhere instead of ruining the host country, I would have no problem re-instituting the old viking system of "outlawry" - tell them to go, and if they do not, then any individual that finds them in the host country may end them, permanently, with no legal repercussions. For some, that would be sufficient incentive to self-deport, and for those who wouldn't, it would be it's own enforcement. Either way, their war would be over, the problem they visit on the host country would be solved. They don't have to go back to their home country, they just can't stay here - where they go from here is their own decision, as long as it is "away from here".

I know it's probably hard to tell, but the older I get the less patience I have for people trying to wreck other people's countries.

“There is no hunting like the hunting of man, and those who have hunted armed men long enough and liked it, never care for anything else thereafter.” ― Ernest Hemingway

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)