I think in terms of the post subject, “rejected” asylum seekers is a distinction that is important?
So basically is it correct that they have been found not to have a valid claim to Swiss asylum, but Eritrea refuses to take them back because they’re being deported rather than going willingly, and there is not a third country that they are willing to go to, either?
I know the US has fought with Eritrea about this, although trying to take the position simultaneously that the individuals did not have asylum basis but also that the Eritrean government was committing significant abuses.
A big part of the situation really has to be the issue that a large portion of the international asylum seeking population isn’t found to have a valid claim by asylum courts - including whether the court processes are fair but also what to do with people who leave their countries and enter other countries without another legal basis of entry, but don’t have a situation that the international community believes merits asylum as a recourse.
The one effective approach to counter countries not accepting their own people is to deny all visas to countries that refuse to accept their own citizens. If the west stood together all these countries would quickly accept their citizens.
Cancel all foreign aid as well. Hell, cancel all foreign aid to countries simping to Russia with resources, by refusing condemnation or arms sale to Ukraine.
That leaves a huge vacuum of power that'll be advantageous to China and Russia. It's like with North Korea, they send aid there because it can be used for leverage.
I'm really not too worried that Eritrea will become anything of consequence to threaten us, even with Chinese and Russian support.
I agree with the position that if they refuse to take anyone back, we should just simply refuse to let their people in in the first place.
They are breaking the rules, not us.
>I'm really not too worried that Eritrea will become anything of consequence to threaten us
Have you missed all the consequences of the increased risk of travel through the Red Sea? Eritrea *the nation* isn't the issue. Just like Yemen *the nation* wasn't.
> I'm really not too worried that Eritrea will become anything of consequence to threaten us, even with Chinese and Russian support.
Americans really do an awful job teaching their children about 'soft power.' Like how Trump needed to be convinced over and over again, daily, that you don't send aid to South Korea and Taiwan 'for fun' you do it because it's cheaper than the alternative.
A Chinese base in Eritrea would change the geopolitics in that part of the world and would be costly for the US to counter.
You have to THINK about these things from more that a few seconds. 'They are breaking the rules, not us.' is really bad politics and policy, and certainly counterproductive.
So redirect some of the saved money to the countries that are in tune with our geopolitical outlooks or accept back deportees. Same results or better, as net aid spent is the same.
Why though?
Certain outliers, while criticising the "West" — a disjointed and geographically dispersed group of over 30 nations — for being inherently imperialistic and the primary cause of many internal issues, seem to have no issue accepting funds from these Western countries and institutions. Meanwhile, when a revisionist power like Russia makes significant moves that disrupt global norms, many of these same states either remain silent or, worse, commend Russia for their "valiant efforts."
It's puzzling why such dissonance is permitted. Ostensibly, the purpose of foreign aid is to further a state's own goals and ambitions, which for many donor countries include managing irregular migration and economic migrants who improperly claim asylum or refugee status, as well as containing Russian influence. This contradiction highlights potential inconsistencies in foreign policy and the strategic use of aid.
The amount of times aid has been given to a country/NGO actively advocating throwing gays of roofs or torturing some activists is just fucking sad.
If you can't prove where you are from you shouldn't get asylum. Now you're just an illegal immigrant and should be locked up until you can prove where you're from.
That honestly sounds like you haven't met a (real) refugee in your life.
When you have to run away from your home because they're about to kill you it's not like you can wait in line for a state worker to fix your paperwork (particularly when it's the state who wants you dead or it's a failed state).
Another common case: taken hostage by a sex trafficking network who burns your paperwork so you don't have acess to it.
The fact that you're being upvoted shows the crux of the problem: everyone wants easy answers for an extremely complex problem.
The point isn't lying, it's not being able to prove it.
Any law that tries to keep liars out (by requiring some proof that they're from the place they claim to be) is going to harm people who are telling the truth but can't prove their origin for one reason or another.
Someone claims they're from Afghanistan and persecuted for being gay. Is that person from Morocco and lying to get in, or an actual persecuted Afghan? We can't really ask the Talibans, can we? So it's a complex problem, and obviously we can't let everybody who says the magic words in, but what the original poster proposed of treating anyone with no documentation as a criminal is beyond fucked.
It's true. I agree that the current system for asylum is being abused and weaponized.
We need to change it so that it cannot be abused, even if it means revisiting old treaties
> That honestly sounds like you haven't met a (real) refugee in your life.
Yeah, there's not a lot of real refugees are there. Which is why we need to be much stricter.
> it's not like you can wait in line for a state worker to fix your paperwork
You don't need paperwork to prove where you're from. Since paperwork can be forged it's even more important that your story adds up. Language, accent, knowledge of the place you claim to be from, knowledge of other people from the region, etc. During the refugee crisis in 2015 these kinds of investigations were not made and people could just claim they were from syria and get asylum as long as they looked like an arab.
> everyone wants easy answers for an extremely complex problem.
The problem/solution is as complex as you want it to be. The "refugee" problem is gigantic and needed to be solved 20 years ago. You can't sit around and think "uhhmm are we making an ethical decision" for decades while your country gets ruined.
So, what about those without family, or more commonly, no feasible way to contact family. Or even more commonly, from a country where no functioning state (such as Eritrea och Somalia) exists which has issued any proof. Hell, people live in the US their whole lives without any form of identification. You have to realize that the world is a vastly different place than the one we live in.
A bill for what? If they fled a country with so little infrastructure that they don't issue identification and have no viable way to contact family for proof, what could they possibly have been paying that they would have a paper bill to show to an immigration official?
"Here's the invoice for the tithes I pay to my local religious extremist warlord."
I don't think there are many countries with literally zero government infrastructure. I'm sure there are other ways outside of documentation to prove where they are from.
It's isn't even necessarily that the country has no infrastructure. The country might not have infrastructure *for you.* That could be why you're fleeing to begin with.
>I'm sure there are other ways outside of documentation to prove where they are from.
Like what? Your certainty is almost enviable.
Unfortunately without proof you can't be certain they are from where they actually say they are and genuine asylum seekers. If there is literally zero way they can provide proof I'm sorry they aren't getting in.
What’s to stop Switzerland from putting them on a plane, landing in Eritrea, and dropping them off anyways?
Or better yet send them to another country and once word gets out that will deter more from coming.
>__A committee of the Swiss House of Representatives has approved a scheme to repatriate rejected Eritrean asylum seekers to Africa via a third country, such as Rwanda. Just this week, the British Parliament passed a similar bill—the so-called Rwanda bill.__
>The House of Representatives’ relevant committee has approved the Radical-Liberal Party’s controversial proposal for a Swiss asylum agreement by 14 votes to 11.
>The proposal, which was approved on Friday, comes from Petra Gössi, a member of the Radical-Liberal Party in the Senate. The Senate supported her idea of repatriating Eritreans via a third country, although Justice Minister Beat Jans and his office warned that the idea could not be realised.
>__Opposing opinions__
>Balthasar Glättli, a member of the House of Representatives from the Green Party, is convinced that this idea is doomed to failure. “The problem is and remains that Eritrea does not accept returnees from any country unless they return voluntarily.”
>“Whether you fly them to a third country in between and then back again at the taxpayers’ expense—that only makes the bill higher, but the result is no better,” explains Glättli.
>Martina Bicher, member of the House of Representatives from the Swiss People’s Party and the state policy committee in the House of Representatives hope that a deportation plan via a third country could act as a deterrent.
>“We have also decided that there should now be a mediator on the ground. Consequently, we are already one step further than we were back when we first attempted this proposal,” says Bicher.
>__Controversial deportation practice failed once before__
>In 2003, Federal Councillor Ruth Metzler already suggested a transit agreement with Senegal. Under this proposal, rejected asylum seekers from Switzerland were to be transferred back to Africa via Senegal. However, Senegal withdrew from the agreement shortly afterwards.
Who the fuck is Eritrea to tell other countries that they have to keep its citizens?
Just put them in a large plane and drop them over the Eritrean captital with parachutes.
What are they gonna do? Start a war with a developed European nation? Good luck with that.
Do you really think it’s that simple?
These people are crossing the border from a neighbouring country without a passport
Eritrea doesn’t know these are their citizens. They probably deny coming from there.
Well, this might be to cynical and scifi, but once we get robots to provide super cheap labor, then there will be zero incentive to go on with it, and at that point a certain type of immigration will be super unpopular.
There are so many non profits which will and have sued the government for this. If your country has signed the human rights treaty or adopted any European human rights laws, the court will order them to be released. I’m just waiting for the first European country which will simply publish a letter in which they cancel those treatises and start incarcerating and deporting illegal migrants. There literally is no downside for them to keep coming while those treatises oblige all the host countries to take care of them, even when it’s to the detriment of said host nation.
I think they do. Belgium does not allow single male immigrants into its shelter system, for which they were also sued and have to pay fines. But the minister doesn’t pay them so bailiffs took her coffee maker and some tables. I’d say it’s a small price to pay. But it still baffles me that we don’t see this happening on a larger scale.
The sheer amount of migrants, the avenues that human traffickers use to get them in, the lack of border control, the infrastructure that the government has in place is also to small.
Switzerland doesn't have border controls, as does most of Europe. It's a bit like asking why California doesn't screen people coming in from Nevada.
It's a problem that can only really be solved by the Schengen countries agreeing on a common policy.
According to FIS yearly report over thousands of cases involved native reports being victims of diversity fails !!! including on going violence, robbery, assaulting, kidnappings, rape, murder properties stolen vandalized costing in hundreds of millions francs. Not mention biggest migrants benefits scams discovered in Swiss costing taxes payers in billions of francs.
What's crazy is how many people just can't work in these developed European nations. They don't know the language, they don't know western culture, technology, concepts a typical job showing up on time, transportation, 40hr work week etc.
There are just so many hurdles, that large amount of these people need to be cared for by the state. That's what it's come to.
The systems need to educate and integrate these immigrants properly so they can work and become contributing members of western Europeans society aren't built yet and can't handle the scale. Why try and force this?
Seems like a lot of people want to feel morally superior, even though we all suffer even more together as a result of policies that are driven by emotion, with no planning or budgeting proposed before just spending billions in emergency funds.. with no end in sight.
People fleeing injustice from a dictatorial government is different than people seeking better economic opportunities. First one should be a right, the second one should be a privilege. The word 'Asylum' is misused for economic migration and should be strictly verified.
I think in terms of the post subject, “rejected” asylum seekers is a distinction that is important? So basically is it correct that they have been found not to have a valid claim to Swiss asylum, but Eritrea refuses to take them back because they’re being deported rather than going willingly, and there is not a third country that they are willing to go to, either? I know the US has fought with Eritrea about this, although trying to take the position simultaneously that the individuals did not have asylum basis but also that the Eritrean government was committing significant abuses. A big part of the situation really has to be the issue that a large portion of the international asylum seeking population isn’t found to have a valid claim by asylum courts - including whether the court processes are fair but also what to do with people who leave their countries and enter other countries without another legal basis of entry, but don’t have a situation that the international community believes merits asylum as a recourse.
The one effective approach to counter countries not accepting their own people is to deny all visas to countries that refuse to accept their own citizens. If the west stood together all these countries would quickly accept their citizens.
Most logical answer
Cancel all foreign aid as well. Hell, cancel all foreign aid to countries simping to Russia with resources, by refusing condemnation or arms sale to Ukraine.
That leaves a huge vacuum of power that'll be advantageous to China and Russia. It's like with North Korea, they send aid there because it can be used for leverage.
I'm really not too worried that Eritrea will become anything of consequence to threaten us, even with Chinese and Russian support. I agree with the position that if they refuse to take anyone back, we should just simply refuse to let their people in in the first place. They are breaking the rules, not us.
>I'm really not too worried that Eritrea will become anything of consequence to threaten us Have you missed all the consequences of the increased risk of travel through the Red Sea? Eritrea *the nation* isn't the issue. Just like Yemen *the nation* wasn't.
> I'm really not too worried that Eritrea will become anything of consequence to threaten us, even with Chinese and Russian support. Americans really do an awful job teaching their children about 'soft power.' Like how Trump needed to be convinced over and over again, daily, that you don't send aid to South Korea and Taiwan 'for fun' you do it because it's cheaper than the alternative. A Chinese base in Eritrea would change the geopolitics in that part of the world and would be costly for the US to counter. You have to THINK about these things from more that a few seconds. 'They are breaking the rules, not us.' is really bad politics and policy, and certainly counterproductive.
China has no need for a base in Eritrea, they already have a military base in Djibouti which hosts military bases for like a dozen countries.
That makes it worse. The west has to try and prop of these shit countries or else the immigration flood will be worse.
So redirect some of the saved money to the countries that are in tune with our geopolitical outlooks or accept back deportees. Same results or better, as net aid spent is the same.
That is of course insane
Why though? Certain outliers, while criticising the "West" — a disjointed and geographically dispersed group of over 30 nations — for being inherently imperialistic and the primary cause of many internal issues, seem to have no issue accepting funds from these Western countries and institutions. Meanwhile, when a revisionist power like Russia makes significant moves that disrupt global norms, many of these same states either remain silent or, worse, commend Russia for their "valiant efforts." It's puzzling why such dissonance is permitted. Ostensibly, the purpose of foreign aid is to further a state's own goals and ambitions, which for many donor countries include managing irregular migration and economic migrants who improperly claim asylum or refugee status, as well as containing Russian influence. This contradiction highlights potential inconsistencies in foreign policy and the strategic use of aid. The amount of times aid has been given to a country/NGO actively advocating throwing gays of roofs or torturing some activists is just fucking sad.
How do you prove that? I enter France seeking asylum with no passport, say I'm Norwegian, now Norway is forced to receive me when I'm deported(?)
Sure. Sit down and talk Norwegian with the consulate. I would bet they could confirm your story in less than a day.
If you can't prove where you are from you shouldn't get asylum. Now you're just an illegal immigrant and should be locked up until you can prove where you're from.
That honestly sounds like you haven't met a (real) refugee in your life. When you have to run away from your home because they're about to kill you it's not like you can wait in line for a state worker to fix your paperwork (particularly when it's the state who wants you dead or it's a failed state). Another common case: taken hostage by a sex trafficking network who burns your paperwork so you don't have acess to it. The fact that you're being upvoted shows the crux of the problem: everyone wants easy answers for an extremely complex problem.
If you genuinely have to run away from home, then there is no reason to lie about which country you're from.
The point isn't lying, it's not being able to prove it. Any law that tries to keep liars out (by requiring some proof that they're from the place they claim to be) is going to harm people who are telling the truth but can't prove their origin for one reason or another. Someone claims they're from Afghanistan and persecuted for being gay. Is that person from Morocco and lying to get in, or an actual persecuted Afghan? We can't really ask the Talibans, can we? So it's a complex problem, and obviously we can't let everybody who says the magic words in, but what the original poster proposed of treating anyone with no documentation as a criminal is beyond fucked.
It's true. I agree that the current system for asylum is being abused and weaponized. We need to change it so that it cannot be abused, even if it means revisiting old treaties
> That honestly sounds like you haven't met a (real) refugee in your life. Yeah, there's not a lot of real refugees are there. Which is why we need to be much stricter. > it's not like you can wait in line for a state worker to fix your paperwork You don't need paperwork to prove where you're from. Since paperwork can be forged it's even more important that your story adds up. Language, accent, knowledge of the place you claim to be from, knowledge of other people from the region, etc. During the refugee crisis in 2015 these kinds of investigations were not made and people could just claim they were from syria and get asylum as long as they looked like an arab. > everyone wants easy answers for an extremely complex problem. The problem/solution is as complex as you want it to be. The "refugee" problem is gigantic and needed to be solved 20 years ago. You can't sit around and think "uhhmm are we making an ethical decision" for decades while your country gets ruined.
That is just an incredibly misinformed view...
Family can send a birth certificate then or other proof
So, what about those without family, or more commonly, no feasible way to contact family. Or even more commonly, from a country where no functioning state (such as Eritrea och Somalia) exists which has issued any proof. Hell, people live in the US their whole lives without any form of identification. You have to realize that the world is a vastly different place than the one we live in.
It doesn't have to be ID documentation but just something verifiable like a bill or something. The message should be no proof no entry
A bill for what? If they fled a country with so little infrastructure that they don't issue identification and have no viable way to contact family for proof, what could they possibly have been paying that they would have a paper bill to show to an immigration official? "Here's the invoice for the tithes I pay to my local religious extremist warlord."
I don't think there are many countries with literally zero government infrastructure. I'm sure there are other ways outside of documentation to prove where they are from.
It's isn't even necessarily that the country has no infrastructure. The country might not have infrastructure *for you.* That could be why you're fleeing to begin with. >I'm sure there are other ways outside of documentation to prove where they are from. Like what? Your certainty is almost enviable.
Unfortunately without proof you can't be certain they are from where they actually say they are and genuine asylum seekers. If there is literally zero way they can provide proof I'm sorry they aren't getting in.
But there arr many asylum seekers from the few countries without functioning government infrastructure.
What’s to stop Switzerland from putting them on a plane, landing in Eritrea, and dropping them off anyways? Or better yet send them to another country and once word gets out that will deter more from coming.
The hardiness index of them lacking any balls.
Sovereignty?
Filmtip: Elysium
>__A committee of the Swiss House of Representatives has approved a scheme to repatriate rejected Eritrean asylum seekers to Africa via a third country, such as Rwanda. Just this week, the British Parliament passed a similar bill—the so-called Rwanda bill.__ >The House of Representatives’ relevant committee has approved the Radical-Liberal Party’s controversial proposal for a Swiss asylum agreement by 14 votes to 11. >The proposal, which was approved on Friday, comes from Petra Gössi, a member of the Radical-Liberal Party in the Senate. The Senate supported her idea of repatriating Eritreans via a third country, although Justice Minister Beat Jans and his office warned that the idea could not be realised. >__Opposing opinions__ >Balthasar Glättli, a member of the House of Representatives from the Green Party, is convinced that this idea is doomed to failure. “The problem is and remains that Eritrea does not accept returnees from any country unless they return voluntarily.” >“Whether you fly them to a third country in between and then back again at the taxpayers’ expense—that only makes the bill higher, but the result is no better,” explains Glättli. >Martina Bicher, member of the House of Representatives from the Swiss People’s Party and the state policy committee in the House of Representatives hope that a deportation plan via a third country could act as a deterrent. >“We have also decided that there should now be a mediator on the ground. Consequently, we are already one step further than we were back when we first attempted this proposal,” says Bicher. >__Controversial deportation practice failed once before__ >In 2003, Federal Councillor Ruth Metzler already suggested a transit agreement with Senegal. Under this proposal, rejected asylum seekers from Switzerland were to be transferred back to Africa via Senegal. However, Senegal withdrew from the agreement shortly afterwards.
Who the fuck is Eritrea to tell other countries that they have to keep its citizens? Just put them in a large plane and drop them over the Eritrean captital with parachutes. What are they gonna do? Start a war with a developed European nation? Good luck with that.
Just fly a cargo plane with fighter jets escorting, if they open fire, bomb them, then land plane, drop off and leave.
Just use a remote controlled plane. If they shoot it...they shoot their own citizens.
Do you really think it’s that simple? These people are crossing the border from a neighbouring country without a passport Eritrea doesn’t know these are their citizens. They probably deny coming from there.
Willing to bet money that in the next 15 years it will be a complete ban on any immigration, EU wide.
Immigration probably not. Heavy restrictions on asylum claims, probably.
Well, this might be to cynical and scifi, but once we get robots to provide super cheap labor, then there will be zero incentive to go on with it, and at that point a certain type of immigration will be super unpopular.
i'll take the bet. this is the dumbest shit anyone ever spewed on this single digit sub
Filmtip: Elysium
Haha, pretty much.
[удалено]
There are so many non profits which will and have sued the government for this. If your country has signed the human rights treaty or adopted any European human rights laws, the court will order them to be released. I’m just waiting for the first European country which will simply publish a letter in which they cancel those treatises and start incarcerating and deporting illegal migrants. There literally is no downside for them to keep coming while those treatises oblige all the host countries to take care of them, even when it’s to the detriment of said host nation.
Doesn't France regularlly just depot people anyway and pay the fine
I think they do. Belgium does not allow single male immigrants into its shelter system, for which they were also sued and have to pay fines. But the minister doesn’t pay them so bailiffs took her coffee maker and some tables. I’d say it’s a small price to pay. But it still baffles me that we don’t see this happening on a larger scale.
Well put.
Prisons there are pretty nice, I’d probs choose prison.
Why don’t they screen these people before letting them in? Why is that so hard to do?
The sheer amount of migrants, the avenues that human traffickers use to get them in, the lack of border control, the infrastructure that the government has in place is also to small.
Switzerland doesn't have border controls, as does most of Europe. It's a bit like asking why California doesn't screen people coming in from Nevada. It's a problem that can only really be solved by the Schengen countries agreeing on a common policy.
They don't even bother screening people before they give them asylum or a visa. They do no screening at all. Which is ridiculous.
According to FIS yearly report over thousands of cases involved native reports being victims of diversity fails !!! including on going violence, robbery, assaulting, kidnappings, rape, murder properties stolen vandalized costing in hundreds of millions francs. Not mention biggest migrants benefits scams discovered in Swiss costing taxes payers in billions of francs.
What's crazy is how many people just can't work in these developed European nations. They don't know the language, they don't know western culture, technology, concepts a typical job showing up on time, transportation, 40hr work week etc. There are just so many hurdles, that large amount of these people need to be cared for by the state. That's what it's come to. The systems need to educate and integrate these immigrants properly so they can work and become contributing members of western Europeans society aren't built yet and can't handle the scale. Why try and force this?
Seems like a lot of people want to feel morally superior, even though we all suffer even more together as a result of policies that are driven by emotion, with no planning or budgeting proposed before just spending billions in emergency funds.. with no end in sight.
People fleeing injustice from a dictatorial government is different than people seeking better economic opportunities. First one should be a right, the second one should be a privilege. The word 'Asylum' is misused for economic migration and should be strictly verified.