Ivan Camilleri, Brussels
Northern EU states chided for resisting asylum rules changes
The EU is nowhere near implementing the burden sharing regime on immigration, which Malta has been lobbying for, according to the Council of Europe’s Human Rights Commissioner, Thomas Hammarberg.
Scolding northern EU member states for resisting the much needed changes in the way the EU deals with asylum, Mr Hammerberg warned the situation was becoming very serious and accused the resisting member states of disrespecting the rights of asylum seekers.
“States in northern Europe, far from the borders in the south and the east, have so far not been co-operative in discussions about resolving this mess,” he said.
On the insistence of Malta and other southern EU member states, the European Commission two years ago moved to change the so-called Dublin II rules so they could be suspended in case of member states being overwhelmed with asylum seekers.
The rules oblige the country where migrants land to process their asylum applications. Instead, Malta and other southern states have been lobbying to be able to transfer some migrants to other EU countries where they could remain until their asylum application is processed.
However, despite several EU meetings over the past years, little progress has been made because many northern member states, which are not directly affected by the problem, resisted the proposed changes.
In fact, the Commission is still stuck at the stage of negotiations between governments even though MEPs approved the proposed changes.
Mr Hammerberg, whose organisation does not form part of the EU and can only exert pressure, said the present Dublin system had collapsed and called for the issue to be addressed without further delay.
“The gravely dysfunctional asylum procedures in Greece have brought the Dublin system to a genuine collapse and lessons must be drawn from this breakdown,” he said. “EU states need to halt all transfers of asylum seekers back to countries where they face enormous difficulties in gaining access to the asylum procedure and where they do not enjoy basic safeguards such as interpretation and legal aid.”
During the past year, many asylum seekers, aware of the problems in Greece and other overburdened member states, appealed against their repatriation, leading to a backlog at the national courts and the European Court of Human Rights.
During 2009-2010 the Strasbourg Court heard no fewer than 700 cases involving asylum seekers asking for their transfers to be suspended.
“Europe should do better in terms of refugee protection. A fair and efficient system that would fully guarantee the human rights of asylum seekers in Europe is still wanting. The Dublin regulation should be revised as soon as possible in order to put an end to this situation,” Mr Hammerberg said.
Popular Stories
Update 3: Woman found dead in car,...
Updated: Woman dies in car crash
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Part of Dwejra 'Azure window' collapses
The end of the bar that ‘never closed’
Bundy does not know whether to...
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
This WAS the night - Kurt makes it...
'No need for early election if PM's...
In Discussion
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
Gozo tunnel could take 5-7 years to...
CABS remote controlled aircraft shot...
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Joseph Calleja condemns portrayal of...
Updated: Labour would give...
CABS drone shot down
Second group of migrants arrives
Adrian Vassallo in scathing...
35 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
lgalea
Sep 24th 2010, 21:07
For your information Sean Grima, the European Parliament has approved 382 in favour 250 against and 23 abstentions an agreement that has been concluded with Pakistan to repatriate the thousands of Pakistanis and Afghanis who enter Europe through Pakistan who have been found to be illegally in the EU. In 2008 around 13,000 Pakistani nationals have been arrested for illegal residence in the EU. A request for repatriation not answered by Pakistan within 60 days is deemed to have been accepted. The 27 member states and the Commission are satisfied with the guarantees protecting the persons concerned against abuse by the local authorities once they have returned to their home country. They also consider that the agreement will help stem illegal immigration channels. Cecilia Malmström, the same Malmström who thought that she could lecture us, defended the text before the European Parliament and said that “such readmission agreements have existed for a long time”. She also added that if the EU “wants to have credibility among European citizens on immigration policy, those not authorized to reside legally have to be sent back home”. Get it Sean Grima? SENT HOME.
Sean Grima
Sep 25th 2010, 15:02
those granted asylum (including subsidiary protection) are entitled to reside legally.
J. Spiteri
Sep 24th 2010, 18:31
@ Sean Grima. Is it possible that you are unaware of the rise of the far-Right in Europe? You said that " most people in Africa do not live in villages, but in cities". So what exactly are they escaping from?
Sean Grima
Sep 25th 2010, 15:03
poverty is not limited to villages.
J. Spiteri
Sep 24th 2010, 18:09
I pity those with the same perception as Mr. Sean Grima about immigration. These people must be living in a cocoon, cut off from all that's happening in countries facing the very real problem of illegal immigration (not genuine asylum seekers). Citizens ( and I mean citizens not some individual MPs) of European countries, notably Italy, France, Germany, the UK, and the Netherlands, are increasingly against rising immigration; they simply do not want more immigrants invading their country, hence the increasing popularity of extreme right political parties, with tolerant Sweden being the latest ! If immigration is left unchecked, the consequences in the very near future could be disastrous for all of Europe, and not just for individual countries.
Sean Grima
Sep 27th 2010, 10:02
if anyone is to be pitied, it is people with your closed, archaic mentality.
Charles Sammut
Sep 24th 2010, 16:09
Sean Grima, your posts here amount to trolling. I have posted links before to prove that certain do-gooder NGOs are benefitting from EU funds to 'help' illegal immigrants.
For your benefit, I will post the link again. You can see that the GWU, SOS Malta, Jesuit Refugee Service and The Emigrants' Commission have been on the EU gravy train since 2004/5, so much so that Dr Simon Busuttil considers it as something good! Yes, as good as his burden sharing brainwave.
http://www.simonbusuttil.eu/default.asp?module=news&id=10138
Sean Grima
Sep 25th 2010, 15:04
the fact that they receive EU funding does not mean it is given to them to protect migrants!
c. camilleri
Sep 24th 2010, 16:09
I think that the EU should better grant the right for individual country to send these refugees back to the country they came from, instead in letting them in to turn the whole continent into an other Africa. They way things are going, in a couple of years these people will be a big minority to be reckon with and will determine the way the country is ruled. I pity our future generation.
Louise Vella
Sep 24th 2010, 12:36
II
- "This mess". This mess is the result of unregulated immigration from Africa and Asia. This mess can be sorted out by EU-wide action to stop the influx. For Malta the best remedy for "this mess" was Berlusconi's policy of pushing the boats back to Libya. Have any of the do-gooders ever praised the agreement between Italy and Libya which has been of so much benefit to Malta?
Sean Grima
Sep 24th 2010, 12:43
that agreement has been rightly criticised as being in violation of immigrants right to seek asylum. it is a blow below the belt, in order to safeguard xenophobia instead of dismantling it.
Charles Sammut
Sep 24th 2010, 13:26
What Sean Grima terms "xenophobia" is a healthy scepticism of the benefits of immigration, illegal or otherwise, from countries with vastly different cultures and peoples. Mr Grima invariably quotes legislation and conventions which have long passed their best by date. He never tells us what good Europe will gain from this invasion.
The only people to benefit are the do-gooder organisations who are paid to keep the Maltese quiet and accept this invasion. This is being done in the very short-sighted hope that immigrants will stop in Malta and not drift further North.
Considering the fact that only a tiny percentage of illegal immigrants are granted refugee status, we are bound to remain lumbered with the other thousands who are just bogus asylum seekers and are here illegally.
Simon Busuttil's pipe dream of 'burden sharing' will never come true. Nobody wants them and the rise of the far-Right in many European countries will put paid to the daft notion anyway.
We also are human and have our rights. Our right to live amongst our own people and not have our country evolve into some African village.
Tony Zammit
Sep 24th 2010, 14:55
Charles Sammut you are right about old conventions which are being abused left right and centre and are long past their use by date. I wonder whether Sean Grima eats food which is long past it's use by date? So why should we keep lumping illegal immigrants because of old outdated conventions which are being abused left right and centre by the illegal immigrants?
Sean Grima
Sep 24th 2010, 15:04
"Mr Grima invariably quotes legislation and conventions which have long passed their best by date". That is irrelevant it is still the law.
"The only people to benefit are the do-gooder organisations who are paid to keep the Maltese quiet and accept this invasion". I repeat that that is an unfounded insinuation.
"only a tiny percentage of illegal immigrants are granted refugee status, we are bound to remain lumbered with the other thousands who are just bogus asylum seekers and are here illegally". Most asylum seekers are granted refugee status or subsidiary protection. Therefore there is nothing bogus or illegal.
"Nobody wants them and the rise of the far-Right in many European countries will put paid to the daft notion anyway" What rise?
"Our right to live amongst our own people and not have our country evolve into some African village" Most people in Africa do not live in villages, but in cities.
Muscat D
Sep 24th 2010, 20:29
Most asylum seekers are granted refugee status or subsidiary protection. Therefore there is nothing bogus or illegal.- Sean Grima 2% are granted refugee status. For those granted subsidiary protect, this means that their case for refugee status has been DISMISSED. they are NOT refugees. By the way that's the law Sean. Article 17 of the Refugees Act to be exact.
Sean Grima
Sep 25th 2010, 15:06
people granted subsidiary protection are not bogus refugees. you are free to continue thinking that way, of course, but that is irrelevant.
Louise Vella
Sep 24th 2010, 12:35
I
This Swedish man is living in the clouds. His country returned 550 illegal immigrants who had found their way from Malta to Sweden. They were uninvited, unwelcome and unwanted in Sweden, just as they were in Malta. Except Malta has to lump them. That was before last week's elections in Sweden. At the elections the anti-immigrant Sweden Democrats for the first time elected 20 MPs, probably as a reaction to the do-gooder mentality of Swedes like Hammarberg who do more harm than good.
- If Hammarberg's idea of burden sharing were to be realised, Malta would become the Ellis Island of the EU, processing illegal immigrants on their way to northern countries. But as northern countries refuse them, most of them would remain here. See the excellent letter in today's The Times "African immigrants unlikely to integrate" by James Horgen.
Sean Grima
Sep 24th 2010, 12:42
luckily, he has louise vella to shine the sun's light upon him.
J Curmi
Sep 24th 2010, 11:52
I live in Sweden and the country is flooded by people who cam here illegally.
Through the years - and incredibly huge sums of money - they got all-around assistance (even if often they do not qualify, nor deserve it) and citizenship.
I have no problem with all that - Sweden is not my country.
What concerns me is that as an EU citizen, I get NO assistance whatsoever, yet, I have to pay ridiculous amounts of taxes to make good for all the benefits all these people receive. Often these people have no right to such generous benefits but their thourough understanding of the benefits system helps them play and abuse the system with incredible results. Worse still, when they are caught, they are not made to pay back. Absolutely shocking and disgusting.
As far as I am concerned, I have no problem with the far right, and the earlier the notion of a common Europe come to a complete end, the better.
Sean Grima
Sep 24th 2010, 15:06
your comments are sweeping: only migrants abuse the system!
Martin Borg
Sep 24th 2010, 20:37
I live in Sweden too, and quite frankly it is an open secret that asylum seekers abuse the system left right and centre, and yet, many people in need (LEGAL CITIZENS) often all they get is an appalling neglect.
Moses Mula
Sep 24th 2010, 21:31
I live in Sweden as well and what you are implying, i.e. that most immigrants abuse the swedish welfare system is a myth created by people with anti-immigrant views like yourselfs. I know swedes who work hard and immigrants who work hard. Are there immigrants who abuse the system? Yes there is, but to generalize the way you do is very wrong. Have you read the survey done to see what kind of people voted for SD? It showed that it was mostly unemployed and uneducated swedish people who voted for them. Now I ask you both, what would happen to hospitals and clinics without the thousands of immigrants who work there? And by the way stop and think before you start praising SD because both you and me would not be welcome in the country if it was up to them. This is a party with nazi roots who want to cleanse Sweden from all immigrants. For now it is islam, tomorrow it will be you and me mates.
Charles Sammut
Sep 24th 2010, 10:40
"............Mr Hammerberg warned the situation was becoming very serious and accused the resisting member states of disrespecting the rights of asylum seekers."
Sub Saharan African "asylum seekers" have no right to move half way round the world, to Europe. They do not belong here and they are not welcome either. They are only creating social tensions and destroying their own future in the process.
Those who have been granted refugee status should be returned to their country as soon as the situation there allows it. As it is, it is not a question of refuge but one of mass migration. Something which is destroying Europe.
But Europe is waking up. Make no mistake about that.
Sean Grima
Sep 24th 2010, 12:42
wrong. they do have the to travel wherever, until they find a country which grants the right to asylum, where they are safe.
Charles Sammut
Sep 24th 2010, 14:33
Sean Grima, it is you who are wrong. The EU is doing its utmost to prevent the phenomenon of 'Asylum Shopping". That is why the Dublin II prevents the movement of illegal immigrants/refugees/undocumented migrants across its open borders. Malta, being on the southernmost edge of the EU is lumped with whoever lands here. This is unacceptable and no asylum legislation or convention is absolute. We will not accept illegal immigrants and risk destroying our country. It is bad for us and for them.
So African refugees should settle in the first safe country and not wander about shopping for the best deal. That only suits the corrupt NGOs raking in funds from the EU.
Sean Grima
Sep 24th 2010, 15:05
Yes, the law is abosulute, until it is changed. Had the migrants travelled across a safe country, their application would be refused.
Charles Sammut
Sep 24th 2010, 15:33
Not even God's law is absolute. Thou may not kill, but you may do so to defend yourself. That is the situation Mr Grima.
Sean Grima
Sep 25th 2010, 15:07
i already said that laws are not absolute. in fact, not all who apply for asylum are granted this status.
Joe Demanuele
Sep 24th 2010, 10:05
Thomas Hammarberg should put his money where his mouth is and taker them all to his country and keep them at his own expense.
Charles Sammut
Sep 24th 2010, 10:45
With the anti-immigration Sweden Democrats just having won 20 seats in parliament, that is unlikely.
Sean Grima
Sep 24th 2010, 12:41
asylum is part of maltese law too. the "take your money where your mouth is and keep them all at your expense" notion is infantile.
Jane Spiteri
Sep 24th 2010, 14:48
Sean Grima As others have asked you many times, what is in it for you for defending the African illegal immigrants and illegalities? No one does anything for nothing and people are wondering why you always defend them instead of Malta and the Maltese people.
Sean Grima
Sep 24th 2010, 15:06
I might as well ask what is it in for you by attacking them, basing myself on your premise.
Jane Spiteri
Sep 24th 2010, 20:52
Sean Grima my right to live in my country without being invaded by unwanted and unwelcome African illegal immigrants, that's what in it for me. This is my and our country and not an African country Sean Grima. No wonder people ask why you keep defending them.
Sean Grima
Sep 25th 2010, 15:08
they are unwanted and unwelcomed by you. i welcome people to my country when they are in need of a safe place to live and raise their families. what's more important is that the law does so too.