4 ms·

Umm, Monaco is signatory to the refugee convention and accepts refugees, so ... yes? There are 30 some odd refugees in the country, or over 15/sq. km. Both as a

by dalke 10y ago

Umm, Monaco is signatory to the refugee convention and accepts refugees, so ... yes? There are 30 some odd refugees in the country, or over 15/sq. km. Both as a fraction of population and fraction of area, this is higher than in, say, Spain. Disney Land is a private company. They are not signatory to any treaty on refugees and have no obligation to accept refugees. Should the US decide to use eminent domain to seize Disney Land and put refugees there, it would be possible, but very expensive and face much outcry. The US has signed the 1967 Protocol on refugees. There is a right of free movement in the US, and I don't think there's any legal reason which prevents refugees in the US from moving to Hawaii should they feel like it. In addition, Hawaii has accepted refugees before and the governor has said he is not opposed to accepting Syrian refugees: http://khon2.com/2015/11/17/gov-ige-defends-position-on-syria-i-dont-have-the-authority-to-say-yes-or-no/ http://khon2.com/2015/11/17/gov-ige-defends-position-on-syri... .

DominikR 10y ago
You are intentionally "misunderstanding" my comment. Once a refugee enters any country that is deemed safe, he or she has no right to flee any further. It would be really hard to argue in court that someone had reason to flee France. Countries can of course have bi or multilateral laws in place that allow free movement, but in case of the EU we have the Dublin Regulation that explicitly forbids this for refugees. The EU country where a refugee first sets foot on has to take care of the asylum process. If the refugee decides to move to another EU country then this country has the right to send them back and this is also executed.
- dalke 10y ago
  Well, yes - you make an outrageous comment, I might make an outrageous reply. Also yes, the Dublin Agreement is the current law. That does not make it just. I hold with a minority (alas) party of the country I live in - strike down that unjust law and, yes, require all EU and/or Schengen countries to share the effort of providing asylum. Including Monaco, which seems to be doing a good job of it already. If you want to defend that unjust law, then there's another solution - promote more legal ways to enter the EU, rather than force them through land and dangerous ocean routes, and overloading the border countries. Get rid of carrier liability and let asylum seekers hop a plane into whichever country they want. As it stands, airlines don't want to bear the penalty for transporting someone who might not get refugee status. Charter boats so places which are willing to accept refugees (for example, in Spain, https://www.yahoo.com/news/barcelona-waits-refugees-arent-coming-144943837.html?ref=gs https://www.yahoo.com/news/barcelona-waits-refugees-arent-co... ) don't end up with only a trickle. Quoting from that last link, "human rights are above European legislation".
- thesimon 10y ago
  > Once a refugee enters any country that is deemed safe, he or she has no right to flee any further. >If the refugee decides to move to another EU country then this country has the right to send them back and this is also executed. I guess you are not aware of the court rulings regarding deportation back to Greece?
  - DominikR 10y ago
    The ruling stated explicitly that refugees in Greece cannot be guaranteed that their basic human rights will be looked after. So basically the court said that Greece is not safe for refugees. If you know about this ruling then I'm sure you also know about this detail, it is widely known here in Europe. Why do you then give me this reply? What is this about? You just wanting to be right, no matter if you deceive us by not mentioning this fact?

by dalke 10y ago

DominikR 10y ago

You are intentionally "misunderstanding" my comment. Once a refugee enters any country that is deemed safe, he or she has no right to flee any further. It would be really hard to argue in court that someone had reason to flee France. Countries can of course have bi or multilateral laws in place that allow free movement, but in case of the EU we have the Dublin Regulation that explicitly forbids this for refugees. The EU country where a refugee first sets foot on has to take care of the asylum process. If the refugee decides to move to another EU country then this country has the right to send them back and this is also executed.

dalke 10y ago
Well, yes - you make an outrageous comment, I might make an outrageous reply. Also yes, the Dublin Agreement is the current law. That does not make it just. I hold with a minority (alas) party of the country I live in - strike down that unjust law and, yes, require all EU and/or Schengen countries to share the effort of providing asylum. Including Monaco, which seems to be doing a good job of it already. If you want to defend that unjust law, then there's another solution - promote more legal ways to enter the EU, rather than force them through land and dangerous ocean routes, and overloading the border countries. Get rid of carrier liability and let asylum seekers hop a plane into whichever country they want. As it stands, airlines don't want to bear the penalty for transporting someone who might not get refugee status. Charter boats so places which are willing to accept refugees (for example, in Spain, https://www.yahoo.com/news/barcelona-waits-refugees-arent-coming-144943837.html?ref=gs https://www.yahoo.com/news/barcelona-waits-refugees-arent-co... ) don't end up with only a trickle. Quoting from that last link, "human rights are above European legislation".
thesimon 10y ago
> Once a refugee enters any country that is deemed safe, he or she has no right to flee any further. >If the refugee decides to move to another EU country then this country has the right to send them back and this is also executed. I guess you are not aware of the court rulings regarding deportation back to Greece?
- DominikR 10y ago
  The ruling stated explicitly that refugees in Greece cannot be guaranteed that their basic human rights will be looked after. So basically the court said that Greece is not safe for refugees. If you know about this ruling then I'm sure you also know about this detail, it is widely known here in Europe. Why do you then give me this reply? What is this about? You just wanting to be right, no matter if you deceive us by not mentioning this fact?