Asylum/Limits

Asylum/Limits

• Racists say: Why should an uneducated low IQ citizen of a high crime third world failed state have the right to go to a first world country and have all the rights to health services, schools, that generations of Europeans worked hard to build. With extra privileges that most local long term residents do not have: to get translators in school, affirmative action and black privilege to riot and disobey police.

• Racists say: Are there limits to Asylum? Hundreds of Millions coming into Europe and the US?

• Racists say: Diversity is strength-NOT. Migration brings criminal people, Muslim Jihad terrorists, low IQ people, high violence people who bring crime and change the culture of peaceful low crime cities and villages.

• R Differences in crime and IQ are hereditary. Thus immigration creates a permanent underclass, lowering national IQ, increasing crime. Add to this the dysgenics of higher reproductive rates of low IQ people, even within races ^{[citation needed]}

The above short abstract's summary statements are (hopefully) explained, elucidated, and proven in the detailed texts below.

Template:Under construction

Trigger warning: racist articles cited

Naughty Question: Why Do We Assume That Asylum Seekers Have A Right To Resettlement In A FIRST-WORLD Country?

One of the great heroines of patriotic immigration reform is Ann Corcoran, whose blog titled Refugee Resettlement Watch relentlessly chronicles the follies and crookedness of America’s refugee policy.

Ann also covers other countries when there’s a point of general interest. The other day she had a post about Australia, which poses a very interesting question I’ve never heard posed before, what Winston Churchill would have called a naughty question.

Australia’s been plagued by illegal immigrants arriving by boat. The Australian government has taken a pretty stern line with these people, called “asylum seekers” in the mainstream media, but in the great majority just illegal economic migrants. They’ve put them in camps on remote islands, that sort of thing.Flier-English-low-res[1]

Well, back in April the Australian Immigration Minister Scott Morrison asked the naughty question, which is: Why do we assume that asylum seekers have a right to resettlement in a first-world country? If, as they claim, they just want to escape from persecution, why not let other smaller, less-developed countries give them a home? / Refugee status no ticket to the first world, says Scott Morrison , Sydney Morning Herald, April 7, 2014

Mr. Morrison has answered his naughty question with action: he has cut a deal with Cambodia to accept some of the “asylum seekers.”

The so-called charities who rake in fat government grants for settling these bogus refugees are all spitting mad at Mr. Morrison, which is good. And as Ann says, quote:

Can you just imagine how ticked-off [United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees] Antonio Guterres must be at Australia! He likely fears that some other countries might grow a spine!

Mexicans: Now They Are Claiming Asylum in Droves

Mexican invader pests are flooding the border with a new gimmick to get in, and naturally the Obama administration is on board (if not the source of the scam). The gate-crashers claim asylum because they are scaredy-scared of Mexican drug violence: all the flockers have to do is say the magic keywords that they have a “credible fear of persecution.”(See earlier: Asylum Fraud Is The New Immigrant Visa by Federale, and earlier “credible fear” coverage as far back as 2004. )

Wait, weren’t we told that nobody from Mexico is coming any more??

And anyway, “persecution” is quite different from a general high level of violence in society.

Judicial Watch reports that Mexicans can purchase a $300 video that instructs them what to say to maximize chances of being allowed to remain in the US.

Incidentally, not all regions of Mexico are overrun with drug gangs. For instance, Yucatan’s “Mayan Riviera” is booming and offers jobs and safety to willing workers. Fearful Mexes could easily scurry to a safer area within their own wealthy nation (#14 in GDP!).

One might think that an up-and-coming country with a growing middle class might discourage such low-life behavior by its citizens, but Mexico remains addicted to the easy-money remittances from its expats ($21 billion in 2012) and can’t pull the needle out of its arm.

EOIR Statistics Expose Asylum Farce

((see original article for links))

The credible fear review process used by arriving aliens claiming asylum—in order to avoid immediate removal by Department of Homeland Security (DHS) immigration inspectors—has been exposed for the charade that it is by the DHS` evil twin of the federal immigration bureaucracy: the Justice Department`s Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR).

The proof is a statistical gem buried in the EOIR`s statistical report for fiscal year 2003. [PDF] During the entire year, the EOIR reported that it received only 43 aliens that the DHS had found not credible in the credible fear interview process. Untold hundreds, if not thousands, were found to be "credible" and thus avoided immediate removal at ports of entry nationwide. (See credible fear—Table 3, Page C2).

So why is this significant?

When the DHS finds asylum applicants "credible" and waives summary removal, they are released from custody to continue their journey into the United States. They have the benefit of full asylum hearings and the right to hide out by litigating in the EOIR Immigration Court swamp.

As a practical matter, they`re home free. The Department of Justice`s Office of Inspector General reported that 97 percent of all asylum-seekers from ANY country who were released from immigration custody were never apprehended again by the federal government, and were never deported. [PDF pages 15-16].

So, while the aliens are supposedly applying for asylum, they are in reality abusing a process that has become nothing more than a rubber stamp.

(Trigger warning: extremely racist articles quoted)

Desperate Swedes threaten pig farm next to asylum center

Gullberg is about a five hour drive from Stockholm, Sweden’s capital Plans for a new immigration centre in Gullberg have already been strongly opposed by local residents and on Wednesday it was reported that a group of campaigners had sent a letter to the Swedish Migration Board (Migrationsverket) pledging to breed pigs nearby in order to deter Muslims from seeking asylum in the town.

The note, signed by what described itself as the “interest group for Gullberg’s survival” said that it was trying to create a “probably impossible situation for some religious people, especially Muslims”, according to Sveriges Radio.

Local politician Henry Sandahl from Sweden’s Countryside Party (Markbygdspartiet) told the broadcaster that he agreed with the sentiment of the letter.

“You know that Muslims are not friends with pigs,” he said.

At this point in the story there is much sniffing and snorting from Swedish elitists about how silly this idea is. You can read it yourself.

Then this! Sweden will not survive an open door policy toward Muslims from Syria. Here we learn how high the number of asylum seekers has risen.

Sweden became the first European country in 2013 to grant automatic residency to Syrian refugees and has since seen asylum requests rise to record levels, which are still expected to reach about 90,000 in 2015.

To cope with an increasing flow of refugees, the Swedish Migration Board announced in March that it was more than tripling the maximum number of residents allowed at asylum centres from 200 to 650.

Will there come a day when Swedes seek asylum in America—but surely not in Minnesota!

This reminds me, a number of years ago Maryland had a Muslim state legislator who actually introduced a bill in the legislature that would make it harder for Maryland pig farmers to make a living. The bill, disguised as an animal rights bill, failed and he is no longer a state delegate.

Go here for our complete ‘Invasion of Europe’ series, and here for a very long list of posts on Sweden. If someone wants to write a book about the death of Sweden, they can start their research right here at RRW since we have been chronicling the colonization there for years.

Dumb and Demanding: Asylum Seekers in Germany Climb a Tree

Dumb and Demanding: Asylum Seekers in Germany Climb a Tree

Thousands from the unfriendly and dysfunctional third world have descended upon the shrinking outposts of civilization, demanding access to maximum free stuff from the hard-working taxpayer. Germany is a popular target of foreign moochers because it is wealthy — a result of its citizens’ industriousness.

Below, asylum pests in Munich ensconce themselves in a tree to demand full benefits and permission to stay in Germany — just because they want it.

The problem is the asylum system itself, where economic migrants are allowed to stay in first-world nations based on spurious claims of suffering. Foreign freeloaders then develop a massive sense of entitlement based on the belief they can move into a functioning country and stick their snouts into the gravy train.

“Man Arrested” (I. E. Nigerian Asylum Seeker) In ICELAND For Giving Women HIV

July 28, 2015, 5:15 pm

For this report of an African asylum seeker infecting women in Iceland with HIV, the English Language Iceland Monitor uses the the traditional “Man Arrested” style, but says the accused is of “foreign extraction”. (You can’t tell what race he is, because the police have put a blanket over his head, above.)

Police have arrested a man, said to be of foreign extraction, on suspicion of deliberately infecting young women in Iceland with HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.

Police are currently investigating the case, particularly as regards whether or not more women may have been in contact with the man and also been infected.

British Asylum Scandal Undermining Elite Immigration Enthusiasm

As Migration Watch UK, a non-partisan immigration reform group, put it:

“Public concern is not just about abuse of the immigration system. It is also about the nature and scale of immigration which is the highest in our history.”

Unfortunately, both Tony Blair`s Labour Party and the Conservative opposition are united in pretending that Britain`s immigration woes end with asylum. At the April 6th summit, Blair distinguished between asylum policy, which needed reform, and immigration policy more generally, which doesn`t.

VDARE.COM readers will be familiar with the (politically correct) argument. As Home Secretary David Blunkett put it: “We need people to do the jobs that we require, but we need them to do so legally, openly and to contribute to our economy.“

Moderate Main stream Asylum Doubts

The Right to Seek Asylum: A Dwindling Right?

The Need for a New Approach—Balancing State Sovereignty with the Protection of Refugees

The ultimate answer to this problem would be to eliminate the crises around the world that cause people to seek refugee status. In this respect, more pro-active and preventative diplomatic efforts on the part of the international community are required to assist in peacefully resolving many conflicts, such as ethnic or tribal-based secessionist disputes, before they develop into environments which foster well-founded fears of persecution. Unless and until such cooperative and pacific dispute resolution mechanisms become a practical reality, however, it appears that alternative measures must be taken which provide genuine asylum seekers with humanitarian assistance and protection from persecution, and at the same time take into account the financial and social pressures on states traditionally capable of accommodating refugees.

One possible approach could be for developed countries to work together to establish a centralized international immigration system to fairly allocate refugees among the developed countries according to their respective sizes, populations, and resources. Alternatively, developed countries might consider establishing and supporting, on a multilateral basis, temporary refugee communities outside of their borders in territories of amenable third countries. Such temporary facilities would provide refugees with short term protection and assistance. Unlike past arrangements such as the strategy at Guantanamo Bay, however, future accommodations should either provide refugees with meaningful opportunities to apply for asylum in other countries, or incorporate equitable resettlement plans to prevent refugees from being placed in long term "limbo".

In the absence of concerted efforts on the part of developed countries to find a balance between domestic concerns over proliferating refugee crises and the need to provide refugees with humanitarian assistance and genuine protection from persecution, current trends suggest that the right to seek asylum is in danger of becoming a right without substance.

Migration: No milk, less honey. Many migrants think Britain is the promised land. Is it?

As usual, reader's comments are more informative than the press report. This is due to msm lying press self censorship and press codes.

LIMITS TO EUROPEAN ASYLUM

http://webmagazine.maastrichtuniversity.nl/index.php/research/globalisation/item/502-limits-to-european-asylum

In 2014, more than 140,000 asylum seekers made their way across the Mediterranean Sea towards the Italian islands of Lampedusa and Sicily. Thousands drowned en route. In summer 2015, the Common European Asylum System (CEAS) will come into effect. Will this centralisation of the approach to asylum issues across EU member states help to solve problems like those in Lampedusa? Khalid Koser, professor of Conflict, Peace and Security, and Maarten Vink, professor of Political Science, are moderately enthusiastic. “It provides a minimum standard”, says Vink. But according to Koser, “In practice a centralised system is a fantasy.”

In fact, the EU has had a common European asylum system for years; the implementation in 2015 of the CEAS, which guarantees the same minimum rules for immigration and treatment of asylum seekers across member states, is a mere formality. A centralised system has its advantages, in Koser’s view, though this depends on one’s perspective. After all, what is good for a member state may be bad for an asylum seeker. For instance, centralisation should counter what is known as ‘asylum shopping’. “When different member states have different systems, asylum seekers will aim for the country with the most favourable regulations. In addition, centralisation helps to even out the disproportionate burden faced by countries on the front line, like Italy, Greese and Malta”, Koser explains. “In theory, anyway. In practice, a centralised system is a fantasy. National asylum systems prevail over this common arrangement. Just look at the differences in the allocation and recognition statistics in the different member states.”

How Many People Can Get U.S. Asylum?

U.S. immigration law doesn't set a limit on the number of people granted asylum each year, but the president does set a limit on refugees.

Rethinking Asylum: History, Purpose, and Limits. By Matthew E. Price .

Rethinking Asylum: History, Purpose, and Limits. By Matthew E. Price. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009. x + 279 pp. Paperback £17.99. ISBN 978 0 521 70747 3.

This work aims to reassess the theoretical foundations of asylum and to offer a theory that explains and justifies the focus of this institution on assisting one of the several categories of forced migrants, namely, individuals falling under the scope of application of the UN Refugee Convention. By offering a sound and coherent analysis of the political nature of asylum, it constitutes a valuable contribution to debates on the roots and purpose of this institution.

The opening chapter explores the historical foundations of asylum and its focus on persecution. The next chapter highlights the political nature of asylum and its continuing relevance, while Chapters 3 and 4 examine what constitutes persecution. Chapter 5 explores the desired nature of asylum as surrogate membership of the political community in the state of refuge. The final chapter focuses on the barriers …

Rethinking Asylum

Each year, hundreds of thousands of people apply for asylum in Europe, North America, and Australia. Some fear political persecution and genocide; some are escaping civil war or environmental catastrophe; others flee poverty, crime, or domestic violence. Who should qualify for asylum? Traditionally, asylum has been reserved for the targets of government persecution, but many believe that its scope should be widened to protect others exposed to serious harm. Matthew Price argues for retaining asylum's focus on persecution - even as other types of refugee aid are expanded - and offers a framework for deciding what constitutes persecution. Asylum, he argues, not only protects refugees but also expresses political values by condemning states for mistreating those refugees. Price's argument explains not only why asylum remains politically relevant and valuable, but also why states should dismantle many of the barriers they have erected against asylum seekers over the last fifteen years.