NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3707770.stm

http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/09/28/wimm28.xml&sSheet=/portal/2004/09/28/ixportal.html

This is good news. :) And I must say that I'm suprised, pleasantly, that Otto Schily supports this idea. And that Schröder didn't come crashing down on him yet. Even the EU commission is in favor!!!!

No decision has been made yet, and I don't see it happening personally.

Any such move would be purely popularist, I doubt it would really solve any problems - plus it would probably be in violation of human rights.

Any such move would be purely popularist, I doubt it would really solve any problems - plus it would probably be in violation of human rights.
I don´t think so: it is our legitimate right also in order to prevent the influx of terrorists. Such camps can be used for wannabe-refugees to apply for asylum in Africa. That would be a better solution than the current one were people try through illegal means to come over. Many boats sunk. And almost all people are sent back anyway.
So, it is better to arrange it in a more orderly fassion. And that is to make it possible for people to apply for asylum over there and to support refugee camps over there.
I see it as much better than to import the refugees to do something for them in their own country or at least on their own continent.
I think it is a good idea by Otto Schily - from the political left btw (SPD).
It is good that the EU is pushing this thing now.

I support it as long as it's done properly. The camps should be in decent conditions and their human rights should be protected. The good thing about this is that it could effectively filter out the bogus asylum seekers from the people genuinely fleeing persecution. The situation now just means that bogus asylum seekers who have their applications rejected just disappear.

I don´t think so: it is our legitimate right also in order to prevent the influx of terrorists. Such camps can be used for wannabe-refugees to apply for asylum in Africa. That would be a better solution than the current one were people try through illegal means to come over. Many boats sunk. And almost all people are sent back anyway.
So, it is better to arrange it in a more orderly fassion. And that is to make it possible for people to apply for asylum over there and to support refugee camps over there.
I see it as much better than to import the refugees to do something for them in their own country or at least on their own continent.
I think it is a good idea by Otto Schily - from the political left btw (SPD).
It is good that the EU is pushing this thing now.

It doesn't matter to me if it came from the left, right, centre, top or bottom!

I can just see it causing genuine asylum seekers to be kept in some kind of camp in effective captivity. I see that as a breach of human rights.

Yes, we have in Europe an illegal immigration problem. Yes, the boats sinking are terrible. But, I don't think forming camps is the correct solution. I am sure it will blocked by some members anyway. Clearly the idea would be a vote-winning proposal in places like Germany, Britain and Italy - the countries with the biggest problem, and also where xenophobia against asylum seekers seems most prominant. I'm guessing that might be why the German social democrats are looking at it, as they are currently not so high in the polls.

It doesn't matter to me if it came from the left, right, centre, top or bottom!

I can just see it causing genuine asylum seekers to be kept in some kind of camp in effective captivity. I see that as a breach of human rights.

Yes, we have in Europe an illegal immigration problem. Yes, the boats sinking are terrible. But, I don't think forming camps is the correct solution. I am sure it will blocked by some members anyway. Clearly the idea would be a vote-winning proposal in places like Germany, Britain and Italy - the countries with the biggest problem, and also where xenophobia against asylum seekers seems most prominant. I'm guessing that might be why the German social democrats are looking at it, as they are currently not so high in the polls.

Indeed, these plans border on being immoral, and jave little to none long term validity.

Yes, we have in Europe an illegal immigration problem. Yes, the boats sinking are terrible. But, I don't think forming camps is the correct solution. I am sure it will blocked by some members anyway. Clearly the idea would be a vote-winning proposal in places like Germany, Britain and Italy - the countries with the biggest problem, and also where xenophobia against asylum seekers seems most prominant. I'm guessing that might be why the German social democrats are looking at it, as they are currently not so high in the polls.
True, for shure. But it is better that the democratic parties stress this topic rather than to leave it to the extremists.
You saw what happened in France (Le Pen), Austria (Haider) and Pim Fortuyn (Netherlands).
There were some successes of extreme parties in local elections in the 1990s in Germany. But after this issue was tackled by the big parties - especially the conservative government of that time via a change of the constituition (the SPD finally gave in in 1993) the situation was improved and the number of refugees coming in per year dropped from almost 500,000 in 1992 to less than 100,000 in the end of the 1990s. Currently it is not such a big problem any more, since we don´t allow Italy and the East Europeans to sent refugees who are coming to them to us - which was possible due to the legal situation up until 1993. Germany was unable to sent them back up until then.
The problem was in that sense partly moved away from us to Italy. Now, we need to help them. It would be irresponsible to block such an proposal. Or is Sweden willing to take refugees from Italy?
I don´t think such a policy would require unanimity. A qualified majority would be enough. And I see a good prospect that this gets passed. Sweden alone can´t veto it. And I consider it likely that aside Britain Denmark and the Netherlands would back it, as well as meditereanean countries (especially Italy and Greece). The East Europeans don´t have any stake there - so why should they vote against it?
Then we have to pull the French on bord - they have a conservative governement and have adopted a tougher policy on immigration as well - and then it is likely to pass.

True, for shure. But it is better that the democratic parties stress this topic rather than to leave it to the extremists.
You saw what happened in France (Le Pen), Austria (Haider) and Pim Fortuyn (Netherlands).
There were some successes of extreme parties in local elections in the 1990s in Germany. But after this issue was tackled by the big parties - especially the conservative government of that time via a change of the constituition (the SPD finally gave in in 1993) the situation was improved and the number of refugees coming in per year dropped from almost 500,000 in 1992 to less than 100,000 in the end of the 1990s. Currently it is not such a big problem any more, since we don´t allow Italy and the East Europeans to sent refugees who are coming to them to us - which was possible due to the legal situation up until 1993. Germany was unable to sent them back up until then.
The problem was in that sense partly moved away from us to Italy. Now, we need to help them. It would be irresponsible to block such an proposal. Or is Sweden willing to take refugees from Italy?
I don´t think such a policy would require unanimity. A qualified majority would be enough. And I see a good prospect that this gets passed. Sweden alone can´t veto it. And I consider it likely that aside Britain Denmark and the Netherlands would back it, as well as meditereanean countries (especially Italy and Greece). The East Europeans don´t have any stake there - so why should they vote against it?
Then we have to pull the French on bord - they have a conservative governement and have adopted a tougher policy on immigration as well - and then it is likely to pass.

If preventing the extreme parties from dealing with this means stealing their clothes I think that is a very bad sign.

If you look at the statistics you will see we have a very high proportion of immigrants living in Sweden, so we are certainly not being hypocritical in any opposition to this (if indeed that does become the government policy, although according to the Svenska Dagbladet our migrationminister is sceptical of the plan). The latest I heard, Spain was the most prominant country against this, so not all the countries around the Med are in favour.

If you look at the statistics you will see we have a very high proportion of immigrants living in Sweden, so we are certainly not being hypocritical in any opposition to this (if indeed that does become the government policy, although according to the Svenska Dagbladet our migrationminister is sceptical of the plan). The latest I heard, Spain was the most prominant country against this, so not all the countries around the Med are in favour.
The Spains are ruled by socialists now. There is also disagreement in the German government. The multi-culti Greens are of course against it. But nobody cares what they say.
Italy is certainly supporting it, as well as Austria. And I´m pretty shure that the conservative government of Greece is also in favour of it.
Today Europe is not dominated by the political left anymore. Sweden should get used to it. Blair and (to some degree) Schröder are rather centrists - centre-left admittedly and Schröder more to the left, but still pretty centrists. So, they can´t completly ignore what people think.

The Spains are ruled by socialists now. There is also disagreement in the German government. The multi-culti Greens are of course against it. But nobody cares what they say.
Italy is certainly supporting it, as well as Austria. And I´m pretty shure that the conservative government of Greece is also in favour of it.
Today Europe is not dominated by the political left anymore. Sweden should get used to it. Blair and (to some degree) Schröder are rather centrists - centre-left admittedly and Schröder more to the left, but still pretty centrists. So, they can´t completly ignore what people think.

I don't really think this is anything to do with what solely Sweden thinks, so I don't know why you are trying to turn this argument this way. For instance, we have fringe extreme neo-Nazi groups who I'm sure are partying extra hard tonight thanks to this proposal. I'm sure some of our mainstream parties may come out in support of it as well, who knows - it's too early to say. I don't think you should assume that all Swedes are socialists!

Anyway, to me this is not about left or right politics. It's about human rights. And as I explained above, I believe that these camps would be against human rights.

No decision has been made yet, and I don't see it happening personally.
The Italians already started to set up the first camps in Lybia.

Can't see anything good come from this personally, which is usually a good indication that it will happen.

Blair and (to some degree) Schröder are rather centrists - centre-left admittedly and Schröder more to the left, but still pretty centrists. So, they can´t completly ignore what people think.
I doubt Blair will be against it. Since this originally was his idea to begin with.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3707770.stm

http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/09/28/wimm28.xml&sSheet=/portal/2004/09/28/ixportal.html

This is good news. :) And I must say that I'm suprised, pleasantly, that Otto Schily supports this idea. And that Schröder didn't come crashing down on him yet. Even the EU commission is in favor!!!!
they are trying to get a few % in the polls.
but in the end this would change nothing.

berlusconi had the right idea here. sink the refugee ships in the mediteran sea and finance some humanitarian aid projects in afrika.
Zuckerbrot und Peitsche.

I don't really think this is anything to do with what solely Sweden thinks, so I don't know why you are trying to turn this argument this way. For instance, we have fringe extreme neo-Nazi groups who I'm sure are partying extra hard tonight thanks to this proposal. I'm sure some of our mainstream parties may come out in support of it as well, who knows - it's too early to say. I don't think you should assume that all Swedes are socialists! .
I don´t think so: If the democratic parties are pushing those issues there is no room for them. We had that problem in the early 1990s when there was a big wave of asylum seekers (500,000 in 1992). At that time the extreme right had successes. When the law was changed in order to restrict it (in 1993 - in the following years the number was drooping below 100,000 each year in the end of the 1990s) those extremists lost ground and fall out of local parliaments (below 5%). So, I think such laws would also help in the fight against right-wing extremism.

I know that not all Swedes are socialists. Though your country is dominated by them since decades. And that is not the case for other countries in Europe. At the end of the 90s the EU countries were dominated by the political left. In 1999 left-wing parties were part of the governments in 13 out of 15 countries. That has changed dramaticly. In Europe a new wind is waving. And this wind is not coming from the left. And in contrast to you I welcome that development. I don´t like the right-wing populists - like Haider or Fortuyn or Le Pen - but I welcome the shift towards the centre-right. In Austria (1999), Italy (2001), Netherlands (2002), France (2002), Greece (2004) and many others. The pendulum is going to the other side and I welcome that. That you - as a socialists - are having problems with it I do understand. I had a problem with the 13 out of 15 socialists dominated governments - at the end of the 90s. At the end we are going to see a compromise: Neither you get what you want and I´m not going to get what I want. That is the democratic process. There is always a compromise - though it may be closer to my position than to yours given the new majority situation in the EU.

I don´t think so: If the democratic parties are pushing those issues there is no room for them. We had that problem in the early 1990s when there was a big wave of asylum seekers (500,000 in 1992). At that time the extreme right had successes. When the law was changed in order to restrict it (in 1993 - in the following years the number was drooping below 100,000 each year in the end of the 1990s) those extremists lost ground and fall out of local parliaments (below 5%). So, I think such laws would also help in the fight against right-wing extremism.

I know that not all Swedes are socialists. Though your country is dominated by them since decades. And that is not the case for other countries in Europe. At the end of the 90s the EU countries were dominated by the political left. In 1999 left-wing parties were part of the governments in 13 out of 15 countries. That has changed dramaticly. In Europe a new wind is waving. And this wind is not coming from the left. And in contrast to you I welcome that development. I don´t like the right-wing populists - like Haider or Fortuyn or Le Pen - but I welcome the shift towards the centre-right. In Austria (1999), Italy (2001), Netherlands (2002), France (2002), Greece (2004) and many others. The pendulum is going to the other side and I welcome that. That you - as a socialists - are having problems with it I do understand. I had a problem with the 13 out of 15 socialists dominated governments - at the end of the 90s. At the end we are going to see a compromise: Neither you get what you want and I´m not going to get what I want. That is the democratic process. There is always a compromise - though it may be closer to my position than to yours given the new majority situation in the EU.

I've never said I am or am not a socialist. Nor have I ever said that I do or do not welcome the current swing to the right in European politics. Please do not make false assumptions.

And again you turn this debate into being about one country (Sweden), which I don't see as being the point of the topic. Anyhow, there are more non-socialists in the Swedish parliament at the moment than socialists.

If preventing the extreme parties from dealing with this means stealing their clothes I think that is a very bad sign..
No, it is a good sign since it prevents them from playing with those isssues. Worked in France and Germany in the early 1990s. And it worked in the Netherlands. After the reelection the other parties took the issue over and the List Pim Fortuyn lost most of its votes.

If If you look at the statistics you will see we have a very high proportion of immigrants living in Sweden.
Though lower than other countries - lieke for exaple the Federal Republic of Germany. Especially West Germany (where it is above ten percent).
And living in a city where about a third of the (officialy registered) citizens are non-german nationals I don´t think that any swedish city can rival with that, though?
Also in respect with the muslim population which is 4% in Germany (mainly concentrated in West German cities) while only 1% in Sweden.

No, it is a good sign since it prevents them from playing with those isssues. Worked in France and Germany in the early 1990s. And it worked in the Netherlands. After the reelection the other parties took the issue over and the List Pim Fortuyn lost most of its votes.


Though lower than other countries - lieke for exaple the Federal Republic of Germany. Especially West Germany (where it is above ten percent).
And living in a city where about a third of the (officialy registered) citizens are non-german nationals I don´t think that any swedish city can rival with that, though?
Also in respect with the muslim population which is 4% in Germany (mainly concentrated in West German cities) while only 1% in Sweden.

11% of the current Swedish population was born outside Sweden, which is pretty high.

So if the other parties in Weimar Germany had advocated killing Jews to prevent the Nazis coming to power that would have been fine? And yes, I realise the Germans didn't vote for the Nazis due to this policy, but it was nonetheless there (even if very little emphasis was put on it in electoral campaigns).

I've never said I am or am not a socialist. Nor have I ever said that I do or do not welcome the current swing to the right in European politics. Please do not make false assumptions. .
So, you are not? I think I make the right assumptions. I withdraw the word socialist. Lets say: Centre-left. And I know that the Sweden is dominated by the centre left since many decades -except the time of Carl Bildt.
You can admit it. I don´t have a problem with that. Different positions belong to a democratic society. Though that Sweden is more left-wing than other countries is not a secret.

And again you turn this debate into being about one country (Sweden), which I don't see as being the point of the topic. Anyhow, there are more non-socialists in the Swedish parliament at the moment than socialists.
I know that - but the centre-left is dominating and the socialists are ruling the country since a long time.
And the one who turned this debate in a national issue was you by labeling Geramny, Italy and Britain as the most xenophobic countries - suggesting that this was dominating those "barbaric" nations in contrast to "civilised" Scandinavia. There is no Dansk Folkeparti (DF), there is no Pim Fortuyn, there is no Haider, there is no Le Pen - only Germany, Italy and Britain are "evil", right?

So, you are not? I think I make the right assumptions. I withdraw the word socialist. Lets say: Centre-left. And I know that the Sweden is dominated by the centre left since many decades -except the time of Carl Bildt.
You can admit it. I don´t have a problem with that. Different positions belong to a democratic society. Though that Sweden is more left-wing than other countries is not a secret.


I know that - but the centre-left is dominating and the socialists are ruling the country since a long time.
And the one who turned this debate in a national issue was you by labeling Geramny, Italy and Britain as the most xenophobic countries - suggesting that this was dominating those "barbaric" nations in contrast to "civilised" Scandinavia. There is no Dansk Folkeparti (DF), there is no Pim Fortuyn, there is no Haider, there is no Le Pen - only Germany, Italy and Britain are "evil", right?

Sweden is no more left-wing than any other Nordic country or indeed much of Europe. Yes, it's true our governments have been very much dominated by SAP for most of last 100 years, but if you look at the composition of the seats in parliament, there's often a majority of non-socialist members. It just so happens that SAP always seems to be the biggest single party.

I don't think that any of those countries are barbaric, just that there are xenophobic elements there that parties such as Le Pen's and Haider's have played on. Now it would seem that Schröder's SPD, faced with what looks like forthcoming electoral disaster, are looking for a method of hitching onto some kind of populism by appealing to base values (in this case xenophobia against immigrants/asylum seekers).

As I said, there are xenophobic elements here also. I just don't think our mainstream parties would try to appeal to them, and actually I don't think it would work (thankfully) if they did try.

Anyway, all that said, as I said before, for me this is not about where one sits on the political pendulum; it's about human rights.

11% of the current Swedish population was born outside Sweden, which is pretty high.).
Though according to Fischer Weltalmanach 2004 only 6,7% of the population are foreigners compared to 8,9% in Germany. And given the place of birth- there are many more since of all the border changes.
Sorry: I don´t count your finish population as foreigners.
And your muslim population is much lower.

So if the other parties in Weimar Germany had advocated killing Jews to prevent the Nazis coming to power that would have been fine?).
You are polemising the issue. We don´t talk about people who already live in the country but about immigration. I think every nation has the right to conduct its own immigration. You can conduct yours - we can conduct ours. You have no right to interfere in the immigration policy of Germany, Italy or Britain.

And yes, I realise the Germans didn't vote for the Nazis due to this policy, but it was nonetheless there (even if very little emphasis was put on it in electoral campaigns).
It had more to do with the economic collapse. Therefore I´m concerned about the situation in many parts of the world -especially the muslim world. Iran is developing nuclear weapons.
Fortunately most countries don´t have the ressources to do much mischief - like Germany had. On the other hand, the things which happened in Ruanda in 1994 where not so much different.
You are right that we have to work against xenophobia. But lets be serious: Do you think that allowing unlimmited immigration is going to help against xenophobia? Do you think that unlimmitted immigration which is causing the fear that we are overrun by the immigrants and their different culture and religion is going to decrease xenophobia?
Sorry, I don´t think so. We have to regulate immigration and to battle xenophobia. Both is necessary. It is not an either-or decision: BOTH needs to be done.

Though according to Fischer Weltalmanach 2004 only 6,7% of the population are foreigners compared to 8,9% in Germany. And given the place of birth- there are many more since of all the border changes.
Sorry: I don´t count your finish population as foreigners.
And your muslim population is much lower.


You are polemising the issue. We don´t talk about people who already live in the country but about immigration. I think every nation has the right to conduct its own immigration. You can conduct yours - we can conduct ours. You have no right to interfere in the immigration policy of Germany, Italy or Britain.



I admit I was going on an American web-site, so it was probably wrong! I'll go to the statistiska centralbyrån's website in a second and find out what it says.

Anyway, how can the Finns not be considered foreign-born??? Many of them moved to Sweden from Finland when Finland was still a lot less developed than Sweden (after the Winter and Continuation Wars for instance). But anyway, they only make up a fifth or less of our immigrants anyway.

I'm not interfering in the immigration policy of Germany or Britain or Italy! It's the EU that's trying to if you remember!

I don't think that any of those countries are barbaric, just that there are xenophobic elements there that parties such as Le Pen's and Haider's have played on. Now it would seem that Schröder's SPD, faced with what looks like forthcoming electoral disaster, are looking for a method of hitching onto some kind of populism by appealing to base values (in this case xenophobia against immigrants/asylum seekers). .
I think you are wrong. Schröder with his Turkey policy (pro-membership) is already going much against public opinion - and against the conservative opposition, which is playing the anti-Turk card. Is someone who is against a Turkish EU membership a xenophobe? Is one who is for regulating migration a xenophobe? I don´t think so. I think that this political correctness which is demonising anything which is not pro-immigration and pro multi-culti as right-extremism or even as Nazi is leading to much frustation which is actually used by right-wing populists which are violationg the taboos of political correctness, which is banning even to talk about certain issues.
And because of that the democratic parties have to adress those - especially the democratic right. If they don´t do so and ignore the problems in those areas it is no surprise that right-wing populists have a basis for their propaganda by hijacking those issues and problems for their purposes.

I think you are wrong. Schröder with his Turkey policy (pro-membership) is already going much against public opinion - and against the conservative opposition, which is playing the anti-Turk card. Is someone who is against a Turkish EU membership a xenophobe? Is one who is for regulating migration a xenophobe? I don´t think so. I think that this political correctness which is demonising anything which is not pro-immigration and pro multi-culti as right-extremism or even as Nazi is leading to much frustation which is actually used by right-wing populists which are violationg the taboos of political correctness, which is banning even to talk about certain issues.
And because of that the democratic parties have to adress those - especially the democratic right. If they don´t do so and ignore the problems in those areas it is no surprise that right-wing populists have a basis for their propaganda by hijacking those issues and problems for their purposes.

I am very sorry, but I have to say that you missed my original point. Quite possibly my fault for not conveying it clearly enough.

I'm not against immigration restrictions at all. I am against any form of transit or immigration camps that would put genuine asylum seekers into captivity and breach human rights.

Anyway, how can the Finns not be considered foreign-born??? Many of them moved to Sweden from Finland when Finland was still a lot less developed than Sweden (after the Winter and Continuation Wars for instance). But anyway, they only make up a fifth or less of our immigrants anyway.!
Should I consider Austrians as foreigners. Or German nationals who were born outside Germany in its current borders. Or people who migrated to Germany (from Russia, Kazakstan, Kirgistan or Eastern Europe) because they have somewhere German ancestors - althoug many don´t speak any German, they are considered German.
So, quite frankly spoken if we take all those facts into account there are many non-German born people which appear as Germans in the statistic.
But we have ius sanguinis - right of the blood - anyway. It is the decendency which determines the citizenship not the place of bird (ius soli - right of the ground) like in other countries.
Though people can apply for citizenship.

I'm not interfering in the immigration policy of Germany or Britain or Italy! It's the EU that's trying to if you remember!
Traditionally Germany is against EU interference as well - since it fears that it would force itself to open up even more - which we are already doing against all other EU countries (like all other countries have to do as well). But for the policy towards the non-EU world the Federal Republic reserves itself the right to regulate this by itself - with an immigration law, which was passed just this year, firstly regulating migration on the basis of a law and on clear criterias and not on administrative decisions of the governments.
However: lets be honest. If the EU would conduct an immigration policy you liked you wouldn´t oppose it. Germany wouldn´t oppose an EU immigration policy which it likes. That is clear and understandable.
I think if this is not done through the EU Italy will do it anyway outside of the EU.
There could be a "coalition of the willing" for it.
Though I think - at least as long as Germany has this government - it will only support it under an EU umbrella. That would change if there is a change of government, which I hope for.

I am very sorry, but I have to say that you missed my original point. Quite possibly my fault for not conveying it clearly enough.
I'm not against immigration restrictions at all. I am against any form of transit or immigration camps that would put genuine asylum seekers into captivity and breach human rights.
Such camps exist in the EU currently as well. Or what do you think about the airport camps - which exist in Germany but also in other countries. Germany has declared the airports exterritorial arreas. So, people are legally not in Germany, they are in no-mans-land. And they are usually sent back - at least if they come from another EU country (since they can apply for asylum over there - of course without getting the benefits of the German welfare state), from another country which is a signatory of the Geneva convention, or if they come from a country which has not signed Geneva convention but which is having an asylum practise that is in compliance with the Geneva convention. Those countries are defined by law by both chambers of parliament and reviewed every few years.
With this policy Germany was able to reduce the asylum seekers. Though it occasionally offers to take "contingent" refugees in order to help other countries with current problems -like during the Kosovo crisis. Although Geramny is not legally abliged - according to the Geneva convention and national law - to do so.

I'm not against immigration restrictions at all. I am against any form of transit or immigration camps that would put genuine asylum seekers into captivity and breach human rights.
I´m unaware that this would mean it. I think that it is however reasonable to make shure that those people are not illegaly migrating. If that means that people who are rejected asylum seekers are put into custody - for a limited period prior to their departure - I see that as justified. I think it is limmited to a few months only. And they are not in prinsons. And they are treated humanily. I don´t see this policy -which is conducted by many nations -as a violation of human rights. There is no right of immigration. If people don´t want to be there they can return home. I think that is better anyway - except in extreme cases. But those people are shurely still treated much better than in the countries they came from. That can´t even be compared.
But those who aren´t should not be encouraged to come through a lax asylum policy (like before the 1990s). That is only encouraging economic refugees who pay thousands of Euros to get to Europe. That are really not people who are "political refugees". They ought to be sent back as soon as possible and the criminals who arrange those transports (through eastern Europe or today more through the Mediteranean) need to be punished accordingly.
I think such transit camps in North Africa can be an efficent instrument to prevent human smuggling - a dangerous criminal practise which is very often costing the death of the refugees on boats or in containers without air. That is the present reality. I think and hope that can be improved with the establishment of such transit camps.

I´m unaware that this would mean it. I think that it is however reasonable to make shure that those people are not illegaly migrating. If that means that people who are rejected asylum seekers are put into custody - for a limited period prior to their departure - I see that as justified. I think it is limmited to a few months only. And they are not in prinsons. And they are treated humanily. I don´t see this policy -which is conducted by many nations -as a violation of human rights. There is no right of immigration. If people don´t want to be there they can return home. I think that is better anyway - except in extreme cases. But those people are shurely still treated much better than in the countries they came from. That can´t even be compared.
But those who aren´t should not be encouraged to come through a lax asylum policy (like before the 1990s). That is only encouraging economic refugees who pay thousands of Euros to get to Europe. That are really not people who are "political refugees". They ought to be sent back as soon as possible and the criminals who arrange those transports (through eastern Europe or today more through the Mediteranean) need to be punished accordingly.
I think such transit camps in North Africa can be an efficent instrument to prevent human smuggling - a dangerous criminal practise which is very often costing the death of the refugees on boats or in containers without air. That is the present reality. I think and hope that can be improved with the establishment of such transit camps.
Now I'm confused? I thought that this whole topic was about the plan for camps in northern Africa.

Anyway, has been an interesting debate... especially learning about the German airport camps, I didn't know about this before....

Now I'm afraid I have to check-out... I have a beer waiting for me in a bar somewhere in Uppsala centrum... bye for now!

Now I'm afraid I have to check-out... I have a beer waiting for me in a bar somewhere in Uppsala centrum... bye for now!
Cheers, Chin-chin, Prost and whatever it is in Swedish!

Cheers, Chin-chin, Prost and whatever it is in Swedish!

2.55 in the morning, and I'm back.... and straight to Nationstates... should I maybe be worried?! :)

But thanks... and our word is of course skål! Although worryingly, the words chin-chin are becoming popular!

God natt, guten nacht and bon nuit everyone!