Protected by who? Where does it come from? If you live in the real world you will know that "protected human rights" are lies westerners tell themselves while they buy cheap goods from china made by slaves.
> Crossing borders to seek asylum is not breaking the law.
If I bring my family here without following immigration procedures they will be deported and I will likely lose my residence permit or be rejected on renewal.
> Your question “why do people who break the laws get favorable treatment here?” is a loaded question based on false premise and should not be answered.
No false premise. Most people who come to Europe without following immigration procedures are not refugees. Just because they think they should have the right to live in Europe does not make them refugees, and circumventing immigration laws is the definition of breaking the law.
> However, even with a right to seek asylum many refugees need to smuggle them self into their prospected host country.
If they come from countries not bordering Europe, why do they have to come to Europe? Is Europe the only safe place in the world? And why is Europe responsible for their safety in the rest of the world?
> Over half of confirmed migrant deaths occur while crossing the Mediterranean in unsafe conditions.
How many of these migrants would qualify as refugees? And how is it Europe's fault if they get killed outside of Europe.
> why do [refugees] get favorable treatment here?
> They most often don’t. But they should. The reason being is that their homes are not safe. They need to flee to a new country or risk a worse fate. In other words, they need help. A humane society would give everyone help that needs it.
You conflate refugees and people who illegally enter Europe with no legal basis and do not qualify as refugees. And there are many more of the second category than the first.
Not having a safe home does is not even considered in the definition of a Refugee by UNHRC, and even if it was, generally UNHRC does not recognize the right of those with legitimate refugee status to just decide where they would like to go.
Everyone who needs money is not entitled to mine. I would much rather send it to my family than give it to people who break the laws and enter the country where I reside with no legal basis which places additional tax burdens on me.
I don’t know what you are talking about. You are free to enter Europe and ask for asylum. This is a protected human right under international law, protected by the UN. Your asylum may be rejected and you may be deported, however you never entered the country illegally, as you were asking for asylum, which is not illegal in most (all?) countries in Europe.
What often happens in Europe is that you are illegally deported however. Often an asylum claim is illegally dismissed by authorities, a person has a right to a hearing but is deported before they have a chance, a person is sick and is not allowed to be deported under some conditions etc. A person may have entered using a fake ID, however this is still not a crime if they are fleeing, as official IDs are not something one can easily get when fleeing ones home, and the law most often reflects that (but is then broken by the authorities).
When you hear about what refugees have to go through in the real world you would be surprised by how little authorities abide by their own law and how easily they are willing to break their own laws to evade helping people that need it.
> I don’t know what you are talking about. You are free to enter Europe and ask for asylum. This is a protected human right under international law, protected by the UN.
Are you talking about Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? This reads "Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution." Note the qualification, "asylum FROM PERSECUTION."
If you enter Europe, and you do not qualify as persecuted, how exactly does this right apply to you? And if this right does not apply, how exactly is it legal? What law gives you that right?
What limiting principle is there to this right you think exists? Can I travel to any country in the world and just say I'm seeking Asylum without any basis? Where do you get this notion?
I think this dialog is entering some legal territory and I am not a lawyer and can only offer speculation. I’m sure a human rights lawyer can actually fill us in on the specifics here. So my speculation is as follows:
I was under the impression that if you cannot ask for asylum outside of a country’s border, and there are no legal ways for you to enter it (e.g. you need a visa but there is no way for you to acquire one since there is no embassy that will grant you one; or you don’t have a passport since your country’s government won’t issue you one), then you are not exactly committing a crime if you enter “illegally”.
I think you might be assuming that many (most?) asylum seekers are actually doing so under a false premise, and they have no grounds for the asylum application. I’m sure there are some for which this applies, but I doubt it is a sizable number. At least I would need to see some credible source before I would belief so.
I would speculate that by far the majority asylum seekers that are rejected their application and deported, are rejected on technical grounds, not because they applied under a false premise. If that is the case, the majority of refugees, even those that enter illegally, and are eventually rejected and deported, commit no crime in the process.
Protected by who? Where does it come from? If you live in the real world you will know that "protected human rights" are lies westerners tell themselves while they buy cheap goods from china made by slaves.
> Crossing borders to seek asylum is not breaking the law.
If I bring my family here without following immigration procedures they will be deported and I will likely lose my residence permit or be rejected on renewal.
> Your question “why do people who break the laws get favorable treatment here?” is a loaded question based on false premise and should not be answered.
No false premise. Most people who come to Europe without following immigration procedures are not refugees. Just because they think they should have the right to live in Europe does not make them refugees, and circumventing immigration laws is the definition of breaking the law.
> However, even with a right to seek asylum many refugees need to smuggle them self into their prospected host country.
If they come from countries not bordering Europe, why do they have to come to Europe? Is Europe the only safe place in the world? And why is Europe responsible for their safety in the rest of the world?
> Over half of confirmed migrant deaths occur while crossing the Mediterranean in unsafe conditions.
How many of these migrants would qualify as refugees? And how is it Europe's fault if they get killed outside of Europe.
> why do [refugees] get favorable treatment here?
> They most often don’t. But they should. The reason being is that their homes are not safe. They need to flee to a new country or risk a worse fate. In other words, they need help. A humane society would give everyone help that needs it.
You conflate refugees and people who illegally enter Europe with no legal basis and do not qualify as refugees. And there are many more of the second category than the first.
Not having a safe home does is not even considered in the definition of a Refugee by UNHRC, and even if it was, generally UNHRC does not recognize the right of those with legitimate refugee status to just decide where they would like to go.
Everyone who needs money is not entitled to mine. I would much rather send it to my family than give it to people who break the laws and enter the country where I reside with no legal basis which places additional tax burdens on me.