Political refugees etc
Discussion
fizz47 said:
mikal83 said:
Probably more than you. Please explain why Arabic people cant go to Israel. Arent there Arabic people already there? Western Ukraine. Georgia, huge country with quite a low population density as is Poland, then theres Russia..... Iran is humongous.
I dont know if you are being serious or not?Honestly I am not trying to sound condescending but I think maybe you need to do a little more research on whats happening in the region.
To illustrate the point as a British Passport Holder I caanot enter Israel and then enter into most Arab / Muslim countries on the same passport.
mikal83 said:
You must be on some sort of wanted list, I have been to Egypt and then 8 months later Israel and saw lots of Arabs when there. The Sinai is all but mt, would make a great new city. Japan, how many refugees have they taken in the last 10 yrs. Germany, yes they are taking more than us, now, but its a lot bigger land/population density etc...Spain/france...
Nothing to do with a wanted list (I assume 
)It's common knowledge that if you have visited Israel many Arab and Muslim countries won't let you in their country if they find out.
article said:
Needless to say, trying to find exact information as to which countries will deny you entrance based upon having an Israeli stamp varies wildly. As one would assume, a country that denies entrance to another country’s citizens based solely on their citizenship is likely not a country with a model bureaucracy staffed with honest, highly-trained personnel who follow strict orders.
However, there does seem to be some consensus as to which countries do restrict access. They are as follows:
Syria
Lebanon
Libya
Kuwait
Iran
Iraq (except the northern Kurdish region)
Sudan
Yemen
There have also been reports of problems entering the following countries:
Saudi Arabia (reportedly not strictly enforced due to pressure by the U.S.)
Malaysia
Pakistan
Algeria
Indonesia
U.A.E.
However, that being said, even a cursory search through Lonely Planet’s thorn tree forum reveals numerous instances of travelers entering the above countries despite having an Israeli stamp — most likely a result of local border guards stamping passports without bothering to spend much time looking through it. Bribes, insistent pleadings, name-dropping and just plain good luck all seemed to have also played a part in travelers getting by these restrictions.
http://www.theexpeditioner.com/2012/03/14/are-you-banned-from-certain-countries-if-you-have-an-israeli-stamp-in-your-passport/However, there does seem to be some consensus as to which countries do restrict access. They are as follows:
Syria
Lebanon
Libya
Kuwait
Iran
Iraq (except the northern Kurdish region)
Sudan
Yemen
There have also been reports of problems entering the following countries:
Saudi Arabia (reportedly not strictly enforced due to pressure by the U.S.)
Malaysia
Pakistan
Algeria
Indonesia
U.A.E.
However, that being said, even a cursory search through Lonely Planet’s thorn tree forum reveals numerous instances of travelers entering the above countries despite having an Israeli stamp — most likely a result of local border guards stamping passports without bothering to spend much time looking through it. Bribes, insistent pleadings, name-dropping and just plain good luck all seemed to have also played a part in travelers getting by these restrictions.
If you are a British passport holder who has visited Israel and wants to then visit say Kuwait the authorities here will issue you with a second passport:
http://pointstobemade.boardingarea.com/2014/03/25/...
It is ludicrous to suggest Syrian refugees will be granted entry to Israel.
BlackLabel said:
http://www.theexpeditioner.com/2012/03/14/are-you-...
If you are a British passport holder who has visited Israel and wants to then visit say Kuwait the authorities here will issue you with a second passport:
http://pointstobemade.boardingarea.com/2014/03/25/...
It is ludicrous to suggest Syrian refugees will be granted entry to Israel.
I was in Israel 3 months ago. There is no permanent record of me being there as Israel do not stamp passports any more - you get a slip to keep with your passport on entry and exit. If you are a British passport holder who has visited Israel and wants to then visit say Kuwait the authorities here will issue you with a second passport:
http://pointstobemade.boardingarea.com/2014/03/25/...
It is ludicrous to suggest Syrian refugees will be granted entry to Israel.
I could quite happily travel to Jordan, Lebanon etc on the same passport with no issues. Doubt that I would want to but I could.
This doesn't make Israel taking Syrian refugees any more likely, but just a correction of getting into Israel.
BlackLabel said:
mikal83 said:
You must be on some sort of wanted list, I have been to Egypt and then 8 months later Israel and saw lots of Arabs when there. The Sinai is all but mt, would make a great new city. Japan, how many refugees have they taken in the last 10 yrs. Germany, yes they are taking more than us, now, but its a lot bigger land/population density etc...Spain/france...
Nothing to do with a wanted list (I assume )It's common knowledge that if you have visited Israel many Arab and Muslim countries won't let you in their country if they find out.
article said:
Needless to say, trying to find exact information as to which countries will deny you entrance based upon having an Israeli stamp varies wildly. As one would assume, a country that denies entrance to another country’s citizens based solely on their citizenship is likely not a country with a model bureaucracy staffed with honest, highly-trained personnel who follow strict orders.
However, there does seem to be some consensus as to which countries do restrict access. They are as follows:
Syria
Lebanon
Libya
Kuwait
Iran
Iraq (except the northern Kurdish region)
Sudan
Yemen
There have also been reports of problems entering the following countries:
Saudi Arabia (reportedly not strictly enforced due to pressure by the U.S.)
Malaysia
Pakistan
Algeria
Indonesia
U.A.E.
However, that being said, even a cursory search through Lonely Planet’s thorn tree forum reveals numerous instances of travelers entering the above countries despite having an Israeli stamp — most likely a result of local border guards stamping passports without bothering to spend much time looking through it. Bribes, insistent pleadings, name-dropping and just plain good luck all seemed to have also played a part in travelers getting by these restrictions.
http://www.theexpeditioner.com/2012/03/14/are-you-banned-from-certain-countries-if-you-have-an-israeli-stamp-in-your-passport/However, there does seem to be some consensus as to which countries do restrict access. They are as follows:
Syria
Lebanon
Libya
Kuwait
Iran
Iraq (except the northern Kurdish region)
Sudan
Yemen
There have also been reports of problems entering the following countries:
Saudi Arabia (reportedly not strictly enforced due to pressure by the U.S.)
Malaysia
Pakistan
Algeria
Indonesia
U.A.E.
However, that being said, even a cursory search through Lonely Planet’s thorn tree forum reveals numerous instances of travelers entering the above countries despite having an Israeli stamp — most likely a result of local border guards stamping passports without bothering to spend much time looking through it. Bribes, insistent pleadings, name-dropping and just plain good luck all seemed to have also played a part in travelers getting by these restrictions.
If you are a British passport holder who has visited Israel and wants to then visit say Kuwait the authorities here will issue you with a second passport:
http://pointstobemade.boardingarea.com/2014/03/25/...
It is ludicrous to suggest Syrian refugees will be granted entry to Israel.
davepoth said:
I don't have an issue with their refugeeship, and there are millions of people with a valid claim. My problem is that they have an obligation under international law to seek asylum in the first safe country they arrive in.
http://www.unhcr.org/3ae68ccec.html
That's the way asylum is supposed to work.
The situation we have in Europe at the moment involves an awful lot of opportunism.
Here's what I'd suggest. All asylum seekers who are not claiming asylum in the first safe country they arrive in are deemed to be economic migrants and will be returned to their country of origin if it is possible to do so.
Can I suggest you read the link you include in your post again. It makes clear that there is no concept of first country of safety and that a refugee can apply in any country. http://www.unhcr.org/3ae68ccec.html
That's the way asylum is supposed to work.
The situation we have in Europe at the moment involves an awful lot of opportunism.
Here's what I'd suggest. All asylum seekers who are not claiming asylum in the first safe country they arrive in are deemed to be economic migrants and will be returned to their country of origin if it is possible to do so.
Which rather means every thing in your post is completely wrong.
Mrr T said:
Can I suggest you read the link you include in your post again. It makes clear that there is no concept of first country of safety and that a refugee can apply in any country.
Which rather means every thing in your post is completely wrong.
Can I suggest you read it as well? Which rather means every thing in your post is completely wrong.
11. According to this use of the concept, asylum-seekers/refugees may be returned to countries where they have, or could have, sought asylum and where their safety would not be jeopardized, whether in that country or through return there from to the country of origin.
So they can apply wherever they like, but the country they apply to are well within their rights to send them back to the previous safe country they came from.
Which makes the sanctimony in your post completely....wrong.
bodhi said:
Can I suggest you read it as well?
11. According to this use of the concept, asylum-seekers/refugees may be returned to countries where they have, or could have, sought asylum and where their safety would not be jeopardized, whether in that country or through return there from to the country of origin.
So they can apply wherever they like, but the country they apply to are well within their rights to send them back to the previous safe country they came from.
Which makes the sanctimony in your post completely....wrong.
He is a slow learner, been pointed out in detail previously.11. According to this use of the concept, asylum-seekers/refugees may be returned to countries where they have, or could have, sought asylum and where their safety would not be jeopardized, whether in that country or through return there from to the country of origin.
So they can apply wherever they like, but the country they apply to are well within their rights to send them back to the previous safe country they came from.
Which makes the sanctimony in your post completely....wrong.
Mrr T said:
Can I suggest you read the link you include in your post again. It makes clear that there is no concept of first country of safety and that a refugee can apply in any country.
Which rather means every thing in your post is completely wrong.
You didn't read it all the way down, did you?Which rather means every thing in your post is completely wrong.
article said:
13. Conclusions adopted by the Executive Committee have also variously given credence to the notion. In this connection, Conclusion 15 (XXX) (1979), para. (h) (vi) is noteworthy:
"Agreements providing for the return by States of persons who have entered their territory from another contracting State in an unlawful manner should be applied in respect of asylum seekers with due regard to their special situation".
Reference might also be made to Conclusion No. 58 (XL) (1989) on Irregular Movements, paras. (f) and (g), which together accept that a refugee/asylum-seeker may be returned to the country of first asylum if the person:
can enter and remain there,
is protected there against refoulement and is treated in accordance with basic human standards,
will not be subject there to persecution or threats to safety and liberty (on this, see also Conclusion No. 15, para (k)),
has access to a durable solution.
Your counter quote?"Agreements providing for the return by States of persons who have entered their territory from another contracting State in an unlawful manner should be applied in respect of asylum seekers with due regard to their special situation".
Reference might also be made to Conclusion No. 58 (XL) (1989) on Irregular Movements, paras. (f) and (g), which together accept that a refugee/asylum-seeker may be returned to the country of first asylum if the person:
can enter and remain there,
is protected there against refoulement and is treated in accordance with basic human standards,
will not be subject there to persecution or threats to safety and liberty (on this, see also Conclusion No. 15, para (k)),
has access to a durable solution.
Finlandia said:
PRTVR said:
Finlandia said:
mikal83 said:
Sweden etc aint exactly Libya is it!
Some parts are quite close 
will we be taking in refugees from Sweden next.OP - I don't know if you're playing devils advocate, you're being wilfully ignorant or just plain daft - and it pains me when I get hooked into replying to these kind of incendiary threads... but... The fact of the matter is that as it stands by far the largest provider of asylum to the people of Iraq and Syria (and Somalia and Sudan to lesser extent) is the neighbouring country Jordan (fellow non Arabic speakers). By the end of this year there will be over 1million Syrians with refugee status in Jordan, a country ill equipped to deal with them and suffering under the consequences, a country quite frankly doing a f
king good job of holding their st together in the face of unreasonable pressure - as they have been doing since the end of the ottoman empire. Quite frankly we should be thanking Jordan, without them there would be over 1 million more people clambering to get across the Med, you can wager your house Israel aren't going to allow 1million displaced Syrians to tent up in their back yard!
king good job of holding their st together in the face of unreasonable pressure - as they have been doing since the end of the ottoman empire. Quite frankly we should be thanking Jordan, without them there would be over 1 million more people clambering to get across the Med, you can wager your house Israel aren't going to allow 1million displaced Syrians to tent up in their back yard!PRTVR said:
Finlandia said:
PRTVR said:
Finlandia said:
mikal83 said:
Sweden etc aint exactly Libya is it!
Some parts are quite close will we be taking in refugees from Sweden next.
Charlie Bucket said:
eatcustard said:
Why dont the Syria men say and fight IS, they should be banned from leaving the country, bunch of cowards. If it was me I would say and fight and take as many of them with me as possible.
Quite right. Those who want to live, let them fight, and those who do not want to fight in this world of eternal struggle do not deserve to live.FredClogs said:
OP - I don't know if you're playing devils advocate, you're being wilfully ignorant or just plain daft - and it pains me when I get hooked into replying to these kind of incendiary threads... but... The fact of the matter is that as it stands by far the largest provider of asylum to the people of Iraq and Syria (and Somalia and Sudan to lesser extent) is the neighbouring country Jordan (fellow non Arabic speakers). By the end of this year there will be over 1million Syrians with refugee status in Jordan, a country ill equipped to deal with them and suffering under the consequences, a country quite frankly doing a fking good job of holding their st together in the face of unreasonable pressure - as they have been doing since the end of the ottoman empire. Quite frankly we should be thanking Jordan, without them there would be over 1 million more people clambering to get across the Med, you can wager your house Israel aren't going to allow 1million displaced Syrians to tent up in their back yard!
king good job of holding their st together in the face of unreasonable pressure - as they have been doing since the end of the ottoman empire. Quite frankly we should be thanking Jordan, without them there would be over 1 million more people clambering to get across the Med, you can wager your house Israel aren't going to allow 1million displaced Syrians to tent up in their back yard!
The Jordanians also host 2m+ Palestinians. It has almost got to the point where the refugee population in Jordan is almost as large as the actual number of citizens there.
Even Pakistan, which is hardly the richest or most attractive place on earth, has around 2 million (Afghan) refugees living there.
bodhi said:
Mrr T said:
Can I suggest you read the link you include in your post again. It makes clear that there is no concept of first country of safety and that a refugee can apply in any country.
Which rather means every thing in your post is completely wrong.
Can I suggest you read it as well? Which rather means every thing in your post is completely wrong.
11. According to this use of the concept, asylum-seekers/refugees may be returned to countries where they have, or could have, sought asylum and where their safety would not be jeopardized, whether in that country or through return there from to the country of origin.
So they can apply wherever they like, but the country they apply to are well within their rights to send them back to the previous safe country they came from.
Which makes the sanctimony in your post completely....wrong.
Point 12
"that asylum should not be refused solely on the grounds that it could have been sought elsewhere.
davepoth said:
Mrr T said:
Can I suggest you read the link you include in your post again. It makes clear that there is no concept of first country of safety and that a refugee can apply in any country.
Which rather means every thing in your post is completely wrong.
You didn't read it all the way down, did you?Which rather means every thing in your post is completely wrong.
article said:
13. Conclusions adopted by the Executive Committee have also variously given credence to the notion. In this connection, Conclusion 15 (XXX) (1979), para. (h) (vi) is noteworthy:
"Agreements providing for the return by States of persons who have entered their territory from another contracting State in an unlawful manner should be applied in respect of asylum seekers with due regard to their special situation".
Reference might also be made to Conclusion No. 58 (XL) (1989) on Irregular Movements, paras. (f) and (g), which together accept that a refugee/asylum-seeker may be returned to the country of first asylum if the person:
can enter and remain there,
is protected there against refoulement and is treated in accordance with basic human standards,
will not be subject there to persecution or threats to safety and liberty (on this, see also Conclusion No. 15, para (k)),
has access to a durable solution.
Your counter quote?"Agreements providing for the return by States of persons who have entered their territory from another contracting State in an unlawful manner should be applied in respect of asylum seekers with due regard to their special situation".
Reference might also be made to Conclusion No. 58 (XL) (1989) on Irregular Movements, paras. (f) and (g), which together accept that a refugee/asylum-seeker may be returned to the country of first asylum if the person:
can enter and remain there,
is protected there against refoulement and is treated in accordance with basic human standards,
will not be subject there to persecution or threats to safety and liberty (on this, see also Conclusion No. 15, para (k)),
has access to a durable solution.
"that asylum should not be refused solely on the grounds that it could have been sought elsewhere.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff