Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-05-18-Speech-4-312"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000518.14.4-312"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, the Karamanou report asks the European Parliament to reject the Finnish proposal to establish, within the European Union, a system for returning illegal immigrants to the Member State responsible. According to this initiative, a Member State which arrests illegal immigrants in its territory could return them to the Member State through which they entered, with the expectation that the latter would probably return them to the third country from which they originally came.
This idea is interesting for three reasons. Firstly, it responds to a genuine problem caused by the abolition of internal borders within Europe. It therefore fills a legal void by establishing a system for the return of illegal immigrants based on the Schengen
and modelled on the Dublin Convention of 1990 on asylum seekers.
Secondly, it forces the Member State which is negligent in monitoring its borders to take responsibility for illegal immigrants who use it to get into neighbouring countries.
Thirdly, it shows the usefulness – whatever the previous speakers may have said – of the Member States’ right of initiative which the Treaty of Amsterdam retained as a transitional measure in matters relating to immigration and the movement of people. In these areas, it is important that the national governments, which are still closer to the people than the Commission, should retain a full right to make proposals and, of course, decide on these.
The Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights totally rejects this Finnish initiative however, and, in so doing, shows a tendency to exaggerate. It uses the pretext of legal shortcomings to reject the whole proposal whereas it could very easily, in a more positive spirit, have itself proposed corrections. However, this initiative is disliked by the federalists who would prefer a less intergovernmental and more Community-based approach, in other words granting more power to the Commission and the European Parliament. It is also disliked by the pro-immigration pressure groups whose influence is apparent in the explanatory statement which highlights the positive contribution of immigration and rejects a supposedly repressive initiative.
This reasoning is, of course, diametrically opposed to ours."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples