Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-04-08-Speech-1-125"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020408.9.1-125"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, part of the answer to that last question would be that, if there was a legal method of entering the UK to claim asylum, a lot of the problems would be solved at Sangatte. In dealing with the Marinho report before us, however, my group has criticised the Dublin Convention for a very long time for a number of reasons, not least because to us it mixes immigration controls with the claiming of asylum, and the two things are not necessarily the same at all.
We are well aware that people choose a particular Member State as their country of destination for a large number of reasons. It may be a country they have heard of. They might have family links there. There may already be a considerable community of people from their own region in the area. The country might have a reputation for dealing fairly with asylum seekers rather than treating them as potential criminals and keeping them restricted. It might offer work opportunities. It might be because of former colonial ties. There might be a language link. There are all sorts of reasons.
There is extensive research showing that asylum seekers settle better, enjoy better mental health, acquire the language of the country of residence more quickly – especially the children – if a number of the above conditions apply. But we know that asylum seekers generally want to contribute to the societies that admit them and do not want to feel like unwanted jetsam condemned to live on charity and tolerance. Positive motivation, then, is extremely important to a successful asylum policy.
For us, Dublin seemed to be based on the premise that the first 'safe' country was good enough. It was also based on the premise that the government then had a duty to deal with those asylum seekers and effectively keep them there. We know that there have been all sorts of problems, both administratively and in terms of human rights, as a result of the Dublin Convention.
The new proposals at least recognise the importance of the family, even if the criteria for definition of 'family', does not go far enough; my group has tabled amendments because we do not believe that the nuclear family is the only viable model. However, the proposals are still based on the premise that a Member State is somehow answerable to all other Member States for their failures to control entry and borders. Not surprisingly, countries with extensive sea or land borders close to countries of origin will be the major points of entry and are thus expected to bear the major responsibility for asylum seekers, bailed out presumably by the refugee fund.
My group does not agree with this approach which is why we have tabled amendments designed to de-link immigration controls from dealing with asylum applications. If we are really fulfilling the duty that Mrs Terrón i Cusí spoke of and we are creating a high-standard, effective and fair common asylum policy – which sometimes I doubt – then the positive factors determining the country where the application is lodged can only act in an additional positive way. If we are not creating that, then people should have the right to choose where they seek asylum."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples