Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-09-23-Speech-1-067"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020923.5.1-067"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, once again we have reason to discuss EU asylum policy; unfortunately it is under the banner of security. In fact, what we have to do today is examine two Commission documents which, due to their nature, scope and objectives, should not be considered together, unless we want to cause confusion.
This joint consideration of two equally important and sensitive dossiers gives the impression that asylum seekers are potential terrorists. The Commission, however, clearly states in its report that it is unlikely that terrorists would ask to exercise the right to asylum. This is a true paradox. The Member States are in fact trying to escape their international commitments by invoking exclusion clauses where a loose interpretation of these clauses would free them from their commitments, even though these commitments are fundamental with regard to human rights.
Given all the difficulties posed by the subject of asylum, and despite all our differences, we must not forget that we are dealing with victims, not with criminals. Only an integrated approach and restrictive application of exclusion clauses can guarantee compliance with the Member States’ international obligations with regard to asylum. Return, expulsion and extradition policies must provide every possible guarantee of respect for human rights, in particular when these people face the death penalty in their country of origin, as well as the social and domestic situation of each country. Do we have the right to send people to countries where civil war is raging, or where there is a daily risk of death in addition to economic and social misery, such as in Algeria or other countries? Non-expulsion is, however, required by the European Union in our association agreements. Extradition implicitly jeopardises the right of every individual to seek asylum when their life is threatened.
A European solution must also be found with regard to asylum seekers deprived of the right of asylum, who find themselves without any rights and further swell the ranks of illegal immigrants exploited by unscrupulous employers for their own gain, while these people live in inhumane conditions within our European democracies. These men and women have waited such a long time to receive a response from the authorities that they have often formed strong links with the country they are in, having children there, for example, and their links with their country of origin have often become weaker or non-existent. Expelling them would therefore uproot them once again. The only solution now would be to legalise their presence.
I would simply like to make these few points in order to ensure universal respect for fundamental rights, but I support the rapporteur."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples