Asylum Department, emotions, politics and rhetoric

 Published 13 hours ago - 466 Views Post

 Naturally, there are asylum seekers who are not entitled to protection. There are certainly criminals seeking asylum. The world is diverse and consists of this and that.

Naturally, there are asylum seekers who are not entitled to protection. It's probably smart individuals selling fabricated stories of people who are willing to take a chance. There are certainly criminals seeking asylum. The world is diverse and consists of this and that. There are few who criticize the current policies in the area who are not aware of this and therefore it is also to suggest that everyone should come here who would like to come. Naturally, it would be ideal. Down with borders. But in today's world it would mean chaos, unfortunately. One issue is that it is easier to move than ever, and another is that there will always be areas of conflict where millions forced to flee. In addition to these millions more who live in inhuman and impossible living conditions.
The Refugee Convention are the following definition of who can be considered a refugee. People who feel that they

 "... Have a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable, or , owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection, or who are stateless and because of such events, is outside the country of his former habitual residence and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it. "
Escape from natural disasters and famine are not covered by this definition which is clearly evident in the later analysis.

 Fear is a subjective feeling states, and are therefore must fear be "well-founded", it means that one must be able to show that it is also objective. The task of the government of the country where the refugee seeking asylum, are investigating the circumstances and background of the applicant to see if the fear is well-founded recently.

 How do we define as "persecution" of the Convention? You come to the conclusion that it can
"... Persecution if it knowingly tolerated by the authorities, or if the authorities refuse, or prove unable, to offer effective protection."
Out of it can be inferred that it does not have to mean that it is the government itself is behind the persecution, but they are either tolerated or is unable to protect the persecuted. The latter may be the case in a country that has collapsed, as was the case with Somalia.

A possible situation that can not be mentioned explicitly, where people are being persecuted by criminals or threatened by conflicts between clans and similar groups, blood revenge, honor killings and the like. This must still be included under that definition, namely that "the authorities refuse, or prove unable, to offer effective protection."

My impression after a quick review of key parts of the Convention is that the reasons themselves for far too long in a conventional sense of what governments and authorities, and do not act enough attention to those cases in which the state is almost just a front for criminal activity , which is the case with a number of former Soviet republics, not to mention Russia itself.

In such societies, the boundaries between criminals and authorities liquid and mixed to an extent many in the West find it difficult to comprehend. We also states where organized crime is a state in the state and is waging war with this, which must be seen to be the case in Mexico today and some parts of Brazil. In these countries, the authorities have even a small advantage and in the case of Brazil, it seems that the government is trying to connect a more solid grip.

How judges authorities organized country people fleeing from such conditions? Is there not a risk that they do not see reality as it is, but instead considers it through lenses colored by civilization? That they regard the government as authorities and not as what they are, a front for criminal activity, a tinge of legitimacy to hide impunity, a game for the scenes?

In Norway supports itself on information from a device called Land Info. This consists of individuals who possess extensive knowledge about different parts of the world and in different fields. Anyway, the world is big and complicated and this group is relatively small compared to the enormous task they have.

It turns out, moreover, that they too often choose to ignore information from various organizations working in the field and therefore have the best and latest knowledge. Instead, it seems that they rely more on sources embassies and the like. While making their travel to different countries but such travel can hardly be said to represent field studies since they are official. One can easily imagine such a journey in the old Soviet Union and how much it would have given the objective knowledge about the conditions there.

As an example of how wrong the information is official government sits on may be, I will take an example from a completely different area; drug policy. Since I lived for many years on the edge of society, I had firsthand knowledge of what was going on underground. Something I particularly noted was that the government at that time was at least a few years after the fact. The heroin had made its appearance in Norway long before either the police or health authorities were aware of this. It was not until the first overdose deaths began to come, that they realized what was happening under their noses.

So this was an example of how government can be on the lag in judging a situation in their own countries. Imagine then how difficult it must be when it comes to countries far away! It also turns out that Landinfo updated on countries like Ethiopia and Iran, but only after having been criticized for a long time, a kritkk that the government has rejected. Meanwhile, one has treated asylum cases based on the erroneous information they had available. One does not have to know the facts and have closed the eyes and ears of certificates that have been received and called into question the official information.

Anyway, one hears the same phrase repeated, those who have been rejected, is obliged to return. When it turns out that the authorities can be serious mistakes in their judgments, it is clear that in some cases, an empty phrase. Those who have been rejected but who knows that this is not in any way change the situation they fled, is not obliged to return. On the contrary. They are obliged to do everything they can to save their lives.

More cases could be mentioned, but it would take too long.
Asylum Research must be defended against abuse. Basically thinking straight. There are people who are not covered by the Refugee Convention but who nevertheless tries. They are desperate and looking for a better life, yes, often after a life at all. Other avenues are closed to them, so they choose the opportunities that are at buds. It's understandable. Anyway you have to say no even if it's hard for the people involved and not easy for those who have to take decisions.

But reality is not so clear that governments and others will have it through their rhetorical exercises. Other things come into play. There are more than two categories here - those who claim asylum and those who have not. A third group are those who are entitled to it, but that gets off on a faulty foundation, because of errors committed during the asylum interview, due to lack of knowledge and information - but that matter can not return voluntarily when they know that no matter what the authorities here think and say, their real fear.

In addition, those who are victims of political tactics. Today authorities note an increasing immigrant hostility in the population, while populist opportunists know fishing for support in such waters. To retain power and prevent the "wrong" group acquires it, they make their strategic choices. In asylum policy they narrow. They move the fence posts as they say. Here the border shall go, they say.

What is the result? Yes, in addition to the knowledge itself may fail, the criteria are tighter hurdle narrowed. Cynically, it does not mean simply that some who would previously have been granted asylum, now falling out, not because they are not persecuted, but because they are not persecuted enough. Not because they are not tortured, but because they have not been tortured enough. Not because they have not been raped, but because rape was not brutal enough and not enough. They are asked to pray for the protection of the same authorities who persecuted, tortured and raped them.

None of this is fantasy. It is taken from actual cases.
Critics of current practice is not to open borders. It's all really about liberalization, either. Criticism has nothing to do with tåreperseri and swarm risk sentiment to do, even though more and more people become upset and cursed when they discover the reality behind the rhetoric. It's about cold, hard facts. It's about something as important as the rule of law.

It is any civilized society foundation. Closer attention to compromise the rule of law, there is cracks in the foundation, so it turns out ultimately to protect society. Legal protection can not be selective. It should include absolutely everyone and especially must include the weakest.

Some of the weakest members are refugees. A civilized society is obliged therefore to see that the law is not their failing, not at any point. This society needs to do, not only out of concern for the weak, but not least to protect themselves, to see if their house.
Those who are willing to compromise on the rule of law, contributes to undermining the basis of society. It is not the critics who pose the greatest danger. On the contrary, it is often those who claim to defend the policy that is dangerous, because they are defending errors committed. Errors that ultimately weakens theAngre .

by Wilfred Hildonen