Tuesday, January 08, 2008

Illegal Immigration to be abolished says MEP

It is a fact that millions of illegal immigrants are living in Europe. Life as an illegal is a modern form of slavery and must therefore be abolished.

So says Manfred Weber in his report to be voted upon next week,
on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals
To say that I am somewhat startled by this is an understatement, and it is serious as he points out,
"This is the first time that the co-decision procedure has applied to Parliament's consideration of a draft common return procedure directive."
So in other words this will be law. It does not seem to have crossed the young chaps mind that modern equivalent of slavery is slavery, as those in Mauritania and Sudan will testify. The point is that slavery is involuntary and immigration, even illegal immigration, is voluntary. Now if you are talking about those being trafficked into sex slavery, then call it what it is slavery and it must be stopped. But don't equate illegal immigration with slavery, you cheapen the concept.

Oh and how the hell does he think that illegal immigration can be abolished? There are a couple of ways of doing it as far as my imagination works,
1) Abolish all immigration controls in their entirety.
2) Set up a network of maxim guns at all points around the EU border and blow them all away as soon as they appear over the horizon.
3) Make the EU such an unattractive place to live, with a collapsing economy, dropping living standards, failing governmental system and so on as to make it unattractive to prospective migrants.
Aha, now I see the strategy.


Anonymous said...

You quote from an explanatory statement which has no legal value.

The proposal actually deals with the procedures for the return of illegal immigrants.

A little intellectual rigour would go a long way. Having said that, at least you make a effort to draw attention to current legislative proposals which is something lacking on most other anti-EU sites.

Elaib Harvey said...

The explanatory statement has no legal value as you point out, but it does point out the lack of intellectual rigour of the draftsman if it is worded like that.
On the substance of the report itself I hope to get back to that later today.

Anonymous said...

First, it is in the explanatory statement, second the sentence is out of context... This directive is about RETURN not about letting everyone in as you suggest.
It is also a bit out of context because the paragraph ends as follows: "European policy-makers have to decide either to grant illegal immigrants residence permits or send them back to their home countries."
The word 'abolish'is not really relevant indeed here but context is always important to avoid inaccuracy.
FYI, the vote will not take place next week as planned because of no agreement on the draft was found. It is postposed to May.

Elaib Harvey said...

There seems to be quite a few agenda items falling off this week.

I do mention the name of the report inmy piece so I think it is clear that the report is dealing with returns policy.

Given that Mr Weber is CSU my suspicion is that he is more minded to take the "Send them home" line rather than the "let them all in" line.

My problem with the report as it stands (from an admittedly cursory reading) is that a single asylum policy as proposed would strip the right of individual nations to decide who does, and who does not
constitute a legitimate immigrant. This of course has massive ramifications.

I guess we will wait and see what May brings
However if, as you say, the word abolish is not relevant, then why use it?

Anonymous said...

Why some words are used instead of other in European documents often proceeds from long negotiations and translation difficulties... I don't think it's an excuse.. but as the first comment said, the statement as no legal value so words are less disputed.
I understand your concern but just want to remind you that asylum seekers are not immigrants... If they are indeed recognised as people in need of protection and granted refugee status (or another type of protection) is because the competent administration decided that those people are threatened in their country and should not be sent back). A European asylum policy is important as there are currently wide differences (from 0 to 10) from one Member States to another in recognition rates... and that is not normal...

Elaib Harvey said...

OK, but not all asylum seekers are asylum seekers, and there is the rub. That 'if' you use is a very problematic thing indeed.

In the area of immigration/refugee/asylum it is a very convienient confusion for those who would have a supranational solution.

Of course the situation of the UKL (and of course Ireland and indeed Malta) is significantly different to that of mainland Europe. It is far aesier to control those coming in and those going out from Islands than it is for countries with land borders.

Consul-At-Arms said...

I've quoted you and linked to you here: http://consul-at-arms.blogspot.com/2008/01/re-illegal-immigration-to-be-abolished.html

Anonymous said...

Barry Wolfe, advogado da Suprema Corte na Inglaterra e País de Gales pode agilizar
seu processo de,
- Aplicação para Vistos de Estudantes
- Visto de Noivo(a)
- Visto de Noivo para Casamento do Mesmo Sexo (”Civil Partner”)
- Visto de Dependente de Cidadão Europeu
- Work Permit
- Imigração em Geral
- Apelação contra Recusa do Visto
Informacoes no bmwvisas@gmail.com