Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-09-20-Speech-4-081"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010920.9.4-081"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
As might have been feared, Parliament has just approved the proposal for a directive brought in by the Commission on the granting of refugee status, the laxity of which I condemned in the course of the preceding debate. Parliament has also, however, found the means to add amendments which worsen these defects still further and strengthen our opposition.
In particular, the original proposal envisaged, in principle, that an appeal against a ruling rejecting a request for asylum would have a suspensive effect, permitting the asylum-seeker to remain in the territory of the country in question while awaiting a final decision, but States would be able to claim an exception to this rule in certain instances, for example, where a request was rejected as manifestly unfounded. The European Parliament, however, removed this exception by means of Amendment No 85. The result of this is that, even where a request is manifestly unfounded, the applicant could then remain on our territory while awaiting a final ruling on his appeal. This intention is confirmed by the adoption of Amendment No 5, which seeks to create a "right to remain on the territory of the country of asylum until the reaching of a final decision". Furthermore, the adoption of Amendment No 96 prevents Member States from dodging this disaster because it prevents them from abolishing the option of appealing where a request for asylum has been turned down on the grounds of being manifestly unfounded.
All these amendments are extremely serious, because they aim to settle notoriously persistent asylum seekers down for months on end to await a definitive ruling, which is bound to be negative. In the meantime, however, they will, of course, have disappeared and gone underground.
Those who voted for these provisions know full well what they are doing. They want to promote massive immigration, as demonstrated by the rejection of Amendment No 126 which stated that a request for asylum is manifestly unfounded if it is made only "for economic reasons or with the sole object of escaping from a general situation of poverty or from an armed conflict". The blow that this would deal to our countries could contribute to destabilising them even further."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples