Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-04-08-Speech-1-120"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020408.9.1-120"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, when someone knocks on Europe’s door, fleeing violence, war or civil war, that person is a refugee under the terms of the Geneva Convention and is applying for asylum in the name of fundamental human rights. That person cannot, in all honesty, be told that he or she has got the wrong street or the wrong house and that it is not here but somewhere else, somewhere in another country, whose name someone will give them, if they insist and insist and if they ask...
It is to put an end to these and other situations that we frequently see in Europe that the Commission has drafted this timely proposal for a regulation, a type of road map for the right to asylum, which states, for each situation and specific case, who must provide an answer and where, which country must examine an application for asylum and, when all is said and done, what door will open to the anguish of a refugee who wants only to see someone with whom they can speak.
The very nature of the problem explains the scope of the initiative. We will not be resolving the entire asylum issue, but we are certainly taking a step forwards. As rapporteur, I take pride in having done everything I could – and my conscience is, therefore, clear – to ensure that this initiative would be approved, supporting the Commission in the fight that it will still have to engage in with some Member States. Not many, I hope. I therefore wish to thank the Members of this House and my colleagues in the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs and most particularly and with great feeling, Mrs Eva Klamt, the draftsman, without whose effort and understanding it would have been extremely difficult for us today to hope for the approval of this Commission initiative. Thank you very much, Mrs Klamt.
The fact is, Mr President, that we have been lawlessly adrift in a sea of good intentions. There have certainly been laws, ratified by those countries that want to, and which apply in some places and not in others; some doors open and others close, and it is this murky area in which a little law is mixed up with no law at all that gives rise to dubious dealings, tricks, skilful manoeuvres and escape from the authorities. And this is how illegal immigration and the organised networks start, with the growth of mafias and crime, involvement in which is inexcusable but which is only possible because States, consisting of well-intentioned individuals, have never agreed on minimum standards for actually making one State responsible for examining an asylum application.
The Commission proposal is a brave one. First of all, it guarantees that an application will actually be examined; it will prevent the confusion caused by multiple applications and refugees being left in limbo, and subjects these laws to its own vigilance and to monitoring by the Court of Justice. Basically, it is grounded in the principle that each Member State is responsible for the illegal entry or stay of a candidate for the right to asylum in its territory, thereby forcing each State to improve its mechanisms for combating illegal immigration. This responsibility, based on objective facts, can only be overridden by additional criteria concerning the importance attached to family group unity. Consequently, minors accompany the asylum application of the adult and unaccompanied minors are transferred, according to the wording that I propose, to a State where they have any relative willing and able to look after them. Similarly, entry or residence criteria can be dispensed with in order to guarantee the unity of the family group when one member has already applied for asylum in a given Member State.
Finally, Mr President, what we are looking at in the initial proposal and in the feasible amendments, and whatever the result of the vote on these may be, is the broadest possible concept of the family: it covers marriage and de facto unions, where the law of any State recognises such arrangements. This would eliminate discrimination on the grounds of gender, recognising a family link for elderly relatives and minors and extending it to other children and other relatives where it can be proved that they lived with or were dependent on a successful applicant in the country of origin. And also, for humanitarian reasons to do with health or other matters, the asylum applicant can, according to the wording approved in my report, go to any relative as long as the State in which the application is made accepts this.
Mr President, the important thing is to ensure that the application for asylum and the refugee who makes this application are given an answer and that the European legal system serves the rights of applicants and Member States’ obligations and prevents a lack of legislation leading to an upsurge in racism and xenophobia. This initiative ensures that we will meet these three objectives and, therefore, I believe that it will be endorsed."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples