Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-10-02-Speech-2-080"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20011002.3.2-080"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, we cannot talk about immigrants and immigration without distinguishing between the different types of immigrants. There are at least three different types of immigrants: political refugees, refugees from war zones and economic migrants.
Once this distinction has been made, it immediately becomes clear that a single asylum law cannot cover all three categories, as Mr Evans proposes. Not only does this document fail to correspond to reality, it even goes so far as to demonise the Member States which demand the right to decide whether to recognise the right to asylum on a case-by-case basis, depending on the way the society of the country in question is structured and the adequacy of the reception facilities available, without incurring negative repercussions for anyone.
Instinctively, all of us have always been supportive of those who find themselves in the dreadful situation of being forced to leave their own country and apply for asylum in another, but the level of danger to which the rapporteur would have it conceded that all applicants are exposed in their countries of origin is not always acceptable. He is compelling governments and Member States – to put it in colloquial terms – not to make a fuss and to open their gates without delay, invoking the Geneva Convention as if it were a magic password, a skeleton key, rather than what it actually is, a series of guarantees that place those seeking and those granting asylum on an equal footing.
Mr Evans’ proposal to establish a common minimum standard – as he calls it – actually invalidates this principle by making it too permissive. The same may be said of the proposal to introduce a single procedure – as it is called – which, in practice, takes away from the host State any possibility of verifying the suitability of the applicant, who cannot be denied any right, mind you, and whose only obligation is to produce his credentials, as happens among respectable people.
The problem is that refugees and exiles often provide easy cover for decidedly undesirable guests such as drug dealers, traffickers in human beings and terrorists who pretend to be immigrants and then train as pilots and destroy skyscrapers and all the people working inside.
The caution and controls that the rapporteur is denying the States are the fundamental elements of basic, legitimate protection of the States and their citizens. The Pirker report, which I do support, on a common immigration policy, is much more responsible, not least because it is more balanced, does not make concessions to cheap populism and respects safety measures.
Lastly, to those Members of the left who have attempted once again to bring up the usual controversy against Mr Berlusconi today, I would point out that they are at least a day late. They should read the
; although they have missed the debate, they are still on time for the train of cheap populism
and pointless political speculation."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"Arc-en-ciel"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples