Immigration in Europe - HumanitarianNet - Universidad de Deusto

More documents

Recommendations

Info

46 BELEN GARCIA DE VINUESApeople who genuinely view themselves as refugees, but, understandably,without having expert knowledge about legal definitions and thresholdsthat must be met. Furthermore, not every so-called “economic migrant”is by definition an abuser or a cheater. Many economic migrants whohave recourse to asylum systems may lack sufficient understanding thatthe solution to their problems lies within international developmentand economic co-operation, not within the institution of asylum.Finally, Governments and communities have, as a matter of course,legitimate interests to ensure that their hospitality and generosity arenot exploited. Problems of real and serious misuse of States’ asylumsystems can and should find their effective redress within theestablished national procedures for the determination of refugee status,but certainly not through political discourse edging on xenophobia or bydowngrading generally accepted protection standards. Likewise,refugee applicants have duties to the country of asylum to conform toits laws and regulations, and to fully co-operate with and facilitate thetasks of the authorities charged with status determination.It should, however, be recognised that in the adversarial refugeestatus determination systems which presently exist in most EuropeanStates, it is often difficult for refugee claimants to know what attitudeto take towards the status determiners who simultaneously act as bothjudges and prosecutors. Given the prosecutorial posture dominating therefugee status determination process — with the authorities challengingevery asylum claim brought before them — claimants often feelimpelled likewise to employ whatever means possible to “defendthemselves” rather than simply recounting truthfully the facts andevents surrounding their claims. Refugee status determination shouldnot be an adversarial contest. Justice would be better served if therefugee applicant and the decision-maker properly shared the duty toascertain all the relevant facts rather than oppose each other. Thisrequires, above all, the restoration of mutual trust and confidence inthe refugee status determination processes.It is important to bear in mind that the instruments to be adoptedunder the asylum agenda represent but a first phase towards acommon asylum system. Important changes are still necessary to achievethis goal. In UNHCR’s view, important gains in efficiency can be made insuch a common asylum system, while still maintaining high standards offairness. Such gains should override the costs of necessary legislativechanges on a national level. The development of such a commonsystem requires, however, willingness on the part of Member States toquestion and revise current national systems and practices. Reservations,“standstill” clauses and other flexible provisions in EC instruments
BUILDING A RIGHTS BASED ASYLUM SYSTEM FOR EUROPE: A UNHCR PERSPECTIVE 47setting minimum standards on asylum eventually defeat the purpose ofharmonisation, while agreement at the lowest common denominatorcan only be harmful to bona fide asylum-seekers and refugees. However,this development also requires that all of us, who are committed to thedefence of the rights of asylum seekers and refugees in Europe, do notgive up a continued dialogue with our Governments and other actors,in order to uphold the human rights of these persons, which, as saidbefore, is a matter of international law and obligations, and not of theState’s discretionary immigration policy.ReferencesUK HOUSE OF LORDS (2000): Regina v. Secretary of State for the Home Department,Ex parte Adan and Aitseguer, Judgement of 19 December 2000.UNHCR (unpublished): “Towards a common European asylum system: a viewfrom UNHCR”. Draft article to be published in the European Series.
Page 6: No part of this publication, includ
Page 9: PrefaceThis book has been published
Page 13 and 14: INTRODUCTION 13introducing a new Im
Page 15 and 16: INTRODUCTION 15need to expand the i
Page 17 and 18: INTRODUCTION 17much wider than the
Page 19 and 20: INTRODUCTION 19return (loc.cit.). C
Page 21 and 22: INTRODUCTION 21has a fairly homogen
Page 23 and 24: INTRODUCTION 23…states are an arc
Page 25 and 26: INTRODUCTION 25making. Gallagher, b
Page 27 and 28: INTRODUCTION 27the immediate, short
Page 29 and 30: Framing the issues and meeting the
Page 31 and 32: FRAMING THE ISSUES AND MEETING THE
Page 41 and 42: Building a rights based asylum syst
Page 43 and 44: BUILDING A RIGHTS BASED ASYLUM SYST
Page 45: BUILDING A RIGHTS BASED ASYLUM SYST
Page 50 and 51: 50 JAN NIESSEN & YONGMI SCHIBELpopu
Page 52 and 53: 52 JAN NIESSEN & YONGMI SCHIBELLife
Page 54 and 55: 54 JAN NIESSEN & YONGMI SCHIBELrate
Page 56 and 57: 56 JAN NIESSEN & YONGMI SCHIBELdesc
Page 58 and 59: 58 JAN NIESSEN & YONGMI SCHIBELthat
Page 60 and 61: 60 JAN NIESSEN & YONGMI SCHIBELSuch
Page 62 and 63: 62 JAN NIESSEN & YONGMI SCHIBELagei
Page 64 and 65: 64 JAN NIESSEN & YONGMI SCHIBELeffe
Page 66 and 67: 66 JAN NIESSEN & YONGMI SCHIBELlong
Page 68 and 69: 68 JAN NIESSEN & YONGMI SCHIBELrepr
Page 70 and 71: 70 JAN NIESSEN & YONGMI SCHIBELpres
Page 72 and 73: 72 JAN NIESSEN & YONGMI SCHIBELRefe
Page 74 and 75: 74 JAN NIESSEN & YONGMI SCHIBELPUNC
Page 76 and 77: 76 SAMUEL BOUTRUCHEAsylum and immig
Page 78 and 79: 78 SAMUEL BOUTRUCHEprocess in the f
Page 80 and 81: 80 SAMUEL BOUTRUCHEwhich may challe
Page 82 and 83: 82 SAMUEL BOUTRUCHEin this type of
Page 84 and 85: 84 SAMUEL BOUTRUCHEcountries regard
Page 86 and 87: 86 SAMUEL BOUTRUCHEinstrumentalisin
Page 88 and 89: 88 SAMUEL BOUTRUCHENOLL, G. (2002):
Page 90 and 91: 90 MARCO MARTINIELLOSince 2000, a n
Page 92 and 93: 92 MARCO MARTINIELLOimmigration gro
Page 94 and 95: 94 MARCO MARTINIELLOand even univer
Page 96 and 97:
96 MARCO MARTINIELLObetween ministe
Page 98 and 99:
98 MATTI SIMILÄThe Finnish nation
Page 100 and 101:
100 MATTI SIMILÄFinnish minorities
Page 102 and 103:
102 MATTI SIMILÄRussia or Estonia.
Page 104 and 105:
104 MATTI SIMILÄdo not adapt easil
Page 106 and 107:
106 MATTI SIMILÄof London. Resettl
Page 108 and 109:
108 MATTI SIMILÄbe admitted into t
Page 110 and 111:
110 MATTI SIMILÄthe proposal for t
Page 112 and 113:
112 MATTI SIMILÄJAAKKOLA, M. (2000
Page 114 and 115:
114 EMMANUEL MA MUNGthat he/she dis
Page 116 and 117:
116 EMMANUEL MA MUNGTable 1Immigran
Page 118 and 119:
118 EMMANUEL MA MUNGThe 1990s: immi
Page 120 and 121:
120 EMMANUEL MA MUNGresources to su
Page 122 and 123:
122 EMMANUEL MA MUNGThe right-wing
Page 124 and 125:
124 EMMANUEL MA MUNGsettlement or t
Page 127 and 128:
Germany - still a reluctant country
Page 129 and 130:
GERMANY - STILL A RELUCTANT COUNTRY
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Between guilt and gift: the politic
Page 151 and 152:
BETWEEN GUILT AND GIFT: THE POLITIC
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157:
Page 160 and 161:
160 JEROEN DOOMERNIKcontinuing with
Page 162 and 163:
162 JEROEN DOOMERNIKanother influx
Page 164 and 165:
164 JEROEN DOOMERNIKthe original gu
Page 166 and 167:
166 JEROEN DOOMERNIKscarce. It seem
Page 168 and 169:
168 JEROEN DOOMERNIKis granted all
Page 170 and 171:
170 JEROEN DOOMERNIKthe four larges
Page 173 and 174:
Spanish immigration policies:a crit
Page 175 and 176:
SPANISH IMMIGRATION POLICIES: A CRI
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189:
Page 192 and 193:
192 CHARLES HUSBANDExternally the d
Page 194 and 195:
194 CHARLES HUSBANDdecency. Notions
Page 196 and 197:
196 CHARLES HUSBANDdecency, racist
Page 198 and 199:
198 CHARLES HUSBANDaddressed in a s
Page 200 and 201:
200 CHARLES HUSBANDFrom 1990 onward
Page 202 and 203:
202 CHARLES HUSBANDany defence of r
Page 204 and 205:
204 CHARLES HUSBANDtolerance and a
Page 206 and 207:
206 CHARLES HUSBANDHOBSBAWN, E.J.;
Page 208 and 209:
208 JOACHIM BRÜßaspects, coldness
Page 210 and 211:
210 JOACHIM BRÜßin-group and out-
Page 212 and 213:
212 JOACHIM BRÜßthe Gymnasium is
Page 214 and 215:
214 JOACHIM BRÜßassume that they
Page 216 and 217:
216 JOACHIM BRÜßinformation on th
Page 218 and 219:
218 JOACHIM BRÜß—An evaluation
Page 220 and 221:
220 JOACHIM BRÜßyouths. In contra
Page 222 and 223:
222 JOACHIM BRÜßapparently prone
Page 224 and 225:
224 JOACHIM BRÜßAppendixTable 3It
Page 227 and 228:
Voting rights for third country nat
Page 229 and 230:
VOTING RIGHTS FOR THIRD COUNTRY NAT
Page 231 and 232:
Page 233 and 234:
Page 235 and 236:
Women migrants:invisible or creativ
Page 237 and 238:
WOMEN MIGRANTS: INVISIBLE OR CREATI
Page 239 and 240:
Page 241 and 242:
Page 243 and 244:
Page 245 and 246:
Page 247 and 248:
Page 249 and 250:
show all

Immigration in Europe - HumanitarianNet - Universidad de Deusto

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template ?