Deportations - Fact or more Confusion
Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2015 1:15 pm
Really?, based on what ???John wrote:They would not be deported back to Turkey, unless they were TurkishReality Check wrote: > If Greece rejected any of those applications, Greece would be
> responsible for housing them, feeding them, and providing them
> medical care until they could be deported back to Turkey, if
> Turkey would even accept people who were not claiming to be
> Turkish citizens.
citizens. They would be deported back to their countries of origin,
unless their asylum application were accepted.
Germany is expecting Turkey to do exactly that. Are the German leaders that ignorant that they do not understand what they are asking is never done ( according to John) ?
Germany and several other European countries are suggesting that a large percentage of the refugees will be legally rejected for asylum requests because they were living in refugee camps in safe countries, not in a war zones, before they began migrating out of those safe countries. Turkey is the country that is named most often as the safe country housing war refugees in refugee camps, does it make sense if the only country the rejected people can be deported back to is a war zone, in a an unsafe country, where they will be unsafe ???
Does it make any sense at all that international law would allow them to be rejected because they were living in a safe country, but require them to be deported to a third country which is unsafe ???
Does it make sense that all one must do is become a war refuge once during their lifetime, and then one has the right to move to, as many times as one likes, and live in, as many safe countries as one likes, for the rest of ones life ???
Again, is this a case that German leaders and other European leaders, are that ignorant of International law, or is there some confusion here as to the above absolute statement as to long standing deportation law, and confusion as to long standing deportation practice ???
And yet again, is international law designed to put war refugees in harms way by requiring they to be deported back to the war zone, after allowing their war refugee application to be rejected as a "war refugee" because they were living in a safe country, and then they illegally crossed a border between one "safe countries" and another safe country, or is there some confusion here as to the above absolute statement as to long standing deportation law, and also some confusion as to long standing deportation practice ???