Poland under pressure of EU to accept more asylum seeking refugees

since 24 March to 5 April of 1942, Muslim country host more than 115000 poles christen refuges, including 18000 children's only, so don't confused it with religion it's a matter of humanity. So if Muslims needs your help, then please accept them with open heart, its just 2000 or 3000 people.

No attack from me on your informative post with it's many just proposals. It is the rhetoric that populist politicians like Cameron use, tarring all refugees as "opportunists", that gets up my snout.

what irritates me is that populations such as Poles and consorts who have emigrated and still emigrate everywhere are the most opposed to the immigration of a few thousands. This morning, on TV I was watching a report about Hungary with their famous wall; they too don't want any immigrants but Hungarians were happy to be accepted by other countries when they had to flee from Hungary.

In conclusion, bunch of hypocrits!

InPolska
There is some truth to what you are saying, but only some, you are not looking at whole problem:
1) countries that Poles are migrating to agreed to that, out of their own free will
2) Poles asimilate and work (most of the time), they add to economy, not substract (most of the time)
3) Poles are brought in within European norms of life and morals
4) Poland protects it's border.
5) has\had tons of difficulties due to Poland's loacations, we'd also like to keep certain benefits that this location brings (aka less immigrants). Italy had tons of benefits because of it's loacation (tourism\economy\travel), now they have some problems, let's push it on other coutries. No thank you.

How does this compare to forcing on Poland thounds of people who are and most likely will always be a burden (unable to work due to no skills and unable to learn difficult language the Polish is, therefore unable to adapt)?

@Majkel:

1. do realize that when Poles (and others) started to move, it was not easy for them as they were not always welcomed by local populations.

2. A lot of new immigrants of socalled 3rd world countries after 1 or 2 generations (when not before) get educated, integrated, often with good jobs and pay tax. Of course, the media don't talk about black engineers, Maroccan doctors etc etc...

3. Poland and the like cannot dictate their ways not only because they are paid by EU (westen taxpayers) but also as countries of emigrants have no moral right to oppose immigrants

4. To conclude: Poland, Hungary and the like shall NOT get millions of foreigners but a mere 1,000 or so and the cost shall be on the EU. Such countries show the rest of Europe (and the world) that they are selfish and not tolerant.

InPolska
ad 2) let's be serious, among those immigrants there will be no Maroccan doctors or engineers, maybe one or two.
ad 3) Poland is part of EU, but it is still a sovereign country, with it's own government, we are not run from Bruessels. Poland has every right to oppose every non-EU immigrant.

ad 4) it starts with thousands, then grows, and it will NOT be on EU cost (anyway EU cost is also Poland cost, as we add to the budget, even if we get more in return then we put in, at least for now). And tolerance and acceptance are not the same thing, you should learn to distinguish them. Let's stop FORCING YOUR believes by waving "you are untollerant scum" banner.

Anyway, hoping for meaningfull discussion, but funny how you didn't address my point 4 and 5.

@Majkel: READ what I have written. I have written in "1 or 2 generations". As to political refugees, yes, among them they are doctors, journalists, engineers and so forth.

PS: what is your experience with people from such countries other than what you see on tv?

InPolska

I'm not really buying into those "1 or 2 generations" as there are clear Black, Pakistanis distriscts after probably more than 2 generations in London.

Black districts in London are really fun! Especially at night. Was staying at friends on Pump Ln in London. Wouldn't want to live there. There is dramatic difference between south and north London.

As for ps. I've met couple Pakistanis and have Turkish friends. All nice people. What you should understand is that I don't oppose immigration, just illegal immigration.

@Majkel: 1st of all, open your dictionnary and look up the word "illegal". The migrants shall be accepted by the EU and by the Polish government (in return for money, in other words, "money talks" ;)) so how the hell can they be "illegal"?????

As to Poland, it would be fewer than 2,000 people. Can't a country of some 38/39 million accommodate some 2,000????

And yes, among immigrants' kids and grandkids, there are doctors, engineers, professors and even politicians ;).....After 1 or 2 generations, most of intergrated but of course the medias only talk about those creating problems.

InPolska

I believe people travelling on boats from Africa to Italy are "illegals" in EU - they started the problem so we are talking about them.

Therefore illegal for Poland. If EU wants to accomodate them, not send back, that's fine, just don't force them on Poland.

And those 2000 people on social - not a enourmous problem, not small, as we are poor country and have enough problems with social for our own people - but this is about setting a precedent obviously - this would not stop at 2000. Hence you have to make a stand.

Your belief is entirely wrong.


You're completely wrong, again. I would refer you to point 2 of paragraph 2 of Article 28 of the Act of 12 December 2013 on Foreigners. Pay particular attention to the wording "has applied, during border control, for refugee status".

@Majkel: once such migrants are sponsored by EU and local governments, of course they are not illegal.

Furthermore, 2,000 people are no big deal in a country like Poland and on top of that the EU shall pay Poland for their stay. It shall cost nothing to Poles.

Regarding the definition of "legal" as far as the law is concerned in the EU;

1. Regardless of HOW you enter the EU, your stay is "legal" from the moment you register yourself with authorities (in this case by means of application for asylum, refugee status or tolerated stay etc, and in normal cases by means of a passport control official at port of entry), until the moment a decision is made regarding your case.

If a decision is made allowing you to stay, then the length of your legal stay is extended. If a decision is made ordering you to leave, then your stay becomes illegal if the deadline of that decision is reached and you fail to leave or appeal against the decision (depending on the type of decision made, sometimes filing an appeal may or may not legalize your stay). Also, such decisions are not applicable to individuals that are incarcerated or undergoing medical treatment.

2. Even if you enter through "normal" channels (i.e. passport control official at regulated port of entry) and you outstay your permit to stay without registering accordingly with authorities, then your stay becomes illegal. If you register with authorities (by means of an application for visa or residence extension or for a work permit, but there are dozens of other possibilities) then your stay becomes legal until a decision is made. A positive decision legalizes an extended stay, while a negative decisions obligates you to either leave or appeal within a preset deadline. As I said above, depending on the type of decision made, sometimes filing an appeal may or may not legalize your stay. Also, such decisions are not applicable to individuals that are incarcerated or undergoing medical treatment.

What this means is, even if you come to Europe on a boat, your stay in the EU is legal from the moment your name is registered with coast guard (if rescued at sea) or from the moment you apply for asylum (or some other form of residence).

Also, due attention should be paid to this very common mistake. There are no illegal immigrants (legality does not pertain a person) but there are foreigners staying illegally (legality pertains to the stay).

1. "The world is becoming a very small place and migration WILL happen" - probably, but we are talking about illegal migration.
2." look how a million Poles spilled into the UK overnight." - hmm, after 14 years of negations and concessions and still it happened because the uk government let it happen, all legit. Apple and oranges here.

3. " This will happen again and again." I don't know what will happen but I somehow I doubt that Syria for example will became the EU member anytime soon, Fail.

4. "The current project to settle 1200 refugees is a good first step." Rewording people breaking the law encourage others to do the same.
5. "Very difficult to police someone's mindset - better to offer liberal secular education and adopt the French policy of laicity. Basically keep religion in the home." Sure, because it had been working for the French just fine given all those killings and rioting in this country mainly done by the Muslims. You just don't care do you as long as you can push your ideological agenda onto other people.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posyr
Thanks for all the details.
Anyway - illegal immigrant or foreigner staying illegally - that is pure semantics without meaning. Illegal is the operative word.

Harry,
are you saying that all those people Italy has problem with has been granted refugee status?
By whose decision?

I'm aware the problem is much greater then "we don't want them here!" But it needs to be dealt with from the source, not by finding more places to fit people in.

1. "Poland cannot receive hundreds of millions of euros, cannot keep sending all its unemployed abroad and at the same time remains closed the way North Korea is."

Sorry, it is utter tosh.
I'm sure it makes sense to you, at least you feel that it does, but it is not about your feelings. It is about illegal immigration.

2."Therefore Poland shall receive migrants as per UE's orders"
Really? You think that the EU is some kind of federal goverment that can issue orders to a member state? fail.
3."Poland shall have more and more immigrants" Yes, Poland should grant them Polish passport which would allowed them to move to other EU countries.

4. "what irritates me" Nobody cares, it is not about your feelings.

Firstly, lets take the emotion out of this subject. In my view the ''illegal immigrants'' are simply allowed to leave countries such as Libya, Syria etc... because when they have left those countries they simply become someone else's problem. The population of Africa is approx 900 million, what if on Monday they all decided to come to Europe, when do we say enough is enough.

Where do these illegal immigrants get the 100's of dollars to pay for these very dangerous trips to Europe?

If ''Abdul'' the goat herder from Somalia, his wife and 7 children were told ''your going to live in Poland'' how would they support themselves, no job, no language skills, no home and I guess within days they would be heading west, how do you keep them here.

That would be the best solution if you ask me.

Except that most of the world has either ignored or fueled problems at the source for too long. Naturally problems that are ignored tend to spread. Not assigning blame or anything, just telling it as it is.

@INPOLSKA:- "Furthermore, 2,000 people are no big deal in a country like Poland and on top of that the EU shall pay Poland for their stay. It shall cost nothing to Poles."

"The European Commission said it would pay EU member states up to €6,000 (£4,250) for each refugee taken in as part of a plan to accept 40,000 asylum seekers from Syria and Eritrea over the next two years."

This is a "one off" payment, 24,000 PLN to pay for their housing, healthcare, translators, education, food, clothing, furniture, entertainment. Are they only going to be here for 6 months? Not going to cost Poland?

@ KENNYBOY:- "what if on Monday they all decided to come to Europe, when do we say enough is enough."

Stop being sensible or you will get banned from the forum.

Avalon, sorry for being sensible, thinking with my head and not my heart (remove the emotion)

Agree 100% with your comment ''cost Poland nothing'' what about the Polish nationals that lets say don't have a lot, sorry Pavel/Ola ...you've lost your job but unfortunately the state can't help you because we have to give the available funds to Ali and his family from Eritrea, Oh and those people working we may have to increase your taxes by x% to help with the costs.

Question, how many of you want to go and live in lets say Bulgaria, answer I suspect, none, the Bulgarians don't want to live in Bulgaria.

The British have always accepted people from everywhere but all I ask is that you make a contribution to my society, everything in life is not free.

@Kennyboy: 1. The Polish State does not help Jacek or Magda when they lose their jobs (they have to go abroad) and 2. the EU shall give money to Polish State to cover expenses.

I have done some checking on line, seems that EU will not cover any expenses. Go on prove me wrong.

sure. It won`t and plus even isn`t capable. EU is practically on the brink of bankruptcy

Rival rallies in Warsaw for and against immigration



Poles vs Poles; EU causes problems in Poland

I wouldn't get too stressed about a handful of right-wing numpties with flags, Crowie. About as relevant as your football hooligans. Their silliness is not taken into account when deciding policy around refugees.

And in any case, the decision was made long ago.

It's impossible to discuss something that does not exist. Poland is under no pressure at all from the EU to accept any illegal immigrants and never has been under any pressure to accept any.

It was announced this morning that in light of the increase in the number expected this year, Poland is reviewing the quota that they had agreed - it is likely to rise significantly.

In view of the fact that the thread title is illogical (Poland could not be under pressure to accept illegal immigrants), could mods consider removing the word 'illegal'?

How can we discuss legal immigration in a thread about illegal immigrants?

If there is all these people invading a sovereign country at the border why not just open fire on them?

Would you open fire on unarmed men, women and children fleeing a war zone?



Agreed. It is an inappropriate and inaccurate thread title made by a now banned poster and should be made less inflammatory.