Family to be deported from Sheffield

[Robin-H]

By safe he means from North Korea agents... The general threat level isn't really relevant to a specific threat to his family.

 

His employment was with the government he has sought asylum from... Did you read the article?

 

I'm very confused as to what the Arab and Muslim populations have to do with a North Korean family. Perhaps you've really not read the article and are leaping to wild conclusions instead?

 

I'm confused. North Korean family? He is called Mohammed Al-Dallal. He came from Iraq.

[Santo]

I'm confused. North Korean family? He is called Mohammed Al-Dallal. He came from Iraq.

 

Yup, this thread is about the al-Dallals for sure.

 

But a North Korean has defected in London recently. Is that the confusion?

[Jomie]

I did read the article and as has been said, the family are said to be from Iraq and the father was employed by their government. Would this factor preclude him from claiming asylum in Poland, a country where he had been settled for a number of years? As it is, Poland have given assurances that they will not be returned to Iraq.

 

As for the general threat level, it affects everyone who lives in this country. Thanks to mismanagement by successive governments, some of will feel less safe now than even during the Cold War. The security services have said it is not a case of 'if' but 'when' there is a terrorist attack. We fool ourselves if we think that this country is safe.

[Robin-H]

Yup, this thread is about the al-Dallals for sure.

 

But a North Korean has defected in London recently. Is that the confusion?

 

I don't know. Possibly. Quite ironic that the poster who claimed they were North Korean accused someone of not reading the article properly..

[Cyclone]

Yup, this thread is about the al-Dallals for sure.

 

But a North Korean has defected in London recently. Is that the confusion?

 

Perhaps I've mixed up two different stories.

 

---------- Post added 20-08-2016 at 19:00 ----------

 

I don't know. Possibly. Quite ironic that the poster who claimed they were North Korean accused someone of not reading the article properly..

 

Ah well, I'm only human.

[Robin-H]

Perhaps I've mixed up two different stories.

 

---------- Post added 20-08-2016 at 19:00 ----------

 

 

Ah well, I'm only human.

 

Perhaps you've really not read the article and are leaping to wild conclusions instead?

[Cyclone]

Perhaps you've really not read the article and are leaping to wild conclusions instead?

 

No, just got two different issues mixed up.

[sgtkate]

So I'm back after an voluntary absence, hopefully calmer and far more less argumentative now that I've got a little girl to look after!

 

So to the matter at hand. I have always thought that this is one area where the EU could and should have excelled at, yet it has utterly failed. It has failed not just the refugees/asylum seekers but all members of the EU. Effectively Schengen made 'continental' Europe a combined border, so therefore it would have surely made sense to have changed the Dublin Agreement to state that claiming asylum in ANY country within the EU would allow POTENTIAL resettlement in ANY country within the EU which would be worked out by population, language, skills and choice of the asylum seeker. This would mean all countries in the EU received a proportional share of the asylum seekers, and could also benefit from people coming in with required skills. It is surely obvious that most asylum seekers will have job skills earned from their normal life before they were displaced. To me this just seems like the only and by far the best solution and I cannot for the life of me see why it just isn't the way?

 

This issue would not be relevant if this was in place, but as it is, then I have to agree that the Dublin Agreement is fairly clear that they should be sent back to Poland where they can then claim asylum.

[Crosser]

So I'm back after an voluntary absence, hopefully calmer and far more less argumentative now that I've got a little girl to look after!

 

So to the matter at hand. I have always thought that this is one area where the EU could and should have excelled at, yet it has utterly failed. It has failed not just the refugees/asylum seekers but all members of the EU. Effectively Schengen made 'continental' Europe a combined border, so therefore it would have surely made sense to have changed the Dublin Agreement to state that claiming asylum in ANY country within the EU would allow POTENTIAL resettlement in ANY country within the EU which would be worked out by population, language, skills and choice of the asylum seeker. This would mean all countries in the EU received a proportional share of the asylum seekers, and could also benefit from people coming in with required skills. It is surely obvious that most asylum seekers will have job skills earned from their normal life before they were displaced. To me this just seems like the only and by far the best solution and I cannot for the life of me see why it just isn't the way?

 

This issue would not be relevant if this was in place, but as it is, then I have to agree that the Dublin Agreement is fairly clear that they should be sent back to Poland where they can then claim asylum.

 

Well Well.....

At last, some "common sense", unfortunately it's left to politicians, and they just are not very good at common sense are they?

[Robin-H]

No, just got two different issues mixed up.

 

I know, easily done.

 

I'm only joshing as you were so quick to chastise someone for not reading the article when they were in fact correct. Perhaps you'll be less eager to criticise in future!

 

---------- Post added 20-08-2016 at 21:14 ----------

 

So I'm back after an voluntary absence, hopefully calmer and far more less argumentative now that I've got a little girl to look after!

 

So to the matter at hand. I have always thought that this is one area where the EU could and should have excelled at, yet it has utterly failed. It has failed not just the refugees/asylum seekers but all members of the EU. Effectively Schengen made 'continental' Europe a combined border, so therefore it would have surely made sense to have changed the Dublin Agreement to state that claiming asylum in ANY country within the EU would allow POTENTIAL resettlement in ANY country within the EU which would be worked out by population, language, skills and choice of the asylum seeker. This would mean all countries in the EU received a proportional share of the asylum seekers, and could also benefit from people coming in with required skills. It is surely obvious that most asylum seekers will have job skills earned from their normal life before they were displaced. To me this just seems like the only and by far the best solution and I cannot for the life of me see why it just isn't the way?

 

This issue would not be relevant if this was in place, but as it is, then I have to agree that the Dublin Agreement is fairly clear that they should be sent back to Poland where they can then claim asylum.

 

I agree that that does seem sensible on paper. Unfortunately I don't think all the countries in the EU would sign up to that. Poland weren't exactly pleased when the idea of quotas for refugees was raised..

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/poland-refuses-to-take-a-single-refugee-because-of-security-fears-a7020076.html