All “Asylum Seekers” in EU are Fake

The recent admission by the European Union (EU) executive body that 40 percent of all “refugees” who invaded Europe last year have “no chance” of qualifying for asylum, ignores the EU’s own rules which clearly state that none have any right to asylum at all.

invasion

As reported in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung, a “senior European Commission official” recently admitted that “40 percent of the migrants who recently entered via the Balkans route have no realistic prospect of asylum or refugee status in the European Union.”

While this admission is dramatic, it implies that 60 percent of the invaders do have a valid claim to asylum in Europe—something which is completely untrue.

In fact, they all have broken the EU’s own rules governing refugees, which specifically incorporate the legal principle known as the “first country of asylum”—a rule which says that “refugees” do not have the right to apply for asylum from a country in which they are already safe.

Contrary to liberal claims that there is no legal basis for the principle of “first country of asylum,” this concept is in fact written into the EU’s own rules, specifically the Asylum Procedures Directive (Directive 2005/85/EC of December 1, 2005).

Article 26 of this Asylum Procedures Directive reads as follows:

The concept of first country of asylum

A country can be considered to be a first country of asylum for a particular applicant for asylum if:

(a) s/he has been recognised in that country as a refugee and s/he can still avail him/herself of that protection; or

(b) s/he otherwise enjoys sufficient protection in that country, including benefiting from the principle of non-refoulement;

provided that s/he will be re-admitted to that country.

Article 26

In other words, a “refugee” coming from a country in which they have already been granted refuge, and where they are not threatened with expulsion back to their country of origin, falls under Article 26 of the EU’s Asylum Procedures Directive.

READ  German Patriots Hit 40 Cities

(“Non-refoulement” is the legal term for the principle in international law which forbids the rendering of a true victim of persecution to his or her persecutor.)

This Article 26 has been written into all EU Member State legislation in one form or another, and specifically in Germany, has been incorporated into law under Article 29 of that country’s Asylum Procedure Act, paragraph 27, which reads as follows:

Section 27

Safety elsewhere from persecution

(1) A foreigner who was already safe from political persecution in another third country shall not be granted asylum status.

(2) If the foreigner holds a travel document issued by a safe third country (Section 26a) or by another third country pursuant to the Convention related to the status of refugees, it shall be presumed that he was safe from political persecution in that country.

(3) If before entering the federal territory, a foreigner lived for more than three months in another third country where he is not threatened by political persecution, it shall be presumed that he was safe there from political persecution. This shall not apply if the foreigner provides plausible evidence that deportation to another country where he is threatened by political persecution could not be ruled out with reasonable certainty.

APA

In other words, every single “refugee,”—even those fleeing from Syria—who has entered Europe via the Balkans route from Turkey, has left that country (Turkey) which has already granted them asylum and safety.

As such, EU and German law specifically forbids them from qualifying for asylum in Europe.

These same rules apply to all the nonwhite invaders who have crossed the Mediterranean Sea to Italy and Spain. All have left “safe” countries where they were in no danger of being deported back, even if they had come from a “war zone” (which most of them have not).

READ  Croatia “Does a Merkel” as Nonwhite Invader “Migrant” Horde Hits Home

The EU’s rules are thus very clear and explicit: there are no “legal asylum seekers” at all in Europe. Every last one of them has broken international and EU law.

The actions of the Merkel regime, and all other European governments which have opened Europe’s doors to this invasion, have placed them clearly outside and above the law.

All these governments are therefore acting illegally, and by breaking the law, they have now set the standard by which they can be combatted.

19 thoughts on “All “Asylum Seekers” in EU are Fake

    1. If Merkel would only spend one week in one of these camps without her armed security to prove how safe it is her citizens would have more faith in what she dictates. Lights out at nine. Must not waste electricity.

       
  1. It appears the EU dictators are above their own rules. When it was discovered that Greece had lied and did not actually qualify for EU membership under the EU’s own rules, a blind eye was turned to this fact for the sake of further enlargement.

    Now the EU is benefiting from this lack of enforcement of their own rules. Just think, if these rules had been adhered to there would be no invasion via Greece or indeed the Greek debt problem shaking the foundations of the Euro or the EU itself.

    But then again, I’m not a liberal leftist so I’m most probably wrong.

     
    1. Why Britain wishes to remain in this lunacy is mystery. Dictators ? There is only one supreme leader in Europe. People like Hollande, Juncker, Tusk, they are all puppets. They only talk when permitted to do so and say only what they have been permitted to say. Cameron is the Neville Chamberlain of today.

       
  2. Merkel invited them in. She breaks EU laws when she wants. Haven’t you noticed EU laws are only laws as long as the ruling elite want. If a law is inconvenient they ignore it or change it. It truly is Alice Through the Looking Glass Land. Time this ridiculous, evil, corrupt project was trashed.

     
  3. And once Europe tells these migrants they will be sent back , they disappear like cockroaches into a whole in the wall. Many have come on a mission to destroy Europe. How many citizens must die before Merkel says ‘this was not a good idea’ ?

     
    1. Merkel said:”It doesn’t matter who is responsible for the invasion, now they are here”. The elite of German constitutionalists have been saying: “Merkel’s government has permanently been breaking German and European law.”
      Nevertheless the German Constitutional Court has rejected without any justification the action for removal of Merkel lodged by a reputable jurist. Likewise the criminal courts have rejected actions against Merkel for high treason.
      Some lawyers now advise people to take to the steets to protect the legal order of the country against Merkel.
      Merkel’s government have instructed intelligence services to scrutinize the Internet for anti-Merkel propaganda.
      The German pressstitute media keep mum about this situation.
      And German teachers tell their pupils Germany is the freest country and the greatest state under the rule of law on the planet.

       
  4. Looks like a great opportunity for an astute German politician to ratify C169 Convention concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries and then find a space for the Somali’s in Stuttgart, and after evacuating the place, guarantee the gentlemen the integrity of the values, practices and institutions of the Somali settlers.

     
  5. If this is all so cut and dried legally, why is someone not contesting it in a court of law? Just the kind of thing a lawyer needs to give him/her international recognition surely?

     
    1. Because any attempt at doing that would land you in jail for “hate speech” or “racism” or “being a Nazi” or whatever. Ask that poor professor in Germany who simply said that he was worried for his children’s future!

       
      1. This German professor got to his feet and confronted her at a ceremony of his university adressed by the reptile who tried to justify her invasion policy. The professor was at once arrested and led out of the conference room by security guards. The reptile is accustomed to meetings with preselected participants only. Against the professor have been instigated criminal proceedings. It is to be hoped he will be let
        off with a suspended sentence. To even implicitly criticize Merkel has become lese-majesty. That is the consquence of choosing a well-nigh illiterate dame “woman of the year”.

         
  6. Mine is a very simple solution, intensive interrogation by experts or a trip back to where they came from. No lawyers, No Human Rights, No ‘phone a friend with their smart phone’, No money. All those in favour to help them sign a document to pay for them with a new tax code increasing their contribution by 20% at least. The other option is not printable.

     

Add Comment