They cometh to Germany for the money. https://www.avforums.com/attachments/germany-pays-for-this-jpg.892109/
https://www.avforums.com/attachments/memes-about-3-a-meme-about-memes-jpg.892134/
If most western European countries accept moral responsibility to take in refugees then, for obvious reasons, it doesn't make sense to have a rule that they must be settled in the first country they arrive in. That's not sharing the responsibility.
Being opposed to taking refugees is a different argument as is debate over mass immigration. However, if a country accepts a certain amount of responsibility to take in refugees it's pretty pointless without a fair system to facilitate that.
There is no moral responsibility to take in economic migrants, which the vast majority of these people are.
That's a different argument though. I'm specifically discussing the first country of arrival rule which is the purpose of the thread.
Why should alleged asylum seekers be able to choose where they claim asylum? Surely if they are genuinely fleeing war or persecution, they should be happy to apply for asylum in the first safe country they reach. Otherwise, you would end up with Calais magnified many times.
That's not the point I'm making. It's not about right to choose but equal dispersion amongst countries agreeing to take them.
So you are saying that for instance Italy should be able to decide on asylum claims for all migrants it receives, safe in the knowledge that they would only have to keep say 10% of them, with the rest palmed off to other countries, none of which had any input into the asylum hearing?
The thing that grinds my gears is. That not once has any government asked the people of the country it has been elected to serve do you want us to take in migrants.
Its just been pushed onto us with no option.
The thread is about asylum seekers, not migrants in general. If you feel the same way about refugees then fair enough but they're differentiated from econonic migrants.