Migration CLASH - EU fines ORBAN's Hungary for strict border controls
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 19 ก.ย. 2024
- The European Court of Justice has hit Viktor Orbán’s government with a massive €200 million fine for refusing to follow EU asylum laws by pushing back migrants at the border. Hungary faces escalating penalties of €1 million per day as it continues to defy the ruling and this turns into a clash between democratic will and the courts. Will Hungary back down, or is this the start of a bigger fight with the EU?
#Orban #ECJ #EU #Hungary #Asylum #BorderControl #Migrants #MigrationCrisis #EUpolitics #EuropeanUnion
I can't pass the Schengen border to east to Roumania (EU) without documents, Migrants can go to west through Schengen border without documents. ¿??????
Don't forget. Hungary had TRANZIT ZONES at the border, but had to close due to EU.
Well done Orban. Maintain your borders.
Make Hungary poor Again
the main problem with Orban, which goes under the radar, is Hungarian expansionism. He never communicates it to the public very discreetly and nobody ever asks him about it, meaning they know what he is up to... occasionally he wears a scarf with Hungarian borders from the Adriatic cost, to the Alps, most of Croatia, the Whole N. Serbia, part of Romania and Ukraine.
Hungary has always been an expansionist, conquerer empire. They purposefully migrated their populus in order to project power on all areas where they have significant minority. Now, 30% of Hungarian voters live in the surrounding regions and they vote for expansion.... that's why it is so difficult for Hungary to "cope with reality". But still, they are much less dangerous than Serbs. They totally live in a fantasy world.
@@fpxy00 Viktor is a enemy of all of Europe just like the Serbs are. Well said
The EU Court of “Justice” can take this ruling and STUFF IT!
There should be a difference between legal and illegal inmigration. All inmigrants should ask for admission in all countries. No country should be forced to receive unwanted inmigrants. Any inmigration policy should be accorded taking into account these principles.
You forgot to mention that before the migrants were directed to the Serbian embassy, the applicants had the opportunity to submit their application at the Hungarian border. The zone was open in the direction of Serbia, but closed in the direction of Hungary, to prevent the applicant from entering the country, submitting his application, and then disappearing in the direction of Western Europe.The EU didn't like this solution either, since their main goal was to allow migrants in Europe unchecked. The migrants did not intend to stay in Hungary, but wanted to reach Western Europe as soon as possible, where social benefits were much higher.The European court made a political decision, which shows that the rule of law no longer exists in Europe.
True, the ECJ already ruled these zones illegal and then Hungary set up the law where you had to apply in Kiev or Belgrade. I do think that the ECJ was political in slapping a fine that big. We'll see for example if it would do the same to Germany now that it announced it will blow up Shengen and introduce border controls everywhere. But on the legal assessment - however you turn it - Hungary is violating law because you can't make it impossible to request asylum or do pushbacks EU law / refugee convention) / European convention on human rights. Which makes it almost impossible to have a deterrent border policy or move towards quotas or other solutions. So the discussion in Europe should really be on finding political coalitions to change (EU/intl.) law or interpretation thereof instead of blaming the ECJ.
@@europeexplained "you can't make it impossible to request asylum or do pushbacks" - you can't violate the border. You can request assylum at the embassy. The whole issue is about the fact these people don't qualify for assylum they just want to get smuggled in because they know they probably wont be deported en masse if they are already in. "pushbacks" - there are no pusbacks, because those people are not allowed in. In other parts of the world people get shot if they dare to try. Even poland allows for that.
Ukraine shoots people in the back who want to leave their territory. (evade conscription)
@@europeexplained " Hungary set up the law where you had to apply in Kiev or Belgrade." - no you are mistaken. Refugees from Kiev can come to HU as HU is a first safe country to Ukraine; people from there are evidently fleeing from the territory of a wartorn country. Belgrade on the other hand is located in a safe country.
" the principle that asylum seekers should seek refuge in the closest safe country is often referred to as the "first safe country" principle."
Ignore them Orban
Policies like that will make us European elect new "Painter" 👨🏻🎨as Germany once did.
Than all the trains will ride in only one direction. 🚂🏭🤭
Orban should ignore it, just don't pay. Hungary should join BRICS.
they will not take muslimes like you
The big mistake is that the refugee could freely change the country where he wants to be a refugee. The UN law clearly states that the refugee can use this right to the first safe country. However, the vast majority of the "refugees" are from Syria or Afghanistan, and on their way to Europe they passed through countless safe countries where they could have submitted their application. From that point on, they lost the right as formulated by the UN. From then on, their intended entry into the EU was clearly motivated by economic considerations.
It should work more like that, there is an obvious reason that nationals bordering the EU such as Ukranian refugees could file for protection in Europe and that it would be more difficult for Afghan nationals. But unless i'm mistaken in the current state of intl law your right to asylum is not limited to first safe country. Many countries have tried to argue (like the UK) but it is not accepted in courts i think. And you also end up with discussions what are safe third countries and human rights discussions what makes it super hard to send even people that saw their asylum claim rejected back.
No, refugees do not have to request asylum in the first safe country. Something you can thank the British for. Before the start of WW2 they would send German Jewish refugees back to France, Belgium, and the Netherlands since they would be safe there. We all know how safe those countries turned out to be a short time later.
@@SirBlade666 And why exactly should I care about the j*ws?
My oppinion: HUXIT !!!!!😢
Yes, cause soon we need to close the border to the West, the enemy is already there - well fed and strong!
Now Germany needs to be fined for ending Schengen
Indeed if the commission and ECJ would be consistent...and the fines should be according to their own reasoning an order of magnitude higher given that Schengen is a foundational pillar and benefit of the EU. but to my knowledge they have never instigated a case against any member state introducing border checks in Schengen and i can't imagine von der Leyen going against Germany since her own party the CDU is demanding it. Double standards.
Hungary have always cherry-picked .
Well done Viktor Orbán. Get out of the EU and join BRICS.
It's indeed a fair democratic choice if Hungary wants to leave. And the EU should reform on migration. But Orban's politics are disingenous - instead of changing the EU for the better, he's blocking stuff all the time - yet won't leave because they receive billions of the EU budget and the single market is too important.
@@europeexplained " But Orban's politics are disingenous - instead of changing the EU for the better, he's blocking stuff all the time - yet won't leave because they receive billions of the EU budget and the single market is too important." - you are misrepresenting facts! Right from the getgo. This ruling is not about immigration. Hungary has lots of migrants on its territory. This ruling is about uncontrolled *mass illegal immigration*. The fine is not on "Victor Orban's government" but on Hungary itself, regardless of who is in charge of it.
"instead of changing the EU for the better" - again a talking point which you completely misrepresent. The Hungarian point was right from 2015: it is for every sovereign country to decide who they want to let in and whom they want to keep out. Looking at the founding documents of the EU that is the law: foreign policy is national responsibility.
1. Countries which decided pro mass migration: they should live with the consequences of their own choices: they need to learn to live with those illegal migrants they've invited to live with them.
2. Countries which decided not to have this large influx of illegal migrants should deal with their own issue: they still nee to maintain their border.
--
Hungarian citizens decided in referendums and elections that they don't wish to let anyone roam through their borders.
Actually according to the EU laws: every country that is on the outer border of the Schengen zone is *obligated* to protect it. In that sense the countries that neglect(and did so since 2015!) the protectoin of their borders are the ones that should be fined according to EU laws!
--
My personal opinion: The NGOs and officials that support the people smugglers, financing smuggler ships should be fined and penalized for creating this crisis inside Europe. The solution is not to import all the people into Europe, but to fix the untanable siutations in the conflict zones (the deplorable situations were created partially by specific EU countries !). All the countries that participated in creating the carnage in Libya should pay for its restoration. Same with Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria etc.
--
@@europeexplained "instead of changing the EU for the better" - I wanted to address this topic separately. The current way the socialist majority within the EP/EC works (the EPP basically copied the socialist talking points 100% as well) : they want everybody to "fall in line". They are against discussion and even asking questions about topics.
In order to create meaningful change you need:
1.) Open, honest discussion (which is completely rejected)
2.) You need either fair open minden people who actually consider arguments pro-contra and are willing to vote without following party decrees, or you need to have a clear majority without the need to convince people.
Those requirements are not met.
--
My counter argument is: If the current socialist majority want to create a European Socialist Union: they need to start from 0. The EU won't be perverted to become just that.
Thanks for the feedback, i agree with the principled point that migration is an essential part of national sovereignty and hence we should be very careful in constraining national democracies in how they want to handle migration from of the EU. The EU will lose support of it doesnt get any grip on the border situation or it will disintegrate, f.e. Germany that is closing its borders now. The point we wanted to make is that it is almost impossible to have stricter border policies because of the current legal framework - both international (European convention on human rights) and EU law which also Hungary accepted - and so member states have given up their sovereignty on that front . They cannot decide to to mass expulsions of illegals or to not review every individual application of every request of an asylum seeker or to install quotas or have an Australian system because they have accepted these treaties. So the only way you can change this is that politicians should be honest and say we need to fundamentally change our international/EU legal framework. And that is indeed a very tough - probably impossible - feat
@@europeexplained "EU law which also Hungary accepted - and so member states have given up their sovereignty on that front" - nope that is not how it works. EU law was signed when HU joined. Now the European Court is just rubber stamping efforts by the Commission to enlarge its own area of responsibility; which is against fundamental governing laws of the EU.
The EU commission has clearly defined roles and responsibilities that it neglects; the Commission is the janitor of the EU: supposed to facilitate consulations between member states and provide implementation details on he topics the EU Council (heads of member states) defines for it.
EU = set of member states. The issue is, the overgorwn tumor of burocracy tries to vindicate rights and responsibilites for itself.
The member countries can decide if they want to expell certain people or not. Its not the responsibility of any of the EU institutions. The passports of countries are of a certain member state: the EU is not a state: some think of it as if it would be.
Good Job EU
???