2,055 asylum requests registered in Serbia

They are orchestrators of their own misery and need to have the balls to sort their own mess out in their country of origin. Why should a poor country like Serbia be burdened with them?

They are orchestrators of their own misery and need to have the balls to sort their own mess out in their country of origin. Why should a poor country like Serbia be burdened with them?
(ND, 22 April 2014 22:18)
============================
If they are men of fighting age I would agree with you, but would you really turn away women and children?
We all know they have no power to change anything.

They are orchestrators of their own misery and need to have the balls to sort their own mess out in their country of origin. Why should a poor country like Serbia be burdened with them?
(ND, 22 April 2014 22:18)

Why should other countries be burdened with the 34,700 people seeking asylum from Serbia/Kosovo last year? Or the 39,800 seeking asylum from Russia?

Link: http://www.unhcr.org/5329b15a9.html

Surely those people should "have the balls to sort their own mess out in their country of origin".

Syria is being victimized by the same west which supported separatists/terrorists against Yugoslavia. The U.S. is training and arming them, and countries in Northern Africa, the Middle East, Turkey, Chechnya and Europe are sending several 10s of thousands of mercenaries to destroy Syria for resisting a western-wanted regime change and takeover.

And Saudi Arabia and Qatar are two of the biggest financiers of the war.

Bosnian Muslims and Albanians have joined the terrorist groups ISIS, ISIL, and al-Nusra - they even have videos on youtube celebrating it. It's always the same ethnics and countries enthusiastically or heavily supporting western-backed terror.

A couple of points to address. Firstly, the objective reason why Serbia is "burdened with these people" is their signature on the 1951 Convention pertaining to the treatment of refugees (yes, it was Jugoslavia but the successor state has agreed to continue to abide by its contents). Whether or not they should have done so and should continue to do so is not for me as a non-Serb to determine. Secondly, I am not sure that trafficking is a major problem, rather it is that of people smuggling. There is a significant difference between the two with the former involving ongoing control over and exploitation of the person who is trafficked whereas the smuggler takes a fee, delivers the person to a destination and then nevers has anything to do with them again. I would suggest that Syrians in particular are not being brought into Serbia for prostitution or slave/child labour but simply for a better life.

Ned Taylor says:
"A couple of points to address. Firstly, the objective reason why Serbia is "burdened with these people" is their signature on the 1951 Convention pertaining to the treatment of refugees (yes, it was Jugoslavia but the successor state has agreed to continue to abide by its contents)."
Serbia is NOT the successor state of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia that was around in 1951, it IS the successor state of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia that was formed after the dissolution of the SFRY.

I am quite happy to be corrected regarding the successor state of Yugoslavia. The fact remains however that Serbia is bound by the conditions of the 1951 Convention having ratified it in 2001. If, after consideration of all the cases on an individual basis, Serbia believes that those who have claimed asylum are not in genuine fear of (state or state sponsored) persecution on the basis of race, religion, nationality or membership of a social or ethnic group they can turn down the application. Removal to Syria or the last country through which these people passed may however prove troublesome. A number of people from Serbia have claimed asylum in the EU and, in turn, other nationalities have claimed asylum in Serbia; that is the way of these things. I doubt that the Government is prepared to suffer the backlash that would surely follow if it decided to withdraw from the 1951 Convention; an unlikely move given the relatively small scale of the problem compared to other countries. I hope very much that the origins of those who have claimed asylum (many from the Muslim world) is not a factor in the frustration being voiced.

Interesting that those poor Christian Syrians who are on the run are now displaced from their own country of Syria. Goes to show how dire their situation has come to be, esp. since they have nowhere to go anymore as Syria is being systematically cleansed of Orthodox Christians.

BTW, what is the asylum situation with that widowed French man who wants to stay in Serbia with his daughter? I hear that their application for asylum has been denied. True?

They are orchestrators of their own misery and need to have the balls to sort their own mess out in their country of origin. Why should a poor country like Serbia be burdened with them?

They are orchestrators of their own misery and need to have the balls to sort their own mess out in their country of origin. Why should a poor country like Serbia be burdened with them?
(ND, 22 April 2014 22:18)

Why should other countries be burdened with the 34,700 people seeking asylum from Serbia/Kosovo last year? Or the 39,800 seeking asylum from Russia?

Link: http://www.unhcr.org/5329b15a9.html

Surely those people should "have the balls to sort their own mess out in their country of origin".

Ned Taylor says:
"A couple of points to address. Firstly, the objective reason why Serbia is "burdened with these people" is their signature on the 1951 Convention pertaining to the treatment of refugees (yes, it was Jugoslavia but the successor state has agreed to continue to abide by its contents)."
Serbia is NOT the successor state of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia that was around in 1951, it IS the successor state of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia that was formed after the dissolution of the SFRY.

Syria is being victimized by the same west which supported separatists/terrorists against Yugoslavia. The U.S. is training and arming them, and countries in Northern Africa, the Middle East, Turkey, Chechnya and Europe are sending several 10s of thousands of mercenaries to destroy Syria for resisting a western-wanted regime change and takeover.

And Saudi Arabia and Qatar are two of the biggest financiers of the war.

Bosnian Muslims and Albanians have joined the terrorist groups ISIS, ISIL, and al-Nusra - they even have videos on youtube celebrating it. It's always the same ethnics and countries enthusiastically or heavily supporting western-backed terror.

A couple of points to address. Firstly, the objective reason why Serbia is "burdened with these people" is their signature on the 1951 Convention pertaining to the treatment of refugees (yes, it was Jugoslavia but the successor state has agreed to continue to abide by its contents). Whether or not they should have done so and should continue to do so is not for me as a non-Serb to determine. Secondly, I am not sure that trafficking is a major problem, rather it is that of people smuggling. There is a significant difference between the two with the former involving ongoing control over and exploitation of the person who is trafficked whereas the smuggler takes a fee, delivers the person to a destination and then nevers has anything to do with them again. I would suggest that Syrians in particular are not being brought into Serbia for prostitution or slave/child labour but simply for a better life.

They are orchestrators of their own misery and need to have the balls to sort their own mess out in their country of origin. Why should a poor country like Serbia be burdened with them?
(ND, 22 April 2014 22:18)
============================
If they are men of fighting age I would agree with you, but would you really turn away women and children?
We all know they have no power to change anything.

I am quite happy to be corrected regarding the successor state of Yugoslavia. The fact remains however that Serbia is bound by the conditions of the 1951 Convention having ratified it in 2001. If, after consideration of all the cases on an individual basis, Serbia believes that those who have claimed asylum are not in genuine fear of (state or state sponsored) persecution on the basis of race, religion, nationality or membership of a social or ethnic group they can turn down the application. Removal to Syria or the last country through which these people passed may however prove troublesome. A number of people from Serbia have claimed asylum in the EU and, in turn, other nationalities have claimed asylum in Serbia; that is the way of these things. I doubt that the Government is prepared to suffer the backlash that would surely follow if it decided to withdraw from the 1951 Convention; an unlikely move given the relatively small scale of the problem compared to other countries. I hope very much that the origins of those who have claimed asylum (many from the Muslim world) is not a factor in the frustration being voiced.

Interesting that those poor Christian Syrians who are on the run are now displaced from their own country of Syria. Goes to show how dire their situation has come to be, esp. since they have nowhere to go anymore as Syria is being systematically cleansed of Orthodox Christians.

BTW, what is the asylum situation with that widowed French man who wants to stay in Serbia with his daughter? I hear that their application for asylum has been denied. True?