The case of erstwhile Minister Zbigniew Ziobry and another people who have found shelter abroad, explaining this with fear of possible persecutions or deficiency of chances of a fair judgement in Poland, raises strong emotions and raises public opinion. The explanations and motivations of these people are very different, as are the circumstances of individual cases. So it is worth clearly delimiting the simple escape from seeking asylum.
Asylum is part of the global legal strategy developed over decades. It is intended to defend people who are actually at hazard – whether it be a war action or a complete inability to guarantee their basic existence. We are talking about cases where people are threatened by hunger, disbelief or destruction. There are many specified dramatic situations in the world. The heart of the countries is erstwhile we look at what is presently happening in Sudan, where according to various reports hundreds of thousands of people have been murdered by fighting factions. Those who can flee to neighbouring countries, but the vast majority fall of the slaughter. Satellite images documenting the scale of these crimes confirm how powerful the drama of the people of this country is.
International protection system
This shows how crucial the global protection strategy is – it offers a chance to preserve life, wellness and even temporary shelter in a safe country. This is 1 of the fundamental achievements of civilization that must be considered erstwhile considering modern asylum cases. It is worth recalling that in Europe, as in South America, there have been many escapes to embassies and the usage of diplomatic protection against detention by state services. This phenomenon can be assessed differently – sometimes it is controversial, sometimes it is treated as a natural component of political reality.
Today's issue is not only about Poland – it besides creates reactions across Europe. Zbigniew Ziobro, as a erstwhile Minister of Justice and a associate of the government, held a very crucial function in the state hierarchy. All the more serious are the accusations that the authorities have made to him in average legal terms. It is about 26 charges, mainly of a corrupt nature, as well as directing an organized crime group. This is 1 of the most serious crimes that can be attributed to anyone, and in the case of a individual serving as Minister of Justice – peculiarly outrageous.
The case has many dimensions and it would so be highly crucial to bring about an open trial. Only in specified a course could the full society know the facts and learn what the situation truly looked like. The adversarial process allows both parties to present their arguments and transparency allows the public to observe this confrontation and draw conclusions independently. This would be the most transparent and expected solution for Poland.
In the context of the case of Minister Ziobra, who has not yet applied for political asylum in Hungary, it may seem that the way to specified a request has been opened up to him. This is evidenced by his gathering with Prime Minister Orban, as we have all seen, and the fact that political asylum has been given to his deputy, Mr Romanowski. This means that Zbigniew Ziobro may besides have a real chance to get specified status.
Under full protection of the host State
The granting of asylum shall entail full protection by the host State. This includes both administrative support and safety provided by its services. A individual who receives asylum can legally operate in a fresh country: he frequently gets a right of residence, a right of employment (sometimes under certain conditions), as well as circumstantial papers to make usage of asylum law. Sometimes the stay is limited in time, but very frequently there is no specified limitation. This protection is comprehensive, in peculiar with respect to the country of origin of the individual concerned. This case is about Poland. The speculation on alleged activities of the ABW, which appeared in the media, has been dejected by the Polish authorities – it has been stressed that there will be no specified operation. The issue of granting protection and possible asylum is Hungary's sole responsibility, which must face the fact that they offer shelter to persons accused of corruption offences. It is worth noting that in the case of Ziebra and Romanowski it is precisely specified allegations.
Many another persons accused of corruption, including Moldova and Macedonia, besides obtained asylum in Hungary. It is part of the Hungarian policy of accepting specified persons and their position is governed by interior law. In Poland, too, there are provisions laying down the rules for granting asylum and the rights of persons who benefit from asylum. akin regulations work in all countries.
Europe besides has an agreement on the expulsion of certain categories of refugees. In fresh years, this has mainly been the case for migrants who have been mainly invited to Germany, but besides to France and the Netherlands. These countries adopted large groups of immigrants after 2015, and now, as a consequence of a common European agreement, the problem is besides to be spread to countries that did not participate in that migration policy and even opposed it. This creates controversy not only in Poland but besides in many another countries of the European Union. It is worth noting that this does not apply to asylum seekers. This is mostly about migrants, and any of them are refugees from war areas, specified as Syria, Lebanon and Somalia. In specified cases, it is the task of the State authorities to find whether there was indeed a real threat in the country of origin and whether the individual afraid fulfils the conditions for granting the right of residence. However, this is not the same as the right to asylum. The right of residence shall be temporary and shall apply until the threat in the country of origin ceases. Of course, any fugitive may at any time quit this protection and return to his country.
In practice, however, it is hard to imagine specified decisions, due to the fact that the German social assistance strategy acts as a magnet for many people. I worked in Germany for a year and watched how that strategy works and how bureaucracy can distort it. An expanding part of German society reacts to this outrage and it is hard to wonder that the popularity of utmost parties, especially AfD, is growing. In private talks, Germany has repeatedly stressed that they do not accept specified a model of social policy and do not realize the direction in which their authorities are heading. presently Germany wants to relieve its social strategy by redirecting illegal immigrants to another European countries. It is hard to be amazed at their motivations, but I think it is unfair – the costs of the policy over the years should be borne by themselves.
This method will break anyone! Derlatka: Intelligence has been utilizing it for decades!
Migrant motivations vary
Escape from a war-torn country is 1 situation, while seeking a better life in a country with an extended social assistance strategy – like Germany – is simply a completely different case. In specified countries, full families can function without work for generations and live in comparison to conditions in the country of origin very well.
It reminds me of the situation in the 1980s erstwhile I worked in the Netherlands as the 3rd secretary in a diplomatic facility. The consular department in which I worked was concerned, among another things, with immigrant affairs. I have encountered the case of a erstwhile Moroccan citizen who has fled to the Netherlands, although he was in no danger in his country and there was no reason to grant him the right to reside for humanitarian reasons. Meanwhile, the sum of his benefits – benefits, allowances and free housing – caused that his monthly income, with the same household situation (wife and 1 child), was almost twice as advanced as mine as a Polish diplomat. This situation clearly illustrates the scale of social assistance for immigrants and shows how much this strategy can distort.
This continues in many countries, despite attempts to limit it. The First woman tried to establish a certain order, but this was met with the outrage of the community with a liberal approach to migration. But change is necessary. As you say in Poland – you can't fire a baby with a bath. Among migrants, including illegal ones, there are people who truly request help, but I am afraid they represent a minority. The vast majority are economical migrants who leave their country for financial reasons. Asylum concerns people who are being persecuted. In the case of immigrants, countries should closely monitor who is invited or who is issued visas. After all, we remember the times of the regulation of the Law and Justice erstwhile over 300 000 visas were issued for citizens of countries specified as Iraq and Afghanistan. This was due to the real needs of the labour market, but consular services were frequently smooth. I was reasoning of justice Schmidt, who received asylum in Belarus. All points to the fact that for a time he worked with Belarusian intelligence, so his presence in Belarus is not accidental. In Poland he was threatened with arrest on suspicion of espionage. akin cases of escape are more – this is simply a known method of action. We besides see this present erstwhile Russian agential, sabotage and diversional networks are active in Poland. In the event of a threat of arrest, their members effort to vanish from the country. It is part of the strategy of Russian services – and not only Russian. The difference between specified people and another refugees is fundamental. Escapeor seeking protection in Poland is subject to a very thorough check by the Office for Foreigners – as thorough as the conditions allow. Difficulties arise in culturally distant countries or in countries where we do not have diplomatic posts. For example, in Somalia, Poland does not have an embassy, yet we have people from this country. Then we usage the aid of another European countries.
Looking for a fresh home, investment, lifestyle? With Agent HMTV, it's easy! *PatrickNey
consular cooperation in Europe is very extensive. If a country does not have representation in a given country, it benefits from state aid that operates there – for example France, which has embassies and consulates in almost all the countries of the Sahel. The French have excellent insight. The same is actual of another countries that share their cognition with those that do not have their facilities there. The exchange of information is intense, but for this reason decisions frequently take time – bureaucracy works slow and this must be taken into account. Differences in the treatment of people arriving in Europe are due to their status. If individual escapes from the war area, it is natural that they will receive protection. However, EU countries besides benefit from the Dublin Convention, according to which non-resident aliens can be sent back to the alleged safe 3rd country. In practice, they are countries on the migration way – specified as Poland. This is simply a origin of serious controversy.
I am afraid that these tensions may in the future, in a fewer years, lead to a deep crisis or even to the disintegration of the European Union. Social opposition in countries specified as Poland and Hungary is very strong, and governments will gotta take into account the will of citizens. As a result, either migration agreements will fall or the Union will break under force from conflicting interests. And that's what I fear most.
