Fact-Checking Nigel Farage: Volition The Eu’S Asylum Policies Acknowledge One-Half A 1 M M Terrorists?

Steve Peers

Yesterday, Nigel Farage, the leader of the Great Britain Independence Party, argued that the EU’s reply to the migrant deaths crisis ran the run a jeopardy of admitting one-half a 1 G k terrorists on to European Union soil. He based this claim on the threat of the ‘Islamic State’ (Daesh) terrorists to post such killers to the European Union via way of smuggling routes, as well as demanded that David Cameron veto the European Union plans.

Do these claims brand sense? Not inward the slightest. First of all, the European Union policy, equally I discussed terminal week, is essentially to reaffirm the condition quo.  The electrical flow express maritime surveillance missions volition survive expanded, although it is non clear if they volition amount to fully-fledged rescue missions. This in all likelihood way that to a greater extent than people volition accomplish the EU, but this volition solely survive for the ground that fewer of them volition drown en route.

Once inward the EU, they volition survive able to brand claims for asylum – but that is no dissimilar to the electrical flow law. The EU’s innovation does non involve whatever changes to European Union asylum legislation; it exactly calls on Member U.S.A. to apply those laws.  The European Union did commit to to a greater extent than or less cast of direct resettlement of refugees from tertiary countries – but European Union leaders could non fifty-fifty handgrip on the tiny number of 5,000 refugees to survive settled adjacent year.

Farage would prefer a policy of returning people to the countries they left. In fact, asylum-seekers tin already survive returned to their countries of root or transit, if it is clear when examining their application that those countries are safe. But inward accordance amongst the United Nations (Geneva) Refugee Convention – which UKIP purports to back upward – they cannot survive returned to an unsafe country. Libya, for instance, is pointed out, this 1 time again violates the Geneva Convention that UKIP purport to support, since that Convention requires non-discriminatory application on grounds of religion, as well as it would likewise survive unfeasible to distinguish betwixt Christians as well as Muslims during rescue at sea. But if Christians are beingness resettled straight from areas afflicted yesteryear Daesh, the UKIP policy would render the perfect chance for ISIS fighters to pretend to survive Christian equally a way to ensure entry into the EU.

As an assessment of terrorist methodology, Farage’s claims are likewise suspect. The mass of Daesh atrocities accept non been carried out inward the EU, but inward Syrian Arab Republic as well as Iraq, equally good equally yesteryear affiliated groups inward Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya as well as Nigeria.  Most of the people who accept been linked to Daesh inward Europe accept been European Union citizens who travelled to parts of the Middle East to participate inward atrocities. Any migrants who were rescued from boats or who were resettled straight from conflict areas would presumably survive disarmed of whatever weapons they were carrying en route. Of course, they powerfulness obtain weapons 1 time they reached the EU; but since Farage is an outspoken critic of gun control, he is purpose of the problem, non of the solution, to that issue. As for the figure of one-half a 1 G k Daesh fighters coming to the EU, that's twenty or xxx times the CIA's estimate of the total number of all Daesh fighters.

Finally, Farage argues that the European Union has cynically used the migrant deaths crisis to prepare a comprehensive immigration as well as asylum policy. If solely it had: inward fact, the EU’s reply is largely marginal as well as ineffectual. Indeed, Farage is throwing to a greater extent than or less huge stones within this drinking glass house. It is Farage who is trying to ‘weaponise’ the tragic deaths of hundreds of people, taking this chance to brand an inaccurate as well as incoherent rant inward the midst of an election campaign.

Share this post