RE: UN financing

>hey Geforce, how many times i have to remind you? What was
>said was the three countries “constitutes an axis of evil”,
>there was never any mentioning of signed treaty to do evil
>and there was never references to the common people as evil.

Even if it’s true what you say, Bush used to wrong words. The most powerful man of the world should know that these words “axis of evil” refer to WWII. For the allies and adversaries, it’s difficult to search for the underlying in Bush’s expressions. If he had chosen his words more carefully, I’m sure many European countries would agree that North Korea has a bad regime, SH is a mass-murderer and that Iran is still influenced by religious leaders.

Sometimes, I would just wish Bush was on the AFM. I really want to ask some questions to him.

RE: He he he!

qe
Attachments:

RE: He he he!

lol
Attachments:

RE: EU-immigration policy, Update

Well, the EU needs new immigrants, because the demand four highly skilled people is very large these days. What the rightwing gov’ts want is that only people having a PhD will be allowed to enter the Union, but that’s ofcourse racist and has already been condemned by Amnesty International and the UN.

Anyway, it’s time for a new immigration law because things now are too complicated.

Denmark adapted a new lay which prohibited people under 24 to marry somebody who’s not a resident of the EU. So if a boy from Denmark, age 23, wants to marry a girl from Norway, this marriage will be illegal. Damn, but he can always marry an Irish girl }> 🙂

RE: Geforce decares NK evil!

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 22-06-02 AT 05:22 PM (GMT)]Well he’s evil, and he’s letting his people die on the streets. And I would prefer Bush to be my leader over him. But still, the axis of evil is something stupid, because these nations are so isolated, they can’t form an axis like Germany and Italy did for example. And Iran didn’t diserve to get in that last.

But according to Bush, pretzels are also evil because they want to destroy our great democracy by killing our beloved leader :D.

RE: bye bye Spain

Nahh, this ain’t possible. All the European favourites are out, how strange. It’s just those lousy referees. Some of these man really are not qualified to be referees, at least not for such important games. In our game Belgium-Brazil we had one from the Maldives, I mean, the Maldives are maybe a nice place to live, but I can hardly imagine that they are so good at football.

South Korea was lucky to beat Portugal, it was strange they’ve beaten Italy and Spain, and if they’ll beat Germany, next time all European teams should make one front against Sk :D. Nah, just kidding.

RE: Did US Congress pass a law??

>Geforce
>
>Do you count yourself among the ‘commoners’ or are you a
>member of a higher order? Perhaps the plebs are to busy
>earning a living to take such things seriously.

Ofcourse I’m not a member of a ‘higher order’. It’s just that the popular newspapers here did not say anything about this, but some quality newspapers did come out with the story.

EU-immigration policy, Update

Huddled masses: stay out

Jun 21st 2002
From The Economist Global Agenda

Following a wave of support for far-right, xenophobic parties, immigration is top of the agenda at the Seville summit of European Union leaders on June 21st and 22nd. European leaders say they want harmonious EU action against illegal immigration. In reality, nearly all governments are still sticking to policies of their own
AP

EUROPE’S leaders have been given a jolt. Across the continent there is growing disquiet over a perceived rise in immigration, or at least in immigrant-related problems. This has manifested itself in rioting, as in the north of England, last summer, and in a surge of support for far-right political parties, including France’s National Front, the Freedom Party in Austria, the Pim Fortuyn List in the Netherlands, the Northern League in Italy and the Danish People’s Party. European leaders are worried that if they are not seen to act against illegal immigration, the far right will gain even more ground. Anxious to address this problem, the Spanish have put immigration top of the agenda for the EU summit in Seville later this week.

There are four different aspects to the package on immigration that will be tackled by the leaders: managing borders; regulating legal immigration; combating illegal immigration and action against third countries from which illegal immigrants come, or through which they pass.

The EU’s best guess is that the Union’s domains absorb 500,000 illegals every year. Although the popular image of these people is formed by television pictures of Iraqis and Afghans trying to hop aboard trains that go through the Chunnel to Britain, or of Albanians struggling to cross the Adriatic to Italy in rickety boats, most illegal immigrants in the EU enter legally and simply stay on when their visas run out. Despite some politicians’ steamy rhetoric, nobody really knows whether the flow of illegal immigrants is going up or down. It is known, however, that the number of refugees claiming political asylum in the Union has slowed sharply over the past decade. Last year 384,530 people claimed asylum, against 675,460 in 1992.

For several years EU leaders have been promising a common policy for both illegal immigration and asylum seekers. Now that the Union (bar Britain, Ireland and Denmark) has scrapped passport controls for travelling within it, logic suggests that a common approach to controlling the EU’s external frontier should be forged. Having 15 different national regimes for asylum and naturalisation has also led to worries that illegal immigrants are “asylum shopping”, and to recriminations between neighbouring countries like Britain and France, and Denmark and Sweden.

But while EU leaders love harmonisation in theory, in practice progress has been very sticky. A senior official at the European Commission, which has been trying to hammer out common policies, laments “a general unwillingness to change national systems whatever they may be.” Britain, for instance, lets asylum-seekers look for work six months after they have lodged their application; Germany makes them wait 12 months and France 18. Trying to find a common approach to family reunification has also proved fraught. Germany wants to prevent children older than 12 joining their parents; others see this as too tough. The Dutch want gays to be allowed to join their partners; the Spanish are dead against the idea. In theory, EU leaders also want a common time-frame for assessing asylum claims; in practice, many home ministers say they cannot give deadlines to judges.

It is unlikely that putting illegal immigration at the top of the agenda in Seville will lead to a breakthrough. The summiteers will look for progress in two specific areas. First, they will ponder the idea of an EU border-police to replace national frontier controls. That will be deemed a step too far for now, so instead there will be moves towards exchanging information on visas and an emphasis on greater co-operation between frontier police. Second, the leaders may try to reach a compromise on an idea, championed by Britain and Spain, of trying to link foreign aid to countries’ willingness to take back refugees whose asylum applications have been rejected. This may generate the headlines that EU leaders want about “tough action”. But opposition from a number of EU countries means the reality will be messier, and will probably emphasise rewards for co-operation rather than punishments. No one will subordinate aid to the fight against illegal immigration.

So a genuine harmonisation of asylum policies will have to wait for another day. Commission officials hope that in about six months they may secure agreement on family reunification. Establishing common procedures for processing applications and appeals is likely to take much longer. In any case, some officials reckon that even if a fully harmonised set of EU rules is eventually achieved, it would be unlikely to ensure that all EU countries share a proportionately equal burden of asylum-seekers. That is because the laxness or otherwise of national regimes is only one factor determining where asylum-seekers make their claims: family and cultural ties, work opportunities and language are just as important.

Liberals within the commission and elsewhere are hoping that the Seville summit will not strike too punitive a tone. “We might get something into the 13th paragraph of the summit statement, acknowledging that EU countries actually need immigrants,” says one official wryly. But the argument that allowing more legal immigration is both the way to stem illegal immigration and to solve the problem of the EU’s ageing population is widely viewed as too simple. As the same official points out, “We know from America’s experience that allowing lots of legal immigration does not put a stop to illegal immigration.” EU studies have also suggested that immigration alone will not be enough to make Europe’s population younger.

So in calling for the harmonisation of EU policies on illegal immigration, European leaders are engaging in a great deal of double-talk. The number of asylum-seekers does not bear out talk of a worsening crisis. And the actions of political leaders do not suggest a great desire to surrender control of national immigration in favour of a common EU approach.

On the contrary. In the weeks before the Seville summit, several EU governments have taken unilateral measures to tighten up their own immigration regimes. Denmark has brought in a law cutting benefits to asylum-seekers and making it harder to bring in spouses or elderly relatives. Italy will soon have one that would make non EU-citizens be fingerprinted if they want to live in the country. Britain’s government has proposed educating the children of asylum-seekers outside the main school system. In Austria, immigrants will have to try harder to learn German. Other countries may well follow suit. EU governments can talk till they are blue in the face about a common approach. For now, unilateral action is still the order of the day.