Signers Of The European Agreement On The Abolition Of Visas For Refugees

There are two thingsOne is Dublin Regulation where refugees are supposedly the responsibility of the first safe country.So even though the refugee might want to go to UK, they are supposed to stay in first safe country - which could be France. Even if France is not actually “first” once they get to channel and stop it is “more first” than going to UK would be.Second is Le Touquet treaty. Juxtaposed controls This is what allows the Eurostar French border check to be at St Pancras, on boarding the train - not in France. It also means UK border check is physically in France, not in UK.So those people wanting to get in, are stopped by UK border check in France - and (unless they are granted admission, which they are not) they stay in france.The French are not happy with this, and are threatining to cancel the treaty, presumably in the plan those refugees will go to UK - and be stopped by border police in UK, but will be the problem of UK, with a camp in UK—Tom Foale makes a very interesting & important point in the comments:When we leave the EU we are no longer part of the Dublin agreement, and revert to international refugee law - which means that anyone who wants to claim refugee status in the UK rather than the EU can come straight here. They will no longer get held in Greece and Italy as the first port of entry to the EU as they will not be claiming asylum in an EU member country.—As does Leah EarlThere's also a subsidiary issue that the level of security the French provide is something that they were effectively forced into by the EU, because disruption to the smooth running of the Channel Tunnel was considered to be in breach of EU rules on the free movement of goods and services.France pledges to improve Sangatte securityPotentially if the UK leaves the EU then France can scale back very significantly on security provision, because goods and services going to the UK are no longer moving within the EU.

Heh, they're not that welcoming. There is a lot of backlash, even in countries that have taken hardly any. But some reasons:1. They're going to come anyway. Their lives in Syria, Eritrea (not technically a Muslim majority country, but a very sizeable minority) etc are terrible. Europe has large external borders, that cannot easily be wholly policed. So better to institutionalise it so that you can lessen (but not eradicate) the influence of criminal gangs etc. This is maybe less of an issue for an island like the UK, but for mainland Europe it is a huge one. People are going to get to Greece, to Italy and Turkey regardless of what we do about it. 2. Economic benefits. Particularly in the case of Syria, the refugees are overwhelmingly young and relatively well educated. They will likely make for productive workers. An ageing Europe requires this flow of immigration.  3. Compassion and common decency.  The refugees are fleeing either from brutal civil wars or persecution, or sometimes grinding horrible poverty. It is considered by some (myself included) that we have significant duties towards such people, by virtue of our common humanity. Accepting refugees is one way of helping at least some people live minimally decent lives. 4. Media and public pressure. Once Aylan Kurdi's dead body washed up on a Turkish beach, there was tremendous pressure on even anti-refugee leaders (eg. David Cameron in the UK) to do something. Such images were heartbreaking, even if the public is starting to forget about them.

Please Do Not Listen to all these people. Most of them have no idea what they are talking about.Travelling with UK Refugee Travel Document: Visa Requirements and Restrictions - Sterling & Law Associates LLPThis link will give you the best answer with all the places you can travel visa free on convention travel document (blue) which is provided to the refugee List of Countries below which you can get visa free entry.AlbaniaAndorraBelgiumBosnia and HerzegovinaBulgariaCroatiaDenmarkFinlandFranceGermanyGreeceIcelandKosovoLiechtensteinLithuaniaLuxembourgMaltaMoldovaMonacoNetherlandsNorwayPolandPortugalRomaniaSloveniaSpainSwitzerland

Yes, Germany and other North European countries did accept a lot of people as refugees, but the way they've handled the crisis and announcing their "open" borders was horrible and created a lot of needless grief.There is lots and lots of paperwork involved to prove who you are and why you have fled the place you lived in to be granted Asylum - i.e. be recognized as a refugee -  most people that are now stranded cannot collect, and honestly most of them would not qualify for. Wanting a better life / future for you and your children sadly doesn't cut it, and the whole "open border" publicity stunts don't make this clear.Would have been much easier if Germany had planned this better and made it clear that if you cannot get clearance to get into a plane directly to Germany in a country neighboring the warzone, you simply should not even try. Would cost all involved members far less in time, grief, time and ofc money. Turkey, Greece and countries in the Balkans are holding the hot potatoes and are asked to solve the mess using their own assets / budgets to trying to secure their borders, shelter & short refugees, save them when those are dumped in the middle of the sea by human traffickers that already ripped them of their live's savings promising them unattainable "goods" in the other end of a dangerous ride.So yes, Germany might now be overwhelmed by the requests for asylum, but they are more responsible than they admit for the hundreds of  thousands that are piling up through this winter along the EU borders. Both ethically, and financially.

I wish I could say “No, you’re wrong, this isn’t the case,” or, “well, it’s more complicated than that,” but it would be disingenuous and about playing semantics and other bullshit.The reality is, countries that have been involved in wars in the Middle East are not being good partners in the refugee crisis. The biggest stand out is the USA. You can argue whether or not Afghanistan is in the Middle East, but the US Senate is currently blocking visas for interpreters who helped the US military in Afghanistan! See Senate Fails To Secure Visas For Afghan Interpreters. It’s pathetic.Why is this? Well, war is over there, and refugees are over here. We already have an army, it’s just sitting around, but do we need to take on these refugees? Explosions in war are kind of cool to see on TV, explosions related to refugees, or even just the hint of them, are horrible and affect people like me. The war cost is very indirect for most Americans, it is funded by debt, while refugees might be seen in my supermarket! I’d love to hear more Middle East veterans talk about this. They’ve played the war game, what do they think of the refugee game? I’m sure there is debate, partly because the veterans are not being treated all that wonderfully, so why spend money on refugees too? To me, they are part of the same problem. War is a short term cost, the consequences of war are a long term liability. The USA government has done an unbelievable job of ignoring or minimizing these consequences. It’s like they bought a house and are all pissed off because now they need to pay their water bill.I do need to state that not all countries are being so bad. Germany is playing a real leadership role in Europe for its part in the refugee crisis. Are they doing everything correctly? No. Are they trying to do their best and being extremely generous? YES! Other countries are following Germany’s lead to a greater or lesser extent, but if you look at the numbers, Germany is certainly placing helping refugees ahead of making war.Canada is another example. In contrast to your question, Canada literally decided to remove its war making capability from the Middle East and trade it for taking in refugees. I wish Canada would do more by taking in more refugees. Canada has had a wonderful net experience with refugees in its post WWII history, and can remain a model for a different path.