People are arguing about whether or not ISIS members can “slip through” the EU’s refugee processing system and/or whether at least one of the Paris attackers came to Europe as a migrant/refugee. In poking around international law, e.g., this article on asylum and Wikipedia, I’m wondering whether an admitted ISIS member wouldn’t qualify. The refugee/asylum standard seems to start with
A person who owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.
Thus if there is an armed conflict between two sides, a person from either side should be able to asylum on the ground that he or she might be killed by a person on the other side. There is nothing in this standard that says the “political opinion” of ISIS leads to a stronger or weaker claim than the “political opinion” of someone who supports the Syrian president.
What would stop a person from showing up in England, France, or Germany and saying “I am a member of ISIS and I have a well-founded fear that I will be killed by opponents of ISIS, including military forces from your own country” and getting asylum on the basis of that statement?
Related:
- Telegraph article on Taliban members who successfully obtained asylum in Britain: “There is a perversity in a system where the people who potentially pose the greatest risk to the West have the strongest claim to asylum,” … “The law states that they are entitled to it. It is irrelevant what their beliefs are, by law we cannot send someone back if they are in danger of their life.
- September 11 anniversary thought: Are we equipped to handle 21st century refugees? (if Europeans are closer geographically and culturally to Syria than are we and they can’t filter out those who wish to attack them, what hope is there that the U.S. government will do better?)
No, you are missing the grounds for exclusion. These include a petitioners that is a supporter of an terrorist organizations (as ISIS is designated), and petitioners that have engaged in persecution of others
Well, they could in Canada: this purports to be a tough rebuke of the idea that Canada is a conduit for terrorist http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/canadas-refugee-system-is-a-dead-end-for-terrorists/article580517/
However it seems to confirm that it’s pretty easy to gain refuge there for a terrorist, albeit one with a risk of getting a Security Certificate, or becoming “subject to ‘confrontational interviews’ by CSIS”
Thanks, lvl. The article does make it sound as though Canada is a great place for any terrorist looking to take a few years off while funded by Canadian taxpayers! Once suitably rested the fight can be resumed.