Disney Land is a private company. They are not signatory to any treaty on refugees and have no obligation to accept refugees. Should the US decide to use eminent domain to seize Disney Land and put refugees there, it would be possible, but very expensive and face much outcry.

The US has signed the 1967 Protocol on refugees. There is a right of free movement in the US, and I don't think there's any legal reason which prevents refugees in the US from moving to Hawaii should they feel like it.

In addition, Hawaii has accepted refugees before and the governor has said he is not opposed to accepting Syrian refugees: http://khon2.com/2015/11/17/gov-ige-defends-position-on-syri... .

Once a refugee enters any country that is deemed safe, he or she has no right to flee any further. It would be really hard to argue in court that someone had reason to flee France.

Countries can of course have bi or multilateral laws in place that allow free movement, but in case of the EU we have the Dublin Regulation that explicitly forbids this for refugees. The EU country where a refugee first sets foot on has to take care of the asylum process. If the refugee decides to move to another EU country then this country has the right to send them back and this is also executed.

Also yes, the Dublin Agreement is the current law. That does not make it just. I hold with a minority (alas) party of the country I live in - strike down that unjust law and, yes, require all EU and/or Schengen countries to share the effort of providing asylum. Including Monaco, which seems to be doing a good job of it already.

If you want to defend that unjust law, then there's another solution - promote more legal ways to enter the EU, rather than force them through land and dangerous ocean routes, and overloading the border countries.

Get rid of carrier liability and let asylum seekers hop a plane into whichever country they want. As it stands, airlines don't want to bear the penalty for transporting someone who might not get refugee status.

Charter boats so places which are willing to accept refugees (for example, in Spain, https://www.yahoo.com/news/barcelona-waits-refugees-arent-co... ) don't end up with only a trickle.

Quoting from that last link, "human rights are above European legislation".

>If the refugee decides to move to another EU country then this country has the right to send them back and this is also executed.

I guess you are not aware of the court rulings regarding deportation back to Greece?

So basically the court said that Greece is not safe for refugees.

If you know about this ruling then I'm sure you also know about this detail, it is widely known here in Europe.

Why do you then give me this reply? What is this about? You just wanting to be right, no matter if you deceive us by not mentioning this fact?

Do you think that you yourself should be able to pick where to live and work? If yes, why shouldn't he?

I definitely do. I am happy to be EU citizen able to move and relocate freely in EU. I would be even happier being a world citizen able to move wherever I would feel like.

Alas asylum seekers are pinpointed to the place where they ask for asylum.

While this (badly designed) solution stands, the countermeasure they have to pursue is to ask for asylum in the final destination of your journey.

And I cannot see a good reason why Monaco, Disney Land (seriously?) or Hawaii should be exempted from helping asylum seekers.

No, I don't want this. And I don't want anyone to being able to settle in my country just because they would like to.

Anyone that believes otherwise (like you do) denies all members of a society the right to control and choose who can join and live with them.

If we take in people they should be sufficiently educated to have a chance on the job market and willing to be a part of our society and culture.

This is a good thing. Nothing good has ever come from xenophobia, racism and discrimination.

Btw: do you believe that sexual selection is racist? Because it works exactly the same way.

Maybe it would be better if Socialists and Liberals take that choice away from us and make sure we are not racist by allocating sexual partners to each one of us?

Or how about companies? Don't they hire along the same lines? Education, job experience, proficiency in local language. Are companies racist if they don't hire a guy from Afghanistan who can't read and whose only job before was herding sheep?

At least if our school system isn't a total failure like it already is in some areas.

Now imagine how well some guy will fit that comes here in his thirties only knowing Sharia law, cruel physical punishment and who is used to subjugate women by force if necessary.

It is not his skin color or genes that will likely cause him to be a problem in our society, it is the culture he grew up in that had him internalise these rules as being the just way to live your life.

Edit: And of course local people are privileged in this regard. Why shouldn't they? They were most likely raised by citizens who paid taxes and worked on improving their society. It would be kind of crazy to then forcefully send their children away.

Plenty of kids are homeschooled.

A made up one. Your parent made up "learn french" and you made up "hates baguette". I think you've invented something to argue against here.