That would mean the end of Schengen (which relies on open, unchecked borders). Which might well be the outcome, tbh.
I suspect not so much by preventing them moving through borders, but by preventing them settling in other countries. i.e. their refugee status would only be valid in the designated country. If they pitched up in another and were caught they would have no right to be in that other country.
If they refuse to sign, or sign but don't co-operate, what would we do? We've already decided they are refugees and thus in need of safe haven, remember.
Technically, they've decided they are refugees and in need of safe haven. We didn't appear in their home country and hoover them up, they made the choice (often an understandable choice) to travel to us. When they arrive at our borders they say "I am a refugee fleeing from XXXX please let me in and shelter me".
.
Remember their refugee status is still to be determined at the point of arrival. There will be numerous screenings to decide if someone genuinely is to be awarded refugee status by us.
.
I am proposing that the first test of their refugee status should be will they declare they are not a terrorist and that they will abide by their host country's laws and the refugee regulations.
.
The agreement would need to be mild, literally no more than "I am not a terrorist, I will abide by my host countries laws and my refugee status regulation.". Laws would need to be in place to say what "breaking of host countries laws" would constitute a big enough reason for ejection. Clearly a parking ticket or drunken disorderly or even petty theft would not (and should not be) enough grounds. I'd say serious intentional criminal offences, e.g. murder, attempted murder that level. The same with breaking the refugee regulations, small breaches would not be grounds for ejection, but absconding (i.e. moving countries without authorisation) might be.
.
If you are claiming asylum you are essentially saying that your life and wellbeing are under serious threat in your home country. if that is the case then you shouldn't balk at obeying some mild rules. If someone would rather risk the threat in their home country rather than agree to abide by our (almost always less restrictive than anywhere else in the world) laws, I'm going to say that that threat wasn't bad enough to be an asylum case in the first place.
More broadly, does it fit in with the multi-cultural approach to which Western Europe is so wedded (e.g. see the free speech issue mentioned by NeilF above)?
I think that the MC experiment has failed. I'm not anti immigration per se but I don think that more effort (on both sides) needs to be made to integrate immigrant into the mainstream culture. That is not to say that immigrant populations must drop all their cultural history and adopt wholly British (or French or Dutch) culture. Part of what makes Britain great is it's merging of other cultures with it's mainstream culture. look at our cuisine, our music (a very successful export), our fashion, our language ("bungalow", "pyjamas", "bling") our sporting hero's, most of British culture is a mishmash of other cultures.
.
When I was a student in the 90's the main student area was predominantly Pakistani. All the street signs had Urdu translations underneath, there were posters of (who I now know to be) Osama Bin Laden with "Death to the infidel dogs" pasted on some of the lamp posts. Some of the residents literally spoke no English. They relied on their children to interface with the outside world. That was bad.
Europe already has painful levels of unemployment, particularly youth unemployment.
Yeah, this is why careful attention is needed so that the immigrant population doesn't outcompete the local population. on the other hand unemployed youth (either native or immigrant) is always going to lead to problems. So youth unemployment as a whole needs to be addressed.
I agree. Hence my preference for making it possible for refugees to find safe haven closer to home.
Wholeheartedly agree. The best solution is to either remove the need for them to leave (peace in the Middle East!) and/or accommodate them much nearer to home. Frankly the gulf states also need to pick up the tab. it's is highly telling that the majority of the displaced Muslims are having to find sanctuary amongst the "infidel crusader" countries rather than being assisted by their brother Muslims.