Germany. SPD coalition with CDU/CSU leaves party youth out? What it means for Poland?

While trying to avoid the stabby newcomers... but what are a few stabbed Europeans? Eggs to be broken for the glorious omlet!

The logic basically is, there are already bad people in Europe, so whats a few hundred thousand more. Meanwhile, the people who actually pass these policies live inside a security envelope and will never be affected by these decisions.

@mafketis

By the same logic, we would have never allowed free movement from Eastern Europe. The more people enter a country, the more crime you'll have.

The problem in this case are not genuine refugees (who are not more likely to commit crimes than other) but econimic migrants from North Africa.

Also Cottbus has accepted several times more refugees than officially required. Naturally that increases also the chance that a few bad eggs are among them.

The problem was the decision to let all comers through without vetting any of them.

There's a massive overlap between the two - war-torn countries are not easy places to feed yourself in. Nor are the huge swathes of land devastated by human-made global warming. This isssue is only going to increase. People don't want to leave their homes however often they have little or no choice.

Interesting how a thread on internal matters within a major political party, not known for their opposition to the natural migration that is starting, has turned into a discussion on human mobility.

As if that would have prevented most of the incidents. You can't predict future actions of someone just because you know his identity.

Nevermind that Austria made it clear that it would not tolerate large refugee camps in its' borders, so the refugees would have been forced to gather in the Balkans, whose governments were in no way able to handle them.

Exactly! That and the failure to send anyone home right away whose asylum application was denied. Granting asylum means to shelter deserving individuals temporarily until they can safely return home. Asylum doesn't mean you let millions in and sell it to the local population that the newcomers are there to stay and have to be integrated. That's exactly what happens in Germany, and the Germans are once again betrayed by their politicians. Especially by the do-gooders of the SPD and the Greens.

But what do you do if there is no realistic perspecte of safe return for those (genuine) refugees? Syria is not a place people can be expected to return, and if people are expected to live somewhere for many years, you better start integrating them. Not doing that lead to the problems associated with the first wave of immigrants back in the 1970s.


Not that this is the fault of Germany. What are you going to do when the home countries of those men refuse to take them back? After months of negotiating, Germany has now reached an agreement with most North African to take back their citizen, before that they would only accept maybe 300 people per year.

There hasn't been peace in the Middle East since the creation of Israel. What do you expect Germany to do? Invite all people over who are living in the region between Syria and Afghanistan - and because it's so much fun, also those from Libya all the way south to Nigeria? Germany (and the European countries in general) cannot solve the problems of the Arab world and Africa. If you try to do that, you'll destroy your own country both financially and culturally.


Oh, it is Germany's fault if you think about it. First of all, don't let anyone in without a passport. That should be bleeding obvious. Second, once the application for asylum is denied people should be shipped back to their home countries right away. Don't allow them to take advantage of the court system by appealing and postponing the decision for years. The only ones who are profiting are the lawyers, while the police and the German people get deeply frustrated in the process. By the way: did I mention that it is way overdue that the 68er generation judges get replaced? They are far too lenient in my opinion when it comes to asylum seekers committing crimes. It should be "One strike and out".

Obiously not, but Europe could take care of the people who reach the continent and have a genuine claim to asylum. Most countries in the ME are poor, but they are also at peace. There are stable places in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the central government -as flawed as they are - are notknown to commit large scale atrocities. The only place where refugees could not expect to return is Syria.


As pointed out, that was not an option. The people were there, and no other country would have been able to handle them.

First you need to prove that people are from said home country. If they do not have papers, you need their home country to deliver those papers. And those home countries deliberately prolonged that process. And even then, those countries need to accept them, or else they can't be brought back.

The process has been shortened, but we are still living under the rule of law in Germany, and naturally the right of appeal is important in such decisions. This is after all a decision that will affect their life tremendously.

Considering most judges do not start their career before they are close to 30, and retire when they are 65, it is very unlikely that many are stll around. The importance of the 1968er has been greatly exaggerated anyway.

Judges do not make the laws. The laws regarding asylum have been made stricter, but sending people back to an area in which they could be killed is rightfully limited above certain requirements.

The whole issue rests on the notion that Germany was never prepared for what was seen as the onslaught of non-European migrants descending on the continent without any type of plebiscite or grass roots support. Merkel along with the EU made the final decision and BOOM, here they are, usually as unprepared for what they might expect in Europe as the Europeans were en masse unprepared for what their foreign "guests" would bring.

It is a fact that Germany could have prepared better, but it is not like those refugees came here over-night, there had been a noticeable increase in the years before 2015.

The problem became however urgend in autumn 2015, and Merkel had to make a decision fast. There was not time for long debate, let alone a plebiscite. We had a de facto plebiscite on this issue with the elections in 2017, which supported this decision, considering that only 13% of the voters voted for a party that opposed this on principle.

You therefore would agree in substance that the "fault" in the entire proceedings lies almost squarely at Chancellor Merkel's front door.

Partly, but not entirely. Her power as chancellor is limited due to heavily federalized nature of Germany, while she could have done more, so should have others. Particulary the regional governments of Bavaria and NRW (the two counties with the most refugees) should have done more to accomodate the refugees, and some ministers also failed to do their job.

The migration is not natural. If it were it would be more evenly dispersed and not incumbent on Germany to absorb the most migrants. This migration can be stopped, through dis-incentive's to come into Europe in the first place(benefits for citizens only), and through the states legitimate monopoly on the use of violence if absolutely necessary. Arguably if the previous administration hadn't decided Libya needed 'freedom and democracy,' a large part of this problem would not exist, at least as regards the migrants from MENA countries. Here is to hoping the German's get some people in power who aren't hellbent on a US of Europe, and total cultural degradation of something which took a thousand years for their ancestors to build, and which shouldn't be given away to people who haven't earned their right to live in that society. Hopefully more countries start to follow the lead of Poland, and put their own citizens first. Europe for the Europeans.

Translation: Germany has agreed to massive payments (probably off the books) to the government/governors of those countries.


You can do better than just taking their word for it.

This is why I'm against closer EU integration. Letting the first countries of contact deal with the situation (and letting them actually do so freed from outdated and irrelevant international rules that are plainly dysfunctional) would have been better in the long run. it take the slow EU so long to even notice a situation that it's clearly not meant for quick reaction.

And it's certainly likely to steadily increase in the future.

@Tacitus, can't you then imagine the proverbial "alliance of convenience" next time round for Chancellor, MERKEL AND SEEHOFER running on the same ballot??
:-)

@jon357

Instead of throwing your hands up and saying its likely to increase, you could join with us in pressuring our politicians to take action and put a stop to it. Your posts sound almost celebratory that we will be inundated with this problem, correct me if I'm wrong. I welcome all highly skilled immigrants into the United States and Europe who hold advanced degrees, or possess a skilled trade, if they want to contribute to maintaining the greatness of Western civilizations, or become educated in the West and take those skills back to their respective countries I think it's a great thing for the world in general. But I will never abide people who want to come and benefit from the blood, sweat, and tears of my parents and ancestors, for something they have not earned, and who do not want to contribute. Immigration can only be merit based.

Anyone who comes from a war zone and is a legitimate asylum seeker should have the chance for an appeal if necessary, economic migrants gaming the system should not have that opportunity.


No, but they do the sentencing and the ones who are in office right now are far too lenient.


ONLY 13% ??? Tacitus, you are talking about a few million people here and this is happening in GERMANY. If that doesn't ring the alarm bells, then I don't know what does.

No, this is actually the problem, at least in the case of Greece. The Greeks were simply unwilling and unable to defend the sea border, and when other EU countries wanted to help them, the Greeks took offence and refused to let them.

What should have happened from Day 1 was that anyone landing on Schengen territory would be immediately detained in transit camps. Require processing within 24 hours, and anyone genuinely from a war zone would be resettled somewhere in the EU. Anyone else (economic migrants) would be simply given the choice of returning to their home country or staying in camps indefinitely. If their home country refused to accept them, then they would stay detained. Even if they manage to make it, detention should have been automatic for anyone caught illegally.

Economic migrants would almost certainly stop coming if it was clear that nothing but a lousy camp awaited them, and that there would be no possibility of living freely in the EU.

Of course, the camps would cater for their needs - food, shelter, clothing and warmth - but nothing else. No-one would risk coming all the way from sub-Saharan Africa just to be placed indefinitely in a camp. Member states could then be free to offer them something, but the rules would clearly limit them to the member state that offered them a form of residency, and if they were caught outside of that member state, they would be immediately placed in the camps and detained until deportation.

Making Europe a lousy place to try and come is easy enough to do.

@delphiandomine

Seconded on that one mate. Australia declared anyone who arrived by boat would NEVER be resettled in Australia, and the boats stopped coming when they realized they'd be detained on Papua New Guinea in well, less than ideal conditions.

It's actually a very effective way of doing things, because while I strongly believe in keeping people in humane conditions, there's no reason to give them anything other than those conditions.

Part of the system that's so broken right now is just how long it takes to process asylum claims. There's no reason why they couldn't be processed within 24 hours, then sent onwards (if they have a valid claim) to other EU countries for further processing. If the claim is denied (for instance, some idiot claiming to be from Syria while speaking with an Egyptian accent) - then they should stay in such minimal camps. If it's accepted, move them onwards to other EU countries where they can be examined in more detail.

Of course, if they turn out to be genuine refugees, then they should be given residence of an EU country at random and provided with support. It should, however, be clear that their asylum claim is only valid in the country where they've been settled. If they get sent to Latvia and are caught in Berlin, then it should be back to the first stage camp until their deportation.

The current appalling situation where Italy just hands out residence permits and then turns a blind eye to what happens next is absolutely intolerable and unacceptable.

I think current EU rules forbid that type of judgement, I remember one story where interpreters were expressly forbidden from conveying to officials that the guy claiming to be Syrian had a strong Moroccan accent (for example).

At most stages of processing people are just expected to believe whatever the supposed refugees say.

This is how it nowadays more or less works, the SPD has agreed to speed up the process for people from North Africa. But must refugees are from countries that do not automatically qualify them as economic migrants.


Make no mistake, I am far from happy about this, and if things were differently in the world, I would be very alarmed. But considering how many votes similar parties get in other European countries, and the election of Trump, I am somewhat relieved that those are only a small minority in Germany.

@delphiandomine


To be fair, until Merkel negotiated a deal with Ankara, the Turks were more than happy to let those refugees through. It is impossible to properly control the border between Greece and Turkey without Turkish cooperation.


A good idea in theory, but we know the reason why this did not work. All the other countries were content to simply leave Greece and Italy deal with the refugees, citing the Dublin agreement until those countries could not handle it anymore. And since Poland and other countries are still refusing any kind of resettlement program, this would also not work in the future.


This is already happening in most member states, even in Germany. But I am not sure that this will activelly deter migrants from trying to a noticeable degree. You must consider that in many countries, particulary in Africa, people have completely false expectations about their possible life in Europe. Those expectations are fuelled by traffickers and desperation. It has also been noted that many applicants from those countries send false message home, describing their new life as wonderful because they do not want to be seen as failures. The German government has even started a campaign to inform people in Africa about the truth and even set up a website in several languages.

A new German Foreign Office website aims to get the facts out to migrants, making them less susceptible to rumours spread by human traffickers

southafrica.diplo.de/sa-en/04_News/10-rumours-website/495520

Here is the website:

rumoursaboutgermany.info/7-most-common-lies-of-human-trafficers

This is of course important, but even knowing the dangers and miserable conditions awaiting them before they can even try to enter Europe, e.g. in Libya has not done much to curb their willingness to risk it.


Indeed, and this situation has been going on for years and were one reason for Merkel's decision to suspend Dublin, because the other countries ignored it too. However I can understand why Italy did what they did, it is unfair to let the Southern countries, who suffer from economic hardship anyway, deal alone with the refugees.

@SigSauer


That is what Australia claims, but to my knowledge, it considers the numbers of arrivals a state secret. It also left them vulnerable to getting sued by those in the camps.

No thanks.


It won't make any difference. As long as a population increases in a region where resources decrease, people have to move or die. Nigeria is the elephant in the room, 200 million and set to double, while mam-made global warming desertifies their food sources.

Translation: As long as feckless people cannot keep it in their pants and reproduce with no thought to tomorrow or available resources, it's the moral duty of Europe to save them from their oversexed selves.... that about right?


Nope. Their population might be set to double but Africa has always had a hard time feeding itself (not entirely the Africans fault, in terms of geography the continent is just not set up for mass levels of food production. Maybe Nigerians should stop having so many kids that they can't feed.

@jon357

It begs the question, what exactly do you think should be done about this problem in order to safeguard our culture and much more importantly our economies from the influx of these people?

Surely you have some solution in your mind as you seem to have thought about these things at some length or at least considered them.

They are not dangerous! Except..... when they're dangerous.

Afghan on trial for killing woman who converted to Christianity.

expatica.com/de/news/country-news/Germany-court-murder-Afghanistan_1660933.html

For Merkel supporters she was just another egg to be broken... that omlette aint' gonna make itself.

This post is racist. You have to respect his culture and traditions.

Only a few bad apples, one bad apple in the news every other day, but still, only a few.