Bavaria to sue angela Merkel over migrant crisis

Well I could throw that exact same image to you about my original point. Merkel is right to accept these immigrants BECAUSE THEY ARE ****ING DYING IN SYRIA, where the government is as corrupt as the terrorists who want to destroy it.

The burden of migrants can't be taken alone by the countries which receives them, they need to be distributed.

Charity starts at home?

Reply 41

Frank Underwood

5

Original post by Luke Kostanjsek

Please don't put words in my mouth, I don't think I've actually said that I disagree with Merkel accepting immigrants. What I said was that your argument that they should accept the immigrants as they are trying to escape war is bull, because if their only objective was to escape war then they would be quite satisfied in turkey/italy/greece/wherever they happened to land.

In what way are they being distributed?! The immigrants don't want to be distributed, they all want to be in Germany/Britain/France because they're the most affluent countries.

Not necessarily. There are so many factors attributing to where migrants want to go, and you're assuming they're all for economic income. If that's the case, then why don't just the working age males go and leave their family in Turkey? The world isn't one-dimensional, the immigrants have determined countries like Germany to be the best place to be, and that's good because they're openly rejecting vicious regimes like ISIS and Assad. What's your clever little alternative? To send them back to die in Syria?

Reply 42

Jebedee

17

Original post by Frank Underwood

Do you have proof / evidence of this? Because I think staying away from crippling corruption and poor economic conditions and war is a pretty good reason to need to leave.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/09/30/europes-asylum-seekers-who-they-are-where-theyre-going-and-their-chances-of-staying/

Only 20% are Syrians, making the rest not genuine refugees.

Reply 43

scrotgrot

16

Original post by BaconandSauce

You sound just like the BNP when you say things like that

She plainly can't be ethnically German (although "German" isn't an ethnicity, if you want to force the definition it's certainly not going to include Arabs).

Thankfully, citizenship and civil rights aren't based on ethnicity in the enlightened West - although of course there are some who would like it to be otherwise. They are based on some combination of jus sanguinis and jus soli.

So she probably means her parents aren't German by descent, which is obviously way different from ethnicity.

Reply 44

Luke Kostanjsek

11

Original post by Frank Underwood

Not necessarily. There are so many factors attributing to where migrants want to go, and you're assuming they're all for economic income. If that's the case, then why don't just the working age males go and leave their family in Turkey? The world isn't one-dimensional, the immigrants have determined countries like Germany to be the best place to be, and that's good because they're openly rejecting vicious regimes like ISIS and Assad. What's your clever little alternative? To send them back to die in Syria?

Are you suggesting that there is no difference between western and eastern european benefits? Anyone would be economically better off in western europe, we have better work opportunities, better benefits, better infrastructure, better housing, you name it. It's fairly self-evident that that's why they're choosing germany over turkey or hungary for instance.

All I'm saying is that as nice as it would be to live in Guardian-world, where money is an infinite resource, we have to be realistic. If we say that any and all immigrants are welcome, then why would anyone choose to remain in north africa/the middle east? The fact is an open-door policy is unsustainable. So yes, as distasteful as it may be, as far as I'm concerned they should not be allowed to stay in germany. International law is perfectly clear on this matter. You have the right to claim asylum in the FIRST SAFE COUNTRY YOU ARRIVE AT. Not the first safe country that you feel like staying in, not the first safe country that provides ample benefits for you. The first safe country you arrive in. So if they arrive in turkey, they stay in turkey. If they arrive in Italy, they stay in italy. And then I guess it's for the EU to decide how they should be spread across europe.

Reply 45

KungPooPanda

10

Not surprised at all

I was saying from the very begining that this open door policy is going to come back and bite merkel

Original post by Luke Kostanjsek

You have the right to claim asylum in the FIRST SAFE COUNTRY YOU ARRIVE AT. Not the first safe country that you feel like staying in, not the first safe country that provides ample benefits for you. The first safe country you arrive in. So if they arrive in turkey, they stay in turkey. If they arrive in Italy, they stay in italy. And then I guess it's for the EU to decide how they should be spread across europe.

It is actually RIDICULOUSSS how many people don't realise this about international law on migrants, in an emergency scenario like we are in, you are meant to stay in the first SAFE country that you get to, there is nothing in the law about passing on through to get to wherever you feel is the best place 'to live', it doesn't work like that

In THEORY, they should want to stay as close as possible to their own country so that when / if the problem is eventually sorted, they have a shorter distance to travel back

Reply 46

KimKallstrom

14

Original post by queen-bee

Amen.

I don't understand some of these selfish people. How do you know they're not in need? As if they personally know them and what they've been through

Well for starters half of them aren't even Syrian, but random Albanians, Pakistanis and Afghans. I'm actually being generous when I say behalf the stats on asylum claims in Germany in 2015 show it's even less than that. Somebody posted them on here a while back from the BBC (although let's face, most people already knew that anyway).

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 47

KungPooPanda

10

Original post by KimKallstrom

Well for starters half of them aren't even Syrian, but random Albanians, Pakistanis and Afghans. I'm actually being generous when I say behalf the stats on asylum claims in Germany in 2015 show it's even less than that. Somebody posted them on here a while back from the BBC (although let's face, most people already knew that anyway).

Its less than that, i think its been well established now that a large chunk (not all) of people coming over are not running from anything, just jumping on the get to Europe bandwagon

Reply 48

Satanas

2

Original post by AlwaysWatching

http://www.economist.com/news/europe/21692916-under-pressure-reverse-her-refugee-policy-angela-merkel-faces-court-case-welcome

Bavaria looks to have a pretty strong case. Finally she will be held accountable for her reckless actions.

Merkel letting migrants into Germany?!?

But what about muh jobs, what about muh benefits, what about muh cultural homogeneity?

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 49

scrotgrot

16

Original post by Luke Kostanjsek

Are you suggesting that there is no difference between western and eastern european benefits? Anyone would be economically better off in western europe, we have better work opportunities, better benefits, better infrastructure, better housing, you name it. It's fairly self-evident that that's why they're choosing germany over turkey or hungary for instance.

All I'm saying is that as nice as it would be to live in Guardian-world, where money is an infinite resource, we have to be realistic. If we say that any and all immigrants are welcome, then why would anyone choose to remain in north africa/the middle east? The fact is an open-door policy is unsustainable. So yes, as distasteful as it may be, as far as I'm concerned they should not be allowed to stay in germany. International law is perfectly clear on this matter. You have the right to claim asylum in the FIRST SAFE COUNTRY YOU ARRIVE AT. Not the first safe country that you feel like staying in, not the first safe country that provides ample benefits for you. The first safe country you arrive in. So if they arrive in turkey, they stay in turkey. If they arrive in Italy, they stay in italy. And then I guess it's for the EU to decide how they should be spread across europe.

But that is exactly what the refugees have been doing. Unless you literally run blindly out of your front door, swim blindly across the Med/Jordan and don't stop till you are in another country, you will at some point have to make a choice, whether you like it or not, no matter how "noble and pure a refugee" you are, between which "first country" you want to head for.

Obviously you will choose to head for the most stable first safe country you can afford to pay the smugglers for. Why would you do anything else?

So we get hundreds of thousands of refugees turning up in first safe countries in Greece, Italy and France (as well as millions in Jordan, Lebanon).

The only other country they have apparently gone to which can't possibly be a first safe country is Germany - but Germany invited them of course.

Reply 50

ChaoticButterfly

20

Bet you'd love to get her pants off :sexface:

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 51

generallee

16

Original post by Satanas

Merkel letting migrants into Germany?!?

But what about muh jobs, what about muh benefits, what about muh cultural homogeneity?

Posted from TSR Mobile

What about the fifty billion euros this is estimated to cost over the next two years?

All to bring in swarms of Muslim rapists! Sensible policy. Very smart.

Britain needs to learn how to handle the illegal immigration crisis from following Merkel's example!

Reply 52

balanced

17

Original post by AlwaysWatching

http://www.economist.com/news/europe/21692916-under-pressure-reverse-her-refugee-policy-angela-merkel-faces-court-case-welcome

Bavaria looks to have a pretty strong case. Finally, she will be held accountable for her reckless actions.

It seems like the members posting here have no knowledge of the German constitution, which Merkel has not kept in line with.

According to the German constitution, and rightly so, asylum seekers can only enter the country via land if they are entering from an usafe country. This is in line with international law, which ststaes that once a migrant is moving from a safe couintry to a safe country, they are an economic migrant. The case is very strong, and Merkel could face severe reprocussions for her actions.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 53

Camoron

1

Original post by AlwaysWatching

http://www.economist.com/news/europe/21692916-under-pressure-reverse-her-refugee-policy-angela-merkel-faces-court-case-welcome

Bavaria looks to have a pretty strong case. Finally she will be held accountable for her reckless actions.

I doubt it. This woman has the full support of the liberal and left population across Europe, people don't understand how she is still very popular

Reply 54

Camoron

1

Original post by ChaoticButterfly

Bet you'd love to get her pants off :sexface:

Preferably in preparation for public execution

Reply 55

Camoron

1

Original post by queen-bee

My family don't live 'everywhere' and my mum was born in Germany,years before this whole refugee crisis. I don't get what your point is.

Don't you mean migrant crisis? Or are you part of the group who reckons 90% of the migrants are women and children from Syria?

Reply 56

balanced

17

Original post by queen-bee

My family are fully integrated into German society thank you very much just like the Turks and other ethnic minorities living in Germany

Are you saying that as a joke? Maybe you don't realise what the ethnic minorities have done to crime rates in Germany.

Reply 57

balanced

17

Original post by Frank Underwood

Well I could throw that exact same image to you about my original point. Merkel is right to accept these immigrants BECAUSE THEY ARE ****ING DYING IN SYRIA, where the government is as corrupt as the terrorists who want to destroy it.

The burden of migrants can't be taken alone by the countries which receives them, they need to be distributed.

They're not objects, and so they will simply go to where there is money, as the majority are not Syrian and are economic migrants. (Source: UN)

Reply 58

Luke Kostanjsek

11

Original post by scrotgrot

But that is exactly what the refugees have been doing. Unless you literally run blindly out of your front door, swim blindly across the Med/Jordan and don't stop till you are in another country, you will at some point have to make a choice, whether you like it or not, no matter how "noble and pure a refugee" you are, between which "first country" you want to head for.

Obviously you will choose to head for the most stable first safe country you can afford to pay the smugglers for. Why would you do anything else?

So we get hundreds of thousands of refugees turning up in first safe countries in Greece, Italy and France (as well as millions in Jordan, Lebanon).

The only other country they have apparently gone to which can't possibly be a first safe country is Germany - but Germany invited them of course.

If you're escaping war, then I'd imagine choosing which country you can get to is simply a case of where you can leave for as soon as possible, rather than which first country you'd prefer - presuming of course you're actually escaping war, rather than one of the 80% (I think that's the right figure) who are just using the situation to try and get to Western Europe. And they haven't just gone to Germany at all, I presume you've seen/heard about the massive numbers of people trying to get into Britain through Calais.

Don't misunderstand me (as I think a fair few people have), I don't blame the migrants for doing what they're doing. Of course they want to get themselves to Germany/Britain/France, it's a better life. It's only natural that they'd rather live in one of those countries than say Greece or Turkey. But that doesn't mean we just wave them in! As I said, the law is perfectly clear on this. They stopped being asylum seekers the moment they arrived in Greece/Italy/Turkey/wherever. So why on earth shouldn't they be subject to the same migration rules as people from, say, Australia? And you can't use the whole 'escaping war' argument, because they've already escaped war once they arrived in Greece/Italy/Turkey/wherever!