How extreme are the AfD?
Discussion
TooMany2cvs said:
Atomic12C said:
But what ever it is, the above does not take away the fact that migrants are entering the EU illegally.
But as soon as they claim asylum, they cease to be illegal, right up until such time as their asylum claim is denied.
And that Turkey / Greece is not a safe entry point in as much that the asylum seeker is no longer under persecution ?
The percentage figures for those who are genuine asylum seekers fleeing persecution and those who are simply crossing borders to move to the modern world is a contentious point and very much up for debate. Because many of the EU members have been forced to play down the figures it means finding the facts is quite difficult.
But overall I think its a massive failing of the EU that they didn't address the issue when it first started.
Creating a safe refugee camp on the Turkish border would have given the migrants a safe place to stay whereby they had medical centers and access to food and water.
This would have also stemmed the economic migrant incentive before it had chance to gain momentum.
Coming back to the thread topic, this would then have meant the likes of the AfD would not have gained votes and Brexit may not have had such a strong following etc. (accepting that border control for the UK was a strong issue for some)
every country has the right to reject you at the border even if you have the passport visa etc. if they find you suspicious or without any reason at all
it's not the practice especially not in EU but they have the right to do so
and to admit thousands unknown persons from risky areas to the country just begs for security problems, which we saw lately
it's not the practice especially not in EU but they have the right to do so
and to admit thousands unknown persons from risky areas to the country just begs for security problems, which we saw lately
TooMany2cvs said:
BTW, "Times of Israel"? Is this your idea of a centrist, credible, unbiased source?
It was in response to the claim that the AfD are anti-semitic, and therefore Nazis.How often does our mainstream media highlight antisemitism in the Labour party...
https://ctd-thechristianpost.netdna-ssl.com/en/ful...
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Lefts-Jewish-Problem-Jere...
Username888 said:
How often does our mainstream media highlight antisemitism in the Labour party...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36177333http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36169654
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39498275
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-40119103
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41394265
TooMany2cvs said:
Atomic12C said:
You wouldn't be suggesting that all migrants arriving in the EU are asylum seekers would you?
As soon as somebody applies for asylum, yes, they're an asylum seeker. Right up until their claim is decided - then they aren't.It's kinda the basic definition.
The point I was trying to make is that the majority entering the EU are not asylum seekers, they are economic migrants entering illegally.
Some/many (figures are not available) are then guided to claim asylum in order that what you say can play out.
Many of them however don't bother with the asylum effort, as the EU's Dublin regulation is now in effect.
This means migrants are being 'registered' and they are being 'distributed' to EU member states for 'processing' and 'integration', whereby that member state is not allowed to deport them back to the first safe country they entered.
Its a mockery of what the existing asylum system is there to establish and a mockery of international borders.
Something which Poland and Hungary are shouting about within the EU.
The EU should get its act together because this 'open invitation' which basically is now looking like an invite to the entire world to come and live in the EU if they choose to do so, is encouraging people to make dangerous journeys and is not going to stem the migrant any time in the future.
This is likely to create more and more extreme opposition parties, something which doesn't bode well for EU politics.
Atomic12C said:
The point I was trying to make is that the majority entering the EU are not asylum seekers, they are economic migrants entering illegally.
Some/many (figures are not available) are then guided to claim asylum in order that what you say can play out.
Yep. At which point, they become asylum seekers, because they are seeking asylum.Some/many (figures are not available) are then guided to claim asylum in order that what you say can play out.
The phrase "asylum seeker" tells you exactly one thing - they're seeking asylum, during which process they are in the country legally. It tells you nothing about their motivations for migration, and it tells you nothing about the merits of their claim for asylum.
Atomic12C said:
Its a mockery of what the existing asylum system is there to establish and a mockery of international borders.
I agree. And it's something that's actually really, really easily solved.All it needs is a little more co-operation between countries, a little more European integration.
A single pan-European asylum system...
Somebody applies in the first country they come to, is transferred to one of a number of interim camps while their claim is processed - and is then assigned a destination country as and when the claim is accepted. The distribution is evenly split, according to the population of the destination countries, and residence is then restricted to that country for - say - five years. What's unfair about that? Genuine refugees are protected, no one country is overwhelmed, and chancers are dissuaded. Migrant trail, Jungle, whatever - gone at a stroke.
'course, it'd mean that the UK would have a substantial increase...
Atomic12C said:
Something which Poland and Hungary are shouting about within the EU.
And the Visegrad Four are exactly why it'll NEVER happen - because they don't want ANY refugees, especially <doom-laden fanfare> Muslims.TooMany2cvs said:
Atomic12C said:
Its a mockery of what the existing asylum system is there to establish and a mockery of international borders.
I agree. And it's something that's actually really, really easily solved.All it needs is a little more co-operation between countries, a little more European integration.
A single pan-European asylum system...
Somebody applies in the first country they come to, is transferred to one of a number of interim camps while their claim is processed - and is then assigned a destination country as and when the claim is accepted. The distribution is evenly split, according to the population of the destination countries, and residence is then restricted to that country for - say - five years. What's unfair about that? Genuine refugees are protected, no one country is overwhelmed, and chancers are dissuaded. Migrant trail, Jungle, whatever - gone at a stroke.
Of course refugees ought to go back home when it is safe to do so, can't see that happening either but given the small number of genuine refugees it's not something I'd be overly concerned about.
The far easier and cheaper way to solve things is to use the navy/coast guard to enforce the border into Italy etc.
Hayek said:
Will the people who do not pass the refugee test get sent back home?
Of course. Just as now.The problem comes when you can't prove where somebody comes from... You can't deport somebody to anywhere but their country of nationality - nowhere else has to accept them. If it was taken at face value, then everybody who's rejected in Germany would say "Me? Oh, I'm American/Australian. Honest..." - so where do you deport them to?
Hayek said:
The far easier and cheaper way to solve things is to use the navy/coast guard to enforce the border into Italy etc.
Do you mean "let people drown in international waters"? Can't do that... There's umpteen international conventions that say there's a duty to save lives at sea...One of my sons has lived in Germany for 25 years plus now, so I emailed him and asked him, "This AfD, are they a modern equivalent of Nazi Light?"
His wife, my German daughter-in-law replied for him, she is a very intelligent woman, educated to University level, and speaks English like a BBC announcer.
She said, "It's no good asking him Frank, having been born and raised in London, he has similarities with you, in that he doesn't see skin colour, or ethnicity, just whether he gets on okay with someone, although unlike you, he has manifested mild homophobia over the years, but not to the extreme.
He treats the AfD with scorn, and laughs at them, as does Lars, (their elder son), but what he doesn't seem to get, is that the black, brown, and yellow British, both indigenous and immigrant, are a world apart from the hordes that have invaded my country, just be grateful that they're here, not there.
In the recent Election, your know it all son, as a German citizen with dual nationality, voted SPD, while I voted AfD, if I didn't love him, you could have him back."
His wife, my German daughter-in-law replied for him, she is a very intelligent woman, educated to University level, and speaks English like a BBC announcer.
She said, "It's no good asking him Frank, having been born and raised in London, he has similarities with you, in that he doesn't see skin colour, or ethnicity, just whether he gets on okay with someone, although unlike you, he has manifested mild homophobia over the years, but not to the extreme.
He treats the AfD with scorn, and laughs at them, as does Lars, (their elder son), but what he doesn't seem to get, is that the black, brown, and yellow British, both indigenous and immigrant, are a world apart from the hordes that have invaded my country, just be grateful that they're here, not there.
In the recent Election, your know it all son, as a German citizen with dual nationality, voted SPD, while I voted AfD, if I didn't love him, you could have him back."
Edited by Frank7 on Friday 29th September 14:07
TooMany2cvs said:
The problem comes when you can't prove where somebody comes from... You can't deport somebody to anywhere but their country of nationality - nowhere else has to accept them. If it was taken at face value, then everybody who's rejected in Germany would say "Me? Oh, I'm American/Australian. Honest..." - so where do you deport them to?
This is where, if they claim to be an asylum seeker and they enter the first safe country, if they then chose to ignore that first safe country and the international asylum system, and then choose to venture over borders without papers, they become an illegal immigrant - no longer an asylum seeker.The asylum system is not set up so that anyone in the world can choose where they wish to enjoy the rest of their lives, it is set up to serve a particular purpose for those genuinely fleeing persecution.
So where do you deport people with no papers? - back to the first point of safe entry.
And this is where the current problem arises. Turkey and Greece have said there are "too many to process", "we're influxed" etc. And they then allow migrants to flow through in to other countries - passing on the problem to the wider EU.
The EU failed to address this and the flood gates opened.
It would be interesting to note the amount that are actually return once the claim is denied.
German tried to return 300 Pakistanis whose application was rejected, Pakistan refused to take them so Germany took them back.
Sweden took in 160,000 in 2015 the government admitted that 60,000 or so were probably not genuine Asylum Seekers.
Why would Sweden take them in, in the first place ?
What mechanism / process do Sweden have to return 60,000 people - none.
Most immigrants realise that once they are in Europe the odds of them being returned are small.
German tried to return 300 Pakistanis whose application was rejected, Pakistan refused to take them so Germany took them back.
Sweden took in 160,000 in 2015 the government admitted that 60,000 or so were probably not genuine Asylum Seekers.
Why would Sweden take them in, in the first place ?
What mechanism / process do Sweden have to return 60,000 people - none.
Most immigrants realise that once they are in Europe the odds of them being returned are small.
TooMany2cvs said:
Atomic12C said:
The point I was trying to make is that the majority entering the EU are not asylum seekers, they are economic migrants entering illegally.
Some/many (figures are not available) are then guided to claim asylum in order that what you say can play out.
Yep. At which point, they become asylum seekers, because they are seeking asylum.Some/many (figures are not available) are then guided to claim asylum in order that what you say can play out.
The phrase "asylum seeker" tells you exactly one thing - they're seeking asylum, during which process they are in the country legally. It tells you nothing about their motivations for migration, and it tells you nothing about the merits of their claim for asylum.
Atomic12C said:
Its a mockery of what the existing asylum system is there to establish and a mockery of international borders.
I agree. And it's something that's actually really, really easily solved.All it needs is a little more co-operation between countries, a little more European integration.
A single pan-European asylum system...
Somebody applies in the first country they come to, is transferred to one of a number of interim camps while their claim is processed - and is then assigned a destination country as and when the claim is accepted. The distribution is evenly split, according to the population of the destination countries, and residence is then restricted to that country for - say - five years. What's unfair about that? Genuine refugees are protected, no one country is overwhelmed, and chancers are dissuaded. Migrant trail, Jungle, whatever - gone at a stroke.
'course, it'd mean that the UK would have a substantial increase...
Atomic12C said:
Something which Poland and Hungary are shouting about within the EU.
And the Visegrad Four are exactly why it'll NEVER happen - because they don't want ANY refugees, especially <doom-laden fanfare> Muslims.Who will pay for this substantial increase that the UK would have to take ?
The financial aspect is where this all went wrong. Germany, like most of us, are suffering with an aging population thought it would be a great idea to bring in lots of young people to pay for the additional costs of the old, as a theory it has some merit. The reality is different;
In the UK you need to earn about £35,000 GROSS to be a net contributor, Germany will probably be similar.
Of the million or so migrants that turned up, most will lack the language, education and skill set to earn that sort of money in Germany. Those that do find a job are unlikely to be earn above the German Threshold. A large proportion will bring in a wife, another non contributor, as first generation immigrants they will have more children say 4. So for the next 20 years these 6 people will be sucking money out of the German system faster that old people they were brought in to help, and there are hundreds of thousands of them.
In time the children will then get old and expect the state to offer them the same benefits as the current old German people.
As a net contributor, do I want to import thousands of Non contributors bearing in mind we already have our own, god no, nor do I want Germany or the EU to force any on us.
del mar said:
The financial aspect is where this all went wrong. Germany, like most of us, are suffering with an aging population thought it would be a great idea to bring in lots of young people to pay for the additional costs of the old, as a theory it has some merit. The reality is different;
I don't think that reason was why Merkel opened the German border.It was more from a religious background and a desire to do something to help, and I dare say to prevent Russia and Syria using a humanitarian crisis to the benefit of their interests in the conflict.
But it was ill thought out and reckless.
What Merkel and the EU should have done (including the UK and the wider UN for that matter) was to establish safe refugee camps on the Turkish/Syrian border. Fully protected by UN or even NATO forces if necessary, to prevent ISIS and the other 'moderates' from using civilians as a bargaining chips in the conflict.
Atomic12C said:
What Merkel and the EU should have done (including the UK and the wider UN for that matter) was to establish safe refugee camps on the Turkish/Syrian border.
They're already there.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refugees_of_the_Syri...
Turkey - 3m
Lebanon - 1-2m
Jordan - 1.2m
Saudi - 500k
UAE - 250k
Iraq - 230k
etc etc
UK - 9.500...
Even Singapore and Serbia have taken more.
TooMany2cvs said:
Hayek said:
The far easier and cheaper way to solve things is to use the navy/coast guard to enforce the border into Italy etc.
Do you mean "let people drown in international waters"? Can't do that... There's umpteen international conventions that say there's a duty to save lives at sea...Although, I can understand international conventions about saving lives at sea if you find yourself in the situation where someone needs saving whilst going about your seafaring business. How can the rules apply if you decide to not take your boat out that day? Surely there's no obligation to save someone that you are not aware of?
Frank7 said:
One of my sons has lived in Germany for 25 years plus now, so I emailed him and asked him, "This AfD, are they a modern equivalent of Nazi Light?"
His wife, my German daughter-in-law replied for him, she is a very intelligent woman, educated to University level, and speaks English like a BBC announcer.
She said, "It's no good asking him Frank, having been born and raised in London, he has similarities with you, in that he doesn't see skin colour, or ethnicity, just whether he gets on okay with someone, although unlike you, he has manifested mild homophobia over the years, but not to the extreme.
He treats the AfD with scorn, and laughs at them, as does Lars, (her elder son), but what he doesn't seem to get, is that the black, brown, and yellow British, both indigenous and immigrant, are a world apart from the hordes that have invaded my country, just be grateful that they're here, not there.
In the recent Election, your know it all son, as a German citizen with dual nationality, voted SPD, while I voted AfD, if I didn't love him, you could have him back."
Interesting.His wife, my German daughter-in-law replied for him, she is a very intelligent woman, educated to University level, and speaks English like a BBC announcer.
She said, "It's no good asking him Frank, having been born and raised in London, he has similarities with you, in that he doesn't see skin colour, or ethnicity, just whether he gets on okay with someone, although unlike you, he has manifested mild homophobia over the years, but not to the extreme.
He treats the AfD with scorn, and laughs at them, as does Lars, (her elder son), but what he doesn't seem to get, is that the black, brown, and yellow British, both indigenous and immigrant, are a world apart from the hordes that have invaded my country, just be grateful that they're here, not there.
In the recent Election, your know it all son, as a German citizen with dual nationality, voted SPD, while I voted AfD, if I didn't love him, you could have him back."
Where are they?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff