Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action.
On January 22 2016 05:24 Nyxisto wrote: Also deporting to Iran would be pretty impossible due to Iran using the death penalty (very leniently).
It does not even matter in this case. The guy was born in Germany, raised in Germany and if you want to send him back somewhere... well that would have been Germany.
I btw agree on refusing all asylum seekers that get involved in criminal acts (and thus sending them back). No matter if there is a death penalty or whatever waiting in their country. Otherwise I would expect entire North Africa to heavily promote the death penalty, so they dont have to take back their masses of economic refugees. (of which >40% get involved in criminal acts during their first year in Germany, compared to <0.5% for Syrians/Afghans)
It is just, that this guy really has nothing to do with all this. And it is funny that an article is cited, that even explains how the "send him back" argument is bullshit... and certain angry users still bring it.
On January 22 2016 05:24 Nyxisto wrote: Also deporting to Iran would be pretty impossible due to Iran using the death penalty (very leniently).
Why is it relevant that he's Iranian? Or are you just heaping all brown people together because you are too ignorant to understand the difference between Iran and Syria, and the problems of second/third/fourth generation migrants, and the problems of the current mass migration wave?
Don't try to bring nuance into it. If you do that you are 'relativizing' (usually the indicator of a healthy mind), the fact aside obviously that Iranians are the best integrated minority in Germany with the highest percentage of tertiary education, but whatever.
What does this have to do with this individual? You are really "special".
What have individuals to do in a politics thread, are we going through every criminal case file now? Will be a long evening. Either you're using the individual case as an example to make a point, which fails in case of the Iranian diaspora in Germany, or you don't in which case the whole argument is useless.
Throw enough shit and hope that some of it sticks, that's basically all there is to it.
On January 22 2016 05:24 Nyxisto wrote: Also deporting to Iran would be pretty impossible due to Iran using the death penalty (very leniently).
Why is it relevant that he's Iranian? Or are you just heaping all brown people together because you are too ignorant to understand the difference between Iran and Syria, and the problems of second/third/fourth generation migrants, and the problems of the current mass migration wave?
Don't try to bring nuance into it. If you do that you are 'relativizing' (usually the indicator of a healthy mind), the fact aside obviously that Iranians are the best integrated minority in Germany with the highest percentage of tertiary education, but whatever.
What does this have to do with this individual? You are really "special".
What have individuals to do in a politics thread, are we going through every criminal case file now? Will be a long evening. Either you're using the individual case as an example to make a point, which fails in case of the Iranian diaspora in Germany, or you don't in which case the whole argument is useless.
The case was brought up to make a general point (not by me btw) and some other guy made a shit post to reply to the original point made by m4ini.. Whatever discussing with you is quite futile so of course you are right Also amusing that you always champion against grouping people together, now if someone does the opposite (like m4ini), individuals become meaningless and everything is about Iranians in germany as a whole. Anything against cognitive dissonance I guess.
I don't think I've grouped any people here together, if you're referring to pegida or something, it's a group of 'political activists' if you want to call them that. They've unified under a common banner, so I think referring to them as a group is legitimate. Just as I would talk of 'the SPD' or 'the antifa'. There's a difference between social groups which are homogeneous in label only and political groups which explicitly affiliate with some common ideology.
On January 22 2016 05:48 Nyxisto wrote: I don't think I've grouped any people here together, if you're referring to pegida or something, it's a group of 'political activists' if you want to call them that, they've unified under a common banner, so I think referring to them as a group is legitimate. Just as I would talk of 'the SPD' or 'the antifa'.
No of course you didn't that is why you dismissed the example of the iranian citizen which was brought up by m4ini to make a more general point with the reference that Iranians living in germany do good regarding their education as a group....
On January 22 2016 05:24 Nyxisto wrote: Also deporting to Iran would be pretty impossible due to Iran using the death penalty (very leniently).
It does not even matter in this case. The guy was born in Germany, raised in Germany and if you want to send him back somewhere... well that would have been Germany.
I btw agree on refusing all asylum seekers that get involved in criminal acts (and thus sending them back). No matter if there is a death penalty or whatever waiting in their country. Otherwise I would expect entire North Africa to heavily promote the death penalty, so they dont have to take back their masses of economic refugees. (of which >40% get involved in criminal acts during their first year in Germany, compared to <0.5% for Syrians/Afghans)
It is just, that this guy really has nothing to do with all this. And it is funny that an article is cited, that even explains how the "send him back" argument is bullshit... and certain angry users still bring it.
Death penalty existing as a penalty in the country they come from isn't enough to prevent you from sending them back, the individual in question must have a personal risk of getting sentenced to it.
That said, sending people back to their potential deaths is simply a no-no in my opinion, regardless of if it's sending them back to a country that isn't safe at all (like Syria, where the entire country is unsafe at the moment) or because they risk the death penalty.
If the country is safe for them and they commit serious crimes during the first few years they are here, send them back. Though I wonder how they got asylum in the first place if their homecountry is safe.
If the country is safe for them and they commit serious crimes during the first few years they are here, send them back. Though I wonder how they got asylum in the first place if their homecountry is safe.
Well... this is why Germany is (finally) intending to declare the Maghreb countries as "sichere Herkunftsländer" (safe countries of origin). This was already done for the Balkans last year. It is just a bit late.
the declaration as a "safe country" does not eliminate the asylum process though. It's still an individual right, it just shifts the burden of proof onto the asylum seeker and until the application is processed people will still stay in Germany. It will speed up the process but it's not going to eliminate all the problems and deportation in reality will take a lot longer probably as well.
(1) Persons persecuted on political grounds shall have the right of asylum.
(2) Paragraph (1) of this Article may not be invoked by a person who enters the federal territory from a member state of the European Communities or from another third state in which application of the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms is assured."
Never mind. No use arguing with fools like nyxisto on this site. I hope his children will see the new world he is desperately trying to create. Maybe then reality will get the better of him.
Being a refugee and being granted asylum are two different legal concepts in Germany.Asylum is the one mentioned in paragraph §16 of the constitution, the other ones are §3 and §4 of the Asylgesetz (asylum law) which is what the overwhelming majority of refugees apply for, as it grants protection as an 'international refugee'. 98% of applications for §16 are being denied for the reasons mentioned in (2).
The legal difference being that someone falling under refugee status is only granted a temporal residence permit for three years, then their situation will be re-evaluated. (Flüchtlingseigenschaft )
Guy Verhofstadt explains the concerns of the European Parliament regarding the recent changes to the Constitutional Tribunal in Poland. He claims, and very adamantly so, that PiS passed regulations that give the three new judges veto rights to block any decision by the Tribunal. That, simply put, it utter horseshit. No such regulations were passed, Verhofstadt is either deliberately lying or he was mislead by someone (still requires a hefty amount of ill will, as the EU was provided information on all new regulations). My guess is that his intention is to escalate the situation in hope of Nowoczesna (PO 2.0) assuming power after the next elections:
If the country is safe for them and they commit serious crimes during the first few years they are here, send them back. Though I wonder how they got asylum in the first place if their homecountry is safe.
Well... this is why Germany is (finally) intending to declare the Maghreb countries as "sichere Herkunftsländer" (safe countries of origin). This was already done for the Balkans last year. It is just a bit late.
Guy Verhofstadt explains the concerns of the European Parliament regarding the recent changes to the Constitutional Tribunal in Poland. He claims, and very adamantly so, that PiS passed regulations that give the three new judges veto rights to block any decision by the Tribunal. That, simply put, it utter horseshit. No such regulations were passed, Verhofstadt is either deliberately lying or he was mislead by someone (still requires a hefty amount of ill will, as the EU was provided information on all new regulations). My guess is that his intention is to escalate the situation in hope of Nowoczesna (PO 2.0) assuming power after the next elections:
If I write anything wrong please correct me. PIS increased the voting percentage of the Constituational Tribunal to overrule any law to 66%. As I get from the video PIS nominated 3 new judges from their own party. How many judges are there in total? Or in other words are these 3 new judges enough to block the 66% needed to call laws unconstitutional? If yes then this is probably what Guy Verhofstadt means. If no then I don't get Guy either.
Guy Verhofstadt explains the concerns of the European Parliament regarding the recent changes to the Constitutional Tribunal in Poland. He claims, and very adamantly so, that PiS passed regulations that give the three new judges veto rights to block any decision by the Tribunal. That, simply put, it utter horseshit. No such regulations were passed, Verhofstadt is either deliberately lying or he was mislead by someone (still requires a hefty amount of ill will, as the EU was provided information on all new regulations). My guess is that his intention is to escalate the situation in hope of Nowoczesna (PO 2.0) assuming power after the next elections:
If I write anything wrong please correct me. PIS increased the voting percentage of the Constituational Tribunal to overrule any law to 66%. As I get from the video PIS nominated 3 new judges from their own party. How many judges are there in total? Or in other words are these 3 new judges enough to block the 66% needed to call laws unconstitutional? If yes then this is probably what Guy Verhofstadt means. If no then I don't get Guy either.
Well, he explicitly says there are new regulations that give those three new judges veto rights, meaning that not all judges are equal, otherwise why would he talk specifically about those judges, and not the total number of the judges nominated by PiS? That is simply not true. Earlier in the debate (below) he also says that it's not the nominations they have a problem with, or even to increased quorum, or the enforced chronological order of cases (the Tribunal has a history of ignoring cases brought up by the citizens and acting extra quick out of political sympathy).
(The Guy was also boasting about how he's on Putin's blacklist, but in reality he's doing business with Gazprom...)
When it comes to the arithmetics of the Constitutional Tribunal, there are 15 judges in total.
If there were to be a compromise (PO nominating replacement for the 3 judges whose terms expired when PO formed the government, and PiS replacing the remaining 2, whose terms would expire after the recent elections), PO-nominated judges would currently outnumber those nominated by PiS 12 to 3, and 10 to 5 up until 2019.
If PO had its way (pushing through all 5 nominations) there would currently be 14 judges nominated by PO and 1 by PiS (although keep in mind that PiS approved of some of the previous nominations by PO). As a result, up to 2019 PO nominated judges would outnumber those nominated by PiS at least 10 to 5. Keep in mind that according to the previous Constitutional Tribunal Act, assembling as a full court meant 9+ judges. With the president of the Tribunal being nominated by PO, we could have had all 9 assembling judges being PO nominated... Yet there was no international response and Verhofstadt has the nerve to talk about checks and balanced...
With PiS getting its way (what we have now), there are currently 9 judges nominated by PO and 6 nominated by PiS. From June 2017 to May 2019 PiS would have 8 judges and PO - 7. What is more, PiS suggested to make it law that the opposition would at all times have 8 judges and the parliamentary majority - 7. PO declined...
According to the new regulations, the Tribunal has to assemble as a full court (13+, as of now), unless specified otherwise. 7 judges have to assemble in case of (a) a constitutional complaint or a legal inquiry and (b) international agreements. 3 judges have to assemble (a) to further a constitutional complaint or (b) exclude a judge.
I am not entirely sure whether Guy Verhofstadt was being literal when it comes to the supposed veto rights. If not, then he should still do the math. I for one don't see a threat of the Tribunal's work being obstructed. If anything, it's PO that attempted to obstruct any reforms by PiS via the Tribunal.
Right wingers think they're funded by liberal parties and their evil overseers from the West because journalists from German owned media keep participating in those. Liberals think it's a spontaneous national revelot against authoritarianism. I don't have any data about the actual numbers of protesters and don't know where to look because the right will tell you those are small groups of political activists and the left will say whole cities stop to protest. In my opinion ordinary people stopped caring about those protests long time ago and moved on to more "hot" topics like handball or Lewandowski's goal count.
EPT
Also amusing that you always champion against grouping people together, now if someone does the opposite (like m4ini), individuals become meaningless and everything is about Iranians in germany as a whole. Anything against cognitive dissonance I guess.
