but i dont think thats a big deal because very few to none refugees will have the assets to support themselves without the help of the state.
European Politico-economics QA Mega-thread - Page 406
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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. | ||
|
hfglgg
Germany5372 Posts
but i dont think thats a big deal because very few to none refugees will have the assets to support themselves without the help of the state. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On January 28 2016 07:34 Gorsameth wrote: Items of sentimental value are not counted so their not going to take wedding rings ect. The only issue I see is that the bill seems to have been passed without any thought to training on how to explain the law to new arrivals and refugees. It also seems sort of redundant, since most of them are so poor and likely have nothing that the government could claim. | ||
|
Sent.
Poland9280 Posts
However, critics have said that many Danes have unemployment insurance that saves them having to sell assets, and anyway would not face the kind of searches proposed under the new law. There is a second article on this topic that gives a bit more details Wedding rings and any other items of sentimental value are exempt. Savings and money in bank accounts will not be seized, a spokeswoman for the immigration ministry told the BBC. (...) While the seizing of assets has dominated international headlines, legal experts and human rights groups have voiced more alarm over measures making it harder to obtain family reunions and residency permits. Amnesty International has said refugees fleeing war would face "an impossible choice" if the waiting period to apply to bring over their family was increased from one year to three. (...) However, some politicians have said the move is "purely symbolic" in order to deter migrants from travelling to Denmark in the first place. (...) In a letter to Ms Stojberg, the Council of Europe's commissioner for human rights, Nils Muiznieks, also said the issue of delaying family reunions raised "issues of compatibility with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights which protects the right to respect for one's family life". The bill "could also infringe on the rights of children to live within their family environment, as prescribed by the United Nations' Convention on the Rights of the Child". http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35408936 | ||
|
hfglgg
Germany5372 Posts
its more a symbolic action to keep refugees away from denmark anyway. | ||
|
dismiss
United Kingdom3341 Posts
| ||
|
hfglgg
Germany5372 Posts
but to be fair, germany is probably one of the worst countries to start over in due to how this country works anyway. nothing is fast, nothing is easy and everything requires years of qualification and tons of certificates. that this leaves a lot of refugees disillusioned is understandable. | ||
|
dismiss
United Kingdom3341 Posts
| ||
|
hfglgg
Germany5372 Posts
so making yourself unattractive should work somewhat, but the expectations refugees have about the life in europe are way overblown. almost no one of the millions that are coming have a chance to have a better life than living on the very bottom of the society. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22104 Posts
On January 28 2016 08:57 Nyxisto wrote: the people going back most likely go back because their family can't come over after changing re-unification laws or because they don't see any long-term perspective here. I really don't think someone who pays thousands of dollars to come over here is going to go away because the government confiscates a few hundred bucks (which are simply used to pay for their expenses anyway) The examples I know from the Netherlands were men who came here while leaving their wive and kids in refugee camps along the Turkish border and not wanting to leave them there for the long time it would take to get re-unification approval. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
Sweden intends to expel up to 80,000 asylum seekers who arrived in 2015 and whose applications had been rejected, interior minister Anders Ygeman said on Wednesday. “We are talking about 60,000 people but the number could climb to 80,000,” the minister was quoted as saying by Swedish media, adding that the government had asked the police and authorities in charge of migrants to organise their expulsion. Ygeman said the expulsions, normally carried out using commercial flights, would have to be done using specially chartered aircraft, given the large numbers, staggered over several years. The proposed measure was announced as Europe struggles to deal with a crisis that has seen tens of thousands of refugees arrive on Greek beaches, with the passengers – mostly fleeing conflict in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan – undeterred by cold, wintry conditions. The United Nations says more than 46,000 people have arrived in Greece so far this year, with more than 170 people killed making the dangerous crossing. Sweden, which is home to 9.8 million people, is one of the European Union countries that has taken in the largest number of refugees in relation to its population. Sweden accepted more than 160,000 asylum seekers in 2015. But the number of migrant arrivals has dropped dramatically since Sweden enacted systematic photo ID checks on travellers on 4 January. Source | ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
On January 28 2016 07:42 Plansix wrote: The only issue I see is that the bill seems to have been passed without any thought to training on how to explain the law to new arrivals and refugees. It also seems sort of redundant, since most of them are so poor and likely have nothing that the government could claim. You'd be quite surprised about the amount. At least i was, when i heard the alleged number. I was under the impression that those people literally have nothing - which isn't the case, obviously. Fact of the matter is, germany seizes money etc of refugees (above a certain amount, depending on the state - above 750 in bavaria, above 350 in BaWue). Fact is also, that law is active since decades, and was invented to prevent abuse of the welfare system by germans and other people. It applies, and always applied, to germans as well. The only thing that changed is that germany now actually enforces it in case of refugees as well (and i actually experienced those shenanigans when i left the military and didn't get help from the state because of savings). The clear formulation is that you have to use your own money to sustain yourself, until you don't have money to sustain yourself anymore. Then you get state-monies. That's it. I mean, honestly. Read this. Ulla Jelpke, an MP for the left-wing Die Linke party, criticised it as “excessive”. “Those who apply for asylum are exercising a fundamental right,” she told Der Tagesspiegel. “That must not be linked to costs, even in cases were applications are rejected.” She also is complaining about how perception of germans towards refugees is shifting. I wonder why, if left wingers actively try to apply different rules for them. It's idiotic, and shouldn't even be worth a discussion. Yeah, refugees have quite the journey behind them, but i don't see why they should keep their money, whereas a german wouldn't (in fact, he'd be breaking the law if he would hide the money). edit: In other news, according to Frontex, 60% of the refugees arriving in december were not eligible for asylum/economic immigrants. | ||
|
Banaora
Germany234 Posts
On January 28 2016 10:14 m4ini wrote: edit: In other news, according to Frontex, 60% of the refugees arriving in december were not eligible for asylum/economic immigrants. Can we finally stop calling them refugees, if more than half of them are economic migrants? | ||
|
nitram
Canada5412 Posts
They aren't expelling anyone. They don't even know where most of them are. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On January 28 2016 11:59 Banaora wrote: Can we finally stop calling them refugees, if more than half of them are economic migrants? Sure for that month, you can totally do that if you want. | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On January 28 2016 10:14 m4ini wrote: You'd be quite surprised about the amount. At least i was, when i heard the alleged number. I was under the impression that those people literally have nothing - which isn't the case, obviously. Fact of the matter is, germany seizes money etc of refugees (above a certain amount, depending on the state - above 750 in bavaria, above 350 in BaWue). Fact is also, that law is active since decades, and was invented to prevent abuse of the welfare system by germans and other people. It applies, and always applied, to germans as well. The only thing that changed is that germany now actually enforces it in case of refugees as well (and i actually experienced those shenanigans when i left the military and didn't get help from the state because of savings). The clear formulation is that you have to use your own money to sustain yourself, until you don't have money to sustain yourself anymore. Then you get state-monies. That's it. I mean, honestly. Read this. She also is complaining about how perception of germans towards refugees is shifting. I wonder why, if left wingers actively try to apply different rules for them. It's idiotic, and shouldn't even be worth a discussion. Yeah, refugees have quite the journey behind them, but i don't see why they should keep their money, whereas a german wouldn't (in fact, he'd be breaking the law if he would hide the money). edit: In other news, according to Frontex, 60% of the refugees arriving in december were not eligible for asylum/economic immigrants. The left was not able to differentiate itself from the right for the last twenty years, since their conversion to liberalism, and the european union could not do anything positive since then, considering it accepted the idea of competition, above anything else, to be the core value of europe. Now that there's some poor people knocking at their door, their old catholic value surge and they feel they will be able to absolve themselves by welcoming those people. And then they wonder why half the population do not follow them in their irrational behavior. | ||
|
Banaora
Germany234 Posts
Merkel’s “We Can Do It!” Perhaps Not! Reflections on Merkel’s curious mixture of profound ethics paired with high-handedness and naiveté. By J.D. Bindenagel former U.S. Ambassador and currently the Henry Kissinger Professor for Governance and International Security, University of Bonn, Germany, January 21, 2016. Inside Germany, the debate over refugees is fast becoming a constitutional crisis. Abroad, it has turned into a foreign policy crisis. Chancellor Merkel’s welcoming culture statement “We can do it” (“Wir schaffen das!”) has upset Germany’s European partners, who are wary of her curious mixture of profound ethics paired with self-righteousness, high-handedness and naiveté. + Show Spoiler + The dangerous fuse between these two dimensions is that her own party — not only her political base, but for long also a kitten in her palm — is now openly questioning her leadership and sense of realism, if not truthfulness. In addition, Germany, the indispensable European power, is now facing a test over finding out honestly and without self-imposed blinders just who the refugees are. The attacks on women in Cologne on New Year’s Eve were the catalyst to speak frankly about immigration. The constitutional dimension The chancellor’s “welcoming culture” statement in light of the civil war in Syria has strong constitutional roots. The first article of the German constitution commits the government to protect and promote human dignity. In a direct reflection of the country’s Nazi period, human dignity is declared inviolable. Germany’s constitutional commitment to the inviolability of human dignity is a defining element of its political culture. Fear is a bad advisor. The commitment to the refugees that Germany is open for them may seem romantic. It is not. Civil war in Syria and the collapse of stability in the region has implications for the geopolitical order complicated by Islamic State terrorism. The resulting crises include the expansion of terrorist attacks in Europe and the arrival of a million refugees fleeing Syria. Where Merkel has faltered is in not making a proper distinction between people who are persecuted for political, religious and other reasons – and who are thus entitled to asylum under the German constitution – and those who are refugees from war zones. Forgetting the distinction The latter have the (temporary) right to refuge under the UN Convention on Refugees, the key legal document in defining who is a refugee, their rights and the legal obligations of states. Their fundamental human rights are to be universally protected under the UN International Declaration on Human Rights. The law sets the rules. Former Constitutional Court Justice Udo Di Fabio has just written a report on the migration crisis and calls it “a constitutional problem.” According to Di Fabio, Merkel’s policy created a direct constitutional conflict with the obligation to protect the country’s territorial integrity and democracy, a core function of any state. Given the largely undiminished inflow of refugees, the urgency to address the refugee problem is growing. Germany’s constitutional obligations for human dignity and asylum, Di Fabio says, must be weighed against the protection of the borders and Germany’s territorial integrity. The failure to do so undermines democracy. Over-promising and under-delivering Fear is spreading that ISIS terrorists will be imported into Europe and more attacks such as the Charlie Hebdo, or the November 13, 2015, Paris attacks will spread throughout Europe. Terrorist assaults in Paris produced fear among the public that another attack could come anywhere and anytime. Merkel is confronted with a political rebellion at home because, among the million refugees Germany has accepted, some have committed crimes that feed populist and right-wing extremism in Germany. After the attacks in Cologne, there is no denying criminality among some refugees. Germany’s laws were just changed to allow for early deportation, but for the several thousand already waiting return to their countries, the legal changes will not suffice. Germany, a country of rules and proud of its rule-of-law culture, will keep the federal government’s commitments to protect and promote human dignity and the right to asylum. Nevertheless, given that the legal questions are certainly fiendishly complex, the outcome of a potential constitutional complaint is unknowable. The heart and soul of German politics Chancellor Merkel bet twice on public acceptance of her wisdom. She announced an accelerated end to nuclear energy generation in Germany, after the Fukushima nuclear disaster. She won that bet for German leadership in alternative energy. The second bet, Chancellor Merkel’s welcoming culture policy, in effect, was seen as an open invitation to refugees not just from the Syrian civil war, but pretty much from anywhere, to come to Germany because they would be “welcomed.” That policy has hit a brick wall. European Union member states balked at taking refugees and sent them on to Germany. Local communities’ social services offices were overwhelmed by the flood of people. The backlash against the refugees has grown dangerously. The Chancellor faces a constellation of legal, political and societal forces demanding stemming the uncontrolled flood of refugees. Police and military measures alone will not suffice to contain the threat. German Muslim, Christian and Jewish communities should join in a common effort to support tolerance, if it is truly the heart and soul of German politics. Criminals among the refugees need to be arrested, tried and, if convicted, deported. Germany’s borders must be controlled or closed quickly. Merkel needs to win EU support on resettlement of refugees. German foreign and security policy must soon show results from initiatives to stop refugees before they flee to Europe. That is the truly gigantic bet Merkel has been making. We will very soon find out about the outcome of that bet. Even this article fails to mention that a big chunk of so called "refugees" are actually economic migrants dreaming of a better life in Europe (Germany). This will not work if the population does not support it and support is diminishing already. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22104 Posts
On January 28 2016 11:59 Banaora wrote: Can we finally stop calling them refugees, if more than half of them are economic migrants? And what about the other 40%? I'm all for sending any economic migrants back as soon as we can but that doesn't mean we should stop taking care of those who actually need it. Providing ofcourse they respect our laws and values ect. | ||
|
Toadesstern
Germany16350 Posts
On January 28 2016 12:18 nitram wrote: They aren't expelling anyone. They don't even know where most of them are. I do wonder what those 60-80k people who got rejected are like. If they arrived here without a passport they probably don't even know where they're from to begin with (unless they popped up in some database because of fingerprints which basicly means all hell breaks lose for that specific person in question). Where do you send them? Surely you're not going to expel people into a warzone even if they got rejected, do you? Or are they rejected because they did arrive with a passport and they know they're not from syria? Just asking because as far as I understand that's a legit issue in Germany for those that are breaking the law. There's lots of people you just don't know where they're from and if they say they're from Syria that's it. If they break the law they probably go to prison but you can't really expel them I think... | ||
|
nitram
Canada5412 Posts
On January 28 2016 20:55 Toadesstern wrote: I do wonder what those 60-80k people who got rejected are like. If they arrived here without a passport they probably don't even know where they're from to begin with (unless they popped up in some database because of fingerprints which basicly means all hell breaks lose for that specific person in question). Where do you send them? Surely you're not going to expel people into a warzone even if they got rejected, do you? Or are they rejected because they did arrive with a passport and they know they're not from syria? Just asking because as far as I understand that's a legit issue in Germany for those that are breaking the law. There's lots of people you just don't know where they're from and if they say they're from Syria that's it. If they break the law they probably go to prison but you can't really expel them I think... If they get caught with a passport of a country at peace, they just throw the passport away and claim another identity. This is also happening in Germany, is it not? | ||
| ||