Riso posted:Combine that plan with the recent ECJ ruling that non-citizens can be withheld welfare payments and it doesn't look like too big a hurdle to pass. They are not cutting the value of benefits for refugee's that still have a valid reason to be in Germany are entitled to, therefore the court rulings are irrelevant. They are taking away the right to work for certain groups (mainly people whose application was denied but who are blocking their deportation and for people whose applications have little chance of success. The other big group is people that get send away according to Dublin2) while the other refugee's don't get their benefits cut but instead of money they get them in kind.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 19:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 05:04 |
|
|
Honj Steak posted:It's anyway questionable if this proposal is feasible because of the forementioned supreme court ruling. Going by the SZ article (which is written by Prantl, and therefore misrepresenting stuff) it sounds like a measure aimed at providing people with the means to get back to their Dublin state. If that is combined with actually enforcing deportations against that group, it might be feasibe. It probably wouldn't be legally acceptable to tolerate those people living here while at the same time only giving them the lowered benefits. (Due to tolerated refugees lacking a substantiated "Minderbedarf", as the cited BVerfG decision calls it.)
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 19:57
|
|
Randler posted:Going by the SZ article (which is written by Prantl, and therefore misrepresenting stuff) it sounds like a measure aimed at providing people with the means to get back to their Dublin state. If that is combined with actually enforcing deportations against that group, it might be feasibe. It probably wouldn't be legally acceptable to tolerate those people living here while at the same time only giving them the lowered benefits. (Due to tolerated refugees lacking a substantiated "Minderbedarf", as the cited BVerfG decision calls it.) The biggest problem might be that German prisons are too nice and expensive, which means the only coercive measure that would be efficient to actually transporting them to the country of origin by force and I have no idea how feasible that is.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 20:03
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:Another group that is going to see cuts are refugees who are not compliant with the Dublin treaty, which means those who traveled to German via another EU member state. Which strikes me as quite powerful, given the difficulty of entering Germany without passing through another EU member.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 20:08
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:Agreed. The Assyrian Christians in Syria are at least partially responsible for the rise of ISIS, and if we let them into Europe, they'll just make another ISIS there. We need to force them to stay and fix their ISIS problem or we're not dealing with it correctly. Good points op. I do imagine if the refugees were conservative christians the tune of many here would instantly change.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 20:13
|
|
|
True, if it was conservative Christians I'd be all for letting them rot on the border.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 20:20
|
|
|
Woozey posted:Which strikes me as quite powerful, given the difficulty of entering Germany without passing through another EU member. Many refugees aren't registered until they arrive in Germany.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 20:29
|
|
|
Honj Steak posted:Many refugees aren't registered until they arrive in Germany. That's the point, they are supposed to get registered in the first Schengen country they enter. If not they can be sent back to the first country, as per the Dublin regulation. But I guess if a refugee took a boat by Gibraltar, sailed up the North Sea and up the Elbe to Hamburg they'd be fine...
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 21:21
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Well, if you're going to stake out a position that people who are suffering have a moral right to the resources of wealthy countries, and that wealthy countries have a complementary obligation to provide those resources, you have to be willing to discuss the limits of that right and the practical challenges involved (especially if you're going to include people merely suffering from a low standard of living) or you have to articulate an unlimited right and deal with the problems that brings. So far no one has been willing to do that other than SedanChair with is "full communism now" shtick that we all know isn't serious. I'm perfectly serious. The only reason open borders policy is not considered "serious" is because of political opposition from bigots and nationalists. In actuality, restrictive border policies, despite being the law almost everywhere, are "unserious" because their justification amounts to little more than "GO HOME WE'RE FULL."
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 22:51
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Well, if you're going to stake out a position that people who are suffering have a moral right to the resources of wealthy countries, and that wealthy countries have a complementary obligation to provide those resources, you have to be willing to discuss the limits of that right and the practical challenges involved (especially if you're going to include people merely suffering from a low standard of living) or you have to articulate an unlimited right and deal with the problems that brings. So far no one has been willing to do that other than SedanChair with is "full communism now" shtick that we all know isn't serious. I've barked up this tree with SedanChair before. The answer is that you are talking to someone who doesn't understand the most basic of economic principles. I'd not pursue that further.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 22:57
|
|
|
Which basic economic principle?
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 23:06
|
|
|
TROIKA CURES GREEK posted:A rise in far right parties is basically inevitable at this point. To no appreciable effect or benefit
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 23:12
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Which basic economic principle? The basic principle of "GO HOME WE'RE FULL." Or in economic terms, "money is fixed and if more people come in, they'll take it all and spend it on tortillas and obscure, noisy religious festivals. Then that money will no longer exist."
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 23:15
|
|
|
An appeal to scarcity, then, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 23:17
|
|
|
My poor understanding of the Euro is that the money is, in fact, fixed, or at least there's great inertia between policy and monetary policy
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 23:19
|
|
|
Woozey posted:True, if it was conservative Christians I'd be all for letting them rot on the border. That's a terrible thing to say. How is one conservative Abrahamic religion inherently worse than another?
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 23:32
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Well, if you're going to stake out a position that people who are suffering have a moral right to the resources of wealthy countries, and that wealthy countries have a complementary obligation to provide those resources, you have to be willing to discuss the limits of that right and the practical challenges involved (especially if you're going to include people merely suffering from a low standard of living) or you have to articulate an unlimited right and deal with the problems that brings. So far no one has been willing to do that other than SedanChair with is "full communism now" shtick that we all know isn't serious. The thing is that systems are already in place to deal with refugee's that work. It's just that certain people want to shut those down because there is an actual significant number of refugees. But to try and frame the argument that the incredibly rich EU (talking about core countries here not Croatia or Greece) can't afford to house refugee's is insane. The narrative that the refugee's are all extremist Muslim hill people is also retarded and insane because a large portion of the Syrian and Iraqi refugee's are fleeing religious extremism. You know whats a good way to radicalize a group of religious people? Oppressing them. So if you like Muslim extremism then well I guess you should be in favor of dicking over the refugee's.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 23:42
|
|
|
Venom Snake posted:The thing is that systems are already in place to deal with refugee's that work. It's just that certain people want to shut those down because there is an actual significant number of refugees. But to try and frame the argument that the incredibly rich EU (talking about core countries here not Croatia or Greece) can't afford to house refugee's is insane. No it's not, you're not grasping the scale of how many people are coming and will come to Europe if given the chance. It can't be afforded, not without massive societal upheaval and a significant drop in living standards. Venom Snake posted:The narrative that the refugee's are all extremist Muslim hill people is also retarded and insane because a large portion of the Syrian and Iraqi refugee's are fleeing religious extremism. If any are extremists, once they get to Europe, we can't get them out. Our legal systems will not allow us to deport them back to places where they'll be executed or tortured. We don't have a Guantanamo Bay.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 00:16
|
|
|
Nermal posted:If any are extremists, once they get to Europe, we can't get them out. Our legal systems will not allow us to deport them back to places where they'll be executed or tortured. We don't have a Guantanamo Bay. If only there was somewhere European jihadists could go of their own volition. Like a war they would want to fight in.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 00:18
|
|
|
Nermal posted:No it's not, you're not grasping the scale of how many people are coming and will come to Europe if given the chance. It can't be afforded, not without massive societal upheaval and a significant drop in living standards. So your telling me the worlds most powerful economic union can't afford to house and clothes refugee's who if they all moved to Germany would make up less than 3% of the population. just lol. Nermal posted:If any are extremists, once they get to Europe, we can't get them out. Our legal systems will not allow us to deport them back to places where they'll be executed or tortured. We don't have a Guantanamo Bay. Does europe just not have military's, or police, or prisons? Like do you think crime just never happens in europe or something. and lol at the notion the EU can't deport people.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 00:23
|
|
|
Venom Snake posted:So your telling me the worlds most powerful economic union can't afford to house and clothes refugee's who if they all moved to Germany would make up less than 3% of the population. just lol. Venom Snake posted:Does europe just not have military's, or police, or prisons? Like do you think crime just never happens in europe or something. No, "europe" doesn't have a military, police, or prisons.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 00:28
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:No, "europe" doesn't have a military, police, or prisons. Neither does America, strangely enough.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 00:34
|
|
|
Venom Snake posted:So your telling me the worlds most powerful economic union can't afford to house and clothes refugee's who if they all moved to Germany would make up less than 3% of the population. just lol. In this fantasy scenario of yours, are we saying a polite but firm 'no' to the non-Syrians at the border (everyone's being honest when asked of course), and they're sheepishly turning around and heading back? Do you really think that's what's happening, or that that's remotely feasible? Venom Snake posted:Does europe just not have military's, or police, or prisons? Like do you think crime just never happens in europe or something. Being an Islamist extremist is not a crime. I'd prefer not to live in the type of police state that has the monitoring capability required to accurately predict who our next beheader is going to be, not when a significant amount of the population are candidates, anyway. Venom Snake posted:and lol at the notion the EU can't deport people. It's quite a lol, yes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 00:36
|
|
|
Nermal posted:No it's not, you're not grasping the scale of how many people are coming and will come to Europe if given the chance. 0.7% increase in population in the European Union. 4.01 million registered refugees vs. 508.02 million Europeans. 3.3% if the entire population of Syria came since 2014. European Union current population growth per year: 2+% as of 2014 (taken prior to the diaspora). So please explain why 13-14 million more Syrian people are going to magically appear in Europe such that the population increase is going to become untenable.  Nermal posted:It can't be afforded, not without massive societal upheaval and a significant drop in living standards. Living standards have been dropping across many European states despite GDP growing. It's almost like living standards are part of the things governments don't give a poo poo about as long as they get their donors showing their appreciation! Nermal posted:If any are extremists, once they get to Europe, we can't get them out. Our legal systems will not allow us to deport them back to places where they'll be executed or tortured. We don't have a Guantanamo Bay. This bit is the kind of sentence that gets you held back after class for how poorly it's thought out. Try doing it better.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 00:37
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:Do you know what the Syrian Civil War is? Muslim communities that were colonized or the colonizer, that were under foreign rulers for centuries or a couple decades or never, that have been under dictatorships or democracies, that have been rich or poor, that have been exploited or exploiters, that are still in the middle-east or abroad, that have had dictators held in place by foreign power or removed by foreign powers. A diverse set of histories and conditions and they all keep slouching toward the same pathologies, that other countries with similar or worse conditions seems to avoid. Can you notice the trend? We abandon regimes or support regimes, do too little or too much, provide aid or impose sanctions, or maybe we do nothing at all and any of these actions becomes appropriated as The Real Reason for sectarian violence, ethnic cleansing, and violent oppression. Must the Middle-East be hermetically sealed before anything can be their fault, before we look at the widespread ideology that all these countries just coincidentally happen to share?
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 00:44
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:So please explain why 13-14 million more Syrian people are going to magically appear in Europe such that the population increase is going to become untenable. See above: we don't have a magic filter for Syrians at the border. Maybe governments don't give a poo poo about living standards where you live. Where I live they like donors but definitely give a poo poo about what voters think, and voters care about living standards.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 00:54
|
|
SickZip posted:Muslim communities that were colonized or the colonizer, that were under foreign rulers for centuries or a couple decades or never, that have been under dictatorships or democracies, that have been rich or poor, that have been exploited or exploiters, that are still in the middle-east or abroad, that have had dictators held in place by foreign power or removed by foreign powers. A diverse set of histories and conditions and they all keep slouching toward the same pathologies, that other countries with similar or worse conditions seems to avoid. Can you notice the trend? We abandon regimes or support regimes, do too little or too much, provide aid or impose sanctions, or maybe we do nothing at all and any of these actions becomes appropriated as The Real Reason for sectarian violence, ethnic cleansing, and violent oppression. Must the Middle-East be hermetically sealed before anything can be their fault, before we look at the widespread ideology that all these countries just coincidentally happen to share? Personally, I'm looking forward to shelling Zurich and Prague and Toulouse with white phosphorus. It's approaching four generations from when the world last had to deal with European pathology, time for a little renewal.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 00:57
|
|
|
Interesting infographic on Syria shows that France is the big slouch in accepting refugees and would be the hardest-hit by the EU quota system by far. Given France's experience with economic migrants and their failure to integrate/the state's failure to integrate them over the last 20 years I find it hard to believe that France would be sanguine about this quota idea. For all the hand-wringing in the thread, there is actually a proposal on the table from Merkel to institute a quota system for arriving refugees. What do you guys think about that? Ireland and Denmark would be exempt already. It's France and the relatively more wealthy and smaller central European countries like Slovenia and Czech Rpblc that would have to start accepting more people. Do you guys think this sounds like a good idea? Politically tenable?Disco Infiva posted:He doesn't know how to respond so he's loving with him. Actually I thought it was interesting how he immediately got defensive about his own country, which suggests that he thinks I have a point. A Czech or Croat can do a lot more about the refugee crisis on their doorstep than complaining about how the US is responsible for political problems that predate anyone alive in the US today and have their roots in the disintegration of orthodox Muslim ideology and European colonialism in the 19th century and earlier. Hell even posting on Czech internet forums about the Czech Republic's responsibilities would probably be more useful than coming to an anglophone forum and dissecting the culpability of a power thousands of miles away and decades back in history. It's a little amazing how in this thread people are so vitriolic about the US, which realistically has very little purchase on the situation in Syria or the European refugee crisis, and not about Russia, which is arming and training and materially supporting Assad's forces. I mean by all means criticize your own country first, and I'm happy to admit the sins of the US in the middle east generally, but in this case there's little the US could do beyond attacking Assad militarily, and nobody wants that. Europeans blaming the US is a little rich when Russia has boots on the ground in Syria.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 00:58
|
|
|
Nermal posted:In this fantasy scenario of yours, are we saying a polite but firm 'no' to the non-Syrians at the border (everyone's being honest when asked of course), and they're sheepishly turning around and heading back? Do you really think that's what's happening, or that that's remotely feasible? There are refugee's from more than just Syria dude, and they deserve help to. IMO all refugee's should be allowed in and helped. Nermal posted:Being an Islamist extremist is not a crime. I'd prefer not to live in the type of police state that has the monitoring capability required to accurately predict who our next beheader is going to be, not when a significant amount of the population are candidates, anyway. If they aren't committing a crime who gives a hot gently caress if they are "extreme". And again, oppressing muslims (like any religion) only makes them more radical not less. If you think just ignoring this crisis is a good idea you sure must love terrorism.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 00:59
|
|
|
Nermal posted:See above: we don't have a magic filter for Syrians at the border. Who are the others that aren't filtered? Is it the Eritreans? The Sudanese? The 'economic migrants'? Nermal posted:Maybe governments don't give a poo poo about living standards where you live. Where I live they like donors but definitely give a poo poo about what voters think, and voters care about living standards. Holy poo poo, you actually believe Western democracies work this way. You... you genuinely think politicians don't lie. Th.. no I can't, this is too loving ridiculous
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 01:01
|
|
|
Is "bloody syrians coming here decapitating our citizens" really an argument being made? Terror attacks aren't a problem, except for politicians.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 01:03
|
|
|
^^the UK is exempt as well and has made some moves towards taking refuges directly from the UN camps. Frankly for a country where so many people voted UKIP last election I was astounded by how much a picture of a dead syrian child has moved public opinion.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 01:04
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Is "bloody syrians coming here decapitating our citizens" really an argument being made? I suppose it's a step up from "Mexicans coming to rape our women and steal our jobs".
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 01:05
|
|
|
Saros posted:^^the UK is exempt as well and has made some moves towards taking refuges directly from the UN camps. This hasn't been discussed and it's actually really loving cool. Cameron has been a poo poo for a lot of this saga, but that gesture means a lot.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 01:07
|
|
|
What the gesture of him doing a photo op in his posh shirt next to people living in a refugee camp? Or maybe the gesture of him sending a royal navy frigate to board and turn around boats trying to cross the Mediterranean?
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 01:08
|
|
|
Nermal posted:See above: we don't have a magic filter for Syrians at the border. Voters care so much about living standards they keep voting for right wing parties that slash benefits and labor protections for everyone
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 01:10
|
|
|
Saros posted:^^the UK is exempt as well and has made some moves towards taking refuges directly from the UN camps. Frankly for a country where so many people voted UKIP last election I was astounded by how much a picture of a dead syrian child has moved public opinion. It's not as much as you think. Taking from the UNHCR's humanitarian camps while ignoring the refugees currently struggling to survive having risked their lives to get to Europe... Cameron is lying to the public about what he's doing, taking advantage of the national media's bias towards him to hide what he's actually doing being less humanitarian than he's claiming. This is not to say that accepting refugees from the UNHCR camps is a bad thing by any means, but Cameron is deliberately choosing people who are 'easy' to rescue (since they're still in the Middle East or North Africa) despite the refugee crisis being on the EU shores (having suffered the harsh waters where thousands have drowned). He's ignoring the problem (the desperate and wretched) while claiming to solve it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 01:12
|
|
|
Amused to Death posted:Voters care so much about living standards they keep voting for right wing parties that slash benefits and labor protections for everyone STOP USING FACTS
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 01:13
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:This is not to say that accepting refugees from the UNHCR camps is a bad thing by any means, but Cameron is deliberately choosing people who are 'easy' to rescue (since they're still in the Middle East or North Africa) despite the refugee crisis being on the EU shores (having suffered the harsh waters where thousands have drowned). He's ignoring the problem (the desperate and wretched) while claiming to solve it. The proposal was to go get them and bring them to England, which is obviously much more difficult than just accepting people who make it to Europe. The most at risk people are the ones who are refugees in neighboring countries, and many don't have the means to pay for smugglers, or can't afford to put their own life at risk or stop their flow of income for even a moment to actually attempt to make it to Europe. Don't forget that the people drowning are risking it all to escape not just Syria, but the living conditions as a refugee in the middle east. It's an extremely important part of this debate, and bringing that up is very positive. Although now I'm having a hard time finding that it was Camerons idea, which is how I first saw it presented. Volkerball fucked around with this message at 01:23 on Sep 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 01:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 05:04 |
|
|
Oh I'm aware of Camerons antics but even two months ago his current actions would have been politically impossible. We're talking about a government that was recently elected with an immigration policy that amounted to 'stop the boats and/or all immigration. '
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 01:24
|
|