European migrant crisis [Megathread]

[Deleted]

The sovereign state of Germany has the right to ask any non citizen to leave the country, if laws and contracts do not declare otherwise. I still dont see proof that the "refugees" as you call them are extended these specific rights or covered under contractual obligations.

You know you sound retarded when you assume that just because they successfully passed the border, they have now somehow attained the right to stay? Thats not how this works. This isnt Ludo.

- - - Updated - - -



No its not. next.

Lol.
You didn't know migrants had rights did you.

[Slant]

The sovereign state of Germany has the right to ask any non citizen to leave the country, if laws and contracts do not declare otherwise. I still dont see proof that the "refugees" as you call them are extended these specific rights or covered under contractual obligations.

You know you sound retarded when you assume that just because they successfully passed the border, they have now somehow attained the right to stay? Thats not how this works. This isnt Ludo.

- - - Updated - - -



No its not. next.

Geneva Convention, look it up. Again, you may ignore their legal status, but your opinion matters exactly jack shit in these matters. What matters is what the state considers them. And they are considered refugees, and suddenly all kinds of laws and contracts prevent Germany from deporting them.

You can make a handstand and call me all the names of the world, that still won't change that you don't have an actual case nor an argument. See, you're talking about "what ought to be" and I'm talking about what is. There's not even a debate. Their legal status is refugee. There's nothing you can say that will change that. Thus, all laws and contracts regarding refugees apply to them. Not immigration, not asylum (yet). Those things do not apply to these people. This isn't because "they crossed a border". Refugee status has nothing to do with crossing borders. It's got everything to do with the situation in their home country. It's really not that difficult to understand, you just have to stop being obtuse.

[Mayhem]

Migration is not a human right.

Articles 13 and 14:


(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.


(1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
(2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Oh and about that deportation to an island plan, might interfere with article 9:

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

[Forogil]

Articles 13 and 14:


(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.


(1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
(2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Doesn't give people the right to enter another state, since that part is missing and also because then practically every state would be in violation of that (e.g. you are allowed to take a Lufthansa flight from Germany to Iraq after your visum is denied - you cannot take it in the other direction to seek asylum).

What it makes illegal isn't building a wall keeping people out - but more along the lines of a wall keeping people in, like east Germany did. The Greece-Macedonian fence isn't built by Greece.

And it states that asylum can only be sought in the other country - so there is no possibility to just seek asylum remotely either.

Remember EU and the four freedoms? The freedom for people to move within EU is a big deal, since it isn't part of the declaration of human rights.

Oh and about that deportation to an island plan, might interfere with article 9:

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

It wouldn't be arbitrary if people had broken laws - like illegally entering a country. That's why countries use that option.

That declaration of human rights is weaker than people think - and still many countries haven't signed it, and instead make their own like 'Arab Charter on Human Rights'.

[Mayhem]

Doesn't give people the right to enter another state, since that part is missing and also because then practically every state would be in violation of that (e.g. you are allowed to take a Lufthansa flight from Germany to Iraq after your visum is denied - you cannot take it in the other direction to seek asylum).

What it makes illegal isn't building a wall keeping people out - but more along the lines of a wall keeping people in, like east Germany did. The Greece-Macedonian fence isn't built by Greece.

And it states that asylum can only be sought in the other country - so there is no possibility to just seek asylum remotely either.

Remember EU and the four freedoms? The freedom for people to move within EU is a big deal, since it isn't part of the declaration of human rights.

How do you leave your country while not entering another one?

It wouldn't be arbitrary if people had broken laws - like illegally entering a country. That's why countries use that option.

That declaration of human rights is weaker than people think - and still many countries haven't signed it, and instead make their own like 'Arab Charter on Human Rights'.

Well, the majority of laws that were broken by refugees in germany were on "illegal entering" and after their claim for asylum was granted charges were dropped. I don´t see how shipping them off to and island to later ship them back, helps with anything.

[Deleted]

Who cares why they left? I'm talking about them settling in what is now Israel. They could've settled anywhere on the planet, but they chose to congregate in that area. That is hardly equal to "Russians putting them in a truck and dumping them behind Syria in the desert" as you seem to insinuate.

You did - You suggested that if implemented, the Jews leaving for Madagascar wouldn't have been a 'free' choice, but a lot of the jews who did migrate to Israel did so to leave the soviet union - Were their choice completely free?

About "an island"... which island? Earth is pretty much at 100% population, except a few very rare islands that are pretty much untouched. Newsflash: Most of those are by now under some sort of protection so they stay that way. The rest of the "islands"? Populated and owned by some country. So, which island?

100% population? - Look at the population density of the EU and then the population density of Africa, if that was a valid argument Europeans should move to Africa.
My preferred plan would be Libya, it could use intervention (and intervention could be successful) and then we can dust of the old British (Tony Blair) of a series of refugee camps where people would stay until their determination and placement would be sorted.

- - - Updated - - -

Articles 13 and 14:


(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

But no right of entry to a third country, they may have the right to leave, but the receiving country has no obligation to let them enter.

[Slant]

100% population? - Look at the population density of the EU and then the population density of Africa, if that was a valid argument Europeans should move to Africa.
My preferred plan would be Libya, it could use intervention (and intervention could be successful) and then we can dust of the old British (Tony Blair) of a series of refugee camps where people would stay until their determination and placement would be sorted.

You're pushing around populations like this is a real world version of Starcraft 2. Real life doesn't work like that.

[Mayhem]

But no right of entry to a third country, they may have the right to leave, but the receiving country has no obligation to let them enter.

And the same question to you, how exactly do you leave a country without entering another one?

[Runenwächter]

Lol.
You didn't know migrants had rights did you.

Is that a question? Which rights exactly? Please be specific.

- - - Updated - - -

Geneva Convention, look it up.

Dont need to you condescending prick.

Again, you may ignore their legal status, but your opinion matters exactly jack shit in these matters. What matters is what the state considers them.

What is the "state?" you speak of? Current elected government? Is that government not bound by rules? If not thats simply despotism. Btw, thats what Merkel is accused of and the case is a strong one.

You can make a handstand and call me all the names of the world, that still won't change that you don't have an actual case nor an argument.

Your lack of comprehension of the law does not make me not have a case, it simply makes you ignorant.

See, you're talking about "what ought to be" and I'm talking about what is.

That is kind of the issue. The laws not being taken seriously and being enforced. Thanks for almost catching up.

There's not even a debate.

Arent you the authority now. But you are right. There isnt one. Because...

Their legal status is refugee. There's nothing you can say that will change that.

Actually, it kind of does. I and likeminded people make one cross in the right box and poof, there goes their "legal" status.

Thus, all laws and contracts regarding refugees apply to them. Not immigration, not asylum (yet). Those things do not apply to these people. This isn't because "they crossed a border". Refugee status has nothing to do with crossing borders. It's got everything to do with the situation in their home country. It's really not that difficult to understand, you just have to stop being obtuse.

Listen, I've had it. Talk about being obtuse. If you leave a burning building you are a refugee. If you run straight past the firemen and a dozen houses and demand free housing and lunch at the ritz you arent a refugee, you are a delusional entitled little shit and ought to be treated as such.

Now you can argue, but at this point you arent argueing in good faith anymore. Either present agreeable solutions or see someone who is in it for the full ride being given dangerous amounts of power.

[Deleted]

Is that a question? Which rights exactly? Please be specific.

They're still human, so they enjoy human rights as we do.

Asylum seekers and refugees are entitled to all the rights and fundamental freedoms that are spelled out in
international human rights instruments. The protection of the refugee must therefore be seen in the broader
context of the protection of human rights. The creation by States, in the aftermath of the Second World
War, of two separate organizations to deal with human rights and refugees respectively, does not mean that
these issues are not interrelated.
The work of the United Nations in the field of human rights and that of the High Commissioner for Refugees
is inextricably linked in the sense that both entities share a common purpose which is the safeguarding of
human dignity. The human rights programme of the United Nations deals with the rights of individuals in the
territory of States. The refugee organization was established in order to restore minimum rights to persons
after they leave their countries of origin

And

Rights of refugees
The present concept of international protection has evolved gradually and today implies a series of
institutional and legal responses. Projecting refugees and seeking durable solutions to their problems are the
two main functions of the High Commissioner for Refugees.
In practical terms, the task of international protection includes the prevention of refoulement, assistance in
the processing of asylum seekers, providing legal counsel and aid, promoting arrangements for the physical
safety of refugees, promoting and assisting voluntary repatriation, and helping refugees to resettle (article 8
of the Statute of the Office of the UNHCR).
Thus, the international protection function has a legal basis, and its exercise is mandatory for the High
Commissioner. The right to protection, although not defined as a separate right as such, is implicit in the
1951 Convention and its fundamental provisions, particularly the principle of non-refoulement.
In addition, many universally recognized human rights are directly applicable to refugees. These include the
right to life, protection from torture and ill-treatment, the right to a nationality, the right to freedom of
movement, the right to leave any country, including one's own, and to return to one's country, and the right
not to be forcibly returned.
These rights are affirmed, among other civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, for all persons,
citizens and non-citizens alike, in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights which
together make up the International Bill of Human Rights.
(a) "No one shall be subject to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile" (Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
article 9);
(b) "Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution." (Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, article 14);
(c) "Everyone has the right to a nationality" (Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 15);
(d) "Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each State"
(Universal Declaration of Human rights, article 13; International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,
article 12).

- - - Updated - - -

Is that a question? Which rights exactly? Please be specific.

- - - Updated - - -

Dont need to you condescending prick.
What is the "state?" you speak of? Current elected government? Is that government not bound by rules? If not thats simply despotism. Btw, thats what Merkel is accused of and the case is a strong one.

Your lack of comprehension of the law does not make me not have a case, it simply makes you ignorant.

That is kind of the issue. The laws not being taken seriously and being enforced. Thanks for almost catching up.

Arent you the authority now. But you are right. There isnt one. Because...

Actually, it kind of does. I and likeminded people make one cross in the right box and poof, there goes their "legal" status.

Listen, I've had it. Talk about being obtuse. If you leave a burning building you are a refugee. If you run straight past the firemen and a dozen houses and demand free housing and lunch at the ritz you arent a refugee, you are a delusional entitled little shit and ought to be treated as such.

Now you can argue, but at this point you arent argueing in good faith anymore. Either present agreeable solutions or see someone who is in it for the full ride being given dangerous amounts of power.

Your own personal views still do not affect how the law actually works.

[Runenwächter]

Articles 13 and 14:


(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.


(1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
(2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Oh and about that deportation to an island plan, might interfere with article 9:

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Rights arent absolutes, every right can be temporarly limited or suspended if the law says so. Kind of like an arrest temporarily limits your right to freedom of movement. Kind of like a conviction as a pedophile limits your right to choose your profession freely.

I dont exaclty know what law you quote but it certainly isnt the Grundgesetz. I assume it is the human rights charta. The human rights charta is not the governing law or the state authority of the BRD. The sole sovereign of the BRD is the German people (lets leave EU stuff out for a second, as being part of the EU isnt mandatory. In case of doubt see GB). Thus our laws being in accordance with the charta is voluntary. Our law is what decides, not the charta. If our highest courts rule a law unconstitutional, so be it. We then reform it and bring it into accordance with our GG. Or at least thats what is supposed to happen...

Thus you might want to take a look at the GG Article 11 about the freedom of movement and settling. It pertains to all GERMANS. This right too finds its limits within other law, even if the qualifications for such law are strict. They are very much less strict for non Germans.

Arrests on the basis of law arent arbritrary or despotism. This is the exact opposite of arbitrary. So no, it "might" not interfere with article 9.

Also as forogil pointed out: You are free to leave a country. Or a club. But you are not entitled to enter another sovereign state. Or club. Thus you are free to leave Syria or move within Syria in the case of refugees. This does not grant you the right to enter Germany.

[Forogil]

How do you leave your country while not entering another one?

Is that really a serious question? Are you that clueless about how the world works?

Free speech means that you can talk - not that people will listen.
Freedom to leave a country means that you can leave your country and other countries - but no country is forced to accept you. That's why EU and it's pillar of freedom of movement of people is so important - since free travel to EU-countries for EU-citizens isn't a human right, but part of EU (well, Schengen...).
Freedom to own property mean that I can own things like a yacht - but doesn't guarantee that I have a yacht or afford one.
Freedom of association mean that you can join and leave groups of your own choosing, but they don't have to accept you. It also ensures that I cannot be compelled to join an association, but doesn't prohibit groups from expelling members.
Free choice of employment doesn't mean that I can force an employer to hire me, it only means that I am not prohibited from working.

Well, the majority of laws that were broken by refugees in germany were on "illegal entering" and after their claim for asylum was granted charges were dropped. I don´t see how shipping them off to and island to later ship them back, helps with anything.

I didn't say that it helps - I only stated that putting them on a remote island (as Greece, Australia, ...), or behind fences in a remote inland-location (as some other countries) do is an option that is used.
However, most countries prefer if they don't enter since it is cheaper - and even more if some other country blocks their entry so that they don't get their hands dirty.

In particular it can reduce one problem you skipped: a large fraction of asylum claims are denied, finding and deporting them is sometimes tricky.

[Runenwächter]

Your own personal views still do not affect how the law actually works.

Fortunately that isnt the case. The law is pure theory, what is real is what law enforcement, administration and other executive powers make of it. There are the courts too, but whatever they rule, there has to be the means and power to enforce it. I do not work at the theory end.

So even if you were by a miracle of the seven gods right in your tirades, it would hardly matter. I merely propose enforcing law, closing loopholes and giving resources to the law enforcement agencies concerned as a way to maintain the publics trust in the law and social peace, as I highly value those as pillars of a stable and prosperous society. But if push comes to shove and the left keeps blocking any such attempt, I am very much for fighting the existing despotism in goverment with disobedience of the executive branches of government.

[Deleted]

And the same question to you, how exactly do you leave a country without entering another one?

You sure can enter and remain in another country temporarily (usually 3 month), but as soon as you plan to work or stay permanently in said country, it becomes an order of magnitude harder to obtain the visa.

Also, the quoted article from the geneva convention states that you have the right to leave your country (eg nobody can tell you you're not allowed to leave, as the ex URSS did with the wall in Berlin), not that other countries must take you in. Let me remind you that international zones do exist in the world (like the area behind the toll in aiports, it is considered like an international zone).

[Runenwächter]

Also, the quoted article from the geneva convention states that you have the right to leave your country (eg nobody can tell you you're not allowed to leave, as the ex URSS did with the wall in Berlin), not that other countries must take you in.

Or as turkey is doing right now with academics and key personell under very dubious justification. Just to put this out there.

[Renyo]

And the same question to you, how exactly do you leave a country without entering another one?

It is correct that emigration is a fundamental right, immigration is not. That may seem paradox but that is the way it is.
So your country is not allowed to prevent you from leaving but other countries can deny your entry.

[Slant]

Is that a question? Which rights exactly? Please be specific.

- - - Updated - - -

Dont need to you condescending prick.
What is the "state?" you speak of? Current elected government? Is that government not bound by rules? If not thats simply despotism. Btw, thats what Merkel is accused of and the case is a strong one.

Your lack of comprehension of the law does not make me not have a case, it simply makes you ignorant.

That is kind of the issue. The laws not being taken seriously and being enforced. Thanks for almost catching up.

Arent you the authority now. But you are right. There isnt one. Because...

Actually, it kind of does. I and likeminded people make one cross in the right box and poof, there goes their "legal" status.

Listen, I've had it. Talk about being obtuse. If you leave a burning building you are a refugee. If you run straight past the firemen and a dozen houses and demand free housing and lunch at the ritz you arent a refugee, you are a delusional entitled little shit and ought to be treated as such.

Now you can argue, but at this point you arent argueing in good faith anymore. Either present agreeable solutions or see someone who is in it for the full ride being given dangerous amounts of power.

My MMO-C Forum theory: When someone takes the time to cut&paste and snip and edit so he can respond to each single line, he's got a) way too much time and/or is b) way too emotionally involved to make sound judgements.

But that aside, I get a strong sense of you not understanding law, legal texts, authority of Government or how a country is run. I've had to do a lot of explaining over the years, but since you call me condescending, I'll stop paying you attention.

- - - Updated - - -

Fortunately that isnt the case. The law is pure theory, what is real is what law enforcement, administration and other executive powers make of it. There are the courts too, but whatever they rule, there has to be the means and power to enforce it. I do not work at the theory end.

So even if you were by a miracle of the seven gods right in your tirades, it would hardly matter. I merely propose enforcing law, closing loopholes and giving resources to the law enforcement agencies concerned as a way to maintain the publics trust in the law and social peace, as I highly value those as pillars of a stable and prosperous society. But if push comes to shove and the left keeps blocking any such attempt, I am very much for fighting the existing despotism in goverment with disobedience of the executive branches of government.

That sentence, right there. That's the bit that's breaking your neck in this debate. You think law is something you can twist and bend to your will. No, you can't. Merkel can't. What she, or rather the Government did, was give executive orders within the authority bestowed upon her by the people. But that doesn't mean they can just go and break the law?

Here's the kicker: There's no law forbidding the Government from letting everyone in. There's a law against illegal immigration, but if the Government declares their entry legal, this law suddenly doesn't apply anymore. Well, fuck that... I think your entire argument just went down the shitter, how about that? The whole point about law (specifically public law in this case), is to provide a framework within which the Government can act. In most cases, this framework is meant to protect the population against the Government. I shit you not, that's a big ass part of public law. All human rights are all about protection from Governments. Yes, that's how important it was to pioneers of modern constitutions to ensure that we don't have dictatorships, absolutism or other easily abused forms of governing people anymore. So no, it's not "law is pure theory". That's bullshit. Law is the law. It binds the Government. And supreme courts and constitutional courts all over the western world absolutely have the power to nullify whatever a bad Government does. In that one controlling function, the constitutional courts have the last word and are the ultima ratio against Government abuse.

Guess what? They didn't move a finger. But hey, there's 16 constitutional judges in Germany. All of which have forgotten more about law than you can ever hope to learn in your lifetime. Most of which are professors teaching law, some of which have helped create laws and all of which are very aware of their custodial function, with decades in the highest elite of German legal circles... I'm sure they are all wrong and you, some dude on a forum, are the only one who sees clearly.

No wait, I bet they're in on the conspiracy, is that it?

[Deleted]

Fortunately that isnt the case. The law is pure theory, what is real is what law enforcement, administration and other executive powers make of it. There are the courts too, but whatever they rule, there has to be the means and power to enforce it. I do not work at the theory end.

So even if you were by a miracle of the seven gods right in your tirades, it would hardly matter. I merely propose enforcing law, closing loopholes and giving resources to the law enforcement agencies concerned as a way to maintain the publics trust in the law and social peace, as I highly value those as pillars of a stable and prosperous society. But if push comes to shove and the left keeps blocking any such attempt, I am very much for fighting the existing despotism in goverment with disobedience of the executive branches of government.

I do not understand what you want.

[ranzino]

.....
Guess what? They didn't move a finger. But hey, there's 16 constitutional judges in Germany. All of which have forgotten more about law than you can ever hope to learn in your lifetime. Most of which are professors teaching law, some of which have helped create laws and all of which are very aware of their custodial function, with decades in the highest elite of German legal circles... I'm sure they are all wrong and you, some dude on a forum, are the only one who sees clearly.

No wait, I bet they're in on the conspiracy, is that it?

To be fair: our BVG has been corrected by european courts also; the 16 judges are not infallible and EU can dictate german law. it may not happen every day, but it does.

[Slant]

To be fair: our BVG has been corrected by european courts also; the 16 judges are not infallible and EU can dictate german law. it may not happen every day, but it does.

I never said they're infallible. But I'm saying they know their stuff much better than any of us does. And they weren't concerned at all. And corrections between courts don't necessarily mean someone made a mistake, it mostly means there's a difference in opinion. And sometimes someone has to call the shots. Alas, in this case, there was no second opinion. Still isn't.