Anti-Pegida Fred

[perfectmansions]

The way I understand it. If you've got an EU member state passport, you can go to any other member state, no questions asked. They don't even check your criminal record.

If you're an asylum seeker, you're supposed to claim asylum in the first EU member state that you come across (in most cases Greece.) But most of the asylum seekers are not happy to claim asylum in Greece. That's because they've heard they can get a better quality of life by settling in the UK, France or Germany. My point of view is that as soon as they start to 'pick and choose' which country they want to live in, they cease to be refugees, and they start to be economic migrants. They're not escaping bullets and bombs, as the media always tell us. They want the best that they can get.

It's true that EU member states can control migration but this only applies to non-EU countries. It's a problem for the UK, because we've had to turn our backs on people that we have real common ground with i.e. USA, Australia, India, Australia, the Commonwealth.

 

[Quark]

The way I understand it. If you've got an EU member state passport, you can go to any other member state, no questions asked. They don't even check your criminal record.

Since I've got experience in moving abroard, they might not ask you, but who says they don't?

If you're an asylum seeker, you're supposed to claim asylum in the first EU member state that you come across (in most cases Greece.) But most of the asylum seekers are not happy to claim asylum in Greece. That's because they've heard they can get a better quality of life by settling in the UK, France or Germany. My point of view is that as soon as they start to 'pick and choose' which country they want to live in, they cease to be refugees, and they start to be economic migrants. They're not escaping bullets and bombs, as the media always tell us. They want the best that they can get.

Dublin (II), a perfect treaty for western landlocked states, who are almost 99% certain not to deal with asylem seekers. The same for island states. (except maybe Malta, which is relatively near Afrika)
An din between time it has shown that it's no longer functional, as 2 countries have all the asylem seekers for the whole of Europe. Italy (Lampedusa) and Greece (with its many islands and islets)
The one man with his wooden horse head (Dutch expression!) that enters through the Russian border can be neglected. Hence the change within the EU. It was needed so the same countries don't have all the burdon, and the rest is relaxed. Makes perfect sense.
It's true that EU member states can control migration but this only applies to non-EU countries. It's a problem for the UK, because we've had to turn our backs on people that we have real common ground with i.e. USA, Australia, India, Australia, the Commonwealth.[/QUOTE]

Well, change your immigration laws! Don't make it possible for every asylem seeker to be taken, but make hard rules for who can or cannot enter the country! But nothing has changed so far, so you have to solve this issue.
And the commonwealth may exist, all countries within are souvereign. They are no longer part of the UK! Or do you think you can easily settle in one of the Commonwealth countries or the US?

(Sorry fo rthe delay, household tasks are before pleasure, as well as my stomach, that goes before any other pleasure as well)

 

[Quark]

And one question!
True case.
A man from a country in Afrika asked asylem in Belgium.
Place of birth, (name city), Belgian Congo. Now, with this in mind, (he was old), could he ask asylem? Or should he just be able to enter Belgium?
Tricky Q?
The same would apply for the Dutch.
Suppose a man was born in Paramaribo (Suriname), in (let's say, fictive date) 30 Feb 1972 (leap year), CAN he ask for asylem, or does he have free entry?

 

[perfectmansions]

Well, change your immigration laws!

We can't do that because Brussels has set the immigration agenda. Like I said, if you are a citizen of a EU member state, you can settle in any other EU member state. Oh wait? There's one that has a free healthcare system? You get the picture.

 

[perfectmansions]

And one question!
True case.
A man from a country in Afrika asked asylem in Belgium.
Place of birth, (name city), Belgian Congo. Now, with this in mind, (he was old), could he ask asylem? Or should he just be able to enter Belgium?
Tricky Q?
The same would apply for the Dutch.
Suppose a man was born in Paramaribo (Suriname), in (let's say, fictive date) 30 Feb 1972 (leap year), CAN he ask for asylem, or does he have free entry?

Nice and funny example, but I would just treat him/her as one human being.

 

[Quark]

We can't do that because Brussels has set the immigration agenda. Like I said, if you are a citizen of a EU member state, you can settle in any other EU member state. Oh wait? There's one that has a free healthcare system? You get the picture.

You can close the border for anyone else.
And is free health care the only thing? (and is it health care?)
O wacht, you want those Aussis, Amis and god-knows-what-countries in!)
Once again, LONDON decides about immigration. The only exception is the 27 EU member states! Well, I think the langiage is still English, not Dutch in between time, and I'm pretty sure the amount of EU citizens is below 5%
Ethnical groups in the UK. (I looked it up):
English: 81,5%
Scotish: 9,6%
Irish: 2,4%
Welsh: 1,9%
Northern Irelent: 1,8%
(West-)Indiers, Pakistani and others: 2,8%
TOTAL 100%
(Estimated figures of the UN. Population in 2015)

 

[Quark]

Nice and funny example, but I would just treat him/her as one human being.

That was a tricky question, in fact, they cannot ask asylem in the respective countries, as they have the nationality of the respective countries. Thus, they MUST be able to enter without formalities. (Belgian Congo = Belgian nationality, Suriname = Dutch nationality, both BEFORE independence of their mother country)

 

[Hirnschlacht]

I was wrong to conflate the two issues of Islamisation and mass migration. They are two different topics, but I dislike both of these ideas.

It's all very well saying "people are more important than borders". The trouble is, where do you draw the line? Do we stop at 2 million people? Or do we encourage and assist countless millions in getting to Europe? If you do let countless millions into your country, your public services will not be able to cope, and the struggle to find housing, jobs, and similar things will become more difficult for everyone.

The second topic - Islamisation, is also problematic. This is an ideology that is against freedom of speech. If I was to say that the Prophet Mohammed was a bad man, some Muslims out there would want to kill me. And their treatment of women as recommended by the Koran and the Shariah is very different to how we treat women in the West.

The Islamic ideology can only have a limited sympathy for democracy as we know it. This is because Islam was created between 600-700AD, and Mohammed never encountered democracy or approved of it. His style of ruling was strict and authoritarian. You can see this, because Islam is not able to accept any sort of criticism. If you do try to comment upon things that are bad about the Islamic ideology, you have people who become 'offended', and the debate is closed down. The person who criticised is usually called a racist or an Islamophobe.

What does this matter for now? For the moment, when this line is reached, there will be more than enough economic-guys, wo´ve calculated this and say stop. But for now it seems to work. Without any visible problems. Of course it does. The german gouvernment and the EU in whole have much more other much more stupid expenditures, than handle these refugees.

Nobody said, this would be easy, and of course their come many problems, with these refugees, but the important question is: what is the alternative?

I think there is no alternative. When we´re not let them in, it would be a humanitarian catastrophe, with historical dimensions.

With the second point I agree mostly. I dont like the islamistic religion either, but I don´t think this is a cause, to disallow refugees.

You cannot judge every muslimic people, for a doubtful theologie!

There must be just a strict and clear and strong line of religious neutrality from the state. No special rights for muslims, or cristians, nothing.

I certainly don't think that PEGIDA has popular support in Germany. On the contrary I think the people of Germany have had years of their own politicians and world politicians shaming and blaming them for the happenings of the Second World War. I know I won't get any new fans for mentioning this. But it is true, this embrace of the migrant crisis, I explain it as a lot of people are trying to 'make amends' for something that they have nothing to do with.

I really do believe that German people today are not connected to all the terrible things that happened in WWII. Because they're a different generation. But look for example, at how welcoming Sweden has been towards migrants. It think they have taken more migrants than any other country. They took on this attitude because they were one of the big Axis powers in WWII.

Thanks for not banning me by the way. I am a big believer in freedom of speech. I think that all these issues need to be explored without shutting out any of the opinions.

For my share, I don´t want to hel refugees for the guilt of any world war, or something. I want to help them, because I think this is just the right fucking thing. Nothing more.

And me either would just ban you or every other person, if you start talking really racist, or other crappy bullshit. I really appreciate the big freedom in this forum, and so I will handle it, when it´s possible. Furthermore I think, it is better to talk with a person, instead of just banning him or her. A dialouge has more to offer for both, than just a banning. (A little bit, like the refugee topic, don´t you think? )

Oh an to free spech in generally:
Many people think, just because we have free spech in the law, they can say anything, anywhere and anytime they want, but this isn´t right. This forum belongs to the W:O:A people. If they don´t like what a person say, they´ve their house rights to ban these people. But that is not a question of freedom of speech! You´ve the freedom to say nearly everything you want, but every other person have their right to give you no plattform for this.

It´s not you, or any special person I talking from! Like I said, youst generally said. I just tell it, because I hear the freedom speech argument many times, with a wrong understanding of it and so I wanted to make this clear.

 

[MetallKopp]

I was wrong to conflate the two issues of Islamisation and mass migration. They are two different topics, but I dislike both of these ideas.

So basically you dislike the freedom of travel in the EU, do I get that correct?

It's all very well saying "people are more important than borders". The trouble is, where do you draw the line? Do we stop at 2 million people? Or do we encourage and assist countless millions in getting to Europe? If you do let countless millions into your country, your public services will not be able to cope, and the struggle to find housing, jobs, and similar things will become more difficult for everyone.

An awful lot of "ifs". Where are the countless millions? These numbers are extremely exaggerated. Like I said, 59 out of 60 million people stay outside Europe, even after Merkel's invite.

The second topic - Islamisation, is also problematic. This is an ideology that is against freedom of speech. If I was to say that the Prophet Mohammed was a bad man, some Muslims out there would want to kill me. And their treatment of women as recommended by the Koran and the Shariah is very different to how we treat women in the West.

The Islamic ideology can only have a limited sympathy for democracy as we know it. This is because Islam was created between 600-700AD, and Mohammed never encountered democracy or approved of it. His style of ruling was strict and authoritarian. You can see this, because Islam is not able to accept any sort of criticism. If you do try to comment upon things that are bad about the Islamic ideology, you have people who become 'offended', and the debate is closed down. The person who criticised is usually called a racist or an Islamophobe.

So in the end we should send muslims away, because we THINK that they personally have a problem with modern civil rights?

I believe politicians are the servants of the people. The people put them there, and the people can remove them. The people should be consulted over large crisis issues. Especially if the politicians are about to do something that will cause a drastic change to that country.

They are. But people can easily be manipulated, so people don't always get the bigger picture. Especially when it comes to large crisis issues. Public consultation is then just a question of who has the bigger money to influence the public opinion. No, thanks. If there's something we're not happy with - we have regular elections, ther are possibilities for no-confidence votes...democracy has these, you know.

We are not able to send many of them back due to Human Rights legislation. It is illegal under these laws to send any asylum sekker back to a place where they might experience hardship. And as regards to where migrants prefer to settle, it's clear they all want to come to Europe with a passion. Why else would you undertake a perilous ocean journey in a dinghy. The answer is they have heard that the streets of Germany are paved with gold.

First of all, they've heard that Europe is a safe place to be. Then again, it's not that far away. And of course, the living standard is good. It's ok to think like that. If there would we a war in Germany and I've had to flee, I'd aim for a safe country with a high living standard too. What's wrong with that? Again, where are these fantasy millions?
Also, deportations are on the rise since 2013.

I have already said, the Syrian Civil War started due to religious fanaticism. No Western forces were involved. It started long before the rise of ISIS, so don't try and tell me that we destabilised the region or something.

Afghanistan? Iraq?

The way I understand it. If you've got an EU member state passport, you can go to any other member state, no questions asked. They don't even check your criminal record.

If you're an asylum seeker, you're supposed to claim asylum in the first EU member state that you come across (in most cases Greece.) But most of the asylum seekers are not happy to claim asylum in Greece. That's because they've heard they can get a better quality of life by settling in the UK, France or Germany. My point of view is that as soon as they start to 'pick and choose' which country they want to live in, they cease to be refugees, and they start to be economic migrants. They're not escaping bullets and bombs, as the media always tell us. They want the best that they can get.

It's true that EU member states can control migration but this only applies to non-EU countries. It's a problem for the UK, because we've had to turn our backs on people that we have real common ground with i.e. USA, Australia, India, Australia, the Commonwealth.

Well, first of all they've heard that they don't get beaten up by policemen in other countries...
Greece can't cope with all the refugees. Greece is damn poor! Germany, UK and France are way richer. So why don't we equally split the refugees between European countries based on the economic value?

We can't do that because Brussels has set the immigration agenda. Like I said, if you are a citizen of a EU member state, you can settle in any other EU member state. Oh wait? There's one that has a free healthcare system? You get the picture.

Freedom of travel does not apply to refugees. So what's the talk about this?

 

[Neuromancer]

Suppose a man was born in Paramaribo (Suriname), in (let's say, fictive date) 30 Feb 1972 (leap year), CAN he ask for asylem, or does he have free entry?

I would arrest him for forged papers (coz to be simple stupid is not against the law).

 

[Quark]

I would arrest him for forged papers (coz to be simple stupid is not against the law).

Das würde ich bei dir auch machen.

 

[Neuromancer]

Aber nur am 30. Februar

 

[Quark]

Aber nur am 30. Februar

Es GAB ma einen 30. Februar. Sehr lange her, aber immerhin.
Das Datum war aber eh ein Beispiel, der Fall mit dem Asylbewerber mit Geburtsort (sagen wir ma Kinshassa, als Name), Belgisches Kongo war wahr. Und die Frage die sich da stellte deswegen auch. Kann man, jemand der geboren ist in Kongo, als es noch belgisch war, einen Asylanfrage lassen machen, oder muss man ihn den Zugang zu Belgien erlauben ohne Formalitäten! Meine Meinung war's das 2. Die Einwohner von ehmaliges Belgisch Kongo waren Belgier. Genau wie die Surinamer vor 1974, (falls sie nicht von Nationalität gewechselt haben) Niederländer sind.

 

[perfectmansions]

but the important question is: what is the alternative?

I think there is no alternative. When we´re not let them in, it would be a humanitarian catastrophe, with historical dimensions.

I like your post, it seems quite compassionate. But I don't think these difficult matters in life are that simple, or I would follow that way of thinking.

I would like to say that there are alternative ways of working that can be put in place. The Australians had the very same problems that we have now, only what we now call migrants they called 'boat people'. They put in place a policy, that any boats laden with migrants would be sent back to the country of origin, and that Australia was not a welcome place. They solved the problem fairly quickly. And they have relatively few people now trying to break into their borders.

 

[perfectmansions]

So basically you dislike the freedom of travel in the EU, do I get that correct?

You need to define what you mean here. Anyone is free to holiday anywhere they like in the world. It's the settling I am against. Coming to a country with the intention of living there.

An awful lot of "ifs". Where are the countless millions? These numbers are extremely exaggerated. Like I said, 59 out of 60 million people stay outside Europe, even after Merkel's invite.

The people that cross in the boats are the ones fortunate enough to have money to pay smugglers to transport them across the Med. Not all people can stump up this kind of cash. And I don't agree with your numbers. You don't know how many numbers are coming or preparing to come, any more than Merkel knows. She has extended an open-ended invite to basically anyone that's poor. This is her terrible mistake.

So in the end we should send muslims away, because we THINK that they personally have a problem with modern civil rights?

No, we should return them because we can't afford to give them everything they think they're going to get. The Islam dimension is just an added headache.

First of all, they've heard that Europe is a safe place to be. Then again, it's not that far away.

Not justification enough to break into another continent and another country. Especially when the law-abiding people have not been consulted.

Afghanistan? Iraq?

Yeah don't worry we get their economic migrants too.