A 22-year-old anti-Nazi song tops German charts again – to welcome refugees • Hacker News Board

Re: A 22-year-old anti-Nazi song tops German charts again – to welcome refugees

#91

Post by onli » Sun, Sep 06, 2015, 4:07 PM UTC

danbruc wrote: post #8

onli wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is not true. First, Germany has a problem with social support even for Germans, Hartz 4 is horribly low and injust. Financial social support is one of the problems currently with the immigrants: It is basically non-existant. No EU region has a lower median salary than this. Second, Immigrants are not guests, they are immigrants or fugitives, and possibly supposed to stay. Third, Germany demands nothing new from…

A bit of nitpicking - it is a common misconception that the Dublin regulations simply demand that refugees have to get registered and then ask for asylum in the country they arrive at first. There is actually a list of rules and this commonly cited one is not the only one and not the one with the highest priority. There are for example rules for going to where relatives are already living or for countries voluntarily…

Thanks for pointing that out, I was not aware of that.

Re: A 22-year-old anti-Nazi song tops German charts again – to welcome refugees

#92

Post by nonidit » Mon, Sep 07, 2015, 8:59 AM UTC

dogma1138 wrote: post #90

nonidit wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it is against European law to forward them. The so called "Dublin regulation" states, that refugees have to seek asylum in the first European state in which they arrive. Obviously this law largely benefits the midlands and wouldn't work with the current crisis. But nevertheless it is still the official law. So Hungary can only lose in this situation, either by stopping the trains or by breaking the law.

Hungary has suspended the application of the Dublin Regulation a month ago, it wasn't a signatory either. But non the less the Dublin regulation stated the the country in which the refugees register is responsible for them, it didn't state that they should be denied freedom of movement and the suspension of the train system by the Hungarian authorities was seen as a breach of the Dublin agreement as well.

I hope you don't just want to argue...

"Article 10 1. Where it is established, on the basis of proof or circumstantial evidence as described in the two lists mentioned in Article 18(3), including the data referred to in Chapter III of Regulation (EC) No 2725/2000, that an asylum seeker has irregularly crossed the border into a Member State by land, sea or air having come from a third country, the Member State thus entered shall be responsible for examining the application for asylum. This responsibility shall cease 12 months after the date on which the irregular border crossing took place."

Therefore the first state entered is responsible for the registration and then for the application for asylum.

And no, the Dublin regulation doesn't state denial of freedom of movement. But they never had such. The Schengen law is only valid for members of the European Union. Everyone else has to get a visum. They were legally not allowed to enter Hungary in the first place, why would they be allowed then to enter another state without getting asylum first?

Re: A 22-year-old anti-Nazi song tops German charts again – to welcome refugees

#93

Post by mercer » Mon, Sep 07, 2015, 12:59 PM UTC

jfaucett wrote: post #61

There is so much media coordinated bull floating around in the EU and Germany right now it makes me sick. As a tax paying immigrant to Germany myself, I decided to look up the stats a little while ago and here's what the down and dirty actually looks like: From 01.01.2015 until 31.07.2015 - we've gotten a total 195,723 Refugees, an estimated 500,000 will arrive for 2015.[1] Estimated costs will be around 5 Billion. F…

It's indeed a problem. I've lived with flatmates who basically lounged around for 3+ years on Harz 4, and despite the fact that I am rather left-leaning (to put it mildly), there were moments where I thought 'if I paid taxes in Germany, I'd be really pissed off about the fact that my flatmate is using my tax money to get high all the time and not improve his life in any way'.

Of course, when my rational mind took over I realized that 1) he had some serious psychological issues that he was trying to address, 2) he lives on practically nothing, to the point of collecting and returning empty bottles to get himself a beer, and 3) he's a really warm, caring, awesome guy who shares what little he has whenever he can, even with a well-paid person like me.

But imagine the situation when 1) someone is not as left-leaning as I am, 2) someone is faced with 'strangers' benefitting from their tax money, rather than people they can easily identify with, 3) this 'stranger' is easily associated with crime and cultural practices and religious beliefs that baffle me, and, perhaps most importantly 4) I am not working in one of the few areas of business that still does well (IT) and I'm feeling the economic problems myself.

I suppose I could add 5) I have a partner and kids and a mortgage and a car that I cannot just 'ditch' when times get lean.

None of what I'm saying should be taken as any kind of ethical judgment or opinion. I'm simply expressing my fear of what might happen because of these issues, and a desire to work toward solutions that benefit all parties involved, or at least prevent serious consequences.