German parliament decides to classify 3 Arab countries "save place of origin"

[German guy]

Today, the German parliament (Bundestag) has decided to classify three more north African countries "save places of origin":

Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia and now considered "save". That means every asylum seeker from this country can now be turned down by default without processus or examination of the individual case.

Previously, 99% of all asylum seekers from these countries had been turned down after examination. Now the lenghty process of examination is circumvented.

Other countries that are already counsidered "save places of origin" include all EU countries and all non-EU Balkan countries.

Bundestag stuft Maghreb-Länder als sichere Herkunftsländer ein - SPIEGEL ONLINE

Most asylum seekers who commit offenses and thus were identified by the police, are young males from these north African countries.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Today, the German parliament (Bundestag) has decided to classify three more north African countries "save places of origin":

Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia and now considered "save". That means every asylum seeker from this country can now be turned down by default without processus or examination of the individual case.

Previously, 99% of all asylum seekers from these countries had been turned down after examination. Now the lenghty process of examination is circumvented.

Other countries that are already counsidered "save places of origin" include all EU countries and all non-EU Balkan countries.

Bundestag stuft Maghreb-Länder als sichere Herkunftsländer ein - SPIEGEL ONLINE

Most asylum seekers who commit offenses and thus were identified by the police, are young males from these north African countries.

As long as the determination is made by using place of origin and not religion, that's at least to some extent understandable.

 

[German guy]

As long as the determination is made by using place of origin and not religion, that's at least to some extent understandable.

It's also a necessity. German capacities are limited when it comes to housing asylum seekers, and everything that makes the process quicker -- telling real asylants who need help, from those who don't really need help -- is a good thing, IMO.

It's one thing to help people in real need; but there are just not the capacities to accept all kinds of people who aren't in danger and just looking for better economic opportunities (or even opportunities for crime).

 

[Infinite Chaos]

Today, the German parliament (Bundestag) has decided to classify three more north African countries "save places of origin": ~

I'm sure you mean "safe" but that's digressing. BBC report on TV tonight showed that since the EU-Turkey deal, the flow of Syrians and refugees from that side of the world had all but dried up. Now we're seeing large numbers of West African economic migrants on pathetic unsafe dinghies originating from Libya.

 

[OrphanSlug]

Why those three and not Libya or Syria (just examples?)

 

[Carjosse]

Why those three and not Libya or Syria (just examples?)

Because they are not safe because you know, civil war and ISIS, just generally not safe places to be. Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia are not dangerous, have stable governments for the most part, so the people originating from those countries are just mostly economic migrants.

 

[joG]

It's also a necessity. German capacities are limited when it comes to housing asylum seekers, and everything that makes the process quicker -- telling real asylants who need help, from those who don't really need help -- is a good thing, IMO.

It's one thing to help people in real need; but there are just not the capacities to accept all kinds of people who aren't in danger and just looking for better economic opportunities (or even opportunities for crime).

Now that is close to the reason for naming countries safe places of origin that do real torture and discriminate viciously against women and political opponents.

 

[joG]

Today, the German parliament (Bundestag) has decided to classify three more north African countries "save places of origin":

Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia and now considered "save". That means every asylum seeker from this country can now be turned down by default without processus or examination of the individual case.

Previously, 99% of all asylum seekers from these countries had been turned down after examination. Now the lenghty process of examination is circumvented.

Other countries that are already counsidered "save places of origin" include all EU countries and all non-EU Balkan countries.

Bundestag stuft Maghreb-Länder als sichere Herkunftsländer ein - SPIEGEL ONLINE

Most asylum seekers who commit offenses and thus were identified by the police, are young males from these north African countries.

I would have been interested in your opinion

 

[OrphanSlug]

Because they are not safe because you know, civil war and ISIS, just generally not safe places to be. Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia are not dangerous, have stable governments for the most part, so the people originating from those countries are just mostly economic migrants.

Does that not encourage those who want to exploit the situation to use false documents saying their country of origin are the "safe" nations?

 

[PeteEU]

About time... just need more countries on that list. Sweden also has to follow asap. The differences in rules around the EU means these criminal economic migrants are "asylum shopping". One of the worst has been Germany up to now.

Just because your country is a ****hole, does not mean that you should be allowed into the EU.

 

[German guy]

I would have been interested in your opinion

My opinion is that ways have to be found to minimize the number of people seeking asylum in Germany.

As I said, capacities are limited, even if some capacities are psychological in nature ... at very least the moment Frauke Petry has realistic chances of declaring the Fourth Reich, we know that limit is reached.

 

[Carjosse]

Does that not encourage those who want to exploit the situation to use false documents saying their country of origin are the "safe" nations?

I am going to assume you mean "not safe", that is a possibility but extremely unlikely. It is impractical to arrive in Europe the same way Syrians do because there are borders and/or a lot of warzone in the way. There is also the language difference, they speak a different dialect of Arabic if French is not their first language. There is also the fact that it discriminates against Syrians and Libyans who are actually fleeing violence which puts them at odds with international law and the EU.

 

[Chagos]

I'm sure you mean "safe" but that's digressing. BBC report on TV tonight showed that since the EU-Turkey deal, the flow of Syrians and refugees from that side of the world had all but dried up. Now we're seeing large numbers of West African economic migrants on pathetic unsafe dinghies originating from Libya.

Actually they just fished around 900 Syrians (in two boats) out of the Med yesterday. They'd embarked in Egypt and were (as used to be the case in the past) heading for Italy, largely complete families with kids.

Just a few weeks ago hundreds downed on the same route (Eritreans and Somalis) when their boat sank.

The summer will bring more of those on the same route and the heat (no pun intended) will shift from Greece back to Italy like before.

Of course there's also always the possibility of the EU-Turkey deal falling flat and Erdogan letting them embark in droves again to get to Greece.

 

[joG]

My opinion is that ways have to be found to minimize the number of people seeking asylum in Germany.

As I said, capacities are limited, even if some capacities are psychological in nature ... at very least the moment Frauke Petry has realistic chances of declaring the Fourth Reich, we know that limit is reached.

Don't you think the place to start is with the question why the country wants to grant asylum?

 

[German guy]

Don't you think the place to start is with the question why the country wants to grant asylum?

Uhm ... you mean the question should be asked if asylum should be granted at all?

 

[joG]

Uhm ... you mean the question should be asked if asylum should be granted at all?

More, why one wants to grant it. Only then can one make sense of the matter.

 

[German guy]

More, why one wants to grant it. Only then can one make sense of the matter.

Like, because it's a humanitarian duty to help human beings in distress, when you have the means to do that ...?

 

[joG]

Like, because it's a humanitarian duty to help human beings in distress, when you have the means to do that ...?

I was afraid it would be that type of reasoning. That is not very operational in that it makes anything fit.

 

[German guy]

I was afraid it would be that type of reasoning. That is not very operational in that it makes anything fit.

What other type of reasoning do you propose?

 

[joG]

What other type of reasoning do you propose?

Well, in short, because supporting the opposition to your enemies makes sense and taking their opposition in helps your cause. After al, that grants them security, when the have to flee.
If you go for the humane explanation you will have 60 million on your doorstep and even more that are only starving for economic reasons, while at home poverty and subsidies begin at $29.500 PA.

 

[German guy]

Well, in short, because supporting the opposition to your enemies makes sense and taking their opposition in helps your cause. After al, that grants them security, when the have to flee.

Which enemies and which opposition? Do you mean getting involved in Syria?

If you go for the humane explanation you will have 60 million on your doorstep and even more that are only starving for economic reasons, while at home poverty and subsidies begin at $29.500 PA.

Well, I said "when you have the means to help them". Nobody has the means to help 60 million people, so no moral argument can be made to help them all.

 

[joG]

Which enemies and which opposition? Do you mean getting involved in Syria?



Well, I said "when you have the means to help them". Nobody has the means to help 60 million people, so no moral argument can be made to help them all.

Before thinking of the individual case it is a good idea of thinking about the generalization and theory behind it. That will help find the position one wants to take between 1 and 60.000.000

 

[German guy]

Before thinking of the individual case it is a good idea of thinking about the generalization and theory behind it. That will help find the position one wants to take between 1 and 60.000.000

Yeah, and I have no idea what kind of theory that could be. Which is why it is very hard for me to have a clear opinion on this topic, except that it's safe to say that people in real distress have priority over economic migrants, and that minimizing the numbers is favorable in this situation we're in today.

So maybe you can help me by explaining what kind of theory you have in mind?

 

[Chagos]

Don't you think the place to start is with the question why the country wants to grant asylum?

How about laws, charters and conventions that a country has signed up to?

 

[Chagos]

Before thinking of the individual case it is a good idea of thinking about the generalization and theory behind it. That will help find the position one wants to take between 1 and 60.000.000

Why don't you just simply state what you're wishing to get at here or get off the pot?