Germany: Merkel disgust at New Year gang assaults

Status
Not open for further replies.
dapperbandit said:
9ItBoUm.png


https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=waffenschein, pfefferspray&cmpt=q&tz=Etc/GMT-1

German google searches for pepper spray (in red) and firearm licenses (blue)
Click to expand...

I was one of them. Searched google for "kleine Waffenschein" - little gun license, because it got mentioned in the Spiegel TV Special and i wanted to know what is involved in obtaining it, because a lot of the young guys in the Berlin NYE video had alarm/gas pistols (bobby pistols?) and used them. It's just an easy document to fill out, then you can buy them easily. Didn't know that. They also look just like normal guns.

You also are only allowed to use Pepperspray against attacking animals but you can plead for self-defence if you had to use it in a serious defence situation. But the one you sprayed can easily sue you for assault.
Reminds me that i have a little KO-GAS can at home but i think it's already way past the expiration date. Bought it 5 years ago for my gf.

Retailers of all kinds of defence gear are rubbing their hands atm. Some guy in the a morning show said that orders for Pepperspray/Gas, e-shockers at retailers are exploding right now. Also registrations for self defence and martial arts courses are high.
 
Donos said:
You also are only allowed to use Pepperspray against attacking animals but you can plead for self-defence if you had to use it in a serious defence situation. But the one you sprayed can easily sue you for assault.
Click to expand...

So wait. Say you're getting mobbed 3 to 1 for example, after running away from them to avoid conflict, they corner you, you bust out your prepper spray and spray the lot of them, and THEY can sue YOU for assault?
 
sturmdogg said:
So wait. Say you're getting mobbed 3 to 1 for example, after running away from them to avoid conflict, they corner you, you bust out your prepper spray and spray the lot of them, and THEY can sue YOU for assault?
Click to expand...

Yes, and they will probably win unless you are able to show some serious wounds on yourself. Threat alone would not be enough. Thats Germany.
 
MonorailCat said:
Yes, and they will probably win unless you are able to show some serious wounds on yourself. Threat alone would not be enough. Thats Germany.
Click to expand...

Threats alone also are enough.

§32 2 StGB. is actually clear enough about it:

(2) Notwehr ist die Verteidigung, die erforderlich ist, um einen gegenwärtigen rechtswidrigen Angriff von sich oder einem anderen abzuwenden.
Click to expand...

Here is a small commentary about what is considered an attack:

https://www.jura.uni-tuebingen.de/p...inzig/mitarbeiter/natalie-richter/Notwehr.pdf
 
Winnie the Pimp said:
Whenever i see people wondering (myself included) how it was possible that the powers in charge could be so naive and just "let things happen" without wondering about possible complications etc. i can't help but think sometimes that maybe they knew exactly what they were doing. I mean, it's even harder to believe that top class politicians who are usually extremely intelligent and cunning would simply mutate to these naive individuals all of a sudden, and lose all their combined perspective.

I can't tell you WHY they'd do this, it's just a thought after all, but my gut tells me it's probably more to their advantage than to the average citizen's...
Click to expand...
Well some people (not me I should point out) believe that they do know exactly what they are doing - try googling 'kalergi plan'.
But I'm warning you it might be hazardous to your health.
 
Donos said:
I was one of them. Searched google for "kleine Waffenschein" - little gun license, because it got mentioned in the Spiegel TV Special and i wanted to know what is involved in obtaining it, because a lot of the young guys in the Berlin NYE video had alarm/gas pistols (bobby pistols?) and used them. It's just an easy document to fill out, then you can buy them easily. Didn't know that. They also look just like normal guns.
Click to expand...

I seriously hate those. They are so easy to obtain (anyone over 18) and you are even allowed to carry them in public with the gun license you mentioned even though they resemble a real gun.

They also have no real stopping power apart from serious injuries that can occur from a direct contact. That's because they have no actual use aside from scaring away animals from crops.


At the very least they should be painted bright orange or strange looking. Criminals use them all the time to rob people who simply can't be sure if that gun is real or not. While at the same time I'm not sure they work as self-defense considering to the criminal it must be highly unlikely that a random citizen carries a real firearm illegally (as that's not allowed in Germany). Or, guess what an attacker's reaction is if they find out your defense is loud noises.


Even worse, they can be modified to shoot real bullets and thus are a very cheap source of unregistered handguns in Europe.


/side-rant
 
sturmdogg said:
So wait. Say you're getting mobbed 3 to 1 for example, after running away from them to avoid conflict, they corner you, you bust out your prepper spray and spray the lot of them, and THEY can sue YOU for assault?
Click to expand...
It's Europe. Let's say you get a burglar in your home and smash him with a baseball bat. If you can not proof there was an immediate danger to your life, you'll need to appear in front of a judge. No matter that the guy just broke into your home.

If there is a clear threat, then you can use force. We had a case here about a jewelry being robbed at gunpoint. The owner had an illegal gun and his wife shot one of the robbers. She was not charged.

Europe is a bit different when it comes to this compared to the US. And at least to me, the US has it more right in this case. If somebody assaults you or tries to take your stuff, you should have the right to hurt him.
 
ClosingADoor said:
It's Europe. Let's say you get a burglar in your home and smash him with a baseball bat. If you can not proof there was an immediate danger to your life, you'll need to appear in front of a judge. No matter that the guy just broke into your home.

If there is a clear threat, then you can use force. We had a case here about a jewelry being robbed at gunpoint. The owner had an illegal gun and his wife shot one of the robbers. She was not charged.

Europe is a bit different when it comes to this compared to the US. And at least to me, the US has it more right in this case. If somebody assaults you or tries to take your stuff, you should have the right to hurt him.
Click to expand...

Thankfully, I will not have to prove self-defence when the burglar trips down the stairs.



3 times over.
 
sturmdogg said:
So wait. Say you're getting mobbed 3 to 1 for example, after running away from them to avoid conflict, they corner you, you bust out your prepper spray and spray the lot of them, and THEY can sue YOU for assault?
Click to expand...

It's probably case by case but the self defence has to be proportionate. You better should show some good injury on your body. Depends on laywer and other circumstances etc.
But if didn't get hurt and there are no wittnesses, they can say that you just busted out your spray and attacked them.
 
If this kind of thing happens when the US starts bringing refugees in I see it ending rather tragically. Many more parents/siblings/relatives of young girls are armed and capable of using their guns, and already have a poor opinion of the refugees and the countries they come from.

Add a little sexual assault of their relatives in the mix and you have a witch hunt.

Why do some of the men from those countries think this is OK?
 
7DollarHagane said:
If this kind of thing happens when the US starts bringing refugees in I see it ending rather tragically. Many more fathers of young girls are armed and capable of using their guns, and already have a poor opinion of the refugees and the countries they come from.

Add a little sexual assault of their daughters in the mix and you have a witch hunt.

Why do some of the men from those countries think this is OK?
Click to expand...
The US (and Canada) probably won't have much problems, since they take in families mostly, do screening before they are brought over and only take Syrian refugees. Europe is dealing with much larger numbers, mostly young men and people from other countries trying to abuse the situation by getting in. The attackers arrested in Cologne for example ore mostly Algerian and Moroccan, two stable Northern African countries.
 
ClosingADoor said:
Europe is a bit different when it comes to this compared to the US. And at least to me, the US has it more right in this case. If somebody assaults you or tries to take your stuff, you should have the right to hurt him.
Click to expand...


I don't think that this has been a problem in practice though. The moment someone assaults you (which can even be just grabbing you etc.) or when you have to fend off an assault you can hurt them and you won't get charged. Unless the circumstances would make it seem the other way around which is never the case if you get robbed.

The only thing that can get tricky is that you are only allowed to use reasonable amount of force. i.e. shooting someone for burglary is not reasonable, as isn't e.g. kicking an aggressive drunk guy in the head while he's on the ground. However, even in those cases you will usually formally charged but the case is then closed without a sentence (unless someone can prove you actually intended to harm someone more than necessary and that you didn't just react irrationally out of fear etc.).
 
MonorailCat said:
Yes, and they will probably win unless you are able to show some serious wounds on yourself. Threat alone would not be enough. Thats Germany.
Click to expand...

This is an utterly bizarre post. How is this problem in any way specific to Germany? Why should a verbal threat necessarily legally justify physical violence?

If there is a trial, where one side has three witnesses that present a reasonable story and the other side has only one witness that presents a reasonable story, then of course the former side seems more likely to win. That is how trials tend to work virtually everywhere in the world. Whether that is how things tend to play out in Germany in practice, e.g. whether these witnesses tend to present reasonable stories, is a different question and I would love if you could provide some statistics.
 
Donos said:
It's probably case by case but the self defence has to be proportionate. You better should show some good injury on your body. Depends on laywer and other circumstances etc.
But if didn't get hurt and there are no wittnesses, they can say that you just busted out your spray and attacked them.
Click to expand...

SolidusDave said:
I don't think that this has been a problem in practice though. The moment someone assaults you (which can even be just grabbing you etc.) or when you have to fend off an assault you can hurt them and you won't get charged. Unless the circumstances would make it seem the other way around which is never the case if you get robbed.

The only thing that can get tricky is that you are only allowed to use reasonable amount of force. i.e. shooting someone for burglary is not reasonable, as isn't e.g. kicking an aggressive drunk guy in the head while he's on the ground. However, even in those cases you will usually formally charged but the case is then closed without a sentence (unless someone can prove you actually intended to harm someone more than necessary and that you didn't just react irrationally out of fear etc.).
Click to expand...

A friend of mine was charged with suspended sentence and had to pay medical costs for crossing self defence (Poland). During a campfire he and two other guys were assaulted by a guy armed with a knife. He used a tree branch in self defence and broke the guys arm (the one holding the knife). Guy got caught, charged with assault, but in return he got charged for crossing self defence.
So yes, these things happen, and they do happen quite often.
 
Even if one were to ignore the many problems with integration, the biggest worry for me is the toll it will have on the welfare system. The costs are simply too big. Now short term it’s no doubt very costly, but the main issue is long term. Hegnar a Norwegian newspaper calculated that the cost of a single non-western immigrant would amount to about 4,5 million kroner (500 000 dollars).

http://www.hegnar.no/okonomi/artikkel325140.ece

The article uses SSB's statistics (the official statistic institute in Norway). The numbers are the estimated Net cost of an immigrant. Meaning taxes paid minus benefits received.

It’s estimated that half of the “Norwegian Goverment Pension Fund” could be tied up just to pay for the cost of current and future immigration. That would mean about 4100 billion kroner or about 461.31 billions dollars( The cost are probably more though seeing that the krone in 2012 was worth more).

http://www.aftenposten.no/meninger/Stoltenbergs-skjulte-innvandringskostnader-7287410.html

This was in 2012 however and the numbers of immigrants has skyrocketed. The cost of the current wave of immigrants could amount to 750 billion kroner or about 84 billion dollars. Note that all costs are Net-costs.

http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/...koste-norge-750-milliarder-kroner/a/23546865/

I just don’t see how this is viable for long… And Norway has this immense global wealth fund. I don’t see how Sweden for example can afford this.
 
Well, you expect that many of the immigrants learn the language and start working somehow) and not that every one of them is going to live from welfare/the state. Reality might be different. A lot of the immigrants are also rather well educated and want to work in germany (or whereever they go to) but it won't be easy to get started when you don't even have a flat. And from beeing a Doctor in your country to washing toilets is probably not that attractive.

800.000 immigrants/refugees ≠ 800.000 ppl living from welfare/state (over the long term).
 
Donos said:
Well, you expect that many of the immigrants learn the language and start working somehow) and not that every one of them is going to live from welfare/the state. Reality might be different. A lot of the immigrants are also rather well educated and want to work in germany (or whereever they go to) but it won't be easy to get started when you don't even have a flat. And from beeing a Doctor in your country to washing toilets is probably not that attractive.

800.000 immigrants/refugees ≠ 800.000 ppl living from welfare/state.
Click to expand...
Immigrants from non-Western countries are very much over represented in the welfare and unemployment statistics - for various reasons, some not of their fault also.

In Holland 1 in 7 non-Western immigrants are on welfare. For native Dutch that number is 1 in 44.

Half of non-Western immigrants of working age have no job, compared to 23% of native Dutch. This number will include people who can't work for various reasons, such as disabilities.

More worrying is that in these numbers, they also count non-Western immigrant as people who are born here but have at least one parent from foreign descent, so this includes second and third generation immigrants for example. They don't actually use the world immigrant, but I can't come up with a decent translation for the term.
 
Donos said:
Well, you expect that many of the immigrants learn the language and start working somehow) and not that every one of them is going to live from welfare/the state. Reality might be different. A lot of the immigrants are also rather well educated and want to work in germany (or whereever they go to) but it won't be easy to get started when you don't even have a flat. And from beeing a Doctor in your country to washing toilets is probably not that attractive.

800.000 immigrants/refugees ≠ 800.000 ppl living from welfare/state (over the long term).
Click to expand...


The numbers i posted are Net-cost. Taxes paid minus benefits received. They are estimates based on the level of integration and on average the taxes paid and benefits recieved by non-western immigrants during their lifetime. Some newspapers have broken down the numbers even further and calculated what immigrants from certain countries would cost the state. This is based on their average participation in the "working life" and on average their benefits recieved. An immigrant from Somalia for example costs about 1 million dollars, an immigrant from Pakistan about 500 000 dollars.

http://www.abcnyheter.no/nyheter/2013/09/07/181537/hver-somalier-koster-staten-9-millioner-kroner

Yet some politicans still claim that immigration pays off(economcally) and do not have any estimates or numbers to show for it.
 
ClosingADoor said:
In Holland 1 in 7 non-Western immigrants are on welfare. For native Dutch that number is 1 in 44.
Click to expand...

Yeah that also includes Chinese, Indonesian, Surinamese etc. The percentages are much higher for the immigration from countries we're seeing now.

comment_3Lv4Bs3kVispvhEyoyA0nFTafQjzW2ER.jpg


(percentage of people in welfare according to background... I think English speakers will be able to translate the countries)

The only way we can circumvent massive debts and a ruined economy really seems to be a complete moratorium on citizenship for refugees. You can live here to remain safe, but you will never be allowed into the social security. Oh and you have to work. I very much doubt we would see such an influx if this were the case.
 
Chittagong said:
Not attempting to solve any issue really here, just giving my opinion which might be wrong or right. My view is that

1 - The current immigration boom has been significantly accelerated by the social democratic / liberal / centre establishment, especially their public announcements of how EU will take everyone. As a figure head, Finnish PM even annouced giving his house to the immigrants.

2 - There was no proper discussion or policy making on how many immigrants countries actually can manage to take and properly accommodate, or afford, before said announcements.

3 - There was no proper discussion or policy making of how we integrate people coming from very, very different cultures, generally disagreeable to many of the things we hold dear, and how we would deal with problems before said announcements.

In my opinion only.
Click to expand...

I think you are pretty close, but there is one point that hasn't been discussed yet:
How did it all start? I don't remember any announcement by Merkel or another politician prior the first massive waves of refugees. Please keep in mind that not all refugees have been registered yet or have given wrong information about their persona. I am pretty sure that most of the refugees are not from Syria. I assume, what we are witnessing here is the same thing that happened in spring 2011 in North Africa - it is snowball-effect phenomenon driven by social networks. I have listened to some interviews with refugees - some of them feel personally invited to Germany by Angela Merkel.

Let me elaborate:
Person watches the news and after that he tells his neighbour: Man, I just heard on TV that Germany will accept more refugees in the future. Neighbour spreads the news further and after several transmissions of the news it will sound something like this: You know what I've been told: Angela Merkel the chancellor of Germany has invited all people from poor countries to Germany. Everyone will receive a present, an appartment/house and a well-paid job and now the best thing: they have millions of blonde women there who love to drink and get laid.

This sounds harsh, but this kind of mentality is what we have experienced here in Cologne on New Year's Eve. No hyperbole. Merkel wanted Mustafa, the engineer from Syria, but for every Mustafa the engineer she also got 5 Tony Montana thugs.
 
spekkeh said:
Yeah that also includes Chinese, Indonesian, Surinamese etc. The percentages are much higher for the immigration from countries we're seeing now.

comment_3Lv4Bs3kVispvhEyoyA0nFTafQjzW2ER.jpg


(percentage of people in welfare according to background... I think English speakers will be able to translate the countries)

The only way we can circumvent massive debts and a ruined economy really seems to be a complete moratorium on citizenship for refugees. You can live here to remain safe, but you will never be allowed into the social security. Oh and you have to work. I very much doubt we would see such an influx if this were the case.
Click to expand...

Problem with this is: you can't work while you're in the asylum procedure as it stands today, only once you have actual citizenship/right to stay here.
 
Weckum said:
I know, but how are new people gonna work if there's a moratorium on citizenship? (Talking about people currently in the process)

What I mean is that rules need to change (and I'm pretty sure these are EU rules) to fix this.
Click to expand...
I don't know how that would go in the current EU job market, considering a lot of Southern European countries are already dealing with large numbers of unemployment. Adding even more cheap competition to that will not go down well.

And they can find work after they have gone through the asylum process. The numbers of this are worrying, since we still see a large gap in employment for people who have been here a longer time or are even second or third generation immigrants.
 
Weckum said:
I know, but how are new people gonna work if there's a moratorium on citizenship? (Talking about people currently in the process)

What I mean is that rules need to change (and I'm pretty sure these are EU rules) to fix this.
Click to expand...

Yeah because countries with 40% youth unemployement definitely can take more immigrants that drive the wages even more down.

Did you feel good typing that while looking at your nice neighborood?
 
I would like to add that the condition for the numbers i have linked to is that the immigrants are 100% integrated (over time) and that their children follows the "economical behaviour" as the rest of the population.(same rates of employment, education ect.)

http://www.hegnar.no/multimedia/archive/00061/Finansavisen_130413__61041a.pdf


If someone have numbers that show that immigration will pay off or not be extremly costly long term i would be happy to see them( they do not exist).
 
Weckum said:
I know, but how are new people gonna work if there's a moratorium on citizenship? (Talking about people currently in the process)

What I mean is that rules need to change (and I'm pretty sure these are EU rules) to fix this.
Click to expand...
Yes but the rules need to change for the moratorium too, the asylum procedures need to change and for the work placement, because working for a number of years also leads to citizenship. A lot of rules have to be changed to do what I propose, so I'm not sure how possible it is, but I see it as the only humane way of discouraging large parts of Africa and Western Asia flooding into Europe. (and crucially a way to undercut the rising right wing extrslemism)
 
spekkeh said:
Yes but the rules need to change for the moratorium too, the asylum procedures need to change and for the work placement, because working for a number of years also leads to citizenship. A lot of rules have to be changed to do what I propose, so I'm not sure how possible it is, but I see it as the only humane way of discouraging large parts of Africa and Western Asia flooding into Europe. (and crucially a way to undercut the rising right wing extrslemism)
Click to expand...

Maybe one positive to come from all of this will be that western governments will seriously look to resolve some of the situations that lead people to become economic migrants. Basically tackle the issue at source, rather than treating symptoms. Instead of making it less appealing to come to Europe, make it more appealing to stay where they are. Obviously, easier said than done...
 
Let's not forget that "close the borders" essentially means telling refugees to stay on the ground outside the country borders (remember, these people don't have a home they can just quickly return to) and no longer examining their case, whether they deserve asylum or not. Telling all refugees that they will not find a place to stay because some of them might be criminals so all of them must suffer for that.

BTW, for people wondering about self defense, you are allowed to use self-defense but only proportionate to the threat, you are not allowed to use lethal force to counter a lesser threat. Also when using a weapon or something give the target a warning and chance to back off before attacking if possible. There is no castle doctrine, trespassing alone does not justify the use of force, only if the trespasser is a violent threat. Otherwise you're supposed to apprehend the trespasser with minimal use of force or just eject him from the premises. Of course booby-trapping is against the law too. Lethal force is legal if it's necessary to fend off a grave threat but of course you are not allowed to execute someone who has already been neutralized as a threat.

Markoman said:
Let me elaborate:
Person watches the news and after that he tells his neighbour: Man, I just heard on TV that Germany will accept more refugees in the future. Neighbour spreads the news further and after several transmissions of the news it will sound something like this: You know what I've been told: Angela Merkel the chancellor of Germany has invited all people from poor countries to Germany. Everyone will receive a present, an appartment/house and a well-paid job and now the best thing: they have millions of blonde women there who love to drink and get laid.
Click to expand...

The traffickers are also marketing their destinations with claims like welfare in Germany being 2000€/month. As long as there's money to be made with people thinking nonsense like that it will be perpetuated.
 
One thing that I didn't know before that whole Cologne disaster was that Germany pretty much can't deport Moroccans or Algerians since these countries just refuse to take them back.

So we can't deport criminals who are from a war zone and we can't deport those who aren't either. Makes me feel real great.
 
KDR_11k said:
Let's not forget that "close the borders" essentially means telling refugees to stay on the ground outside the country borders (remember, these people don't have a home they can just quickly return to) and no longer examining their case, whether they deserve asylum or not. Telling all refugees that they will not find a place to stay because some of them might be criminals so all of them must suffer for that.

BTW, for people wondering about self defense, you are allowed to use self-defense but only proportionate to the threat, you are not allowed to use lethal force to counter a lesser threat. Also when using a weapon or something give the target a warning and chance to back off before attacking if possible. There is no castle doctrine, trespassing alone does not justify the use of force, only if the trespasser is a violent threat. Otherwise you're supposed to apprehend the trespasser with minimal use of force or just eject him from the premises. Of course booby-trapping is against the law too. Lethal force is legal if it's necessary to fend off a grave threat but of course you are not allowed to execute someone who has already been neutralized as a threat.



The traffickers are also marketing their destinations with claims like welfare in Germany being 2000€/month. As long as there's money to be made with people thinking nonsense like that it will be perpetuated.
Click to expand...

Yes, it's a well oiled machinery of madness.
 
KDR_11k said:
Let's not forget that "close the borders" essentially means telling refugees to stay on the ground outside the country borders (remember, these people don't have a home they can just quickly return to) and no longer examining their case, whether they deserve asylum or not. Telling all refugees that they will not find a place to stay because some of them might be criminals so all of them must suffer for that.
Click to expand...
There will be some sad cases of people who will either need to turn back or helped back to their country right from the border. But this is what borders are for. If we are just letting anybody in, why even have a border?

Moonstar said:
One thing that I didn't know before that whole Cologne disaster was that Germany pretty much can't deport Moroccans or Algerians since these countries just refuse to take them back.

So we can't deport criminals who are from a war zone and we can't deport those who aren't either. Makes me feel real great.
Click to expand...
Is this for real? If they have a Moroccan or Algerian passport, and don't have a German passport or visa, how can they not take them back. They are their citizens, they have an obligation to take them in there.
 
ClosingADoor said:
There will be some sad cases of people who will either need to turn back or helped back to their country right from the border. But this is what borders are for. If we are just letting anybody in, why even have a border?


Is this for real? If they have a Moroccan or Algerian passport, and don't have a German passport or visa, how can they not take them back. They are their citizens, they have an obligation to take them in there.
Click to expand...


Yes. I don't know the specifics of it either but i am fairly confident i have heard the German Minister of Interior (De Maizière) talk about this on several newsstations recently. He was making the point that countries that do not take them back need to be "treated" differently by Germany in the future so it appears to be true.
 
Winnie the Pimp said:
Yes. I don't know the specifics of it either but i am fairly confident i have heard the German Minister of Interior (De Maizière) talk about this on several newsstations recently. He was making the point that countries that do not take them back need to be "treated" differently by Germany in the future so it appears to be true.
Click to expand...
Strange. Does this have to do with being able to proof they are Algerian or Moroccan and those countries otherwise just ignoring it? If they just flat out refuse, something must be done to force them, since just refusing to take back your own citizens should not be accepted. This would create people without a nation that can basically stay nowhere.

And in other news, just read the amount of charges filed are up to 561. 45% for sexual assault.
 
ClosingADoor said:
There will be some sad cases of people who will either need to turn back or helped back to their country right from the border. But this is what borders are for. If we are just letting anybody in, why even have a border?
Click to expand...

"some sad cases"? Closing the border means sending EVERYBODY back. It's not feasible to just do all the necessary checks on someone right at the border, that stuff takes days, months, sometimes even years. Hence the refugee camps, they gotta stay somewhere while the govt checks if they are eligible for asylum.
 
KDR_11k said:
"some sad cases"? Closing the border means sending EVERYBODY back. It's not feasible to just do all the necessary checks on someone right at the border, that stuff takes days, months, sometimes even years. Hence the refugee camps, they gotta stay somewhere while the govt checks if they are eligible for asylum.
Click to expand...
If the goal is to discourage people from coming it has to be done somehow. Either by setting up camps there at the borders or sending people back. You can't tell people to stay away but let them through anyway when they come.

I don't really know a good solution for that also. It's a difficult decision but it has to be done somehow.
 
KDR_11k said:
"some sad cases"? Closing the border means sending EVERYBODY back. It's not feasible to just do all the necessary checks on someone right at the border, that stuff takes days, months, sometimes even years. Hence the refugee camps, they gotta stay somewhere while the govt checks if they are eligible for asylum.
Click to expand...

And that's the reason why countries around Germany and those on the refugee trail are working feverishly building walls and placing barbed wire on its borders.
No country wants to get stuck with 100000+ angry ''refugees'' who have nowhere to go.

And I firmly believe that Germany will close its borders. After that shit hits the fan.....
 
Winnie the Pimp said:
Yes. I don't know the specifics of it either but i am fairly confident i have heard the German Minister of Interior (De Maizière) talk about this on several newsstations recently. He was making the point that countries that do not take them back need to be "treated" differently by Germany in the future so it appears to be true.
Click to expand...
I am not sure about Algerian but in Spain we deport Moroccan from time to time so is possible. Article in Spanish about one case where they weren't told that they were being deported: http://www.publico.es/actualidad/grupo-98-internos-del-cie.html.

In general is a matter of having good relationships with the countries of origin rather than throwing threats (is more like throwing bribes though).
 
ClosingADoor said:
Is this for real? If they have a Moroccan or Algerian passport, and don't have a German passport or visa, how can they not take them back. They are their citizens, they have an obligation to take them in there.
Click to expand...

They probably burned their own passport already...
 
post-S said:
They probably burned their own passport already...
Click to expand...

No need. Both countries are notorious for not accepting citizens back. They do this in the interest of their citizens though, because these are people living in Europe with no interest in being sent back to Africa.
 
Apparently some people are losing their minds over this..
Some of the media basically started to pretend and downright lie that this is not so new in Germany and that "MEN" do the same things in the Oktoberfest..

Which isn't true at all and the numbers aren't even close :X

Still you even start to hear this from "feminists" on social media, in TV! and from mainstream media (ARD, ZDF trending tweet and so one)..

It apparently really, REALLY hurts some people that the censorship didn't work and that the crimes where committed by the "wrong" men .. to the point even the FAZ is pissed off and asking wtf is going on...
http://blogs.faz.net/deus/2016/01/06/sexuelle-gewalt-in-koeln-mit-dem-oktoberfest-kleinreden-3075/

http://www.faz.net/aktuell/feuillet...nd-falsche-zahlen-von-der-wiesn-14004617.html

Also if you want a "laugh":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AmhQ6YmYzPY
 
daniels said:
Apparently some people are losing their minds over this..
Some of the media basically started to pretend and downright lie that this is not so new in Germany and that "MEN" do the same things in the Oktoberfest..

Which isn't true at all and the numbers aren't even close :X

Still you even start to hear this from "feminists" on social media, in TV! and from mainstream media (ARD, ZDF trending tweet and so one)..

It apparently really, REALLY hurts some people that the censorship didn't work and that the crimes where committed by the "wrong" men .. to the point even the left wing/green TAZ is pissed off and asking wtf is going on...
http://blogs.faz.net/deus/2016/01/06/sexuelle-gewalt-in-koeln-mit-dem-oktoberfest-kleinreden-3075/

http://www.faz.net/aktuell/feuillet...nd-falsche-zahlen-von-der-wiesn-14004617.html

Also if you want a "laugh":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AmhQ6YmYzPY
Click to expand...

For fuck's sake, is this really what Europe is coming to?
 
daniels said:
Apparently some people are losing their minds over this..
Some of the media basically started to pretend and downright lie that this is not so new in Germany and that "MEN" do the same things in the Oktoberfest..

Which isn't true at all and the numbers aren't even close :X

Still you even start to hear this from "feminists" on social media, in TV! and from mainstream media (ARD, ZDF trending tweet and so one)..

It apparently really, REALLY hurts some people that the censorship didn't work and that the crimes where committed by the "wrong" men .. to the point even the FAZ is pissed off and asking wtf is going on...
http://blogs.faz.net/deus/2016/01/06/sexuelle-gewalt-in-koeln-mit-dem-oktoberfest-kleinreden-3075/

http://www.faz.net/aktuell/feuillet...nd-falsche-zahlen-von-der-wiesn-14004617.html

Also if you want a "laugh":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AmhQ6YmYzPY
Click to expand...

This is... unbelievable, to say the least.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Happy Chinese New Year!
23
1K
Toots replied
Happy New Year GAF
2
73
2K
Trilobit replied
A new year, a new Netflix price hike
2
60
4K
EverydayBeast replied
Solo Leveling wins Anime of the Year at the Anime Awards 2025
2
74
276
Brakum replied
28 YEARS LATER - New Trailer
20
985
Days like these... replied
Top Bottom