Attacks on New Year's Eve: Cologne is shocked

[Hermit]

[Svartalf]

Probably, I get from a well informed source that foreign involvement in crime and violence in Germany and Austria gets a massive cover up.

[laklak]

It's a sticky wicket, eh?

[mistermack]

My conclusion is twofold: Yes, there is a serious crime problem among refugees. Pretending that there isn't one is a big mistake. No, a blanket blaming of refugees as a whole is not justified. That is just as big a mistake.

If there were any GENUINE refugees, among the rabble that's invading Germany. But there aren't. Germany has no borders with any country that is oppressive, or at war.

Of course the idiot masses will do just that, especially the right wingers among them. They are particularly moronic, and we have a few of them posting in this very thread.

You illustrate the point so well.
Any moronic piece of shit is welcome on this thread.
It's very like Germany really.

[Hermit]

My conclusion is twofold: Yes, there is a serious crime problem among refugees. Pretending that there isn't one is a big mistake. No, a blanket blaming of refugees as a whole is not justified. That is just as big a mistake.

If there were any GENUINE refugees, among the rabble that's invading Germany. But there aren't. Germany has no borders with any country that is oppressive, or at war.

The people you call rabble flee from this:



And no, not settling down in the nearest non-war location does not make them any less refugees.

Most of the 800,000 Vietnamese fleeing from the north's takeover of the south traversed a lot of countries before settling down. 90,000 of them came to Australia, mostly in boats like this one:



Most of them have become ordinary Australian citizens leading an ordinary life. Some of them have become highly valued members of our society. Two "boat people" I am aware of have become neurosurgeons, one an ophthalmologist and one is the current governor of South Australia.

Undoubtedly, some are primarily motivated by hoped for economic improvements in their lives and others are plain criminals, but most are exactly what they are called: asylum seekers. To deny this is no different to calling all people on unemployment benefits "dole bludgers". That's typical of the particularly idiotic and moronic masses among the right wingers I mentioned earlier.

[mistermack]

And no, not settling down in the nearest non-war location does not make them any less refugees.

Why? Because you say so? Because that's all you're offering on the point.
You're argument seems to be, "look how awful it is in Syria, that gives Syrians in Turkey the right to go to Germany". That doesn't follow whatsoever. Syrians in Turkey ARE safe from the war in Syria. They HAVE a safe refuge. You seem to think that the fact that they were PREVIOUSLY in danger gives them a free entry ticket to anywhere in the world.

Perhaps you should swat up on asylum. It's there to give safety to people FLEEING danger.
Not a more comfortable life to people who are not in danger, but in some discomfort.
These people are a rabble, because they are abusing the asylum system, for their economic gain. Which makes it much harder in the end for genuine refugees.

But like I said, I don't blame them. I blame the dim-witted westerners who fall for it, like you do.

Undoubtedly, some are primarily motivated by hoped for economic improvements in their lives and others are plain criminals, but most are exactly what they are called: asylum seekers.

No, not most, ALL are asylum seekers. So what?
There's no law against seeking something. But seeking something doesn't mean you're entitled to it. Otherwise, my dick would be worn away by now.

The asylum system was all very good, very simple, when it started, because hardly anybody had the means to move from one country to another.
But now, it's clearly being massively abused, and it's principles being blatantly ignored, by politicians who ought to know better, and people like you, who don't seem to know anything.

This is from Wikipedia on the asylum rules in France:

Some of the criteria for which an asylum application can be rejected include: i) Passage via “safe" third country, ii) Safe Country of Origin (An asylum seeker can be a prior refused asylum if the he or she is a national of a country considered to be "safe" by the French asylum authority OFPRA),[12] iii) Safety Threat (serious threat to the public order), or iv) Fraudulent Application (abuse of the asylum procedure for other reasons).

See, it's not just me that thinks your criteria for asylum are bollocks. It's French asylum lawmakers.
(I'm not going to check every country's laws).
People leaving Turkey, travelling through all those other safe countries, are not bona-fide asylum seekers. Either morally, or legally. They are asylum-system abusers.

[pErvinalia]

And no, not settling down in the nearest non-war location does not make them any less refugees.

Why? Because you say so?

Because the UN convention on refugees says so.

Perhaps you should swat up on asylum.

It's demonstrably true that it's you who should swat up on asylum.

The asylum system was all very good, very simple, when it started, because hardly anybody had the means to move from one country to another.
But now, it's clearly being massively abused,

"Clearly"? Says who? You?

[mistermack]

"Clearly"? Says who? You?

You need to learn to fucking read.
Or maybe comprehension is your problem?

[pErvinalia]

"safe" in quotes. That's not "clear". It's as clear as mud. The UN convention on refugees is perfectly clear.

[mistermack]

"safe" in quotes. That's not "clear". It's as clear as mud. The UN convention on refugees is perfectly clear.

You don't understand "safe" ?
I was right. You are fucking illiterate.

[pErvinalia]

It's the rofl smiley time. You know MM's got nothing when that point hits. As already pointed out, your definition of "safe" ISN'T the definition of safe from the UN convention. So, I'd suggest it is YOU who doesn't understand "safe".

[mistermack]

It's the rofl smiley time. You know MM's got nothing when that point hits. As already pointed out, your definition of "safe" ISN'T the definition of safe from the UN convention. So, I'd suggest it is YOU who doesn't understand "safe".

I wasn't aware that the UN had posted anything on the subject. Just you.

If you are struggling with the English word "safe" perhaps you should look up "danger".
God, you post some shit.

[pErvinalia]

ROFL smiley from MM = argument lost. Again.

Read the convention and educate yourself - http://www.unhcr.org/3b66c2aa10.html

[Hermit]

And no, not settling down in the nearest non-war location does not make them any less refugees.

Why? Because you say so? Because that's all you're offering on the point.

You're not offering any other than your say so either.

Perhaps you should swat up on asylum. It's there to give safety to people FLEEING danger.

Like those hundreds of thousands of Palestinians who have been left to rot in camps on Lebanese soil since as far back as 1948?



I don't think so. Asylum seekers are entitled to more than open air concentration camps. They are entitled to safety, comfort and an opportunity to rejoin civilisation wherever those conditions can be found.

Some of the criteria for which an asylum application can be rejected include: i) Passage via “safe" third country

Since when do you invoke the frogs as an authority on anything? In this case they are clearly breaking a convention they signed up on. The 1967 Protocol of the Geneva Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, of which almost all nations on earth are signatories to, including all members of the European Union, removed the time limits and applied to refugees "without any geographic limitation."

The asylum system was all very good, very simple, when it started, because hardly anybody had the means to move from one country to another.
But now, it's clearly being massively abused

You got that one arse about face. The asylum system began to work when refugees were able to move from one country to another. The Vietnamese boat people that made it to our shores are an example of that.

It's you who needs to do some swatting up on the asylum issue.

[mistermack]

Read the convention and educate yourself

If you were a bit better educated, you might understand plain English.
But, as you appear to be being deliberately stupid AGAIN, I'll highlight the important bit for you from my post :

Some of the criteria for which an asylum application can be rejected include: i) Passage via “safe" third country, ii) Safe Country of Origin (An asylum seeker can be a prior refused asylum if the he or she is a national of a country considered to be "safe" by the French asylum authority OFPRA),[12] iii) Safety Threat (serious threat to the public order), or iv) Fraudulent Application (abuse of the asylum procedure for other reasons).

Does everything have to be done in red for you? Why don't you read, before you bullshit?