We already talked about this not long ago. People who claim to be asylum seekers must be legally treated as asylum seekers until proven otherwise. You cannot turn them away at gunpoint without saying "nuts" to the the UN and the rule of law and all that jazz. Your beef is not only with Merkel and the EU, but with also the UN and the rest of the world.
Correction: A rule for Swedes
Why should we care for the opinion of people with no future?
Seriously, is this actually how Merkeleli et al run their asylum seeking program?
I thought the stories of immigrants tearing up their papers in front of police were a bit much.Now if you leave safe countries to travel to rich countries, you are not an asylum seeker. If you avoid the authorities and do not turn yourself into a refugee centre you are not an asylum seeker. If you do not turn yourself in as soon as you believe you are in danger you are not an asylum seeker. If you do so you will have to provide documentation so it is known who you are, where you actually come from, whether you are a wanted criminal or have links to terrorist groups, and you will have to explain why you believe your life is in danger and provide any evidence you have that your life will be in danger if you are deported. If your application is successful you become a refugee, given a 5 year stay. If your situation has not improved by the end of that term, you can apply to stay indefinitely.
If you deliberately try to circumvent the system you are not an asylum seeker and asylum seekers are not interchangeable with refugee. You cannot expect to have all the rights of a citizen and none of the obligations just because you say so. In this country, there are abuses yeah, one of my friends went to school with an Afghan man in his forties who was legally an adolescent because they'd deport him otherwise, and my bank clerk's friends with a Nigerian who is clearly not in his twenties; but there is a clear system that makes it bleedingly obvious who's trying to pull a fast one and who's a refugee. Sweden, Germany; these are countries that are not going to be countries for long, a transformation is inevitable with such a wonderful system in place. Just because.
The fundamental right of asylum thus has high priority and expresses Germany’s willingness to fulfil its historical and humanitarian obligation to admit refugees.
Lol that nazi guilt
The admission procedure for asylum seekers is governed by the Asylum Procedure Act (AsylVfG). Asylum seekers whom border authorities permit to enter the Federal Republic of Germany or who are found in the country without a residence permit are transferred to the nearest reception centre of the relevant state.
Hahaha oh my God they really do just let anyone into their country! If the police don't find you, you're an "undocumented migrant", and when they do you become an asylum seeker automatically! It's impossible to be an illegal immigrant to Germany xD
Also makes sense since the immigrants tearing up their resident permits would force the police to legally send them to the nearest reception centre, or else face the wrath of Merkel. Germany can't even deport their rapists hahahaha
If the asylum application is accepted, persons granted asylum status and those granted refugee status receive a temporary residence permit and are given the same status as Germans within the social insurance system. They are entitled to social welfare, child benefits, child-raising benefits, integration allowances and language courses as well as other forms of integration assistance.
All the rights, none of the obligations LOL it's
the free citizen of the land principle in actionAs a rule, asylum seekers whose applications have been rejected are required to leave the country.
I'm sure the Germans take this rule very seriously, they
deported a whole 11,000 illegal immigrants in one year versus 1,500,000 arriving that same year alone
The UN put Saudi Arabia at the head of the human rights council. Fuck them.
Makes as much sense as putting Stalin in charge of human resources
Though the League failed because it had no enforcement mandate (much like the current UN, sadly). Amusing how UN detractors always talk about how ineffective it is, and simultaneously about how it has too much power. Kind of like Tea Partiers bitching about the government.
Those two statements are not conflicting, any less so with governments. Consider the US police having far too much power, but also being quite ineffectual when it comes to stopping crime. I had the pleasure of meeting a former big cheese of the UN's health department and he left because they weren't really worth his time as soon as he could jump boats for the World Health Organization. Interesting thing was, although he criticized it for being useless, inefficient and slow (5% of funding reaching its target was a success according to him), he also said its work was vital and indispensable. Also like the government or the police for that matter.
*EDIT
FIXED CITATIONS QUOTATIONS NOTATIONS ILLUMINA(ti)ONS
Author
Topic: The friendly and polite Europe related terrible jokes thread (Read 1104607 times)