A 22-year-old anti-Nazi song tops German charts again – to welcome refugees
washingtonpost.com
washingtonpost.com
Continuous failures of ECB policy, the collapse of Greece under the EURO, the PIGS in serious trouble, add a totally uncontrolled mass refugee crisis, the entire EU project looks like an incompetent bureaucratic mess.
The damage is so great that Even China and Russia have managed to claim the moral high ground and quit rightly blame the crisis on the EU itself and NATO adventurism in Syria.
I do not think rehashing WW2 German collective guilt as a media spectacle is going to change the perceptions of anyone paying attention to this horrible situation.
Once again Putin is right, and this uncovers how a permanent conflict at the arab world is in the interest of the NATO and the US/Israel-aligned world overall.
Who said “Americans”? I’m just saying “they”, and “they” are the bribed politicians [0] (both in the US and Europe). “They” don’t want us to vote [1] because they know We (the citizens) are not aligned with everything that USA or ANYONE says and does.
> Hate can be blinding. Has a there ever been even a single EU candidate that ran on an anti-US platform?
LOL, who is telling you that being neutral is being anti-american? chillax dude. I’m just anti-war and anti-media-bullshit, like any libertarian able to read between the lines (even american ones [2]).
Get your facts straight.
[0] http://venturebeat.com/2015/09/04/creative-commons-founder-l...
[1] http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/09/ttip-biggest-th...
If any war in the world will result in mass migration to just the richest countries with the most elaborate welfare states, then you'll just end up with fewer rich welfare states in the long run. Be careful what you wish for.
It really hurts to read this kind of drivel on HN. This is not how the press works. "The press" is not an uniform entity. This is not how any of this works.
Please take your conspiracy theories elsewhere.
That is probably true but I don't understand how the recent pictures of a Syrian child washing ashore could be a part of a "coordinated release"?
Certainly the EU is heading for political and economic union and to that extent its report of itself is a conspiracy if you want to call it that but it doesn't really meet the definition.
Curious to know why it hurts! Btw stuff that arrives on HN that isn't appreciated is normally simply ignored. That's democratic choice; offering directives is a tad authoritarian, is it not?
It hurts because the claim of conformist media (german: "gleichgeschaltete Medien") is a standard neonazi narrative of the dumbest kind.
There is no "coordinated media spin across the EU" because the EU is a conglomerate of 28 nation states, many of which are in strong disagreement about which kind of media spin they would prefer for the current situation.
Look at the mainstream media in Germany, Austria and Hungary and you'll see very different spins and emphasis. The internet makes this very easy to do, there really is no excuse for naive conspiracy theories anymore.
That's democratic choice; offering directives is a tad authoritarian, is it not?
My tolerance towards stupidity ends when it is directed against people who can't defend themselves. In case you missed whose horn generic_user is tooting then I suggest to take a brief glance at his comment history.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/culturehousedaily/2014/02/the-m...
The Reuters-HAVAS-Wolf EU cartel is still alive and kicking even tho that Wolf's agency was swallowed by the Nazi party in the 30's. Benito Mussolini's Agenzia Stefani is still alive and well as Agenzia Nazionale Stampa Associata (ANSA) which is one of the lading news agencies in the world.
If you look at the big agencies, Reuters HAVAS(AFP), and AP you'll see that they produce the vast majority of news reports that you read today, through their partners and subsidiaries they also own/represent/control/influence/hold hands/what ever with most small scale news agencies in the world including a fair deal of national ones.
Will the BBC do some investigative reporting? yes it will, but the majority of the news that the BBC reports comes from the wire they'll might add some facts to it and some flare but they report it as it is, including in the same way it came through the wire so if there was already an opinion or a tone impressed on it it will be reported as such.
This isn't some conspiracy theory this is reality, it doesn't mean that there's a cabal out there that wants to control everyone with old white men sitting in dark rooms smoking cigars, but it also means that even unintentional influence on the nature of a story gets amplified since that story will be reported 10000 times over, this gets aggravated even more considering that the big news agencies rely almost completely on local resources now so whether it's Gaza, Syria, Ukraine, or DC you'll get local reporters producing news with all the bias which is involved in it that will then be distributed to 10,000's of news outlets in the world and reported as recieved.
EADS, Dassault, Rothschild, Bouygues and Alstom.
https://mondeenquestion.wordpress.com/2011/03/09/la-mainmise...
In other countries, it's similar: the press is owned by oligarchs who have big interests in having wars all over the place.
Who makes the most money out of the war in Syria? Who has interest in having the fighting going on there (and therefore the need to buy weapons and munitions, with GOLD!
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/14/isis-gold-silve...
It shows that it goes by the humanitarian principles it claims to have. Refugees fleeing from a humanitarian crisis are allowed to stay and to become citizens. People fleeing from a bad economic situation are not.
> But make no mistake this is a total disaster for the refugees, member state Citizens and the EU bureaucracy.
It's a disaster for the refugees. But the disaster is in Syria.
> The damage is so great that Even China and Russia have managed to claim the moral high ground and quit rightly blame the crisis on the EU itself and NATO adventurism in Syria.
You are confused. The US and Turkey are in NATO. But the EU has nearly no involvement in Syria. Besides taking on the fleeing population, that is.
Actually the "refugees fleeing from a humanitarian crisis are allowed to stay" only if they manage to cross the borders which EU still works hard to close:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YO0IRsfrPQ4
There is a reason why people must pay the illegal boats to reach Europe across the sea.
However the european media are doing a bad job at telling people the whole story in simple terms about how syria got in this mess and what are the ways to end the crisis where it began (military intervention? who knows). It shouldn't have to take horrible pictures of refugees and children for the people in europe to start talking seriously about this crisis. Focusing on who's going to take more refugees is short-sighted politicking that is benefiting only the far-right parties.
The BBC text linked "conveniently" ignores some influential players and even the recent history:
Compare:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/cia-b...
The Washington Post, September 11, 2013: "CIA begins weapons delivery to Syrian rebels"
And:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_...
"The group gained prominence after it drove Iraqi government forces out of key cities in western Iraq in an offensive initiated in early 2014."
Also note, the state as of October 2014:
http://www.quora.com/Where-is-ISIL-getting-their-ammunition
(which refers to: http://www.conflictarm.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Dispat... )
"Iraqi and Syrian government forces and moderate rebels now face a significant number of ISIL fighters equipped from huge stocks of captured American-made weapons. The report states that the majority of ISIL ammo recovered in Iraq appears traceable to these stocks."
For example starting with this ("Remembering 1960s Afghanistan"):
http://blogs.denverpost.com/captured/2013/01/28/podlich-afgh...
and then this ("Zbigniew Brzezinski Taliban Pakistan Afghanistan pep talk 1979"):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYvO3qAlyTg
Zbigniew Brzezinski was the National Security Advisor to the US President Jimmy Carter at that time.
http://www.aljazeera.com/archive/2003/04/2008410113842420760...
"When former US National Security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski bragged about prompting the Soviet Union to invade Afghanistan so that it could get its "Vietnam" he was not making an empty boast."
"Brzezinski said he convinced Carter to sign the first directive for secret aid to opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul on July 3, 1979 in an effort to goad the Red Army into invading, in a 1998 interview."
Probably out of 4 asylum seekers 2 are from Syria, 1 from Afghanistan and 1 from other areas, often Africa.
Also note that most of the original inhabitants of Syria are very young, as around 25 years ago there were twice as less people there:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Syria
The demographics of Afghanistan is comparable.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/22/migrants-hungar...
http://news.sky.com/story/1544753/migrants-spend-night-outsi...
As some one who loathes conspiracy theories even I'm starting to wonder if Germany is pretty much threatening Hungary to prevent them from releasing the flood into central Europe while declaring that they'll take anyone who gets to Germany to appease voters. Because honestly I don't really see any other explanation to why countries like Hungary and even Italy (which prevents them from getting on trains to Switzerland) actually seem to keep the migrants forcibly within their territory while clearly not wanting them anywhere near it.
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.
"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?
The "haters" are ridicuously outgunned with the full power of both the media and the state arrayed against them, so they will lose. The imbalance serves to mask the nature of the conflict, makes it look unlike a classic civil war. Not enough carnage.
http://www.history.com/news/history-lists/8-reasons-why-rome...
One possible example is when the Roman Empire let in a load of Goths in 376.
I'll get hammered for this, but it depends on the country? I probally shouldn't comment because I'll be labeled a racist?
Right now Canada is offering certain refuges $8000 to leave. I don't think they are being mean? They are just concerned about the long term consequences? Or, they are racists? See--there's just no way to discuss it?
I see the way the good liberal people of San Francisco step over the Homeless, constantly complain, harass, and arrest these poor people; what would that liberal city do with thousands of broke refugees arriving daily, all using the Starbuck's restrooms, and sleeping in Golden Gate Park?
Those rich Arab countries should be doing what Jordan is doing? Then again, their economies are horrid, and have huge unemployment rates. (horrid for the average citizen)
This is what seems to be happening - for example in France (banlieues, 70% of prison population is muslim, Charlie Hebbo).
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. For a comparison the Hartz 4 (Social Welfare System) had a total of about 32 Billion in 2013. [3]. Of all the refugees the majority come from Syria (~22%), and Irak / Afghanistan (~10%), which are countries with ongoing conflicts. [2] 39% of the refugees are coming from (Serbia / Kosovo / Macedonia / Albania), which have no listed ongoing conflicts according to wikipedia. The rest come from various countries the world over with around 1.7% from Nigeria and another 1.7% from Pakistan, which also both have ongoing conflicts.
So those are the facts, according to wikipedia and the BAMF (Office for Refugees and Immigration).
Now for the IMHO part :) The biggest problem currently with the whole thing is that we've known about this issue for a very long time [4], and no one prepared at all.
Even now nobody seems to have a plan about what to do with the refugees once they get here except give them food, housing, and living money, which personally I have no problem with as long as there is a plan to assimilate them into society, teach them german, get them jobs, etc. Why do I think some germans are upset? I think a lot of people have problems with the fact that this seems like another Hartz 4 type system where german tax dollars are going to pay for people who sit in the house all day and sponge off the system. Also, I think the media is just making this perception worse by showing thousands of refugees sitting around in camps or walking into Germany where they immediately get handouts. Also its easier to rationalize a Harz 4 system when its for "yourself" i.e. family or other native germans who have also paid money and hard work into the system. It becomes less and less easier to rationalize this goodwill when you're giving handouts to people from other european countries (yes, as a EU citizen you can get on german Harz 4 if you want), and even less still when the people don't aren't even part of the EU. At least thats what I think is actually going on here with the negative attitudes...
There are open commercials against "foreigner hate" but seriously who would have a problem with this if instead of those commercials they would just show the refugees getting jobs and starting to work?
References:
1. https://www.bamf.de/SharedDocs/Anlagen/DE/Downloads/Infothek...
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ongoing_armed_conflict...
3. http://biaj.de/archiv-kurzmitteilungen/36-texte-biaj-kurzmit...
4. http://www.welt.de/debatte/kommentare/article132511959/Die-s...
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.
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 other countries. It is EU law that they shall be registered in the countries where they arrive, and it is new and a helping offer to allow those fugitives to continue onwards to Germany. Otherwise they would have to stay in the country they arrived in. Given the tone of your comment, I doubt you would prefer that option.
Bullshit.
Oh, so now it's not Merkel but the EU.
This is reported on regally in the press if you care to research.
I'm not the one making bullshit claims here. The onus is on you to name your sources.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/01/12/us-germany-islam-m...
The government has announced a relaxing of the Dublin agreement, under which refugees are supposed to be sent back to the country in which they entered the EU to apply for asylum. Many war refugees, particularly from Syria, were being sent back to Italy and Greece. Germany has now said it will process the majority of such claims.
Merkel’s deputy and economics minister, Sigmar Gabriel, and the foreign minister, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, both of the Social Democrats, a junior partner in Germany’s coalition government, have proposed a 10-point plan for Europe’s response to the refugee crisis. The pair called for a unified EU-wide response including fair distribution of refugees across Europe.
“As Europeans we owe it to ourselves and to the world to rise to the great challenge posed by these people looking for help,” they wrote. “We must pursue a European asylum, refugee and migration policy that is founded on the principle of solidarity and our shared values of humanity.”
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/08/26/us-europe-migrants...
"There is no tolerance for those people who question the dignity of others, no tolerance for those who are not willing to help where legal and human help is required," Merkel told reporters and local people in the town of Heidenau.
"The more people who make that clear ... the stronger we will be," she said, offering a message of support to those who have suffered abuse.
We must pursue a European asylum, refugee and migration policy that is founded on the principle of solidarity and our shared values of humanity
I don't understand. Which of your quotes "encouraged immigrants to come"?
"There is no tolerance for those people who question the dignity of others, no tolerance for those who are not willing to help where legal and human help is required"
And what is wrong with this last quote in particular? Does it hit too close to your home?
You provided random quotes, none of which support your "main point".
"There is no tolerance for those people
who question the dignity of others"
Do you even realize that Merkel is addressing people like you in this very quote?
Refugees arriving in Germany have the right to demand asylum. They have that right in every EU country.
But they may be denied asylum (after some months of processing and living in a shelter) if they do not flee from a humanitarian crisis.
Hartz 4 (long-term unemplyment aid) is basically what the country can sustainably pay without getting into the same debt spiral of Greece, etc. It's enough to survive, but not much more.
> 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.
During the processing of their asyl request, immigrants get money for housing, food, basic medical services and 140 Euro/month for leisure. Once their asyl request is accepted, they are entitled to the same social aid as any German. But you need to see money in context. Other European countries have a much lower cost of living.
> Second, Immigrants are not guests, they are immigrants or fugitives, and possibly supposed to stay.
Immigrants who are not fleeing from a humanitarian crisis get denied asyl and are expelled.
>Hartz 4 (long-term unemplyment aid) is basically what the country can sustainably pay
Pretty much. The deal with Hartz 4 is that it is a basic income that applies to every adult (children get a special deal), period. Even if you're employed you can apply for it if a certain calculation of your income minus deductions doesn't make the Hartz 4 line. That is a lot of people.
Some people do have problems with it however since it's an average. As such, depending on where you are, it will be more or less affordable. In west germany it will be less affordable to love on it than in east germany. In city centers less so than on the fringes or in small communities. I have family members on Hartz 4 in the "poorest" (most economically weak, really) parts of germany and they live VERY comfortably.
Where you are determines how "just" you will feel it is.
What people generally don't see though is that Hartz 4 is a LOT more than you get in other countries. Germany for example does not have a homeless problem like some other places i see in the news sometimes. And while complaining about Hartz 4 being too low, they also simultaneously complain about taxes being too high.
Not sure what you mean with inviting refugees and letting others care for them. Germany surely doesn't ask for more refugees but we will take care of the ones coming here.
We should bring more Germans into the government, they can take care of things, lol
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_countries_by_...
The Germans lost their minds...
Not sure what you're getting at here. For most of the world population the situation in _any_ rich country sounds too good to be true.
The fact is that these people are mostly refugees and they come because of unbearable situations at home, war, etc. _If_ they come to Germany, we will make sure that they can get access to health care, for the same reasons we make sure our fellow unemployed citizens also get access. Nothing wrong with that.
My SO works on immigration-related statistics and she says nearly 90% of immigrants who get to us and apply for refugee status immediately leave for other countries. Granting a war refugee status may take a while, but we provide them with food, clothes and shelter for the whole time. The conditions there are better than what most of our homeless can count on. We, of course, give them access to healthcare too. It may not be on the level of Germany, but it's there and I imagine, compared to Syria, it's still "too good to be true".
Most of the immigrants just won't stay here. I don't know why and no one really is asking this question in the media. I'd like to understand this. And please note: this is nearly exclusively about Middle East immigrants. We get some - not that many - immigrants from Ukraine, both refugees and economical immigrants, and most of them choose to stay here. Almost none of them decide to travel further West without first waiting for getting their formal refugee status recognized.
I'd really appreciate any insight into the reasons for this behaviour.
And of course when you already fleet a long distance why wouldn't you cross one more border if it likely improves your situation even if the other country already provides decent support? Nowhere do small differences matter that much as at the lower end of society.
"we make sure our fellow unemployed citizens also get access." I know many counter examples to this in Germany.
There are EU countries with median wage of 350 Euro.