Germany has *tightened its borders - *OP requested title tweak

[poppyzbrite4]

Is this the way to go?
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/germany-put-temporary-controls-all-land-borders-source-says-2024-09-09/

What do you think OP?

You've misunderstood. They haven't closed the borders.

Germany to tighten border controls after stabbing www.bbc.com/news/articles/cgrj8pqge0ro

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgrj8pqge0ro.amp

In reality they've just increased border checks

Haha! Jinx! 😂

I think it's a complex issue. I'm wondering how turning away refugees works with international law. However it's not surprising given the popularity of the AfD, by getting tough on immigration, they're trying to head off the rise of the far right.

They are saying that there's been a big increase in crime, especially knife crime that they want to reduce and the controls are initially for 6 months, so it will be interesting to see the results and whether they reopen.

What do you think?

Just border control.
It comes and goes.
We often pass the Danish/German border without control because of Schengen.
At the football games in Germany during this summer we were control everytime passing the border.
If you have valid travel documents German isnt closed.

Should work fine. Refugees should seek asulum in the first safe country. For most it won't be Germany.
A lot of refugees want to seek asulum in a named country and travel to it if they are able to.

Yeah, the borders haven't been shut. Your post is quite misleading. They are simply doing more extensive checks on those entering the country, which is fair, given that there has been a distinct increase in violent crime.

EU will ask them to lower passport control and don't make it a thing. Question is the answer from Germany.

Well that's a bit different isn't it from the alarmist thread title and OP

@poppyzbrite4 looks like you might have mis-understood what's happening there - perhaps you could ask MNHQ to change your thread title to reflect this?

The Refugee Convention doesn't state that asylum seekers should seek safety in the first safe country and surrounding countries have said they won't accept them back.

It does, yes. You are not free to choose a country.

Could you share the clause in the Refugee Convention that say that please?

An asylum seeker can choose any country in which to claim asylum as long as it's signed up to the 1951 Refugee Convention.

Germany has in no way, shape or form 'closed its borders'.

Probably best to address your own mistake before asking others to corroborate info, @poppyzbrite4

Looks like political posturing to stop the far right movement gaining more traction.
Having said that we drove through Switzerland and France this summer passing the German borders and the queues were very long! I think they are making a political statement.
There were rumours they will use the UK Rwanda scheme.
There is anger in Germany after Merkel apparently allowed to many Syrians in.

It appears they have the same populist issues that we do. France as well. No surprise really - we are the strongest economies in Europe and everyone wants to come in for a better life. We also have socialist security systems, accessible education and health care which most countries in the world are lacking.

Such a complex issue you were prepared to reduce it to a sensationalist and misleading thread title?

I've asked MNHQ to rewrite the header and provided a link to an article detailing what's going on.

I've asked MNHQ to rewrite the header and provided a link to an article detailing what's going on.

However, I'd love to hear your views.

They’re enacting border checks which is not a big deal, and clearly fully possible even within the EU and even within Schengen.

It further exposes the lie that Brexit allows us to “control our borders”. We always could.

No, the Refugee Convention does NOT say that asylum seekers should seek safety in the first safe country they reach. Many do but there is no obligation, legal or otherwise, for them to do so.
Misinformation does not help anyone.

I am so bored of this nonsense about refugees needing to seek asylum in the first safe country - and the sheer laziness of those who keep spouting it when there is so much freely available information available to demonstrate it is not true.

If refugees could only claim asylum in the first safe country they reached, then countries neighbouring conflict zones would have to deal with all of them. Indeed, Turkey has 3 million refugees, Jordan has 3 million, Bangladesh has 1 million etc. These are not super rich countries in the first place.

One of the points of the international asylum system is to spread this load more equally globally, and that can't work if you are only allowed to seek asylum in the first safe country you reach. That's why it's not a requirement.

It doesn't work like that

"I'd love to hear your views" just shouts "I'm a journalist". No one talks like that.