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/

"Tough on immigration" is very much a phrase, isn't it? In all languages, no doubt. But a loaded one, nevertheless.

@Araminta1003
You say "yes of course", but I don't think any of that is acknowledged explicitly at all. That effectively refugees who make it to Northern Europe are disproportionately (not exclusively) risk-taking young men. But if you say anything or acknowledge that to try to perhaps plan to meet the specific needs of a displaced group that is disproportionately young risk-taking men, you are accused of racism.

To me it's the elephant in the room. If we acknowledge that there is a unbalanced community seeking asylum, (of course some women and children do do this - I am talking at whole refugee population level) then we could be more proactive in meeting their needs?

We should all be tightening our boarders these days.

I think you are simply trying to start a row.

Immigration and refugees are two distinctly different things which you are conflating.

The way I see it:

The Left denies the problems because it doesn't want to appear racist.
The Right sees the problems but does not seek to understand the circumstances or work proactively or preventatively, just reacts in a knee jerk way which often is racist.

Who is able to actually be honest and analytical and understand the complexity, and do something purposeful about it?

The Right scapegoats the refugees in order to draw attention away from their corruption and bad governance.

Whilst immigrants and refugees have different legal status, the whole bun fight starts when immigrants pretend to be refugees/burn their passports etc and we do not process properly.

If every country had an administrative system and every person on the planet had a reliable digital ID card, we would not be discussing any of this.

We can only take woman and children from Ukraine, because they men of certain ages have to stay back to actually fight for their country.

The other issue encountered often is young men posing as “children” because again, children have different legal rights.

The problem with such policies whether it be tightening borders in Germany or "getting tough on people smuggling gangs" under Labour is that they simply try and address the supply problem and not the demand.

The number of people wanting to migrate to the UK or Germany doesn't change it just gets harder to do so.

To address the demand is more complex but basically comes back to the point that if you are poor and living in a poor country with little opportunity then it is completely rational to want to live in a wealthier country with more opportunities. Historically this has always been the case from Irish or Eastern Europeans migrating to Britain or Europeans migrating to the US between the wars and after ww2.

In the UK as French politicians recently pointed out one of the draws is the ability to disappear into the relatively unregulated economy and no requirements for ID cards.

Regarding the Dublin regulation, are we still signed up to this post brexit?

If Germany turns away refugees at the border then except in exceptional circumstances I don't think they can be saiid to be putting them in danger of their lives... The Netherlands, France, Switzerland, Austria, Poland, Belgium, Luxembourg, Czech Republic and Denmark (have I missed any bordering countries??) are not exactly known as unsafe

Yes, all countries should turn away most refugees/economic, unless from over the border. Very few exceptions.

Nope. It's in the process of being replaced anyway though.

Aghhh. Thanks for clearing that up. I got confused upthread when there was talk of it.

That's against international law and where are the asylum seekers going?

Austria for example has told Germany that it won't accept asylum seekers back. If neither country process them, what happens?

No it doesn't. This is a far-right myth. The 1951 Refugee Convention does not require a person to claim asylum in the first safe country they reach. There is no obligation in the Refugee Convention, either explicit or implicit, to claim asylum in the first safe country reached by a refugees. Whether that person travelled through several countries before claiming asylum simply has no bearing on fear of persecution at home

ID cards? yes should have had them years ago.

Tories cancelled Labours plan.

And Labour rejected Blair’s calls for ID cards in July 2024.

*That's against international law and where are the asylum seekers going?

Austria for example has told Germany that it won't accept asylum seekers back. If neither country process them, what happens?*

Overall if the process is made harder it acts as a deterrant, I suppose. Realistically, many, many of those coming to the EU/UK are not necessarily in mortal danger but are seeking better lives and financial outcomes.
There's a growing discontent about that so I expect to see more and similar measures over the next few years.

The fundamental issue is the definition of refugee is very broad and we are far safer countries than most, for most people in the world. Therefore, many people will have a right to claim asylum under international law and have to be assessed on a case by case basis. We do not want to spend the money on prompt assessment. We are not able to take all of them, nor are France nor Germany.

So what is the solution?

Why is Germany allowed to claim immigrants have caused an increase in crime but we get shot down if we dare imply it.

I started the parallel thread on ID cards for the UK (it's a bit stalled ATM) but the polling consensus is 75% in favour of everyone over 16 having a form of portable ID based on the digital databases (DWP, DVLA, NHS mainly) to be produced when proving age, opening bank accounts, seeking benefits or healthcare or rented accommodation, voting so it is clear who is employable and what they are entitled to.

So we should ignore whatever international law we don't want to adhere to, and the current asylum seekers being turned away should go to space?

The Tories spent years making thinks harder in order to act as a deterrent. Didn’t work all that well.

So we should ignore whatever international law we don't want to adhere to, and the current asylum seekers being turned away should go to space?

The laws may no longer be fit for purpose given the far greater numbers of migrants. They were made post second world war, so a very different world.

Ideally I'd like to see a world where all countries offer a greater level of safety and opportunity rather than the need for mass migration.