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/

Actually, it was always a sensible and credible threat.

I was on the fence about Brexit. I voted in 1975 to join, enthusiastically. And I asked my DC how to vote in 2016 as he was 15 days short of having a vote, and I was conflicted. So I voted to his preference.

But quietly, I think the UK is in the longer term going to be better off outside. The AI regulations that are currently being drafted are doolally. To the point that no AI enabled phone will be sold inside the EU next year. Duh.

And all the furore here. Bloody hell we do like to shoot ourselves in the foot electorally.

It's pathetic, I despair for the future of this country. I reckon if one country had the balls to tear up the Refugee Convention and other International agreements the others would declare how dreadful it was before quickly doing the same themselves. I'm sure most countries would love to be as hard line as Australia but they're worried about how it would make them look.

@Sweetpeasaremadeforbees

"Honest to God you couldn't make it up Maybe the UK government could sell the contract to Germany."

That won't be possible as the UK Government walked away from the contract with Rwanda. However Germany is looking to use the accommodation units already built with UK taxpayers money (£248 million).

Actually hats off to the Rwandan Government, it got paid money by the UK Government to build the stuff then resells exactly the same services to Germany for more money.

All they need now is to sign the deal with Germany, then get the German Government to also walk away from the deal. They can then sell the same services on to the French and so on.

It's a brilliant business model and at no point do they actually receive any asylum seekers.

That's true! But actually I don't think Germany will walk away from the deal. As a country we've just voted in a left wing government whereas in Germany (and France amongst others) the Far Right and anti-immigration parties are making real political gains. Macron had to do a fair bit of horse trading to keep Marine Le Pen et al out.

Australia is surrounded by oceans so easier to police -also eg China with its population in billions - good incentive to control numbers.

The Daily Mail reported that Germany is now talking about using Rwandan facilities to process asylm seekers. Germany have categorically denied this., They say they are talking about processes claims in 3rd countries with the assistance of the UNHRC, ie creating safe routes.

Does anyone know how this is possible for Germany under international law?

A person can claim asylum once they have crossed into the country they are seeking to asylum from. There are restrictions on refusal of entry but they relate to refoulment but they are not absolute. For example, an asylum seeker arrives by plane and refusal of entry would mean being immediately returned to the country they fled from. But they can refuse entry to someone where it means they have to seek asylum in the neighbouring safe country they are currently still in.

"The Daily Mail reported that Germany is now talking about using Rwandan facilities to process asylm seekers. Germany have categorically denied this., They say they are talking about processes claims in 3rd countries with the assistance of the UNHRC, ie creating safe routes."

Ah. Thank you. That explains this from the German ambassador -

Let’s be clear, there is no plan of the German Government to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda. The discussion is about processing asylum applications in third countries under international humanitarian law and with support of the United Nations.

x.com/germanambuk/status/1831955784818979100?s=46&t=Uw4lJNwxFZFnX0Xs3doHYg

I'm not sure I'm getting the detail, but if Germany can turn back asylum seekers to a the neighbouring safe country, why doesn't every EU country do the same and can the safe country simply say no?

What happens then?

I said people should apply from outside of Europe didn't i?

So how many people coming from irregular routes would you accept and what would be the cut off that you would apply?

10k 100k 1m 10m? What would you do if, for example you reached your limit but boats still keep arriving? what would you do if you set a limit of 100k asylum application but the next claimants also had solid claims?

Would you turn them away? or let them apply, making a nonsense of limits.

Europe cannot continue to allow in very large numbers of economic migrants.

Human rights exist for all, including people who are here legally as Germany found out and which you also acknowledge.

Btw I don't Rwanda is the answer as it was only ever set up for a few 100 people, for off shoring to work, it needs to be able to re settle 10s of 1000s.

They could do the same if they wanted. The other country can't say no as the asylum seeker isn't being sent back, they're already there. The other country could turn to the Dublin Agreement if the asylum seeker entered the EU via a different EU state.

What do you think...vox pop or what.

I think journalists should be more up front and not hiding on public forums.

As for tightening borders we're an island or hadn't you noticed and we still have to live with our European neighbours.

You'd better tell Austria as they're refusing to take back any migrants Germany refuse at the border. It's why we can't send asylum seekers back to France, France doesn't want them.

We're an Island so we don't have borders. I'll tell my editor immediately!

If everyone can do this the asylum process would collapse. Everyone would say no at the border and the points of entry and be overwhelmed.

Do you include the UK doing the same?

People from lmic are taking advantage of refugee rights. They get refugee status and then go home for a holiday... However it's the rich countries that have destabilised lmic through empires invasions and using fossil fuels causing climate change damage. So it's karma really.

Who is a journalist?

And have you noticed Aus?

I didn't 😔 my remark still stands. These kind of posts always sound like journalist looking for sound bites or someone looking for article material.

It wouldn't just be the Asylum process collapsing, it would be the EU, pitting nation against nation and the ensuing retaliatory measures, the SM would collapse, along with the other EU freedoms.

The crossings over the Med and into Greece have to be addressed, anything else is just pointless.

How to do this though is a lot harder!

Should Europe fail, then expect more gains by the far right, though Italy did this and migration has continued unabated, Meloni found it a lot harder than she thought.

You didn't what? Notice Aus was an island with strong borders?

How does your remark still stand

Anyway I agree the EU would fail not just the asylum process. How do you stop someone seeking asylum entering a country without a physical barrier?

No it isn't. We can't send asylum seekers back to France as they have crossed the international border and are not in France. They are in the UK and therefore the UK is responsible for assessing their asylum claim.

Forgot to say, Austria can only refuse to 'take them back' if they have have left Austria. I've never been to that border so I don't know exactly how it works. Some borders have a 'no man's land' buffer zone between the actual borders. If it's like that then that's a whole other can of worms. But if it's a case of, you can't cross out of Austria into Germany until the German border guard lets you, then Austria can say what it likes but legally they are still responsible.

Is there a border guard at every access point? I mean there must be motorways that enter between the two countries. Why can't they just walk across?

A border is porous unless it has a physical barrier otherwise just walk past it

Needs to happen in the U K.