Can foreigners vote in local elections in Germany?

Why in the world should anyone who is here illegally be entitled to the same voting privileges as German citizens? They are not even supposed to be here much less taking part in electing the people who will make laws and public policy! Nor should they be long-term residents if they aren't supposed to be here in the first place!

MT, do you also support full pension payments for people who worked here illegally for cash under the table for years, never paying into the pension system?

Actually mny right to settle and work in Germany is because I am a EU citizen and not because I am British per se. Since the Maastricht Treaty there has been freedom of movement within the EU and all EU governments have encouraged cross-border working. It seems to me that this implies a political view that we have the beginnings of a pooled nationality and yet that is not matched by the rules on citizenship that confers the right to vote in each member state. Why is it that when moving from Edinburgh to London (from one nation to another) it was deemed that I was sufficiently a part of the polity of London that I was given the right to vote there immediately on moving there but on moving to Munich I am deemed to be totally uninvolved and uncommitted unless I live here 8 years, renounce my home nationality and go through the absurdly complicated process of becoming a German citizen - which would then present substantial problems when I try to retire to Scotland (which is what I plan to do)?

At the moment I have a vote in the London borough of Poplar, a place I haven't lived in for almost 3 years. And yet the country I pay substantial taxes in and take a passionate interest in the politics of, I am regarded as a second class Auslander and deprived of the vote. If we really do believe in a United States of Europe (as I do) then that anomally should be rubbed out as soon as possible.

The FACT is that western liberal democracies have illegal immigration. Period.
In the USA primarily from Latin America. In Europe from Africa, the Middle East etc.

To an extent, the economy "needs" these people as workers.
They can spend years working in a society and although they tend not to pay income tax are contributing to society.

Shutting our eyes and going la-la-la and hoping the "problem" will go away isn't a realistic option.
I think undoccumented migrants have to be offered a way out of illegality.
And that doesn't necessarily mean deportation.

Pensions. People getting pensions they never paid for?
OUTRAGEOUS! That's how Kohl bankrupted Germany's kasse system!

Seriously though; I think society does need to have some kind of income guarantees.
Someone spends half their life washing dishes for low pay, supporting their family back home and as soon as their labour power is gone the rich western democracy dumps them back "home".
The ultimate use it up, throw it away society.

Surely the London Borough of Tower Hamlets of which Poplar is a constituent part?

Not accurate. Your permission to live in Germany is because you are a UK citizen and all EU Member States approved freedom of movement, i.e., you are the citizen of a member state of the EU. This means that the nation states still matter, and their approval is required to bring treaties into effect at the EU level. Whose passport do you carry? A UK passport.


IF that were indeed the case, there would be no subsidiarity principle in the EU, EU treaties would not require approval by the individual member states, no French and British UN Security Council seats, no passports issued by individual Member States, etc.

You have assigned yourself a phantom right that explicitly does not exist under either German national or EU law. You also misunderstand the nature of the EU. There is no pooled nationality in the EU. The supranational features of the EU are derived from the consent of the Member States, not a matter of a top-down imposition of policy and law by a EU government that delegates power to the Member States.


Scotland and England are both part of the same nation state- the United Kingdom. Germany is not a part of the United Kingdom- it is another nation state. Should Germans who move to the UK have the right to vote for the House of Commons without obtaining UK citizenship?

You do not have to renounce your UK nationality in order to get naturalized as a German.

Many people far less intelligent than you are have obtained German citizenship. It is not easy, no, but the benefits are great. It is not impossible for you to do, and if you really want the right to vote for the Bundestag, it is completely reasonable for the German people to expect you to obtain German citizenship.

I don't know how being a dual UK/German citizen could possibly cause you problems if you want to retire to Scotland. Freedom of movement, right? Also, your desire to retire to Scotland indicates your planned stay in Germany is temporary.

You refuse to obtain German citizenship, are planning to go back to your own country, but yet you demand the right to vote


If you want the EU and its Member States to change some of its laws and policies, you need to work through the legislative process to do that. You came to Germany voluntarily, and your continued permission to live here as a non-German citizen is conditional upon you obeying the laws of this country, among which include the requirement to pay taxes. Even tourists pay taxes. Should they have the right to vote in Germany? You receive public services in return for the taxes you pay, including the right to collect a German pension in the future.

If you do feel you should be voting in the UK, you don't have to. Did you vote in the 2005 House of Commons election? Will you vote in the next one?

Perhaps your belief in a United States of Europe is not matched by a majority of the citizens of EU Member States. If you want to see the changes you advocate, you will have to work through the appropriate legislative channels, just as anyone else must do.

You want to give them pensions and supplement their income when they willfully refuse to pay taxes in a country in which they are living illegally? You do realize that you are making compliance with the tax system and system of payments for social benefits completely voluntary by saying people will get taken care of despite not paying taxes on their income, right? You will end up destroying the social system here if you implement such policies.

No surprise, MT. At least you're consistent. You don't expect those violating immigration law by being in Germany illegally to actually respect tax laws. And you say Germany desperately needs that- people working illegally in Germany who don't pay taxes but would collect all benefits that legal taxpayers pay for? Just why does Germany need that? You don't strike me as the type that would subsidize anything for employers at the expense of the entire taxpaying public, so why do you support letting them and illegal employees off the hook from taxes and social payments they are required by law to pay?

nah, my vote is in the Poplar bit of the old constituency of Poplar and Canning Town (Canning Town was removed from the constituency by the boundaries commission and I do not know what the name of the new constituency is)

Actually I carry a European passport issued by the UK. We haven't had Uk passports since the early 90s.


subsidiarity is a process that hands back sovereignty to the most appropriate level of government and the principle would remain if we were a United States of Europe and the French and British individual seats at the UN are an anachronism bourn of a different era when both were separate world powers - there are strong reasons to remove both and replace them with a single EU seat as well as including India and Brazil on the security council.


while the council of ministers has a say alongside the parliament in approving policies drafted by the Commission, most new laws in each member state in the Union are indeed imposed in a top down manner from the EU. For someone who purports to know about the EU you seem to have a very out-of-date idea of how it works.


absolutely. It struck me as bizarre that my Austrian friend in London who is now I believe a councillor in one of the Borough councils has no right to vote and yet the recent immigrants from Bangladesh, Canada, Nigeria and Malta did.


In order to be allowed to vote here I need to apply to become a Germ,an citizen after living here a number of years - a process that I understand the German authorities would require me to renounce my previous nationality.


I'd agree with you up to a point if you were talking about non-EU immigrants but find it perplexing that you contiinue to present EU citizens in the same light. Why shouldn't we have our freedom of movement enhanced through a right to vote in our chosen place of residence within the Union?


As I understand it, the UK has no problem with dual nationality but Germany does. My stay in Germany will not be 'tenmporary'. I have around 30 years before I will likely retire but as German pensioner moving to Scotland I would have no right to social care, health care or a pension.


I have been writing to my MEPs and MPs in the UK so I am indeed working 'through the legislative process!. There are enough EU nationals now living in London to populate several electoral constituencies of their own if gioven the vote. It is frankly ridiculous that they are disenfranchised while Commonwealth citizens are not - my MP and MEP actually both agree with me on that point. But the fact remains that I have no leverage on that issue within Germany.


I was living in London during the 2005 election and did vote then. I have not yet decided what I will do about the next election. I would rather vote here but by the same token I have a lifelong aversion against failing to vote - democracy is a duty and not a just a right after all.


most of the mechanics of the European superstate are already in place. It is just inconsistencies like the reciprocal right to vote that need to be ironed out.

BTC, perhaps others will correct your misunderstandings about the EU. There is no "EU nation state" nor superstate, nor do I see one ever happening with the consent of the voting public (perhaps you recall the French and Dutch "nay" votes on the European Constitution in 2005). One reason is that Europe would have only one vote in the UN and other international bodies and would see its power on the UN Security Council diluted. You may not have a problem with that, but I guarantee you that the UK and France, plus a whole lot of other Europeans do have a problem with that.

I have yet to see you present any evidence other than anecdotes to support your claim that you have a right to vote at the national level here in Germany, and that there is a desire by the majority of citizens in EU countries to see noncitizens voting at the national level in EU Member States.

BTW, there is a large difference between freedom of movement within the EU and the rights of citizenship in an individual EU Member State.

If you do not believe me that you can hold dual citizenship, ask others. I see no need to assure you of this yet another time.

BTW, I asked whether or not you voted in the 2005 House of Commons election in the UK because you mentioned earlier that you had been in Germany for three years, yet you claim to have actually been living in the UK in May, 2005 when you voted in that national election.

Incidentally, the UAE, for one, recognizes the difference between your passport and mine. You can automatically get residence there as a citizen of the UK. I have to apply for permission to reside in the UAE.

Not any more, if the information given by the German Ministery of the Interior is to be believed – see Doppelte Staatsangehörigkeit – Mehrstaatigkeit:

for third-country nationals, I understand that there is now some pressure to bring in the right to vote in local elections (ie council elections) as a result of the following Directive, which has helped shaped EU member state immigration law recently (inc. the new zuwanderungsgesetz) and attempted to give equal rights to long-term 3rd country nationals.

http://europa.eu/scadplus/leg/en/lvb/l23034.htm

you really are extremely confused about this aren't you? The conbstitution is irrelevant to this though I note that a substitute treaty was signed last week in Lisbon (a constitution in place or not has nothiong to do with the seats on the UN though). The relevant treaties are actually the 'Single European Act' of 1986 and the Maastricht treaty of the early 90s.


I do not have that right at present but I and many other Europeans are actually strongly arguing FOR that right. And I really do not see why I should be browbeaten by an Americanm aboutt my right to campaign for a vote in Europe.


If that was the only thing I would agree with you. But we moved to issuing European passports in the 1980s, extended the right to vote in local and European elections to EU citzens living in a different menmber state in the 1990s and have moved increasingly towards a pooled foreign policy in the 00's. It is only a matter of time therefore until full voting rights are given.


the law was reformed in 2000, but there is an english translatiuon of it here:
http://www.london.diplo.de/Vertretung/lond...hip__seite.html

It states quite plainly that an individual can only naturalise as German if "The applicant has renounced or lost his previous citizenship (exceptions are allowed, particularly in those cases when it is not possible to renounce one's previous citizenship or renouncement is possible only under difficult terms)."


I think I said almost three years. I actually moved here very shortly after the 2005 election which took place oon May 5 2005.


The UAE is a former protectorate of the UK's. As the Trucial States it did not join the Commonwealth when it became independent in 1971 but retained substantial bilateral travel and other agreements with the UK that have been maintained to this day. In any case the relations the UK has with its former colonies has little or no bearing on the EU though they would have to be renegotiated if we ever were to pool immigration and create a single immigration body for the EU.

But can I ask, since your question implies that you hold a German passport, why do you say you are from the USA in your profile?

I stand corrected then. I didn't realise that. Guess I have no problems applying for both a German and a British passport then.

Just the affirmation of what Conquistador wrote. And maybe he's not so wrong on other points too, for instance the chances of one European citizenship in the near future. I see the current European citizenship as a roof construction (more virtual) with the different national citizenships as the concrete form. I think anything else would overtax most people.

TBH, I am not familiar with the details of what was agreed upon last week; however, the treaties to which you refer were negotiated and approved by the Member States, which barring something to the contrary in what was agreed last week, maintain the right to amend or abolish the lawmaking powers at the EU level, i.e., policy directives, regulations, decisions, etc. For this reason, it is accurate to say that the Member States are the source of this lawmaking authority as they have granted it via Maastricht and subsequent treaties amending Maastricht.


Perhaps by that reasoning, you could understand why German citizens don't want to be bowbeaten about their right to reserve voting in their national elections to their own citizens by a UK citizen who says that it would be too difficult for him to get German citizenship.


BTW, a German passport says "this passport is the property of the Federal Republic of Germany". There is no European passport.

I suggest you read up a little about the organisation of the EU as you seem a little mixed up. Legislation is always initiated by the Commission and then passed in parallel to the Parliament and the Council of Competent ministers who have parallel rights to ammend, approve or veto within a given time limit before it passes in to law.

You might also want to read this from the Federal Ministery of the Interior website:


so even Germany recognises that the Maastricht treaty granted a wider level of EU citizenship than you seem to be aware of.


the issue is not about what Germany does unilaterally but rather about what the UNion does as a whole and as a citizen of the EU I reserve my right to argue for a common right to vote across the EU.


I am unsure what the German passport says but EU passports were hamonized back in the 80s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_passport

The exception to this is, as noted by wikipedia, is for people granted nationality in one member state that would not be conferred by other member states (eg British Commonwealth, Isle of Mann or Channel Islands in the UK) whose passports remain as only issued by that member state and not EU

BTC, you are so eager to create this Euro-superstate that you will grasp at any straw. What you are referring to is a standardization of layout of the physical passport! There can be no single EU passport because the EU is not a nation state and each Member State of the EU has its own citizenship law. This is why you, despite your residence in Germany, cannot get a passport issued by Germany. Germany is not some mere branch of some Euro-superstate issuing passports to EU citizens living within its borders- it is a sovereign state.

As for your interpretation of EU freedom of movement, I am curious as to how you see yourself here in Germany considering you plan to retire back in Scotland. I guess your demand for an end to national sovereignty and the alleged imposition of a Euro-superstate by the worthies at the EU level without the input from the nation states is entirely to serve your personal needs. Don't sign the rest of us up for this Alice-in-Wonderland setup.

Feel free to take your interpretation of what is posted on a German government website out of context and use that as the basis for your demand to be allowed to vote for the Bundestag despite your statement that it is "too difficult" to apply for German citizenship. I don't think you'll get anywhere.

Here is what I see of significance:


How you get an EU-superstate out of non-discrimination, which is the philosophical and legal basis for Freedom of Movement, is beyond me. Note especially the caveat of "under certain conditions". The "special bond" is a figurative one- an intercultural and international one, not one intended to eradicate the national state and national cultures/subcultures.

I haven't completely decided. I have family and property in Scotland and at the moment think I will probably retire there. However, I daresay by that time I could be alone in the world and opt to stay here or even move south with the sun.

But I fail to see how you think that would in any way invalidate my fundamental rights as a political human being. Am I to understand that you believe the EU should permanently regard those citizens who don't stay where they are born as in some way second class human beings without even the right to complain.

"Although I do believe that Germany should permit dual citizenship in all cases (there are some cases where it does) it seems to be a bit of stretch to insist that Germany do so simply to accomodate non-Germans who want to vote in Bundestag elections. If the right to vote in federal elections is that important to a non-German citizen living in Germany, they should become a German citizen."

Easier said than done. You may consider it a strech, but to those who have dual citizenship realize, it does not represent a lack of country loyalty. What should be moreso offensive to the general public in Germany, is the concept of a multicultural approach for all German residents. The leadership by German policymakers leaves much to be desired here, as I see it sorely lacking. But it all ties into the same concept of Germany being for Germans. Policymakers want foreigners to assimilate and unfortunatly, a country that forces such cultural and ethnic divides, does itself a disservice.

You are right about one thing, I know for sure I won't be seeing any "naturalized foreigners" with any political aspirations making a difference here in my lifetime.

The Treaty Lisbon, signed last week, has not been ratified by any EU Member State.

Of course it hasn't, precisely because it was signed only last week. Ever heard of a ratification process? Did you think that all EU Member States were going to have their respective parliaments standing by just to be able to ratify it on the spot?

What "fundamental rights as a political human being" do you have? Can you enumerate them?

You voluntarily chose to move to Germany, where, as is the case in every EU Member State, by law noncitizens cannot vote in national elections. You did know that was the case before you moved here, right? Yet you came anyway.

I actually urged you to complain about and attempt to affect a change. Your problem is not what I think, which you have badly misrepresented above, rather that EU law does not grant you what you want- the right to vote in German national elections despite the fact you are not a German citizen. That does not make you a second class human being.

er both those rights towards voting in local and European elections were granted some time ago. the Lisbon treaty just reiterates them. ie these were rights for us before the Lisbon Treaty was even dreamed up.

Awfully nasty there, Kay, even for you. Do you have anything constructive to add to the conversation, or are you just looking to displace anger? Do I have Her Ladyship's permission to point out in discussion with BTC that it's not yet EU law?

I would say that since I had pointed out that the treaty has not been ratified, that is a pretty good indication that I understand that there is a ratification process.

BTW, since you decided to jump into the conversation, perhaps you have been able to find out what percentage of citizens of EU Member States live in another member state?

actually I think it does. Several million Europeans now live across border in the EU and are actively encouraged to do so for the sake of the EU economy. Freedom of movement has a definite purpose and has done from the start. However the rights have been slower coming. We have in recent years been granbted progressively nmore voting rights as time goes opn and I really do expect that process to contiinue.

The decision to move to an EU Member State is an individual one. The economy here is not state-directed.
9% of of those eligible are registered to vote for EU elections. Wonder what portion of that small percentage even voted?

I think the last time there was a fundamental change on noncitizen voting was in 1993.

I would be very surprised if noncitizens were ever allowed to vote in any EU Member State. You refuse to see that you are demanding something that is not reasonable and has very little support. Your distate for acquiring German citizenship is telling.

less than 15% of the resident UK population voted for the EU elections last time too. I think this is sad but it reflects the lack of power in the EU parliament. I wouldn't judge someone's interest in local politics by their participation in EU elections.

I've already pointed out that Irish and Maltese people can vote in the UK (and I think Cypriots can as well)


How do you work that out? I have no opinion either way really as I will not be able to apply for another 5 years anyway. By that time I sincerely hope that we will have the right to vote here anyway.

OK, what is the local participation rate for noncitizens in local elections? I don't think the EU parliament needs more power, especially since it is so distant from ordinary citizens' everyday concerns. The low turnout is, IMHO, due to a lack of coherence and relevance at the EU level for the ordinary voter, disgust at the corruption at the EU level, and perhaps voter apathy (there are at least four levels of government to vote for).


Malta and Ireland were once ruled by the UK, and are anomalies. Nor is their ability to vote in the UK in any way related to the EU, rather to the UK's past, which is not applicable to today's EU. The citizens of those two countries have been able to vote in the UK when resident there since before UK entry into the EU.

BTC, you are, courtesy, of The Freedom of Movement, a guest here in Germany. Noncitizen voting was left out of Maastricht with good reason- how many countries, especially smaller ones such as Luxembourg or Denmark would have wanted a majority of their electorates at the national level to be comprised of noncitizens? If noncitizen voting at the national level would have had to be part of the bargain, there would have been no Freedom of Movement because it would have been the end of the nation state (something that, based on your comments, you want to see).

Clarification on that 9% figure- that is the registration percentage of citizens of EU Member States who reside in other EU Member States for EU supranational elections. Turnout is obviously lower. despite your protestations to the contrary, BTC, there does not seem to be a great level of interest in noncitizen voting.

I thought it was a free country forum, or do we need to have German citizenship in order to post in this thread?


His Lordship is free to look for the information if he is so interested in percentages.

there are clearly quite a few of us posting to this thread and a good few others I know of a variety of EU nationalities. But then you have designated that we don't actually exist.

Ask your husband. He's been German his whole life. Maybe he can post for you.

I already knew the answer with regards to the percentage. You obviously did not.

Well, I didn't say that you don't exist; however, how many people can you name individually who are exactly in your situation and agree with you? Who other than you and MT among these EU Member State citizens has posted to this thread in support of your demand for Germany to allow noncitizens to vote in German national elections?

You are hardly without a voice, particularly since you have already stated that you are an SPD activist and a former Labor Party activist. You have the ear of your party and they can advocate for you. I suspect though, that you will find that Germans aren't too impressed with your argument that just because the UK allows some noncitizens to vote in its national elections, therefore so should everyone else. If the SPD is foolish enough to push your agenda very hard, they might end up finding themselves in opposition instead of a junior coalition partner.

He has? Gosh, so he's been lying to me all this time! Forged his papers, no less! And his parents? You mean they renounced the German nationality that they never had and forgot all the German that they never knew, just to fool me?

I can't thank you enough for opening my eyes, I'm ever so grateful. I don't know what we would do without you!

Pardon me, I thought this was about "Can foreigners vote in local elections in Germany?'

It all boils down to this: Nadia cannot seem to understand why she doesn't have a right to vote in local German elections.

I post a simple question to her: If a German, ( or any other foreigner for that matter ) were living in South Africa and never had any intention of being assimilated into South African culture or society. Would the South African government allow them to vote in local elections? I am interested in learning about EU politics, however that isn't what she asked.

I really would like to hear a reply from Nadia, since she started this whole thing.

I would like to live in Germany, I may never get the chance as I am too old to be profitable to the system. However, even if I do manage to get my wish fulfilled. I do not expect to be allowed to vote there, period. That would be assuming rights that only the locals should have.

Nadia, I also ask you. Why in Gods name are you living there, if you don't have any desire to assimilate in any way?

Offering criminalised immigrants a chance to reguarlise their status is a deal of course.
The criminalisation of their very existence is removed but at the same time they move from the "black" into the tax paying economy.
That goes for the employers too who can#t use "illegal" labour to undercut others.

While we are clearly in agreement in not wanting Schwarzarbeit, you have never explained why it is so necessary to legalize people who came here illegally when any citizen from the EU-15 plus non-EUers and citizens of the EU-12 who reside in Germany and have permission to work here are legally available to work. Shouldn't they get the jobs, not those who have such low regard for the laws of this country that they came illegally and avoided paying into the social and tax systems? If you insist on legalizing those who break laws as an inducement to get them to follow the law, why would anyone do things legally in the first place if they get the reward of amnesty? Why wouldn't those who have been rewarded by working illegally continue to try to work without paying taxes, especially if they have sucessfully been able to do so for some time already? Even if the amnestied employees and employers all of a sudden do decide to comply with the laws, why wouldn't others engage in Schwarzarbeit, seeing as how other employers and employees got away with it, and were even rewarded for it! Just why does Germany need to do this, and what proof do you have that Germany would benefit? What are the downsides to an amnesty?

I have no respect for employers who employ Schwarzarbeiter- they should be fined heavily and the Schwarzarbeiter either deported if here illegally or fined if they are here legally.

As for the criminalization of those here illegally, MT, what happens to them if they are caught? You imply that they face criminal penalties. Is this actually the case? I don't understand why you want to reward intentional lawbreaking. It doesn't seem to me that a society benefits by giving amesty to people who are already proven to have broken the law on a continuing basis.

MT, I am glad to see that you are a convert to the notion of following the law (within three minutes, no less). As you can see, there are benefits to the rule of law.

The notion that there is a correllation between the existence of "illegal" immigrants and dmoestic / EU unemployment is false.
Just as there is no correlation between providing universal health care, including for illegal immigrants and worse health care for loegal residents.

The bogeyman of the illegal immigrant is held up by sections of the ruling class as a scapegoat for other at a disadvantage in society to blame rather than putting the blame where it lies.

There were a couple of interesting articles in the New York Times section of the SZ yesterday regarding so called illegal immigraton.
I see even some Republicans in the USA want to offer illegal immigrants the chance to reguarlise their status.

As for supporting some sections of what is legal and not others. And?
I said right from the start, that "the law" is not neutral.
Our attitude towards it therefore can't be either.
Never crossed on a red man?
Never cut the grass on a Sunday`?

And that is your justification for rewarding those who work illegally in Germany and those employing them? Why do you want those here illegally to get jobs that, by law and common sense, should go to those here legally? If there is work to be done, and those here legally are illegally priced out and prevented from getting those jobs done by Schwarzarbeiter, how can you honestly say there is no effect on unemployment or underemployment? Logic and common sense do not support, so do you have any empirical studies that back up what you are saying?

As for your example of health care, you want to spend more of honest taxpayers' money on those who should not even be in Germany. There is an additional cost to the giveaways you wish to give to those breaking laws- one that makes it more costly, and thus more difficult to provide to those here legally.

If it's illegal, there is no excuse, MT. If you already know it's illegal, you know what the law says and thus cannot even claim ignorance.


If you oppose laws that say who can work in Germany and who cannot, there is a legislative process which allows for them to be amended. Make a case and use that process. You will have to find some reasoning that is quite a bit different than what you have proffered so far if you want to garner enough support to see your ideas passed into law. While you are formulating your reasoning, I suggest you consider the effects of your proposed amnesty on the portion of the workforce which is already poorly remunerated, i.e., the very people who cause you claim to champion but whose interests are directly at odds with your desire to promote, endorse, encourage, and reward Schwarzarbeit and illegal residence in Germany.

Do you wish to confer German citizenship on those who you want to give an amnesty?

Same goes for the US.

Since when was or is it hard for a person from Turkey to migrate to Germany. Where else would Germany get cheap labor? Remember, Germany has a "special friendship" with Turkey to get cheap labour originally.

Maybe third world immigrants disenfranchise themselves, by refusing to participate in state sponsored language and integration courses. That's right, people from Turkey and some other countries can come to Germany, and get social assistance while the state pays for them to take a language and integration course. They can repeat the course for as long as it takes for them to pass the Zertifikat Deutsch with a minimum mark of 60%. During the elapsed 12 years, for instance, they can choose to live with people who only speak their mother tongue, so that they are never forced to learn a word of German. The state will also pay for the cost of them taking the examination, over and over and over if necessary.

Does this sound like it's possible or even logical that there might be a few Germans who resent this system? You know, Germans who are paying 19% sales tax and on top of that, 40% of their paycheques for taxes, and retirement, and healthcare? I am bloody poor, and paying these same taxes, and I paid for my own German course and examination. With a mark of 96%, I think I should get my money refunded, and eleven months of retroactive social assistance, and maybe a silver plated punch bowl.

Now the Zertifikat Deutsch is mandatory for anyone seeking citizenship, going forward, but for thousands of Turks and other third country nationals who already have German citizenship simply from waiting for 8 years until they just get it, many have acheived it without any fluency in the German language and without having employment or contributing to the economy, except as a consumer who spent someone elses' tax dollars to live.

I believe that when one immigrates, one should make every effort to learn the language of the country one is moving to and also make every effort to integrate.

As in the vast majority of countries that have elections, voting is for citizens. Whether someone has actually earned the right to become a citizen is an entirely different matter.

Do you vote by proxy in your country of origin? Because if you aren't already doing that, why do you want the vote as a non-citizen in Germany?

As non-citizens we really don't matter. The sooner you deal with that the better off you will be.

I don't matter to Germany, and I'm okay with that. If I do become a citizen one day, I look forward to voting. But I don't expect a country to hand out voting privileges to every Tom, Dick and Harry. Heck, if literacy were a yardstick for the vote, plenty of relatively new citizen's would have to give it back... Plenty of people who received their citizenship prior to the mandatory Zertifikat Deutsch would be in a bit of hot water, for instance...

CA

As for the "shower of benefits" that illegal immigrants get, I see today from the BBC that even the official inspector of prisons have criticised how the UK treats suspected legal immigrants at heathrow Airport in London or those facing deportation.

Feel free to post the BBC link, MT, but that is in the UK, not Germany. As for the phrase a "shower of benefits", here is the context in which it was written:


The entire post was about voting. You, MT, want even those here illegally to have the benefit of the right to vote. It that desire on your part to confer an ongoing right to vote in all elections to those here illegally which was referred to using that phrase.

Is it now a bit more clear, MT, the context?

I think that criminalised migrants should be offered a path out of illegality and the path to citizenship.
Same as sections of the USA Republican Party.

There have been frequent outcries about the conditions that so called "illegals" face in Germany if they are caught.
Up to and including being suffocated to death by the police in physically forced deportation by aeroplane.

Time for you to show some evidence as to specifically who in the Republican Party has advocated a "path to citizenship" for those in the US illegally. Since when do find yourself in agreement with any Republicans?

Once again, you have claimed that those who are in Germany illegally are "criminalized" without offering any proof.

Are they tried in the criminal justice system and sentenced to jail terms? Do they have criminal records in Germany as a result of being here illegally?

Do you admit that those here illegally are violating German law and should not be here?

There are a large number of people who aren't from an EU member state but would like to legally reside in Germany, despite not meeting any of the criteria laid out in German immigration law. Do you think it is OK for them to come here and reside illegally?

Do you think that Germany should automatically grant residence and citizenship to anyone who wants it, even if they do not meet the criteria under German immigration law?

I hope that you realize how extreme your position is- you want Germany to give up its sovereign right to decide who resides in its country by demanding that anyone who comes here illegally receive amnesty. That despite the fact that millions of people want to reside here legally- why are only those do it illegally rewarded? Why reward those who have so little respect for German law that they violate it on a continuing basis with German citizenship?

If a country wants to naturalize new citizens, I think the vast majority would agree that those who go through the process legally are the ones you want, not those who have already broken the law, and by your own admission, mostly have not paid taxes, thus damaging the German social system.


Let us know where to find comprehensive information on that. I would like to read about it within context rather than just hearing it rumored by a champion of those who break the law.

Are you implying that those who here illegally must be given a "path to citizenship" because of these conditions? That would be completely non-sequitir.

if you're half-half they do. I have dual citizinship.

Just what I read in the The New York Times section in the SZ about Mc Cain supporting a senate Bill for example that would offer such a path.
It's in the right hand column of the first page.

Here's a couple of articles about illegal immigrants in the USA enjoying a "shower of benefits":

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americ...icle3263500.ece

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americ...icle3263501.ece

McCain is one man out of millions of Republicans. John Kerry actually offered McCain the vice presidential slot on the Democratic ticket in 2004. Does that tell you something?

Haven't read the second article, but the disdain of the first one for Americans was readily evident. BTW, at-will employment is not just for agricultural workers in the US- it's for everyone without a contract, and even with them there are ways to let someone go. Very disingenuous, MT. Of course, I should note that if they aren't making minimum wage, that is a prosecutable offense and one for which employers can be sued by employees, even illegal ones- minimum wage and overtime laws apply to those working illegally in the US.

Anyway, as you might have guessed by now, I strongly believe in the employer's responsibility to follow labor, safety, tax, and other laws as well. But it takes two to tango when it comes to employing those in the US illegally. We can issue work visas for legal agricultural workers just as for any other worker, with the employer paying the costs of issuing the visas.

Perhaps you will find an article on the tax subsidies given to those in the US illegally who bought property as owner-occupiers, in-state tuition rates, and other benefits that almost certainly never occurred to you.

Time to watch the Bayern match.