Cologne Station Sexual Assaults - How Can I Make My Voice Heard?

2,212 posts in this topic

1 hour ago, lapsus alumni said:

I don't see the logic why countries like Morocco can refuse to re-admit Moroccan-looking and Moroccan-sounding illegal migrants with no official ID, but Germany should be obliged to let these people in through its borders, and then to set them loose in its main cities.

 

The deportation issue is clear:


The first time you deport them you can drop them off on the airport tarmac or dockside.

The second time you try that trick the country in question can deny you access to their airspace or territorial waters.
Beyond that lies military action with German airmen and sailors being shot at and possibly killed.
Some form of cooperation from the country of origin is required.

However, the fact that a bunch of random internet posters can't produce a comprehensive, workable plan does not mean there is no solution - just that we probably aren't people with the skills and experience to solve international political disputes. Allegedly that's why we have politicians.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, lapsus alumni said:

I don't see the logic why countries like Morocco can refuse to re-admit Moroccan-looking and Moroccan-sounding illegal migrants with no official ID, but Germany should be obliged to let these people in through its borders, and then to set them loose in its main cities.

 

Germany should start by protecting its borders. Any illegal migrants who make it through the border should be in detention centres. Especially the ones who cannot be ID'd because they've destroyed their ID documents.

 

I think 'fair'   instead of logic is the word you were looking for, and don't all kids learn in grade school that the world isn't exactly fair?  There's fair, and there's logic, and there's legal.

 

Legally, I'll leave to other people.  Logically, why would it be in Morocco's best interest to take them back even if they can be proven beyond legal doubt to be from Morocco?  If the  people in question were high functioning, educated, law abiding, cream of the crop people, Europe would be high grading them and considering keeping them.  African countries have a continuing issue with Europe only being willing to accept the most useful of their people, people African countries would rather keep at home to create business and function.   If they are trouble makers that Germany doesn't want, why would Morocco want them either?  Remittances from people in Europe (legally or not) probably are attractive to countries, and letting malcontents go to Europe is probably a safety valve for them.  And if Europe can't prove they are from Morocco, why would Morocco want the people Europe doesn't want?  Most countries that are 'people exporters' don't have the demographic problems that a lot of European countries do (leaving the question of if unbalanced age spectra are really a problem that needs 'fixing').  (again, not saying this is 'fair' or 'legal', only logical from the other countries point of view)

 

Ok, legally, yeah, people should be deportable, but logically, countries outside of Europe have every reason not to just roll over and accept plane or boats loads of people expelled from Europe.  So, how exactly does Europe do it? How does Europe force a country to accept these people back?  Using the international courts would take years.  So what kind of incentives do these countries need and can they actually be implemented?

 

Oh, and btw, tell me exactly what a 'Moroccan-looking' migrant looks like?  Accents are a little more identifiable, but aren't legal proof, and aren't foolproof.

 

Oh, and Germany building 'detention centres' that isolate ethnic groups from the rest of the legal German population?  Ain't gonna happen, so stop dreaming,  even I can't imagine Germany of all countries going there.  

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The solution for criminal migrants who've destroyed their ID documents has already been mentioned.  As a safety risk, they can be locked up in detention centers until they remember where they are from.  It can then be verified with their home country.  

 

If I lose my passport and I can clear it up with my embassy that I can get a new one to get home, I am sure a Moroccan can do the same.  We need to make is less desirable for criminal migrants to stay here than to go home.

 

I think it's fucking ridiculous that they go around committing crime after crime and nothing can be done because they can't be deported.

 

7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Returning said:

African countries have a continuing issue with Europe only being willing to accept the most useful of their people, people African countries would rather keep at home to create business and function.  

 

Canada, Australia, and European countries are not abducting useful people from Africa. They are simply giving some of them a choice, which they can accept or refuse. Whichever other country wants to give them a choice, too, by creating the right incentives, is free to do so. That also includes their own countries of origin. In fact, India is currently experiencing a so-called "reverse brain-drain": Indian-Americans, including second generation ones, are moving (back) to India, where there are now good jobs to be had for people with their kind of expertise.  The same goes for lots of young German-born Turkish-Germans. The cream of the crop, who have succeeded academically and have German university degrees (which are held in very high esteem in Turkey), often leave for Turkey, where they get top jobs.

 

PS: Go to any nightclub, any evening, and observe what happens. Girls can, and do give desirable guys the option of coming back home with them. That does not give an undesirable guy the right to burst into a girl's home, uninvited, and rape her, in the interests of ... fairness ("why should the desirable guy be gettin' some, but not me?"). You see, there's the slight issue of mutual consent.

 

Quote

If they are trouble makers that Germany doesn't want, why would Morocco want them either?

 

Nobody has ever disgreed that Morocco should also be able to send Germans back to Germany if they have entered Morocco illegally or their presence is otherwise undesirable.

6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a problem.

 

What is being said is, once a person gets in to Germany, then they are Germany's responsibility regardless of where they come from or what they have done.

In principle, a refugee committing a crime, regardless of how severe, cannot be deported. I understand that there are reasons why law will not deport people to unsafe countries and this comes under that.

 

It is however crazy, and it annoys people. They ask why they should have to even have said criminals in the country. Why do they get to stay? Why should they be paid for? Why can't they be deported?

These kind of question annoy people, most will not understand why the criminal is suddenly their responsibility just because they walked across a boarder.

 

They then start questioning said boarder, what is it, what is it good for. Does it only work for people who follow the law?

The answer is yes, pretty much all things we have work because of that. As such, it will only work when that is that case, that is why we deal with people who do not and call them criminals.

 

This is why people start to want boarders closed - and if this isn't dealt with, some idiot will come up with ways to do that. 

Worst case, long term camp placements. All those that have been refused asylum but cannot be sent back stay in the camps. 

If this carries on, who knows what dumb solution will come up. Build a fence around the EU - the US managed it on the Mexico boarder?
 

 

 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, cb6dba said:

It is however crazy, and it annoys people.

 

What is really crazy and annoying is the asymmetry when it comes to respecting the law. The illegal migrants are making a mockery our laws by hiring criminals to smuggle them across our borders, by deliberately destroying evidence of their true  identities, and by making false claims for asylum (pretending to be from Syria when, in fact, they are from Lebanon).

 

While the illegals are ridiculing our laws, the authorities are giving them a much better treatment than German laws would require. Based on existing laws, Germany should have refused to accept asylum applications from migrants who have transited through one or more safe countries.  Germany should also have detained all those who entered into the territory illegally, rather than simply take down their "names" and then set them loose in the cities.

 

8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

EI - Wow you’ve proven my point exactly.  A summary of your posts is that “we can’t do anything about it so we might as well accept it”.  Tell me are you a parent?  If your kids started shooting up heroin, would you simply “accept it” and say “oh well it’s better that they shoot up at home than on the street?”

 

 

 

Regarding your invasion question, it’s not North Africa that’s being invaded it’s Europe in case you haven’t noticed.  There is something called negotiation and leverage.  Also there are safe zones…  You said that dictators would hold guns to their heads?  So what?  I think that our fundamental disagreement is that you think that the European states are responsible for whatever those dictators do to themselves, which would mean that you think that European states should intervene in those countries.  By the contrary, I support a policy of non-intervention and non-interference as long as the states do not threaten our national security.  They should be free to choose their own destiny as long as they don’t threaten us.

 

 

 

Australia’s policy is in shambles?  Really?  From what I’ve seen it’s working quite well and is quite popular..  You make it seem like boats are coming as frequently as they are in Greece and Italy.  The number of boats has gone down dramatically since this program was implemented and common sense dictates it.  Think of it this way:  if a country like Australia has a no nonsense approach to this matter, the potential migrants will think twice before coming illegally since they have virtually no chance of staying.  Especially if they have to pay large sums of money to get on those boats and have it then go to waste.  If they are genuine refugees, as you claim, they will apply for asylum from the next safe country.

 

 

 

Australia’s neighbours not cooperating?  Wrong again; they have several partners they work with and these partners are not overwhelmed as they were during the beginning of this program and why?  Since the boats don’t come as often as they used to.  As for the program being scraped, yeah that’s possible but only if a government like Merkel’s comes to power by playing the morality card as you are doing.  Nonetheless it won’t be because the program is “impossible to implement”.  I don’t really believe that you think that to be true because judging from your posts you seem to be an open borders advocate…

 

Yes Saudi Arabia is a dictatorship but that’s not the point.  What about the other gulf states?  You can’t say that UAE is as brutal as Saudi Arabia and yet they didn’t take any migrants.  Why?  Because they protect their borders and those migrants know it.   Nonetheless that’s something that’s too politically incorrect for Western Europe’s politicians.. Protecting their own borders…

 

 

 

Of course poor countries have less leverage than rich countries but you seem to be saying the opposite.  First of all, accepting millions of illegal migrants (10 million by 2020 according to our Economy Minister) is not a “minor” issue.  Second Europe’s responsibility should be to return the illegals to the country that they last entered before they entered the EU and let them deal with it, if they cannot be identified.  This would not lead to a mass destabilization as you said.  As we see in Australia’s example, once potential migrants realize that they have no chance of staying after entering illegally the number of boats coming in would be reduced.  Why would people pay large sums of money only to have it go to waste?  As for obliging African countries to take back their people without any incentive, I don’t know how you came to the conclusion that they would need an incentive to take their own citizens back.  If the migrants can be identified, you send them to their country of origin, if not to the last country before they entered the EU.  You speak of bilateral agreements and that means that these countries have to play by the same rules as us.  It’s precisely here that they are exploiting Europe’s weakness.

 

 

 

Oh has the flow of refugees really slowed down?  I don’t think the Bavarians would agree.  It seems that Erdogan played the EU for fools, he got what he wanted and the EU got nothing.  Nonetheless it just goes to show that the Turks weren’t really cooperating and simply let the boats come.  In other words, we have to hold our end of the bargain and they don’t.

 

Moral of your post:  nothing can be done about anything.  Kind of reminds of one guy who kept thinking about a strategy about how to pick up a girl  He was very intelligent and thought about it for months saying “no I can’t do this but because blah blah blah”.  When he finally thought of a plan, another less intelligent guy was already on a date with her.  Why?  Because he simply did it.  In the same way Europe is contemplating  what to do while a solution has already been thought of by Australia.

 

 

 

Returning –  Language and that the dialect/accent they speak is one way even though EI will say that countries like Pakistan won’t accept that since there is an overlap with ethnicities like in Afghanistan.  It’s not legal proof but if they won’t state the country of their origin, one option is that you simply take away their incentives for not talking:  “since you broke the law by coming here illegally, you will be required to stay in the refugee centre/camp without leaving or any prospect of gaining residency status within the country.  If you leave/break curfew you will be under guard and maybe in prison indefinitely.”  Crossing the border illegally and intentionally should have consequences.  Just like in Australia once the illegal migrants realize that they have no prospect here, they will stop coming.  Of course it requires tough measures but that is precisely why there are so many illegals because they know that Europe is soft and doesn’t have the will to protect itself and simply hopes for the best.  Nonetheless you’re probably right that “it ain’t gonna happen” for the reason stated in the previous sentence.  Ever hear the phrase nice guys finish last?

 

 

 

This relates to illegal migrants, not refugees.  Nonetheless Merkel’s big mistake was waiving the Dublin Accord, which means “Kommt alle hier”.  I mean if she wants to destroy Germany fine, by throwing the German flag away in disgust after her campaign victory, she has proven that she is not fond of her country.  Nonetheless why does she have to take an entire continent down with her.

 

 

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, lapsus alumni said:

 

Canada, Australia, and European countries are not abducting useful people from Africa. ...

 

 

 I never said they were.

54 minutes ago, lapsus alumni said:

 

PS: Go to any nightclub, any evening, and observe what happens. Girls can, and do give desirable guys the option of coming back home with them. That does not give an undesirable guy the right to burst into a girl's home, uninvited, and rape her, in the interests of ... fairness ("why should the desirable guy be gettin' some, but not me?"). You see, there's the slight issue of mutual consent.

I never said the current situation was 'fair', in fact I said that  most people learn,  as kids,  that the world isn't always fair.  Laws attempt to create 'fairness' (usually), but the facts on the ground are what they are, and just saying "it's not fair" or "just deport them all", may let off steam but it doesn't actually  say anything about how to deal with the situation *as it stands now*

 

I understand people wanting to complain, and blow off steam, and rant about things that are wrong, but what then?  

57 minutes ago, cb6dba said:


If this carries on, who knows what dumb solution will come up. Build a fence around the EU - the US managed it on the Mexico boarder?
 

 

The U.S. has not managed it on the Mexican border.  Fences only extend for a certain distance beyond regulated border crossings, and in high traffic areas.  Much of the border is unfenced, and only Trump thinks it's possible to fence the whole border, which, btw, would be a major ecological issue too.  Interdiction along the border is mostly oriented towards drug trafficking.  The U.S. border is very different, there are only two countries involved, it runs through very arid and low populated areas, and  the biggest deterrent to crossing the border is the rough physical conditions.  

 

Maybe Europe can fence it's borders, but just look at how difficult it is to keep the fences at the European enclaves in North African working.  I'd like to see what the people in the know think would work for interdiction on the Meditteranean/Atlantic coasts, and along the entire land border. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, J0ker said:

Returning –  Language and that the dialect/accent they speak is one way even though EI will say that countries like Pakistan won’t accept that since there is an overlap with ethnicities like in Afghanistan.  It’s not legal proof but if they won’t state the country of their origin, one option is that you simply take away their incentives for not talking:  “since you broke the law by coming here illegally, you will be required to stay in the refugee centre/camp without leaving or any prospect of gaining residency status within the country.  If you leave/break curfew you will be under guard and maybe in prison indefinitely.”  Crossing the border illegally and intentionally should have consequences.  Just like in Australia once the illegal migrants realize that they have no prospect here, they will stop coming.  Of course it requires tough measures but that is precisely why there are so many illegals because they know that Europe is soft and doesn’t have the will to protect itself and simply hopes for the best.  Nonetheless you’re probably right that “it ain’t gonna happen” for the reason stated in the previous sentence.  Ever hear the phrase nice guys finish last?

 

 

Incentives for illegal immigration to the U.S. are that  even slums and ghettos in the U.S. can be safer than many of the communities that Mexicans and Central Americans are fleeing from, and there are plenty of employers willing and able to hire illegal aliens, public safety net is only sorta an incentive, it's not *that* great in the U.S.  Most  people who aren't politicians pandering to the masses to get elected recognize that controlling immigration to the U.S. depends mostly on those first two things, and the only one really in the U.S.'s control is to enforce employment laws (legalizing drugs might help with the the first, but that's a whole 'nother issue).  And, in fact, it is starting to work (plus, the recession helped).

 

So, short of building detention centers this year for 500,000 (or whatever the number is) people illegally already in, or heading to Europe, what to do? (again, I cannot see anyone in Germany having the political capital to make that happen).  If people want to talk about fairness, is fair for Greece to have to shoulder the burden of a million refugees being sent back, just because  they happen to have the unpatrollable border?

 

And since this is the Cologne thread, it all comes back to the issue of how people are doing once they are here.  Build more jails and prisons and start incarcerating violent offenders, if they can't be deported , but once the current crisis is over, be careful, the criminal justice system will find uses for that capacity.  More effectively, how to assist the million  people here now to be law abiding and publicly in line with German society, for as long as they are here? 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, cb6dba said:

This is a problem.

 

What is being said is, once a person gets in to Germany, then they are Germany's responsibility regardless of where they come from or what they have done.

In principle, a refugee committing a crime, regardless of how severe, cannot be deported. I understand that there are reasons why law will not deport people to unsafe countries and this comes under that.

 

It is however crazy, and it annoys people. They ask why they should have to even have said criminals in the country. Why do they get to stay? Why should they be paid for? Why can't they be deported?

These kind of question annoy people, most will not understand why the criminal is suddenly their responsibility just because they walked across a boarder.

 

They then start questioning said boarder, what is it, what is it good for. Does it only work for people who follow the law?

The answer is yes, pretty much all things we have work because of that. As such, it will only work when that is that case, that is why we deal with people who do not and call them criminals.

 

This is why people start to want boarders closed - and if this isn't dealt with, some idiot will come up with ways to do that. 

Worst case, long term camp placements. All those that have been refused asylum but cannot be sent back stay in the camps. 

If this carries on, who knows what dumb solution will come up. Build a fence around the EU - the US managed it on the Mexico boarder?
 

 

 

 

Is this what the "bargaining phase" looks like? I told you: borders aren't magic. A country cannot simply expect other countries to exercise its own functions of sovereignty on its behalf. Powerful countries can provide incentives or use force. If a migrant crosses a border illegally, the authorities can either kill him/her or take responsibility for him/her. Everything else has to be negotiated. 

 

For example, sure, detention centers are a "solution". I looked at the cost of detaining someone per year on the original Giant Thread. It's extremely expensive per migrant. To be effective, considering the proximity of Europe to countries of emigration (hint: Europe is not Australia), you would have to have an enforcement action that collects hundreds of thousands for it to be effective. These "detention centers" would be anything but "centers".

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Eupathic Impulse said:

 

Is this what the "bargaining phase" looks like? I told you: borders aren't magic. A country cannot simply expect other countries to exercise its own functions of sovereignty on its behalf. Powerful countries can provide incentives or use force. If a migrant crosses a border illegally, the authorities can either kill him/her or take responsibility for him/her. Everything else has to be negotiated. 

 

For example, sure, detention centers are a "solution". I looked at the cost of detaining someone per year on the original Giant Thread. It's extremely expensive per migrant. To be effective, considering the proximity of Europe to countries of emigration (hint: Europe is not Australia), you would have to have an enforcement action that collects hundreds of thousands for it to be effective. These "detention centers" would be anything but "centers".

So basically you are indeed saying that if anyone comes in, the country they enter is automatically responsible for them if the country they came from refuses to accept them

As you also say, if they are locked up at great cost. Basically, if all Syrians decided they had had enough and came here, you would say we should just accept it.

 

On this basis, a criminal could cross that boarder and if the home country refused tot take them back, they get to run around here happily - we cannot lock them up as they have committed no crime here.

 

These ideas, like the asylum system, fall apart when the number coming is to large. It works when only a few come, but once the scale increases, it is not possible to carry on like this.

 

Very touchy feely, it assumes that people have to take responsibility for people entering their country when they have no right to stay. The country's sovereignty over its own areas is basically dependent on the other country good will to take back their criminals. Granted, is not usually a problem with a working country, but some countries would maybe rather save themselves the prison costs.

 

So, am I the only one thinking that maybe we should start offering our career criminals 200,000€ to move and claim asylum in other countries?

We refuse to take them back and save a lot of cash in the long run. 

 

 



 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, cb6dba said:

On this basis, a criminal could cross that boarder and if the home country refused tot take them back, they get to run around here happily - we cannot lock them up as they have committed no crime here.

 

Even when they commit (most) crimes here they continue to run around happily as they don't get locked up / deported. 

But that was an issue that existed with other maruding gangs from certain Eastern European countries who, if not raping, are certainly pillaging.

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, cb6dba said:

 

On this basis, a criminal could cross that boarder and if the home country refused tot take them back, they get to run around here happily - we cannot lock them up as they have committed no crime here.

 

Yes.  The basis of international cooperation when it comes to criminals is that countries have an interest in extraditing and punishing their own serious criminals.  If a country decides to export its criminals, either enforcement action must be taken against that country or it must be bribed.  If neither are possible, then the receiving country must decide what it is going to do with someone who has committed no crime in its jurisdiction and cannot be deported.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Eupathic Impulse said:

 

Yes.  The basis of international cooperation when it comes to criminals is that countries have an interest in extraditing and punishing their own serious criminals.  If a country decides to export its criminals, either enforcement action must be taken against that country or it must be bribed.  If neither are possible, then the receiving country must decide what it is going to do with someone who has committed no crime in its jurisdiction and cannot be deported.

Another situation where the rules only work when the majority people play by them.

 

The situation you advocate, open the doors, invites a situation where the rules break down (as they did on NYE) - everybody loses. 

 

 

 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Eupathic Impulse said:

If neither are possible, then the receiving country must decide what it is going to do with someone who has committed no crime in its jurisdiction and cannot be deported.

 

Or they could simply make declaring all convictions a condition of getting a visa and anyone either without a visa or who lied getting one can be deported.  Im no immigration expert but I think this is already standard for most countries.

 

This stuff doesnt have to be difficult.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, zwiebelfisch said:

 

Or they could simply make declaring all convictions a condition of getting a visa and anyone either without a visa or who lied getting one can be deported.  Im no immigration expert but I think this is already standard for most countries.

 

This stuff doesnt have to be difficult.

It's only difficult if doing it does not fit with an agenda.

 

I have no issues sending people back to a beach of their home country. If you have a system that basically says 'walk in, dump your ID, refuse to cooperate and you can stay'  -you invite just that.

 

You invite people who only have that option. You also risk disadvantaging others to the point where this becomes the norm, then your system breaks down and you get a right wing surge which helps no one in the long run. Least of all refugees.  

 

 

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Returning said:

 but it doesn't actually  say anything about how to deal with the situation *as it stands now*

 

It's clear how Germany could deal with the situation *as it stands now* in a concrete manner, in full compliance with existing laws and international / European obligations:

  • Arrest, charge, and detain everyone who has entered the country illegally. Illegals belong in detention centres, not in the streets.
  • Refuse all asylum applications from applicants from safe countries (Morocco, Pakistan, etc.), and immediately proceed to deport them to their (safe) countries of origin.
  • Refuse all asylum applications from applicants who have arrived here after having transited through one or more safe countries (e.g. Austria).

 

 

6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, so how about I refuse to pay any more tax this year ( including the revolting Gewerbesteuer )? What would happen? I would get into massive trouble. 

One rule for legally registered tax payers - a diifferent rule  for 18 year old yobs with no right to be in Germany. 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, lapsus alumni said:

 

It's clear how Germany could deal with the situation *as it stands now* in a concrete manner, in full compliance with existing laws and international / European obligations:

  • Arrest, charge, and detain everyone who has entered the country illegally. Illegals belong in detention centres, not in the streets.

 

a couple of questions- would detention centers actually be legal under German laws? does Germany have the capacity to do this?  How long would Germany be prepared to detain people who either don't have ID, or who can't be deported (either because of conflict in their original countries, or because of not being able to prove where their original countries are, or because the countries  they transited through refuse to take them back?).  What happens to thousands of people  thrown into detention centers?  Prisons are known for being great place to turn petty criminals into serious criminals or radicals.  

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now