4 ms·

So he is banning, among others, Syrians and Somalians? Need a passport? Just pick up a Somali passport on the street for a few bucks. They are not biometric: h

by tiatia 10y ago

So he is banning, among others, Syrians and Somalians? Need a passport? Just pick up a Somali passport on the street for a few bucks. They are not biometric: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3704127.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3704127.stm Syrian passports, real and fake, are for Sale in Syria. The ISIS has its hands on real documents in occupied countries. Sounds like a very reasonable decision for me. Should have banned Saudi Arabia, the cradle of Wahabist terrorism. too. Not everybody has to go nuts like Merkel and open the borders for millions of illegal (by law!) immigrants.

matt4077 10y ago
Merkel was acting on what she believed to be a moral imperative: that those fleeing danger have a right to asylum. All her decisions follow logically if you accept that premise. I. e. it would make no sense to make such a right dependent on the total number of refugees. In the specific moment you're alluding to she made the decision to suspend the Dublin rules because they were clearly failing (i. e. refugees were clearly being mistreated by the Hungary regime, and the situation in Greece was deteriorating to the point where both the country and the refugees urgently needed relief). At that point, the basic right outlined above and the Dublin rules were in conflict, and human rights generally trump implementation specifics such as Dublin in these circumstances. In any case, the Dublin convention governs the burden-sharing between nations and does not impact an individual's relation with these states, or their basic rights. That's comparable to, for example, medical care in an emergency: your insurance company may have all sorts of debt with the hospital, but the doctors are still required to treat your compound fracture.
- tiatia 10y ago
  "In the specific moment you're alluding to she made the decision to suspend the Dublin rules because they were clearly failing" The problem with "making the decision" is that there is no executive order for the German chancellor, as apposed to the US president in the German constitution. Ruling by chancellor decree had fallen out of favor in Germany in the last 70 years. Ms. Merkel with her dubious past with East German state security ("IM Erika") does not need to be re-elected. She needs to stand in front of a judge!
  - matt4077 10y ago
    I'll probably be unable to convince you with legal arguments, so maybe you should file a criminal complaint (which is easy and free) and let actual legal professionals make that determination. And before you accuse the system of justice of just being part of some sort of conspiracy, I'll add that there are plenty of examples of courts disagreeing with the administrations. Most recent examples I can think of is the failed bid to ban the right-wing NPD, and their verdict regarding the ban of muslim headdresses.
    - tiatia 10y ago
      No, actually you are right. You CANT convince me. Before I appreciate the legal opinion on some poster on ycombinator I prefer the opinion of a former German supreme court judge: https://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article150947586/Merkels-Alleingang-war-ein-Akt-der-Selbstermaechtigung.html https://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article150947586/Mer...
      - morsch 10y ago
        What exactly in the article are you referring to? He -- a former supreme court judge of one of the German states, not of Germany -- doesn't outright claim anything illegal was done. He sort of, fairly timidly, questions it, with the flimsiest of legal analogies: the legislature has to agree to military missions, e.g. participation in UN missions, and thus (?!) something something Merkel. It's a complete non-sequitur.
        tiatia 10y ago
        http://www.epochtimes.de/politik/deutschland/bundesverfassungsgericht-so-bricht-angela-merkel-das-deutsche-grundgesetz-a1299970.html http://www.epochtimes.de/politik/deutschland/bundesverfassun...
        chronial 10y ago
        That link is just a copy of this original article: http://info.kopp-verlag.de/hintergruende/deutschland/udo-ulfkotte/bundesverfassungsgericht-so-bricht-angela-merkel-das-deutsche-grundgesetz.html http://info.kopp-verlag.de/hintergruende/deutschland/udo-ulf.... Now if you look into this Kopp Verlag, you will find that the Verfassungsschutz is keeping an eye on them because they might be spreading right-wing ideology which seeks to overthrow the constitutional structure of Germany. Interesting source for claims of unconstitutional behavior by Merkel ^^. Now I'm not saying that any of this necessarily makes what they say untrue, but I guess your choice of sources makes one thing clear: Nobody here will be able to convince you.
cylinder 10y ago
Neither of those passports makes you exempt from the visa requirement to travel to the US.

by tiatia 10y ago

matt4077 10y ago

Merkel was acting on what she believed to be a moral imperative: that those fleeing danger have a right to asylum. All her decisions follow logically if you accept that premise. I. e. it would make no sense to make such a right dependent on the total number of refugees. In the specific moment you're alluding to she made the decision to suspend the Dublin rules because they were clearly failing (i. e. refugees were clearly being mistreated by the Hungary regime, and the situation in Greece was deteriorating to the point where both the country and the refugees urgently needed relief). At that point, the basic right outlined above and the Dublin rules were in conflict, and human rights generally trump implementation specifics such as Dublin in these circumstances. In any case, the Dublin convention governs the burden-sharing between nations and does not impact an individual's relation with these states, or their basic rights. That's comparable to, for example, medical care in an emergency: your insurance company may have all sorts of debt with the hospital, but the doctors are still required to treat your compound fracture.

tiatia 10y ago
"In the specific moment you're alluding to she made the decision to suspend the Dublin rules because they were clearly failing" The problem with "making the decision" is that there is no executive order for the German chancellor, as apposed to the US president in the German constitution. Ruling by chancellor decree had fallen out of favor in Germany in the last 70 years. Ms. Merkel with her dubious past with East German state security ("IM Erika") does not need to be re-elected. She needs to stand in front of a judge!
- matt4077 10y ago
  I'll probably be unable to convince you with legal arguments, so maybe you should file a criminal complaint (which is easy and free) and let actual legal professionals make that determination. And before you accuse the system of justice of just being part of some sort of conspiracy, I'll add that there are plenty of examples of courts disagreeing with the administrations. Most recent examples I can think of is the failed bid to ban the right-wing NPD, and their verdict regarding the ban of muslim headdresses.
  - tiatia 10y ago
    No, actually you are right. You CANT convince me. Before I appreciate the legal opinion on some poster on ycombinator I prefer the opinion of a former German supreme court judge: https://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article150947586/Merkels-Alleingang-war-ein-Akt-der-Selbstermaechtigung.html https://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article150947586/Mer...
    - morsch 10y ago
      What exactly in the article are you referring to? He -- a former supreme court judge of one of the German states, not of Germany -- doesn't outright claim anything illegal was done. He sort of, fairly timidly, questions it, with the flimsiest of legal analogies: the legislature has to agree to military missions, e.g. participation in UN missions, and thus (?!) something something Merkel. It's a complete non-sequitur.
      - tiatia 10y ago
        http://www.epochtimes.de/politik/deutschland/bundesverfassungsgericht-so-bricht-angela-merkel-das-deutsche-grundgesetz-a1299970.html http://www.epochtimes.de/politik/deutschland/bundesverfassun...
        chronial 10y ago
        That link is just a copy of this original article: http://info.kopp-verlag.de/hintergruende/deutschland/udo-ulfkotte/bundesverfassungsgericht-so-bricht-angela-merkel-das-deutsche-grundgesetz.html http://info.kopp-verlag.de/hintergruende/deutschland/udo-ulf.... Now if you look into this Kopp Verlag, you will find that the Verfassungsschutz is keeping an eye on them because they might be spreading right-wing ideology which seeks to overthrow the constitutional structure of Germany. Interesting source for claims of unconstitutional behavior by Merkel ^^. Now I'm not saying that any of this necessarily makes what they say untrue, but I guess your choice of sources makes one thing clear: Nobody here will be able to convince you.

cylinder 10y ago

Neither of those passports makes you exempt from the visa requirement to travel to the US.