4 ms·

Germany Opened Its Doors to Migrants. Now It's Struggling to Cope

29 points by impish9208 2y ago

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
rguiscard 2y ago
https://archive.is/juJ4C https://archive.is/juJ4C "In the U.S., migrants seeking asylum typically receive no federal aid, but they are permitted to work once they submit their applications. In Germany, they aren’t generally allowed to work until they are officially deemed refugees, which can take months or even years. But they are entitled to benefits worth as much as hundreds or thousands of euros a month..."
- rnd0 2y ago
  Obviously they may wish to reconsider that policy.
- benwad 2y ago
  We have a similar issue in the UK. The government has refused to provide enough resources to process the backlog of asylum applications, so people are left in limbo being housed in hotels with no legal rights to work or anything. It costs way more than just processing their applications and allowing them to work, but the government are too scared of looking 'soft on immigration'. And these hotels are often in poor and disenfranchised communities, so people understandably ask "why are they getting hotels paid for by the government when we have such a lack of social housing?". It just creates more tension and doesn't help anyone. It's also important to separate the different kinds of immigration. Refugees are a very different category from other migrants, because we have international obligations to grant them asylum in legitimate cases. So lumping them all under the banner of 'immigration' isn't really helpful.
  - econ 2y ago
    One told me that he worked since age 8. Not being allowed to work put him in a completely alien position. On top he was now living from other people's money, like children, old people, handicapped or sick. He was enraged by it. He kept repeating I've worked 7 days for 30 years, I don't know how to sit on a sofa the whole day. He was getting weak, lost appetite, couldn't sleep. Every day was supposed to be a challenge rewarded with food for your family and a warm bed. He was 3 months into the process and was clearly going insane. The real problem is that there are several contradicting ideas at play. You can help people but you do have to employ and tax them asap. If we can't do the work the conveyor belt must slow down. You can house people but you do still have to house everyone. You can't help people by giving them other people's houses. You can assimilate people but speed and quality decline at scale. You can tax to death and shut down social gathering, clubs, pubs, restaurants and libraries to prevent people from organizing against your sinister agenda but your assimilation capacity will greatly suffer. You must choose one. How many natives get angry should also play a big role. Angry people are poor assimilators. There is also a national security angle. If foreign parties want to organize a civil war for you you don't have to make it incredibly cheap and easy. To much nationalism is an ugly thing but the opposite can end the country.
- Gud 2y ago
  To be frank, being poor in Germany is 10 times better than being poor in the US. We don’t want to live like in the US.
portaouflop 2y ago
What a horrible bad faith article > Germany, which has no history of mass immigration Germany is historically THE mass immigration country - it’s in the middle of Europe between Asia and Africa - this is the no 1 reason why it’s so successful and relevant at all. Germany has profited from getting the cream of the crop in terms of immigrants for centuries. Anyone who thinks this is not an immigration country never picked up a history book.
- fweimer 2y ago
  There is a curious way to address this in official immigration statistics: an arbitrary cut-off at the year 1950. Anyone who arrived before that year is not considered an immigrant: https://www.destatis.de/DE/Themen/Gesellschaft-Umwelt/Bevoelkerung/Migration-Integration/_inhalt.html https://www.destatis.de/DE/Themen/Gesellschaft-Umwelt/Bevoel... (Note: The English version of that page is quite different.)
- ciconia 2y ago
  > it’s in the middle of Europe between Asia and Africa I would say that's a bit of a stretch. It is true Germany has a long history if immigration, but before modern times that was mostly from eastern and southern Europe, not from other continents [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Germany
  - BerislavLopac 2y ago
    Except for Turkey, the no. 1 source of immigration to Germany, which is very much in Asia.
    - eadmund 2y ago
      > > before modern times that was mostly from eastern and southern Europe, not from other continent > Except for Turkey The mass immigration from Turkey started in the 1960s, well into the modern era. There are plenty of Germans still living today who remember the era when Turks were a rarity in Germany. No doubt there were Turks who settled in Germany, or the countries which would become Germany, well before then, but the mass immigration is very much a modern thing.
matthewmorgan 2y ago
Germany didn't just open its own doors, it opened the door to the whole of the European Union. Shortly afterwards the brexit vote happened. Coincidence?
- throwtt1 2y ago
  Brexit happened because the racists thought EU was stealing their money. in reality its the other way around. Has the illegal immigration into Britain stopped since Brexit?
  - spants 2y ago
    Britain is better off with brexit than if it had stayed. People voted for brexit because they wanted to determine their (british) future and not be tied to the eu. Brexit was never delivered as promised because the vote was only given because they thought that it would fail. Immigration (economic migration) again is the fault of the government bowing down to the echr rules that it actually does not need to. Europe is the sinking titanic and the UK lifeboat needs to detatch itself or be dragged down with it.
    - Slimbo 2y ago
      Absolutely nonsensical, in what way do the way the vote was given impact the outcome? Economists and analysts at Cambridge Econometrics found that, by 2035, the UK is anticipated to have three million fewer jobs, 32% lower investment, 5% lower exports and 16% lower imports, than it would have had been. The report states that the UK will be £311bn worse off by 2035 due to leaving EU. The UK is not better off with Brexit at all, it is severely hindered by removing itself out of a trading agreement with it's nearest partners. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_effects_of_Brexit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_effects_of_Brexit)
    - jemmyw 2y ago
      Britain is not apart from Europe, the continent. It has, and always will be, deeply connected. Leaving the EU didn't mean it got to sail away to a new place, it just meant no longer having a powerful seat at the table. Effectively, Britains future is always tied to the EU, as the EUs is tied to Britain. If Europe has a big economic failure then it will drag the UK down regardless of politics. If Europe has a war the UK will not be unaffected. If Europe does well the UK will also do well. Removing yourselves from being part of the decision making for the area that you are part of, especially when you had a great deal of influence, was monumentally stupid. That all said, I understand why the British people wanted to lash out at the establishment. The problem is that they've been (as have we all, in every country) been manipulated by those who do not have our best interests as a goal. The problems in the UK came from, and could have been solved by, the political and business leaders, regardless of EU membership. They just don't want to.
matthewmorgan 2y ago
https://archive.is/juJ4C https://archive.is/juJ4C
throwtt1 2y ago
Germany welcomed people from war torn countries(Syria) not just to help them but also to grow economy. Its a good gesture other European countries should replicate it for better future.
- red018 2y ago
  [dead]
  - inexcf 2y ago
    This one is weird though. In a touch of irony the guy was aggressively anti-immigration.
    - tharmas 2y ago
      Either it was deep cover or the guy is mentally ill. What was his thought process? "I'm an anti-jihadi so I'll commit an act associated with jihadi's to discredit them" And steer your vehicle towards kids? If he truly is anti-jihadi he must be mentally ill to do something like this.
  - sojawi 2y ago
    This guy was from Saudi Arabia, not Syria.
  - portaouflop 2y ago
    completely unrelated to Syria, was from Saudi Arabia, was aggressively against immigration - essentially a far right afd supporter
    - tharmas 2y ago
      Yes, but the Christmas Market attack in Berlin in 2016 was committed by a jihadi.
impish9208 2y ago
https://archive.is/qziSl https://archive.is/qziSl

29 points by impish9208 2y ago

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

https://archive.is/juJ4C https://archive.is/juJ4C "In the U.S., migrants seeking asylum typically receive no federal aid, but they are permitted to work once they submit their applications. In Germany, they aren’t generally allowed to work until they are officially deemed refugees, which can take months or even years. But they are entitled to benefits worth as much as hundreds or thousands of euros a month..."

rnd0 2y ago
Obviously they may wish to reconsider that policy.
benwad 2y ago
We have a similar issue in the UK. The government has refused to provide enough resources to process the backlog of asylum applications, so people are left in limbo being housed in hotels with no legal rights to work or anything. It costs way more than just processing their applications and allowing them to work, but the government are too scared of looking 'soft on immigration'. And these hotels are often in poor and disenfranchised communities, so people understandably ask "why are they getting hotels paid for by the government when we have such a lack of social housing?". It just creates more tension and doesn't help anyone. It's also important to separate the different kinds of immigration. Refugees are a very different category from other migrants, because we have international obligations to grant them asylum in legitimate cases. So lumping them all under the banner of 'immigration' isn't really helpful.
- econ 2y ago
  One told me that he worked since age 8. Not being allowed to work put him in a completely alien position. On top he was now living from other people's money, like children, old people, handicapped or sick. He was enraged by it. He kept repeating I've worked 7 days for 30 years, I don't know how to sit on a sofa the whole day. He was getting weak, lost appetite, couldn't sleep. Every day was supposed to be a challenge rewarded with food for your family and a warm bed. He was 3 months into the process and was clearly going insane. The real problem is that there are several contradicting ideas at play. You can help people but you do have to employ and tax them asap. If we can't do the work the conveyor belt must slow down. You can house people but you do still have to house everyone. You can't help people by giving them other people's houses. You can assimilate people but speed and quality decline at scale. You can tax to death and shut down social gathering, clubs, pubs, restaurants and libraries to prevent people from organizing against your sinister agenda but your assimilation capacity will greatly suffer. You must choose one. How many natives get angry should also play a big role. Angry people are poor assimilators. There is also a national security angle. If foreign parties want to organize a civil war for you you don't have to make it incredibly cheap and easy. To much nationalism is an ugly thing but the opposite can end the country.
Gud 2y ago
To be frank, being poor in Germany is 10 times better than being poor in the US. We don’t want to live like in the US.

portaouflop 2y ago

What a horrible bad faith article > Germany, which has no history of mass immigration Germany is historically THE mass immigration country - it’s in the middle of Europe between Asia and Africa - this is the no 1 reason why it’s so successful and relevant at all. Germany has profited from getting the cream of the crop in terms of immigrants for centuries. Anyone who thinks this is not an immigration country never picked up a history book.

fweimer 2y ago
There is a curious way to address this in official immigration statistics: an arbitrary cut-off at the year 1950. Anyone who arrived before that year is not considered an immigrant: https://www.destatis.de/DE/Themen/Gesellschaft-Umwelt/Bevoelkerung/Migration-Integration/_inhalt.html https://www.destatis.de/DE/Themen/Gesellschaft-Umwelt/Bevoel... (Note: The English version of that page is quite different.)
ciconia 2y ago
> it’s in the middle of Europe between Asia and Africa I would say that's a bit of a stretch. It is true Germany has a long history if immigration, but before modern times that was mostly from eastern and southern Europe, not from other continents [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Germany
- BerislavLopac 2y ago
  Except for Turkey, the no. 1 source of immigration to Germany, which is very much in Asia.
  - eadmund 2y ago
    > > before modern times that was mostly from eastern and southern Europe, not from other continent > Except for Turkey The mass immigration from Turkey started in the 1960s, well into the modern era. There are plenty of Germans still living today who remember the era when Turks were a rarity in Germany. No doubt there were Turks who settled in Germany, or the countries which would become Germany, well before then, but the mass immigration is very much a modern thing.

matthewmorgan 2y ago

Germany didn't just open its own doors, it opened the door to the whole of the European Union. Shortly afterwards the brexit vote happened. Coincidence?

throwtt1 2y ago
Brexit happened because the racists thought EU was stealing their money. in reality its the other way around. Has the illegal immigration into Britain stopped since Brexit?
- spants 2y ago
  Britain is better off with brexit than if it had stayed. People voted for brexit because they wanted to determine their (british) future and not be tied to the eu. Brexit was never delivered as promised because the vote was only given because they thought that it would fail. Immigration (economic migration) again is the fault of the government bowing down to the echr rules that it actually does not need to. Europe is the sinking titanic and the UK lifeboat needs to detatch itself or be dragged down with it.
  - Slimbo 2y ago
    Absolutely nonsensical, in what way do the way the vote was given impact the outcome? Economists and analysts at Cambridge Econometrics found that, by 2035, the UK is anticipated to have three million fewer jobs, 32% lower investment, 5% lower exports and 16% lower imports, than it would have had been. The report states that the UK will be £311bn worse off by 2035 due to leaving EU. The UK is not better off with Brexit at all, it is severely hindered by removing itself out of a trading agreement with it's nearest partners. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_effects_of_Brexit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_effects_of_Brexit)
  - jemmyw 2y ago
    Britain is not apart from Europe, the continent. It has, and always will be, deeply connected. Leaving the EU didn't mean it got to sail away to a new place, it just meant no longer having a powerful seat at the table. Effectively, Britains future is always tied to the EU, as the EUs is tied to Britain. If Europe has a big economic failure then it will drag the UK down regardless of politics. If Europe has a war the UK will not be unaffected. If Europe does well the UK will also do well. Removing yourselves from being part of the decision making for the area that you are part of, especially when you had a great deal of influence, was monumentally stupid. That all said, I understand why the British people wanted to lash out at the establishment. The problem is that they've been (as have we all, in every country) been manipulated by those who do not have our best interests as a goal. The problems in the UK came from, and could have been solved by, the political and business leaders, regardless of EU membership. They just don't want to.

matthewmorgan 2y ago

https://archive.is/juJ4C https://archive.is/juJ4C

throwtt1 2y ago

Germany welcomed people from war torn countries(Syria) not just to help them but also to grow economy. Its a good gesture other European countries should replicate it for better future.

red018 2y ago
[dead]
- inexcf 2y ago
  This one is weird though. In a touch of irony the guy was aggressively anti-immigration.
  - tharmas 2y ago
    Either it was deep cover or the guy is mentally ill. What was his thought process? "I'm an anti-jihadi so I'll commit an act associated with jihadi's to discredit them" And steer your vehicle towards kids? If he truly is anti-jihadi he must be mentally ill to do something like this.
- sojawi 2y ago
  This guy was from Saudi Arabia, not Syria.
- portaouflop 2y ago
  completely unrelated to Syria, was from Saudi Arabia, was aggressively against immigration - essentially a far right afd supporter
  - tharmas 2y ago
    Yes, but the Christmas Market attack in Berlin in 2016 was committed by a jihadi.

impish9208 2y ago

https://archive.is/qziSl https://archive.is/qziSl