4 ms·

I'm saying "It's impossible to deport half a Million illegal immigrants, because of logistic and ethical reasons" and you are saying "We have to, out of conveni

I'm saying "It's impossible to deport half a Million illegal immigrants, because of logistic and ethical reasons" and you are saying "We have to, out of convenience!" And yes, it's about convenience. The number of immigrants could be a few times higher before we're actually at a point where it's not just costing some money.

allendoerfer 11y ago
Not deporting 500.000 people != "not caring for immigration restriction at all" Where do you get this number from anyway? You know, Germany has no borders, but the EU has indeed some. You can stop people there. There are other things you can do. Germany is taking proactive measures to stop emigrants from the Balkan. We could stabilize North Africa again - hopefully this time without the dictators - and get them to stop the smugglers for us, like Gaddafi did. I am not saying to not let them in either. Just list some requirements like knowledge of the language, a degree, maybe a job, just like the US, Canada and Australia do - typical countries Germans emigrate to, where they have to meet their requirements.
- bayesianhorse 11y ago
  Easy: 2015 there will be roughly 500.000 refugees seeking asylum. An additional large number (about 200.000, but hard to determine) is arriving in Germany and doesn't request asylum. Then there's currently about 135.000 people who got refused on asylum. Projecting a further rise in asylum seekers, it's not unreasonable to assume that from the currently 100k-300k additional people arriving as either asylum seekers or poor illegal immigrants, it's not unreasonable to assume that about 500.000 people have to be deported to halt the rise in the "asylum/illegal" population. The exact number doesn't matter, currently, we can deport maybe 20K, so even 100k would mean scaling the capacity by a factor of five. The examples of US and Canada are particularly bad. Yes, they have strict immigration laws, yes they enforce them strictly, but both countries are losing their war on immigration. The US spends 20 billion Dollar a year on immigration enforcement, and some people say there are still 30 Million illegal immigrants. Canada has a lower population, owing to their geography, but they have roughly 300.000 illegal immigrants that they can't get rid of. Australia on the other hand fights "illegal immigration" by detaining boat refugees on sea for months, or for years in extraterritorial concentration camps ("out of sight, out of mind"). And that doesn't mean that they don't have a population of illegal immigrants living in their country regardless of all their efforts...

allendoerfer 11y ago

Not deporting 500.000 people != "not caring for immigration restriction at all" Where do you get this number from anyway? You know, Germany has no borders, but the EU has indeed some. You can stop people there. There are other things you can do. Germany is taking proactive measures to stop emigrants from the Balkan. We could stabilize North Africa again - hopefully this time without the dictators - and get them to stop the smugglers for us, like Gaddafi did. I am not saying to not let them in either. Just list some requirements like knowledge of the language, a degree, maybe a job, just like the US, Canada and Australia do - typical countries Germans emigrate to, where they have to meet their requirements.

bayesianhorse 11y ago
Easy: 2015 there will be roughly 500.000 refugees seeking asylum. An additional large number (about 200.000, but hard to determine) is arriving in Germany and doesn't request asylum. Then there's currently about 135.000 people who got refused on asylum. Projecting a further rise in asylum seekers, it's not unreasonable to assume that from the currently 100k-300k additional people arriving as either asylum seekers or poor illegal immigrants, it's not unreasonable to assume that about 500.000 people have to be deported to halt the rise in the "asylum/illegal" population. The exact number doesn't matter, currently, we can deport maybe 20K, so even 100k would mean scaling the capacity by a factor of five. The examples of US and Canada are particularly bad. Yes, they have strict immigration laws, yes they enforce them strictly, but both countries are losing their war on immigration. The US spends 20 billion Dollar a year on immigration enforcement, and some people say there are still 30 Million illegal immigrants. Canada has a lower population, owing to their geography, but they have roughly 300.000 illegal immigrants that they can't get rid of. Australia on the other hand fights "illegal immigration" by detaining boat refugees on sea for months, or for years in extraterritorial concentration camps ("out of sight, out of mind"). And that doesn't mean that they don't have a population of illegal immigrants living in their country regardless of all their efforts...