Immigration

[TenEightyOne]

German integration minister: We can’t ban all child marriage

lol what's next, legal public flogging

She's not advocating that children become married in Germany - that's clear from your link. She's saying that marriages which are legal elsewhere are legal. That doesn't make sexual acts with children legal, it doesn't make performing new ceremonies legal, it simply means that the state won't choose to remove the last vestiges of legal protection from people married in places where they should arguably have had more already.

Great headline though, made me want to click click click.

 

[Dotini]

You know, now that I think about it... Where in the world there's a mass migration of refugees, usually the US have something to do with it, in some cases causing the crisis which is behind it (Iraq, Afghanistan, arguably most of Latin America), in some others trying to intervene where a crisis was already present and making things much worse (and oh, boy, the list gets long here: Lybia? Syria? How about Somalia?).

Maybe it's about time America (and Americans) stops playing Global Chief Wiggum of the world and starts taking responsibility for all its failed foreign policies

This portion of your post makes perfect sense, is entirely correct and is powerfully expressed, IMO.

We can identify the GW Bush administration as mostly responsible, and also Obama and Hillary for the madness in Syria, Libya, and Yemen.

Both Democrat and Republican administrations have come under the sway of an ultra-hawk neocon ideology. For years decades I've wanted a more realist foreign policy, and my only choices have been libertarians. Now, at last, there is a popular revolt, the Republican party is disintegrating, and the unlikely Donald Trump managed to intuit this and capture the nomination. That he is (or has been) socially liberal should make him an acceptable candidate for those who want a less hawkish foreign policy and more social liberties.

 

[Corsa]

Agreed, you're a pretty sour dude.

 

[Scaff]

She's not advocating that children become married in Germany - that's clear from your link. She's saying that marriages which are legal elsewhere are legal. That doesn't make sexual acts with children legal, it doesn't make performing new ceremonies legal, it simply means that the state won't choose to remove the last vestiges of legal protection from people married in places where they should arguably have had more already.

Great headline though, made me want to click click click.

It's not even that, it's about the increase in the number over 16 but under 18 marrying with parental consent.

It's click bait of the highest order, he may however want to check out the legal age for marriage in a few US states.

Agreed, you're a pretty sour dude.

Personal digs have no place here.

 

[novcze]

She's not advocating that children become married in Germany - that's clear from your link. She's saying that marriages which are legal elsewhere are legal. That doesn't make sexual acts with children legal, it doesn't make performing new ceremonies legal, it simply means that the state won't choose to remove the last vestiges of legal protection from people married in places where they should arguably have had more already.

Great headline though, made me want to click click click.

It's not even that, it's about the increase in the number over 16 but under 18 marrying with parental consent.

It's click bait of the highest order, he may however want to check out the legal age for marriage in a few US states.

Great reading between lines, but I thought it is actually about this

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/9078/germany-child-marriage

 

[TenEightyOne]

Great reading between lines, but I thought it is actually about this

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/9078/germany-child-marriage

Which says the same thing, effectively;

Child marriage is a Germany-wide problem: 559 married children are living in Bavaria; 188 in North-Rhine Westphalia; more than 100 in Lower Saxony; and at least 100 in Berlin.

In Baden-Württemberg, the number of known child marriages jumped seven-fold in the past two years, from 26 in 2013 to 181 at the end of 2015. Of those, 162 are girls, and 18 are younger than 15 years of age.

So there wasn't any reading between the lines, it's as I said:

She's not advocating that children become married in Germany....she's saying that marriages which are legal elsewhere are legal. That doesn't make sexual acts with children legal, it doesn't make performing new ceremonies legal, it simply means that the state won't choose to remove the last vestiges of legal protection from people married in places where they should arguably have had more already.

 

[Scaff]

Great reading between lines, but I thought it is actually about this

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/9078/germany-child-marriage

So the exact same as a number of US states then.

Well apart from Texas, which has no legal minium age to a court approved marriage.

 

[novcze]

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/9078/germany-child-marriage

"A proposed law, which will be submitted to the German parliament in November, would require all Youth Welfare Offices (Jugendämter) in Germany to report child marriages as soon as they become aware of them, and to bring all such cases before family courts so that they can be annulled. Judges would be allowed discretion to make exceptions only in cases where the wife is already close to the age of majority."

which is what Avdan Özoguz (German integration minister) is against (http://www.politico.eu/article/germ...-we-cant-ban-all-child-marriage-aydan-ozoguz/)


... so instead of taking special means to protect people who were forced into marriage in ****-holes they are running from, you just legalize arranged marriage, bending EU laws and open door to further demands, doesn't sound like integration to me

 

[Corsa]

Legal age for marriage in TX is the age of majority which is 18 without parental consent.
If the parent signs you may marry at 14, no younger.
I just went through a battle with my ex wife in Copperas Cove TX involving my 17 year old daughter and lost. She's now married.

 

[ClydeYellow]

This portion of your post makes perfect sense, is entirely correct and is powerfully expressed, IMO.

We can identify the GW Bush administration as mostly responsible, and also Obama and Hillary for the madness in Syria, Libya, and Yemen.

Both Democrat and Republican administrations have come under the sway of an ultra-hawk neocon ideology. For years decades I've wanted a more realist foreign policy, and my only choices have been libertarians. Now, at last, there is a popular revolt, the Republican party is disintegrating, and the unlikely Donald Trump managed to intuit this and capture the nomination. That he is (or has been) socially liberal should make him an acceptable candidate for those who want a less hawkish foreign policy and more social liberties.

At a first glance, Trump may seems a better choice for those who are critical of the United States interventionism than Clinton - which is a darling of certain hawkish circles of the US military and political establishment, and has her fair share of responsibility in all of those wonderful North African / Middle Eastern / Central Asian adventures the US undertook in the last fifteen years.
But on the other, Trump's well-documented commitment to strong solutions (and his manipulability, which could lead to disaster in a cabinet staffed by Tea Party people such as Pence) is a source of concern, and there is nothing in his campaign that's a promise of a truly sensible foreign policy - and actually, there are many indications that he may be even less inclined than Clinton to attempt diplomacy before sending in the bombers.
He is not really saying that he's aiming to reduce the US intervention in global affairs, just that he's planning to reduce its economical costs. I fear that on one hand he may reduce the US involvement in mutual defense agreements - poissibly leading countries which so far have only adopted a defensive posture under the US military and nuclear umbrella to pursue more aggressive policies - while at the same time upping the ante on bombing and drone campaigns against targets deemed acceptable by the American public and unilateral "shotgun diplomacy" - hardly a sensible foreign policy.
And then there's his stance of nuclear weapons - he has not only proposed Japan and South Korea get nukes, but also made statements which indicate we may see a much more aggressive nuclear posture.

Of course that doesn't make the other alternative more palatable - each side has its own cutesy naive beliefs: that diplomacy works like dealmaking in Trump's case, that it's possible to take military action against Russia without it escalating into World War Last for Clinton.
I'm afraid that whoever wins tomorrow's elections, America may be in dire straits... And all of us with her.

Exactly right, that's the point of government, to take care of its citizens, if they fail to do that they will be replaced. Key is to take part in the elections before it's too late, young people often don't participate but it's their good living which is at stake.

That would be correct - however, any government (and to an extent, any person) arguably has moral (and more importantly, legal) responsibilities toward all human beings, regardless of their condition.
And presenting immigration as the cause for a decline of welfare and economic opportunities which has its roots in the faults of our economical system and in inept governments which didn't and still don't care much about taking care of their citizens is, I believe, a grave violation of the political deontology which allows for (mostly) peaceful dialectic confrontation within democracies.

Besides, the United States government's been far too busy doing things that have little to do with "taking care of its citizens" to now shy away from its responsibilities. If they didn't want refugees flooding in from Central America, perhaps they shouldn't have intervened so strongly in Central America in the first place. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Personal digs have no place here.

Admittedly, I am the one who said I'm a bad-tempered person. I wouldn't consider that a personal attack, and as a matter of fact, I'm glad that we agree on something, at the very least.

 

[Corsa]

It was not a personal attack Clyde.
You yourself said you were sour, I was agreeing in the moment... no worries.
What is worrying is Scaff slapping my wrist about "personal digs" after you said I was as annoying as the girls on instagram, and to get a fu$&ing grip. Did he slap your wrist as well?
I laughed at your comment, it really was funny. The double standard not so much.

 

[novcze]

That would be correct - however, any government (and to an extent, any person) arguably has moral (and more importantly, legal) responsibilities toward all human beings, regardless of their condition.

There is no legal obligation towards illegal economic migrants who are masquerading as refugees (other than send them home). I don't how it works in the USA exactly, but in Europe it's like that.






... meanwhile in Munich
Huge wall built in Munich to protect families from migrants who will live next door

 

[TenEightyOne]

There is no legal obligation towards illegal economic migrants who are masquerading as refugees (other than send them home). I don't how it works in the USA exactly, but in Europe it's like that.

Yes there is - you're completely wrong.

... meanwhile in Munich
Huge wall built in Munich to protect families from migrants who will live next door

The Sun? Really?

The wall is a normal sound protection "green wall" being built around the children's home after seven residents raised concerns during the planning process. In line with the normal procedure for such structures (my last job was in engineering so I've come across a good number of these) the wall will be verdant and unsuitable for noisy ball games, climbing etc.

Sadly the headline you posted was completely inaccurate - I presume that's why you posted the third hand article instead of clicking through to the source... the source isn't anywhere near meeting the requirements of your apparent agenda.

 

[novcze]

Yes there is - you're completely wrong.

I mentioned only end result, of course there is legal procedure (obligation if you like) how to do that. For example Germany is very good at returning illeagal economic migrants once they have all incoming "refugees" processed.

The Sun? Really?

The wall is a normal sound protection "green wall" being built around the children's home after seven residents raised concerns during the planning process. In line with the normal procedure for such structures (my last job was in engineering so I've come across a good number of these) the wall will be verdant and unsuitable for noisy ball games, climbing etc.

Sadly the headline you posted was completely inaccurate - I presume that's why you posted the third hand article instead of clicking through to the source... the source isn't anywhere near meeting the requirements of your apparent agenda.

I linked English iteration for your reading pleasure, don't really care which one. If you want the source, there it is http://www.merkur.de/lokales/muench...uer-gegen-fluechtlinge-errichtet-6937101.html and still it looks like a wall designed to protect local families from noisy or "insert other undesirable behavior here" migrants. Or what were you thinking? ... should look past clickbait headlines, right.

 

[TenEightyOne]

still it looks like a wall designed to protect local families from noisy or "insert other undesirable behavior here" migrants. Or what were you thinking?

I was thinking the obvious, as contained in the source article... children's homes are noisy places, especially the external areas, residents would like an acoustic wall. They're getting one.

You realise that many many places have such acoustic solutions - they're not just for migrants, you know

 

[DLR_Mysterion]

Montfermeil and Clichy-sous-Bois are suburbs predominantly populated by North African immigrants; but Tottenham, Hackney, Peckham, Enfield and Battersea are predominantly white areas with immigrants from ethnic, cultural and religious backgrounds sufficiently diverse to make the assumption that they constitute a single "block" of interests unfounded. In both cases the protests were ignited by episodes of police brutality (the Clichy-sous-Bois incident in case of the former, and the death of Mark Duggan in the latter), and spread to areas in which a) unemployment was rampant, and social welfare basically non-existent and b) police often acted with excessive force and undue prejudice.

Police brutality?

No, as someone who was in the London riots it was a bunch of idiots upset a drug dealer got shot who wanted to go on a jolly throughout the different boroughs. And remember that it started as a peaceful march by a predominantly black British contingent

 

[novcze]

You realise that many many places have such acoustic solutions - they're not just for migrants, you know

I know, but tell that to Mr.Bucholtz and others from the article who had rather laughable reaction which made it pertinent to this thread. Such local representative of the government is exactly what people don't need.

 

[ClydeYellow]

Police brutality?

No, as someone who was in the London riots it was a bunch of idiots upset a drug dealer got shot who wanted to go on a jolly throughout the different boroughs. And remember that it started as a peaceful march by a predominantly black British contingent

Heh. The reality of police behavior in the affected areas doesn't matter all that much; the causes for a riot are always the perceived relationships between the rioters and the power structures they are going up against, not the real ones.

And I agree that the ultimate cause of the London riots seems to be very a-political, to say the least. The fact that commercial activities were more prominently targeted than police forces and equipment would lead me to believe that the death of Mark Duggan was only a pretext, while in the French case the Clichy-sur-Bois incident was only the last and more prominent case of police acting in a way that's bound to create mistrust and resentment in the local population. Social and economical exclusions have been cited as the most likely ultimate causes of those riots, but I believe that criminal opportunism also played a significant role in bringing some people out in the streets and keeping them there long after the political malcontent which got the chain of events started had dissipated or directed itself in other directions.

There is no legal obligation towards illegal economic migrants who are masquerading as refugees (other than send them home). I don't how it works in the USA exactly, but in Europe it's like that.

a) the UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees establishes with its article 33 the principle of non-refoulment, which forbids the return of expulsion of a foreign citizen in a territory where is life or freedom would be threatened by war or disaster, natural or man-made. Any country that has signed the convention has legal obligations towards "boat people" and the likes;

b) there is also the obligation to allow a person to demand asylum: such concession can't be made until a person has actually reached the territory of the nation which would concede it. How do you plan to distinguish economic immigrants and refugees beforehand?

c) I'd also argue that if someone coming from Afghani provinces which are controlled by the Taliban, or from Somalia, or from Eritrea or from some other amene country is not a refugee, but an "economic immigrant", then perhaps the definition of refugee (which dates back to 1951 and was originally drawn with the post-WW2 refugee in mind) needs to be amended to reflect the realities of the 21st century;

d) finally, illegal immigrants which have come to the Italian shores, have requested asylum and saw their demands denied, and come from a country which has a repatriation agreement with Italy are usually sent back home within a year of setting foot in our territory.
The main problems it that many people that are denied asylum also come from countries for which the principle of non-refoulment is valid, or that have no such agreement with Italy - in many cases, because they are failed state which only control a portion of their territory and are in no way capable of conducting any international diplomacy.

I'd also like you to consider a thing. Would you engage in a long trip to the desert, work like a slave for years in Lybia or Turkey - enduring horrible living conditions, beatings, harassment and the risk of being killed over trivial reasons - only to save the money to embark on a ship which has an equal chance of capsizing and dragging you to a watery death, only to reach the coasts of a country which may or may not take you in?
Illegal economic immigrants came to Europe during the early 2000s mostly from the Balkans, Eastern European countries such as Romania and Bulgaria. Most came here as "tourists" and then dropped off the grid. That phenomenon's mostly dead since many of those countries became part of the EU and Schengen area - thus making illegal immigration useless.
The situation in the US is a bit more complex - but still, Guatemalan or Colombian immigrants face many hardships and a significant risk of death to reach the Southern Border.

P.S: I'd say that regardless of the truthfullness and accuracy of the news piece you linked, the fact that they're building walls against immigrants in Austria and Munich doesn't make Trump any more right... And could, as a matter of fact, be proof that he's dead-wrong.

 

[Dotini]

Though Politico has its bias, there is good information here on the Sanctuary City situation in the US. These cities stand in defiance to federal law when to comes to allowing undocumented immigrants. My city of Seattle is one of them. Trump may be of a mind to deny these cities federal funding if they remain in defiance.
http://www.politico.com/states/illi...es-vow-to-remain-immigrant-sanctuaries-107313

Since Tuesday’s election, other cities that have affirmed their commitment to remaining sanctuaries include New York, Los Angeles, Seattle, Philadelphia and San Francisco.

There are dozens of sanctuary cities in the United States and more than 100 jurisdictions have policies on the books that limit compliance with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

In a "60 Minutes" interview on Sunday, Trump vowed to deport 2 million to 3 million undocumented immigrants, but seemed to make a distinction between ones who had committed crimes — presumably beyond immigrating illegally — and ones who hadn't.

 

[Touring Mars]

This might be a silly question, but how do you deport someone who has no documentation?

This is a big problem currently facing Europe with a massive influx of undocumented people fleeing lots of different countries for lots of different reasons.... as well as the ethics of deporting someone back to a war-zone, it is clearly not as simple as expecting people to freely admit that they are from one country or another. Also, I'm guessing it is quite expensive and laborious to identify a person and get the necessary documentation in order to deport someone - is it not incumbent on the deporting nation to prove that an individual had come from a specific country before expecting that country to accept them upon deportation?

 

[Barra333]

You don't have a "Made in...." stamp on the bottom of your right foot?

 

[Touring Mars]

Only when I have my shoes on... on that basis I could end up in Bangladesh...

 

[Dotini]

This might be a silly question, but how do you deport someone who has no documentation?

This is a big problem currently facing Europe with a massive influx of undocumented people fleeing lots of different countries for lots of different reasons.... as well as the ethics of deporting someone back to a war-zone, it is clearly not as simple as expecting people to freely admit that they are from one country or another. Also, I'm guessing it is quite expensive and laborious to identify a person and get the necessary documentation in order to deport someone - is it not incumbent on the deporting nation to prove that an individual had come from a specific country before expecting that country to accept them upon deportation?

Good questions, and I can't answer them.

I do recall that back in the 60's and early 70's my city was cooperating more closely with the feds on deporting certain immigrants, criminals I think, awaiting investigation and adjudication. These were often confined, sometimes for great lengths of time, on the top and most comfortable floors of our best jails.

FYI

 

[novcze]

This might be a silly question, but how do you deport someone who has no documentation?

This is a big problem currently facing Europe with a massive influx of undocumented people fleeing lots of different countries for lots of different reasons.... as well as the ethics of deporting someone back to a war-zone, it is clearly not as simple as expecting people to freely admit that they are from one country or another. Also, I'm guessing it is quite expensive and laborious to identify a person and get the necessary documentation in order to deport someone - is it not incumbent on the deporting nation to prove that an individual had come from a specific country before expecting that country to accept them upon deportation?

Oh I see, Europe need the wall, not the USA.

btw. Trump really need to go after those who employ illegals, no wonder there are protests in big cities against deportations of illegals, it hurts you financially when modern slaves are about to leave.

 

[Danoff]

Oh I see, Europe need the wall, not the USA.

btw. Trump really need to go after those who employ illegals, no wonder there are protests in big cities against deportations of illegals, it hurts you financially when modern slaves are about to leave.

Illegal immigrants are not modern slaves. And the people protesting in big cities against deportation are not doing so because they want low prices on their produce.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Illegal immigrants are not modern slaves.

Sometimes they are, it depends on the circumstances of their arrival/stay. That's not to say that they shouldn't be deported when appropriate, just that sometimes it's not black and white.

 

[Danoff]

Sometimes they are, it depends on the circumstances of their arrival/stay. That's not to say that they shouldn't be deported when appropriate, just that sometimes it's not black and white.

If they are, there is a separate crime going on which is its own issue. From the perspective of this discussion, they're not.

 

[ClydeYellow]

Illegal immigrants are not modern slaves.

Illegal immigrants are either competing with legal residents for low-paying jobs, driving wages downward by competing without many of the limitations set by law; or supplanting them entirely. In this second, most troubling scenario, illegals effectively force legals to acquire further education and compete for mid or high-skill jobs, while forming an underclass of workers who are paid less than a minimal wage and are afforded no protection under the law. But of course, if you limit yourself to reading the statistics, it's all good - more specialized people means more trading partners and a better competitive advantage, and more documented people earning higher wages means a raise in median income, nevermind the millions who live in abject poverty and don't officially exist.

If they are, there is a separate crime going on which is its own issue. From the perspective of this discussion, they're not.

Well, the title of the thread is "Immigration", and this is one of the aspects of immigration in the current economical and political system, so...

 

[Danoff]

Illegal immigrants are either competing with legal residents for low-paying jobs, driving wages downward by competing without many of the limitations set by law; or supplanting them entirely. In this second, most troubling scenario, illegals effectively force legals to acquire further education and compete for mid or high-skill jobs, while forming an underclass of workers who are paid less than a minimal wage and are afforded no protection under the law.

The law creates the demand. The going rate for hiring illegal immigrants at the average home depot in CA is around $15/hr. That's for someone to swing a sledge hammer or paint something - work that doesn't require a lot of skill or communication. The fact that they get paid in cash means that it's worth more than someone who is legitimately making $15/hr. So maybe up that to $20/hr in real pay. You can't hire someone legitimately to work for that kind of money because after you got done complying with all of the regulations and dealing with payroll tax, and paperwork, etc, you'd be handing them less than minimum wage. Worker's comp alone makes it hard to offer construction work.

That's why a lot of legitimate employees have their "on the books" jobs and their "off the books" jobs. They get paid better off the books. This is the black market created by regulation. There is a strong desire to make money off the books by people who are here legally too, because your take-home pay is higher.

These people are not slaves, they're regulation cheats. They're not even tax cheats really, because at the wage level we're discussing most of them would qualify for some tax benefit (unless you count SS, which is a separate ball of wax).

But of course, if you limit yourself to reading the statistics, it's all good - more specialized people means more trading partners and a better competitive advantage, and more documented people earning higher wages means a raise in median income, nevermind the millions who live in abject poverty and don't officially exist.

It is good for any economy to be able to bypass regulation and get more labor/goods for less money. Regulation is a heavy load for the economy to bear - that's why there are segments that choose not to. Everyone benefits from that.

Well, the title of the thread is "Immigration", and this is one of the aspects of immigration in the current economical and political system, so...

Specifically that crimes may be committed against them? Yea, them and everyone else. It's not really an interesting portion of the discussion except that illegals have more incentive to flee law enforcement and take personal protection into their own hands.

 

[TenEightyOne]

These people are not slaves, they're regulation cheats.... It's not really an interesting portion of the discussion except that illegals have more incentive to flee law enforcement and take personal protection into their own hands.

So what about illegals who are moved from one country to another with a promise of a better life only to find that they lose their passport, gain a drug habit and end up earning $200 an hour that they don't see a penny of?

That's only one part of illegal immigration, sure, but I think it demonstrates that (to repeat myself) it isn't a black-and-white issue.