If someone comes to seek asylum in a country foreign to that one or wants to build a life there, but so willingly disregards its laws, they have overstayed their welcome.
However, that does not mean that deporting them back to where they came from is necessarily better in case torture, death or similar things await them there. In that case they could be killed, tortured, whatever right on the spot as the outcome will be the same. No need to fly them out then. There is blood on one’s hand either way and therefore not a solution I would deem meaningful.
Imagine what that has cost the tax paying citizens of Germany. All for guilt from 80 years ago.
Remember your past sure. Don’t make the same mistakes again. Absolutely.
But to hold those people for that long, for “their own safety” is just bizarre.
Imagine any other country doing that?
Honesty, I’m all ears to hear why Germany should have spent all that money for all those years. Maybe I’m ignorant on certain facts. It’s just so surreal to read though.
You realize organizing a charter flight and bribes for Qatar are a lot more expensive than keeping 20-odd people in jail, right?
Saving money, not giving money to autocracies, and also saving human lives seems like a win-win-win to me.
Removed by mod
Where are you getting 20 years from? Most likely, most of these convictions are either already past or sub-1-year convictions for stealing, drug offences, refugee-specific offences (like leaving town) or random other small shit.
Removed by mod
That sentence includes “20 years”, so technically speaking, I guess you answered my question.
But the fact that the US was in Afghanistan for 20 years is entirely unrelated to the length of convictions.
Removed by mod
I did a page search for “20 years” and there’s literally no other mention than the completely irrelevant bit you quoted. So where is that number coming from?
This has nothing to do with guilt from 80 years ago. What are you even on about?
This is being done because Scholz is a spineless wimp, trying to appease the far-right in an attempt to steal back votes from the AfD (which will not work and will only further alienate the SPDs voter base). It’s a political move and the people being deported are being used as pawns.
One of the learnings from WWII was that a working asylum system is important. But yeah, terming this “guilt” is bs.
I don’t think it’s guilt from 80 years ago, I think most countries would do the same.
Keep them safe, or send them away?
Imagine any other country doing that?
Many other countries do in fact do that.
It’s the correct call
It’s not. Human rights are only human rights if they are universal and even criminals deserve to be protected from abuse and torture.
Plus, it doesn’t actually solve anything. It just moves the problem elsewhere and will most likely have involved the German government directly giving money to the Taliban regime.
True, but the world isn’t an idealist paradise, nor is it all black and white; compromises are a necessity, starting with the ones that least deserve leniency.
That does not justify sending people some place where theft is punished with amputation and nonconformity to extreme religious doctrine with death.
Doing so anyway is causing unnecessary harm on behalf of bigoted xenophobes
Removed by mod
By this account, a literal majority of your compatriots are “bigoted xenophobes”.
Perhaps it’s time to consider engaging with these people in good faith instead of with insults.
Well unfortunately the Overton window has shifted so far to the right that inhumane positions have become so normalized that indeed a majority of Germans have become bigoted xenophobes.
Slightly tangential, but personally I have always found this word “humane” quite revealing. That is, it reveals more about the speaker’s wishfulness - and perhaps therefore their political orientation - than anything else.
Humans are neither good nor bad. They are both, or neither. They are what they decide to be. These words “humane” and “inhumane” as synonyms of “good” and “bad” are pretty Orwellian.
Words have an origin and a definition. Those are not the same thing.
The opinion of my “compatriots” changes absolutely nothing on this.
and I have zero problems with calling bigoted xenophobes bigoted xenophobes.
you serm to have a problem calling them out as such when you just so happen to share their nationality (which, to be clear, doesn’t change their morality in any way, shape, or form). Why is that?
