Germany should limit migrants to 200,000 annually: Bavaria

[MowCowWhoHow III]

Source: AFP

Berlin (AFP) - Germany only has capacity for a maximum 200,000 asylum seekers a year, about a fifth of the number it received in 2015, Bavarian premier Horst Seehofer said Sunday.

"In Germany, the arrival of 100,000 to a maximum 200,000 asylum seekers and war refugees a year would pose no problem," Seehofer, who heads the Christian Social Union (CSU), the Bavarian sister party of Chancellor Angela Merkel's Christian Democrats (CDU), told Bild newspaper.

The CSU, which has been up in arms over Merkel's welcoming refugee policy, is calling for Germany to cap the number of asylum seekers it takes in.

"Limiting the number of migrants must be the main objective in 2016," Seehofer said ahead of the CSU's annual conference this week in the Bavarian mountain resort of Wildbad Kreuth that Merkel and British Prime Minister David Cameron are scheduled to attend.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/germany-limit-migrants-200-000-annually-bavaria-150237604.html;_ylt=A0LEV7wvY4lWJ3QAknpjmolQ

[Proserpina]

1. Then Germany had better break with the nation that causes all the strife

and sends whole nations fleeing for their lives.

Of course, that would take guts. But I bet they could get the entirety of Europe AND Russia and its allies, and China, and maybe even parts of Africa to go along....

[perdita9]

3. Why does Russia never get called for their bungling?

They've repeatedly vetoed resolutions that would have removed Assad and given Syrians a chance at saving their country. And now Russia is dropping bombs on innocent civilians, not ISIS as they claim.

Yes, for some reason, the press keeps blaming Obama for all the problems in the Middle East

[Proserpina]

4. You're joking, right?

[perdita9]

5. No, I'm not

Listen to the Republican candidates sometime. They're all admire Putin for being strong and castigate Obama for being weak and the media just puts these statements out there without remarking about how stupid they are

[AngryAmish]

15. You understand that you are advocating genocide against the Alawites, yes?

Assad is a manifestation of his people. They do not particularly like him, but if the SAA loses, all the Alawites will die.

[perdita9]

25. You're accusing me of advocating genocide?

That's nuts.

[AngryAmish]

27. Assad is a butcher. But his removal would result in genocide.

The resolutions of removing Assad would have left the Alawites to the tender mercies of Al Nusra.

[Adrahil]

28. So, his opponents die instead?

Sounds like there's gonna be killing either way. Hardly a moral hill to die on, if you know what I mean.

[Bernin]

11. You

appear to be very misinformed about the Syria situation.

[perdita9]

26. You're saying Russia didn't veto UN resolutions to deal with Syria?

You're saying Putin's forces aren't bombing Syrian civilians and not ISIS?

I think you're the one who's misinformed.

[perdita9]

2. I agree with setting a limit

Yeah, I know the pro-immigrant activists will disagree with me, but Bavaria has a point. Letting in large numbers of immigrants in a short period of time can be politically destabilizing.

Countries should extend helping hands to refugees but they owe their citizens a system that isn't going to collapse under its own weight as well.

[DetlefK]

6. What it's actually like for arab immigrants coming to Germany:

They have to wait until the bureaucracy has made a decision whether or not the application for asylum is granted. Each case is handled individually. And that takes time.
And No, you can't say that people from this or that country automatically get granted asylum, because people throw away their passports and lie where they come from.

And so, the immigrants are stuck in bureaucratic limbo in over-crowded camps.
They can do language-courses, but they can't apply for jobs or do anything that keeps them occupied.
And so, they sit around.
And wait.
And get impatient.
And drink alcohol.
And start brawls over nothing.
And sexually assault women and children in the camp.

[philosslayer]

8. This is a disgusting post

And you should delete it. You're turning asylum seekers into rapists and alcoholics, when 99.99% are nothing of the sort. Shame on you.

[DetlefK]

21. I'm not saying "all-of-them", but the news-stories keep coming:

http://hessenschau.de/gesellschaft/neue-fluechtlingsunterkunft-fuer-frauen-in-darmstadt,fluechtlinge-darmstadt-100.html
A separate camp for female immigrants is set up after repeated reports of sexual assault in other camps.

http://www.hna.de/lokales/hofgeismar/hofgeismar-ort73038/alkohol-problem-fluechtlinge-verlangen-meist-schnaps-5972266.html
Anecdote from a gas-station owner: Most immigrants are nice, but some drink all day and start trouble.

I googled for brawls/riots between immigrants in german camps. On the first page I got hits, spanning back to end of November 2015, for incidents in
* Hamburg (Afghans and Albanians beating each other up with iron rods),
* Emmerzhausen (mass-brawl of 300 people; this one happened after Syrians and Iranians had played soccer),
* Konstanz (Afghans and Albanians beating each other up with fire-extinguishers, soup-plates and hat stands), Itzehoe, 3 cases in Berlin,
* Berlin (conflicting reports what actually happened),
* Berlin (again fire-extinguishers) and Klietz,
* Wertheim (a riot of 200 people, some armed with sticks, furniture was tossed around; when police tried to arrest the immigrant who had initiated the riot, 100 immigrants attacked them),
* Steiermark (Austria; brawl between different afghan ethnicities),
* Bergedorf (brawl between 4 Syrians) and Harburg (knife-fight between Syrians and Albanians, minor injuries only),
* Karlsfeld (frustration so high in that camp that a riot of 80 Africans erupted when they were told they can't play soccer inside the building; rocks and shoes were thrown),
* Ötisheim (Syrians and Iraqis).

[Yupster]

29. Nasty situation in the Cologne train station

on New Years Eve.

Dozens of German women sexually assaulted and some actual rapes by gangs of immigrants.

Seems like a cultural problem. Immigrants thought the women were to be abused since they weren't dressed as modestly as they should be. German women fought back but were overwhelmed. Some reported being molested by 100 different men.

Why is Germany allowing itself to be ripped up like this?

[DetlefK]

30. Because Germany is taking in immigrants faster than it can absorb them.

Multi-culturalism is a lie. If every member of a society is supposed to get along with every other member of the same society, they need more or less the same morals.
"Isn't this a great country? I'm gay and you hate gays, but we all can live here side by side, because it's such a mixing-pot of cultures!"
"Yes, it's a great country indeed. And I demand that you respect my culture of seeing you burn in hell."

Taking the risk of sounding nationalist and/or racist, these immigrants need to adapt to the german culture and give up their own to some degree, at minimum to a degree that allows to minimize friction with other parts of german society. (Germany has a large minority of Muslims, mainly Turks, 3.25% Sunni, 0.28% Shia, and I consider them part of Germany.) If you treat women as sex-objects or if you treat homosexuals as subhumans, then you either change your f**king attitude or get the f**k out of Germany.

[pampango]

31. "Multi-culturalism is a lie." It is one of the right's favorite whipping boys but it is not a lie.

According to Le Pen, the coming battle for the Élysée Palace will pit the “globalists” (as she describes the traditional, or mainstream, parties of the Right and Left) against the “patriots” of the Front National. Among the main pillars of her domestic agenda: an “implacable fight” against illegal immigration (with “automatic expulsions” of undocumented foreigners); a “drastic reduction” in legal immigration (to a ceiling of around 10,000 annually) while ending or severely limiting provisions for family reunifications or asylum for refugees; and an end to “Anglo-Saxon multiculturalism,” whose “first victims are white male heterosexuals.”

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/what-president-le-pen-means-america-14699?page=1

Geert Wilders tells Australia to abandon multiculturalism or end up like the EU

the far-right Dutch politician Geert Wilders stood behind a bank of microphones and recommended Australia close its borders and abandon its long-held policy of multiculturalism, lest “Australian society” be irrevocably lost.

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/oct/21/geert-wilders-tells-australia-to-abandon-multiculturalism-or-end-up-like-the-eu

"Isn't this a great country? I'm gay and you hate gays, but we all can live here side by side, because it's such a mixing-pot of cultures!"

Le Pen: multiculturalism, whose “first victims are white male heterosexuals.

Taking the risk of sounding nationalist and/or racist ...

which are the favorite attitudes of the far-right - see Le Pen, Wilders or Trump.

Muslims are not a stereotypical monolithic evil as portrayed by the right.

[DetlefK]

32. Tell me about life in a multi-cultural country.

Tell me about life in a country where gays live next to people who thinks gays are spawns of the Great Evil.

Tell me about life in a country where black people live next to people who think that black people are inherently inferior because they just have a bad culture.

Tell me about life in a country where women live next to people who think that a woman loses her human right of self-determination when she becomes pregnant.

Tell me about life in a country where mass-shootings are a daily occurance while a minority of people demands the right to be ready to shoot anybody up at a moment's notice.

Tell me about the last time Democrats and Republicans agreed on something.

[pampango]

33. That is a succinct summary of the right's view of multiculturalism. Thanks.

Your examples seem more like a comparison between good and evil, liberal and conservative.

Perhaps our definition of 'multicultural' (and 'mono-cultural') differs. It seems to me that the right wingers who embrace 'mono-culturalism' are the 'family-values, Christian conservative' types who do not support gay rights or seek to empower minorities or support choice for women or favor effective gun control to prevent mass shootings.

Are you suggesting that we should have separate countries for homophobes, misogynists, racists, gun nuts and Muslims? Each country should be 'mono-cultural' in what sense? To what extent is diversity of thought encouraged or allowed?

You cannot and should not make being racist, homophobic, misogynist or pro-gun thinking illegal, but you can and should make it illegal to act on those mindsets. Germany and every other country has every right to set a rule of law that details what types of conduct are legal and acceptable. Everyone - Christian, Muslim, atheist, Black, White - must follow those laws or suffer an appropriate punishment. Most liberals would not base that rule of law on "my race is better than yours or my religion is better than yours or my sexual orientation is better than yours or my gender is better than yours" but on human rights and freedoms without stereotyping.

The right always claims that immigrants do not assimilate. And historically the right has always been proven wrong. Being proven wrong though, never seems to stop the right from repeating the same thing over and over.

Tell me about the last time Democrats and Republicans agreed on something.

This has what to do with multiculturalism? Having two political parties in a country make it 'multicultural'? Should we have one country for republicans and one for Democrats? Perhaps another set of countries for moderate and conservative republicans; and for moderate and liberal Democrats; and for Blacks and for Whites; and for gays and for straights, etc.?

[DetlefK]

35. I think, multi-culturalism denies the need for compromise in a society.

That's why I have a problem with it. Multi-culturalism postulates that different people can live side-by-side, stay different, and there won't be friction.

That won't work. There needs to be a cultural basis, a smallest common denominator. And it needs to be so broad that hostilities stay on a non-violent level. And this cultural basis can only be built by doing away with the notion that my culture and morals are more important than your culture and morals. This cultural basis can only be built by compromise.

[pampango]

36. That may be where we differ. Is 'compromise' a 2-way street on just for minorities?

There are fundamental human rights and security that every country's culture and laws should protect. I think 'mono-culturalism' denies the need for compromise in a society by asserting that the dominant national culture is only acceptable one and no compromise in the enforcement of its principles is acceptable.

American Christian conservatives would love to see their version of mono-culturalism enforced without compromise to accommodate the rights of women, gays, immigrants, non-Christians, etc. (The only 'compromising' would be done by women, gays, immigrants, non-Christians, etc., not by representatives of the dominant culture.)

Multi-culturalism postulates that different people can live side-by-side, stay different, and there won't be friction.

That won't work.

"Stay different" is ambiguous. Blacks and whites and browns can live side-by-side and 'stay different' as can 'gays and straights', Christians and non-Christians, republicans and Democrats, etc.

Compromise is an essential part of multi-culturalism while, I would argue, compromise is not required in 'mono-culturalism' because everyone is expected to adhere to the dominant culture. Only disadvantaged groups, e.g. women, gays, minorities, immigrants, non-Christians, etc., would be expected to 'compromise'.

[DetlefK]

38. Is multi-culturalism compromise or tolerance?

Compromise means adjusting yourself to avoid conflict-situations from coming up. Tolerance means avoiding the conflict-situations from escalating.

I think that multi-culturalism is more tolerance than compromise and that the old prejudices and animosities will come back when it's safe.

[pampango]

41. Both. Mono-culturalism is neither.

I think that multi-culturalism is more tolerance than compromise ...

There are elements of both tolerance and compromise. In countries that are mono-cultural, everyone adapts to the dominant culture or suffers the consequences - kind of like the image of the 1950's in the US.

...and that the old prejudices and animosities will come back when it's safe.

I think human nature is better than that. Living with people who are different - native-born/immigrants, gays/straights, black/brown/white, etc. - actually teach most people that the OTHERS are not as bad as we thought they were.

Of course, there are some people - conservatives for the most part, IMHO - who never adapt to 'different' people and "the old prejudices and animosities will come back when it's safe". I'm not sure how you deal with those folks.

[The2ndWheel]

39. If there was one easy answer, it would've been figured out by now

It's all subjective. What's more diverse, 1 large group of 100 different people, or 10 smaller groups of 10 people in each group? Is either more diverse? Are they diverse in different ways? Is one form of diversity better than another?

Compromise is an essential part of multi-culturalism while, I would argue, compromise is not required in 'mono-culturalism' because everyone is expected to adhere to the dominant culture.

Again, as with everything really, it depends on how you look at it. Everyone wants their particular culture to win out. That would end up being a mono-culture if any particular one did win. Sort of the same way that the only way to stop a corporate monopoly, is with the power of a government monopoly. Government only works if it's a monopoly. Is a monopoly good or bad? It depends on who you're asking.

Multi-culturalism can be a mono-culture where everyone has to agree that X or Y is good or bad. Mono-culturalism can multi-cultural. If every culture is different, then you can have a mono-cultural multi-culture. The question is, where is the line drawn? In the increasingly abstract reality that we humans live in, that line is more and more difficult to find.

[christx30]

40. To what about what DetlefK is saying

are you objecting? There are some severe cultural differences between the peoples of Germany and the refugees. Many threads have been started about this, but just the links up there show the clashes that are happening. There have been lots of reports on violence perpetrated by the refugees against German people and each other. People are angry as hell, and the politicians don't seem to give a crap. Merkel is rejecting calls for limits on refugees coming in.
In that culture, if a rape isn't witnessed by a male, it didn't happen. And the victim is tried for adultery and hung or stoned to death if found guilty. Women over there are encouraged (read: forced) to cover up to prevent a man from losing control of himself and attacking a woman. It takes the BS "she was asking for it" defense to a whole other level, supported by the local culture and the law. "She was wearing a sundress. I couldn't help myself."
The first job of a leader needs to be the protection and security of the people that are paying taxes and voting. If she can't do that, she needs to step aside.
But the right, I fear, is going to take care of that. "Merkel cares more for the migrants than she does for the German people."

[pampango]

42. Your image of 'that culture' is quite stereotypical and without nuance.

You seem to accept that all Syrians accept one culture with no deviation. That all Syrians - because they are Muslims? - believe that "if a rape isn't witnessed by a male, it didn't happen. And the victim is tried for adultery and hung or stoned to death if found guilty. Women over there are encouraged (read: forced) to cover up to prevent a man from losing control of himself and attacking a woman."

I doubt that all Syrians believe any one thing any more than all Germans do or all Americans do or all Blacks do or all gays do. Stereotypes are not really helpful in formulating policy. Merkel apparently understands that.

The first job of a leader needs to be the protection and security of the people that are paying taxes and voting.

That sounds like something a 'strong leader' like the Donald would say.

If she can't do that, she needs to step aside.
But the right, I fear, is going to take care of that. "Merkel cares more for the migrants than she does for the German people."

Mr. Trump (the right) would agree with that, too. And our right believes that Obama cares more for Muslims and Mexicans and gays and 'illegal immigrants' than he does for the American people. Our right hopes that they can replace him too.

[Nihil]

37. Sad to say, you are exactly right.

You can't integrate people of widely different cultural values into a civilised nation
when they are arriving at the rate of several hundred thousand PER YEAR.

In small amounts - or even large numbers over a reasonable timescale - it really
*does* work and yes, it enhances the host nation as a result.

In large mobs, it most certainly doesn't.

I've read through the subthread from the poster from several thousand miles
away who refuses to answer your questions and instead repeats their sad refrain
of "If you object, you are a right-winger". It is so fucking easy to whinge away
in the USA when the problem doesn't come close to touching anyone there.
When it affects you and/or people close to you, that is when the idealistic
view of "rainbows & unicorns all around" doesn't ring true.


> If you treat women as sex-objects or if you treat homosexuals as subhumans,
> then you either change your f**king attitude or get the f**k out of Germany.

Not just Germany. If you aren't prepared to change your bigoted ways, f*ck off
back to somewhere where your Bronze Age mental attitude is appreciated ...
try Saudi Arabia for a start ...

[bdwker]

10. It's wrong to blame an entire religion...

Because of 1 or 2 foolish people.

[Skittles]

23. who said anything about religion?

[JI7]

13. alcohol brawls sexual assault happens in the US

And many other places.

In all communities regardless of income wealth etc

[840high]

7. +1

[7962]

16. I dont know why anyone has a problem with "limits".

Its for the good of EVERYONE in the country. Unrestrained immigration will overload ANY countries systems. The result is increased discrimination & distrust against ANY immigrants.

[bdwker]

9. Send them to the US.

We can handle it.

[philosslayer]

12. I agree

We should take all that can be sent our way.

[Bernin]

14. I have a better idea.

Stop destroying their homelands and they will stay there.

[7962]

18. And there is the true solution.

[7962]

17. No, we cant.

Uncontrolled immigration is going to cause huge problems in Europe. the same will happen here. Depressed wages, strain on social systems, strain on hospitals, etc.
If you think we can take them all how do you think the US can handle 10 million extra people in just a yr or two without the above?

[Bernin]

19. +1

I agree.

[romanic]

20. Agreed.

[Skittles]

24. you're not fooling anyone

[pampango]

22. Looks like the Bavarian premier is worried about a challenge from his party's right wing.

Seehofer, fearing that he may be ousted by CSU party colleagues with tougher conservative credentials, has been sparring with the Chancellor for months over the number of refugees arriving in a bid to boost his support among hardliners.

http://www.thelocal.de/20160104/bavaria-knocked-back-over-refugee-limits

Liberal policies, like Sweden and Germany have shown towards refugees, still need to be well implemented. The right will fight back against liberal policies no matter what, but they will have more success if the policies are poorly planned and implemented.

Still a willingness to 800,000 refugees in 2016 in Germany would be the equivalent of 800,000 in the US. Republicans here are fighting even accepting 20,000 refugees into the US. And 800,000 would still be a very generous refugee policy compared to that of any other country.

[pampango]

34. Merkel rejects Bavarian bid for refugee limit. (Far right party supports Bavarian proposal.)

Merkel scoffed at the idea, saying that the refugee crisis in a Europe-wide problem that requires implementing tougher controls at the 28-member bloc’s outer borders and the redistribution of asylum seekers throughout the member nations.

"This is not the chancellor's position," Merkel's spokesman Steffen Seibert said on Monday. "We do not believe that a limit on refugee numbers can be achieved by one country acting alone." Any solution must come at the EU level, Merkel's spokesman Seibert added, saying that only then could they create "a situation where illegal migration becomes legal migration and where we reduce the number of new arrivals markedly and sustainably."

The head of the opposition Left party, Bernd Riexinger, went even farther – accusing Seehofer of trying to "consolidate his claim to leadership through the usual suspects of right-wing populism at the expense of people in need."

Meanwhile, the populist right-wing Alternative for Germany (AfD) party, polling strongly in recent months, on Monday said it supported Denmark's decision to reintroduce border checks at the crossing with Germany. Party leader Frauke Petry took to Twitter, saying: "That which we've been demanding for our borders for months is now being implemented there." The post had an attached photo, with the slogan: "Denmark is protecting itself from 'stupidity without borders' and is introducing controls at the crossings to Germany."

http://www.dw.com/en/merkel-rejects-bavarian-bid-for-refugee-limit/a-18957928

Not surprising that the German left opposed the Bavarian premier's refugee limit proposal - "trying to "consolidate his claim to leadership through the usual suspects of right-wing populism" - while the far-right embraces the Bavarian's idea.