Asylum seekers SUE Germany for not paying them benefits FAST ENOUGH

[shanlung]

Asylum seekers SUE Germany for not paying them benefits FAST ENOUGH

 

Making me wonder.

What go into each of those traumatised refugee begging bowl for one year?

Including the cost of warm housing and hot soup and hot meals so their energy levels up to play Taharrash games with gusto and vigour.

 

 

No wonder millions of them flocking to Germany instead of to Kingdom of Saudi Arabia or Kuwait or UAE practically next door and with minarets at every street corners.

 

No filling up of begging bowls there?

 

Neither do they come to Malaysia or Singapore where they will be fed rotan and a month jail the first time.  Doubled that the second time.  Doubled again for 3rd time.

 

Guess what?  hardly any illegal immigrants caught the second time and none at all the third time.

 

No Taharrash games played either this part of the world.

 

Germans and Europeans get what they want and what they voted for and what they deserved until they learned reality of the world we are in.

Edited January 15, 2016 by shanlung

[Marblehead]

Send the MFs back to where they came from.

[dust]

Some hungry refugees want food and shelter. Monsters.

 

It's not an exhibition of gratefulness, for sure, but neither is it a stark act of evil. They -- if they are indeed from Syria, and perhaps even if they are not -- have moved from their war-torn country and been offered shelter and food. Were you expecting every single one to line up without a fuss? Expecting these homeless people all to slip into a variety of occupations overnight?

 

For fuck's sake.

 

Look... Germany probably didn't do it right. A wealthy country opening its doors to immigrants is asking for some trouble, without a doubt. Everyone needs to be thoroughly checked, and the excess numbers of men need to be checked even harder. But grabbing on to every little potential chance to complain about immigrants who aren't even affecting you? Utterly pathetic.

Edited January 15, 2016 by dustybeijing

[soaring crane]

OP: rubbish, sensationalist reporting.

 

Wer lesen kann liegt klar im Vorteil

 

http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/asylbewerber-klagen-belasten-zunehmend-verwaltungsgerichte-a-1048364.html

 

http://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/inland/asylklagen-an-verwaltungsgerichten-auf-hoechststand-13755084.html

[Nungali]

1.  Well, no person in the west ever got uppity and found a loophole and sued someone needlessly did they ?   

 

2. What are they supposed to do ?   We say, you come here , you follow our rules - they feel frustrated, they aren't supposed to cause havoc. break the law,  if they demonstrated they would be poo-pooed on as well ... thats what we are supposed to do in our 'civilised countries' - get the courts to sort things out  and sue people instead of taking things into our own hands.  

 

3. Of course its 'wrong action' but they come from a space of being fucked up .... of course Germany didnt do exactly the right thing ... how could they  ... its a fucked up situation 

 

and in such a FU situation no one is going to come along with a golden band aid and fix everything for everybody. 

 

and its all a mess because we didnt fix up the last blow out properly ... because we didnt fix the blow out before that properly, because of how we  'fixed ' the blow out of WWII, which happened because we didnt fix the  .....  

 

and it progressively  builds up  , compounded with population increase, utilizing more and more of our limited resources, abusing the people and environment more and more ...  

[redcairo]

Did the OP read the story?

 

These are not people complaining because they don't have enough TV's.

 

They have no food, no shelter, winter is coming in, and they are in front of many more people in their situation (who would be helped by resolution also). This includes children.

 

No country should let anybody in if they're going to literally make them lay there and freeze hungry on the sidewalk. That is ridiculous. They have a perfect right to use the systems that the country has already put in place for trying to bring attention to the problem, to bring attention to it. That doesn't make them bad guys, it makes them people trying to defend themselves and their people from a horrible situation.

 

I would also like to mention that they came from the middle east and it's near Winter in Germany. I moved from southern coastal California to Connecticut one Winter and thought I was gonna die, the climate change was so hard on my body. So their shelter situation probably seems even more traumatic.

 

Edited to add: I suspect the reality is that Germany is just having their own internal problems. The higher-up politicians want to take in more and more people, but those who have to care for and provide resources for those people are being overwhelmed, and the immigrants are basically trapped in the middle of the internal country's dispute.

Edited January 16, 2016 by redcairo

[Karl]

Of course the 'country' did not let them in.(love these equivocations). Governments let them in and the Government earns no money itself, it sponges off its producers and then expects the producers to pay for the Goverments false altruism.

 

Funny how easy it is to spend other people's money and do great charitable works with the proceeds. Simultaneously the cost of suing the Government falls on the producers. The cost of the war in the Middle East falls on the producers. Not to forget the cost of all the extra Policing, integration, sex attacks, crime and its attendant costs all falls on the producers.

 

All the producers did was to vote in an election in which they were powerless to decide any issues and then they paid for all the costs.

Edited January 16, 2016 by Karl

[redcairo]

 

> Government earns no money itself, it sponges off its producers and then expects the producers to pay for the Goverments false altruism.

 

Yes, government is an emergent-property identity -- as are humans as we know them, IMO -- which is supported by its aspects since itself, it exists solely for the purpose of centralized decision.

 

'Producers' by which I assume you mean citizens or the humans inside a country, everything fundamentally is theirs to build or break; only the decisIons lay with the layer above.

 

As for false altruism, I do think there is clear disconnect between leadership and reality always but moreso over time and especially in politics, but I see that as pretty common in most countries especially those most prosperous -- where the leaders allegedly attempt to maintain the 'ideal' the people allegedly believe in, but eventually the friction between the ivory-tower ideals and the street-tough reality start heating up, friction, eventually some kind of change. 

 

Oppression usually comes first. That dynamic once told me in a meditation that 'breaking' was basically intrinsic to it -- that oppression always led to breaking, for one side or another, or in one way or another.

 

> Of course the 'country' did not let them in.(love these equivocations).

 

It's ordinary conversation. That is the accepted model of presenting it. Government does act 'on behalf of' an entire country of people so technically what they decide is what "the country" decides to the outer-world.

[Marblehead]

I complain about government enough as it is.  I think I will stay out of this one.  But I'm enjoying the perspectives.

[Karl]

 

> Government earns no money itself, it sponges off its producers and then expects the producers to pay for the Goverments false altruism.

 

Yes, government is an emergent-property identity -- as are humans as we know them, IMO -- which is supported by its aspects since itself, it exists solely for the purpose of centralized decision.

 

'Producers' by which I assume you mean citizens or the humans inside a country, everything fundamentally is theirs to build or break; only the decisIons lay with the layer above.

 

As for false altruism, I do think there is clear disconnect between leadership and reality always but moreso over time and especially in politics, but I see that as pretty common in most countries especially those most prosperous -- where the leaders allegedly attempt to maintain the 'ideal' the people allegedly believe in, but eventually the friction between the ivory-tower ideals and the street-tough reality start heating up, friction, eventually some kind of change. 

 

Oppression usually comes first. That dynamic once told me in a meditation that 'breaking' was basically intrinsic to it -- that oppression always led to breaking, for one side or another, or in one way or another.

 

> Of course the 'country' did not let them in.(love these equivocations).

 

It's ordinary conversation. That is the accepted model of presenting it. Government does act 'on behalf of' an entire country of people so technically what they decide is what "the country" decides to the outer-world.

 

Well we haven't agreed on 'centralised decision making'. Governments began because we need a central authority which has a monopoly of force by agreement. The reason they have this is to protect the private property and person of each and every person that has agreed to Government being granted that authority. That's all. They are supposed to uphold the law and prevent the initiation of force, and to arbitrate where the law has been broken and apply justice for the injured party.

 

The moment the Government imposes progressive taxation, welfare states, business regulation, anti discrimination laws, fixing prices, blanket surveillance, control of a monopoly fiat, refugees on the people, it has engaged in the initiation of force against its people. It has given up its mandate and turned into a tyranny.

 

If people wish to come to a country to settle, to be a productive, independent, law abiding citizen then that's fine. It is quite another thing for the Government to force on the population a large group of refugees and then expect the population to pay for them. If voluntary, charitable organisations within a country wish to home, feed or otherwise help refugees to establish themselves as independent, law abiding, productive citizens, then that is fine. The people who voluntary subscribe to these charities do so for the specific reason of supporting refugees/homeless or whatever. No one is forced to pay in the sense that a 'country' must take in refugees as some form of duty/punishment.

 

It's no more acceptable than me walking into your house and demanding to be sheltered, fed and looked after because I say it's your duty to do so and if that if you refuse, then you will be thrown in prison.

 

It's not even our duty to do anything about refugees if our Governments perform their duty of defence and bomb flat an aggressor country. We gain nothing by defence and we have no duty to those people-innocent or not-who happen to live in that country.

[Karl]

I complain about government enough as it is.  I think I will stay out of this one.  But I'm enjoying the perspectives.

 

spectator huh ;-)

[Marblehead]

spectator huh ;-)

Yep.  I do that often when I think there is nothing useful I can add.

[Marblehead]

 It's no more acceptable than me walking into your house and demanding to be sheltered, fed and looked after because I say it's your duty to do so and if that if you refuse, then you will be thrown in prison.

You would have to pry my .12 gauge shotgun from my dead, stiff hands before you could do that.

[redcairo]

> Governments began because 

 

Won't dispute any of that. All a done deal no point to debating anyway (though I generally agree).

 

> If people wish to come to a country to settle, to be a productive, independent, law abiding citizen then that's fine. It is quite another thing for the Government to force on the population a large group of refugees and then expect the population to pay for them. 

 

I agree but I suppose part of me feels like "well then they shouldn't have a socialist government," but even most the capitalist governments are so infested with socialism at this point there's probably no getting around that. Any situation where the people have agreed to let the government decide who is supported with the money a limited set of people earn is going to lead to that. Maybe they're war refugees in the popular-now but they're illegal immigrants or other "supported" people in other situations.

 

I'm not actually for letting people starve in the streets -- my capitalism doesn't extend nearly that far (or rather, I believe in a heavy social side to things that is NOT from government but sadly doesn't seem to exist without it, as if humans cannot organize themselves to do what is appropriate without some parental force, so it ends up in government which is an inappropriate mess as a result) -- but I do agree that each 'country' (yes I am using that as an Entity again) should decide "who" it's going to host and especially pay to feed.

 

Apparently in Europe that's "everyone."

 

In the US we take in a crazy number of people but through many different categories, and the whole thing is a study in incompetence in many areas -- there are literally up to 24 YEARS delay in 'processing' in some areas even when everything goes right (this to include getting children under 18 brought over to family, who may be young grandparents by the time they arrive!).

 

> No one is forced to pay in the sense that a 'country' must take in refugees as some form of duty/punishment. 

 

I agree that's the way it should be -- my argument so far to friends is we owe nobody anything but our own people, as tragic as any situation may be (as if tons of situations haven't been tragic for the last century). There is no cosmic law that says anybody 'has to' take in refugees. And we already DO take in so many people -- we actually take in a number that is way out of proportion to the % of our population compared to other countries.

 

But Europe is basically socialist, and even before this latest period had already made it clear they welcome immigration without clear numbers (or anything enforced it seems), so they got themselves into that mess. I feel sorry for their people. I totally see their point of view.

 

However that doesn't free one from observing that when people are let en masse INTO a place, then letting them starve and freeze with their children on the sidewalk while the people in-country vs. their government argue amongst themselves about what to do with them, is not a good situation either. They might have been better off shuffled back to the Long Walk to any place that would at the least keep them sheltered for the winter and fed. It is not their fault either. The time to decide whether people should be accepted is sometime prior to their actually starving on your sidewalk.

[Karl]

Yes, the time is prior, but the current situation is that nothing is yet being done to stop the flow, despite the obvious problems. To continue stuffing the countries with immigrants is negligent and irresponsible. Those that are already here will need looking after, it should be done by charities only and not through the conventional welfare system. It is not 'our' emergency, it is those who wish to take on the responsibility that have to put their productivity where their mouths are. That includes ALL politicians that were in agreement, their personal wealth and salaries should be utilised to help out.

 

One should not take the value of charitable effort if one does not actually contribute personally and accept that others may decide not to.m

Edited January 17, 2016 by Karl

[Marblehead]

 That includes ALL politicians that were in agreement, their personal wealth and salaries should be utilised to help out.

 

 

I'll be damned!!!  An Atheist expecting a miracle!!!

[Karl]

I'll be damned!!!  An Atheist expecting a miracle!!!

 

Heh heh I certainly don't expect it, but if there was any justice that is what should happen. Merkel is worth $11.5m at last count. That would be a good start to her taking responsibility for her own charitable concerns.

[redcairo]

Is there a place to store them like commodities in the meantime I wonder.

 

Saudi has a million-man tent city ready for living, but they haven't accepted any Syrians and are building a huge wall instead.

 

There's Gaza's situation where they had a place but just got hemmed in and pressured all around until its nothing but implosion.

 

The part I find frustrating is the inability to tell the difference between who is a current war refugee and who is just someone who wants to immigrate. 

 

I see photos of people with children who are looking terrified and helpless and gods, I want to help people like that. I have a back room. I don't have a lot of extra money. I'd still be willing to suffer some to help someone in that bad of a situation spend a few years learning the language and working on being able to get at least minimal work. (Although, if there are not drug/alcohol/etc. problems, I'd probably help a homeless veteran first, if I knew one. Charity starts at home, as my dad used to say.) But then everything else I see and read makes it sound like any given group of 'immigrants or refugees' is going to be this big consortium of people of whom those desperate war-refugees number only a few, and at best the others are just 'immigrants who want welfare' and at worst are Daesh infiltrators (which after recent publicized discoveries of them actually running the ID/bus centers in some areas seems sadly believable).

 

And it would sure be easier to boil it down and say, only send us women with underage children and if they are married, their mates, but we just had a woman with a six month old child go on a killing spree so WTF.

[Karl]

Cameron has made the point that we should take those only from the Syrian refugee camps on the border. These are the people who have neither the money, energy, or contacts to get out of the country. Then there are the persecuted Christian minorities that don't pose a threat to us.

[Marblehead]

Good point there about the Christian Arabs.  I would think that they would be the first one to receive assistance.  Afterall, they would be the first ones to be brutalized.

 

But then, that would require a rational decision by governments.  I may be asking for too much.

[Karl]

Good point there about the Christian Arabs. I would think that they would be the first one to receive assistance. Afterall, they would be the first ones to be brutalized.

 

But then, that would require a rational decision by governments. I may be asking for too much.

Rational government ? The very notion is absurd completely absurd.

Edited January 18, 2016 by Karl

[Apech]

How many more threads are we going to have on 'evil' asylum seekers?  You can bet some human rights organisation put them up to this anyway.  Everyone needs to calm down (and carry on).

[Karl]

How many more threads are we going to have on 'evil' asylum seekers?  You can bet some human rights organisation put them up to this anyway.  Everyone needs to calm down (and carry on).

 

Evil governments and refugees/immigrants.

[Apech]

Evil governments and refugees/immigrants.

 

 

Alright everybody's evil.

[Karl]

Alright everybody's evil.

 

I'm not.