German parliament decides to classify 3 Arab countries "save place of origin"

German guy said:

Yeah, and I have no idea what kind of theory that could be. Which is why it is very hard for me to have a clear opinion on this topic, except that it's safe to say that people in real distress have priority over economic migrants, and that minimizing the numbers is favorable in this situation we're in today.

So maybe you can help me by explaining what kind of theory you have in mind?

Click to expand...

Thing is that those"under real distress" might or might not be under greater threat of death or whatever than those pursued. Why would you save the fellow fearing torture more willingly than the little girl faced with rape and starvation after being disgraced?

Chagos said:

How about laws, charters and conventions that a country has signed up to?

Click to expand...

That could be an uninformed reasoning. But why were the contracts signed and why maintained?

Chagos said:

Why don't you just simply state what you're wishing to get at here or get off the pot?

Click to expand...

I did.

joG said:

Thing is that those"under real distress" might or might not be under greater threat of death or whatever than those pursued. Why would you save the fellow fearing torture more willingly than the little girl faced with rape and starvation after being disgraced?

Click to expand...

Well, as Chagos said, what exactly defines "real distress" is certainly defined well enough in various treaties, charters and conventions. I'm no expert enough to take a position on every detail, and guess that to some extent, these definitions will necessarily be arbitrary to some extent. But certainly the fact you cannot help everybody can't be an excuse for helping nobody ...?

German guy said:

Well, as Chagos said, what exactly defines "real distress" is certainly defined well enough in various treaties, charters and conventions. I'm no expert enough to take a position on every detail, and guess that to some extent, these definitions will necessarily be arbitrary to some extent. But certainly the fact you cannot help everybody can't be an excuse for helping nobody ...?

Click to expand...

The thing is that it might be intelligent to understand the why in the treaties and understand the reasoning. Just saying it is important is rather Kindergärter Niveau.

joG said:

The thing is that it might be intelligent to understand the why in the treaties and understand the reasoning. Just saying it is important is rather Kindergärter Niveau.

Click to expand...

Why do you have to be so pompous and arrogant all of a sudden?

I'm just asking questions, and you have refused to give a clear answer to any of them.

So, Mr. Intelligent, when you're so smart, why don't you enlighten all of us imbecile kindergarten children here and bring us the enlightenment of your wisdom? Please explain in clear words why you think there treaties are, and what the reasoning behind them really is ... but please in simple words, we imbeciles might fail to understand you otherwise.

German guy said:

Why do you have to be so pompous and arrogant all of a sudden?

I'm just asking questions, and you have refused to give a clear answer to any of them.

So, Mr. Intelligent, when you're so smart, why don't you enlighten all of us imbecile kindergarten children here and bring us the enlightenment of your wisdom? Please explain in clear words why you think there treaties are, and what the reasoning behind them really is ... but please in simple words, we imbeciles might fail to understand you otherwise.

Click to expand...

It is simple. Using the treaty as an explanation only indicates one does not know, what the explanation is, but wants to act as though one had a real reason.

joG said:

It is simple. Using the treaty as an explanation only indicates one does not know, what the explanation is, but wants to act as though one had a real reason.

Click to expand...

So...................

The implication seems to lead to you knowing and the rest of us being simply stupid.

So why not share your profound wisdom with us?

Or, as already suggested, get off the effing pot. :roll:

P.S. It's Kindergärtner BTW and in German you need to either use a hyphen in this instance or write the whole thing in one word.

Chagos said:

Actually they just fished around 900 Syrians (in two boats) out of the Med yesterday. They'd embarked in Egypt and were (as used to be the case in the past) heading for Italy, largely complete families with kids.

Just a few weeks ago hundreds downed on the same route (Eritreans and Somalis) when their boat sank.

The summer will bring more of those on the same route and the heat (no pun intended) will shift from Greece back to Italy like before.

Of course there's also always the possibility of the EU-Turkey deal falling flat and Erdogan letting them embark in droves again to get to Greece.

Click to expand...

Boatloads of misery.

Chagos said:

So...................

The implication seems to lead to you knowing and the rest of us being simply stupid.

So why not share your profound wisdom with us?

Or, as already suggested, get off the effing pot. :roll:

P.S. It's Kindergärtner BTW and in German you need to either use a hyphen in this instance or write the whole thing in one word.

Click to expand...

I was just fed up with the implication of throwing a Convention in my face. Of course, I have read the relevant Conventions and treaties. I would not be talking about this topic, if I hadn't. And to imply that my argument was based on ignorance of the basics is not only condescending but outright insulting. That is why I reacted to German that way.
But you aren't stupid. If you thought about it, you would quickly notice that to say that helping is good, because it is in a charter or agreement to do so is not smart. We should not do things because they are "good". We should act because it makes sense. It is only an alibi statement and an attempt to make a point without the reasoning to argue that it is in the Contract, when it is the contract that is the problem. For if there is a contract, there is a reason that the people negotiated and entered it. So the reason to treat prisoners well, for instance, is not that it is formulated in a Convention in Geneva. It is so that the other side will treat our sons and daughters well in reciprocity.

PS: I am trilingual with a smattering of three further languages. So yes I know how to spell kindergarten, but do not check texts on my mobile very closely.

joG said:

I was just fed up with the implication of throwing a Convention in my face. Of course, I have read the relevant Conventions and treaties. I would not be talking about this topic, if I hadn't. And to imply that my argument was based on ignorance of the basics is not only condescending but outright insulting. That is why I reacted to German that way.

Click to expand...

If you go back and read you'll find that I was the one bringing up conventions (not German guy). If you want to take that as insinuation of your ignorance, be my guest. Fact is the condescendingly annoying tone (or annoyingly condescending tone, if you prefer) was set by you well before that.

Since you have the language you're no doubt familiar with the phrase "So wie man in den Wald hineinruft schallt es auch heraus". (implying that one shouldn't complain about the "echo").

But you aren't stupid. If you thought about it, you would quickly notice that to say that helping is good, because it is in a charter or agreement to do so is not smart. We should not do things because they are "good". We should act because it makes sense. It is only an alibi statement and an attempt to make a point without the reasoning to argue that it is in the Contract, when it is the contract that is the problem. For if there is a contract, there is a reason that the people negotiated and entered it.

Click to expand...

Yeah and that reason most often defined as the way to act is "good". Anyone familiar with "the categoric imperative" thus doesn't need to go into semantics the way you're doing.

So the reason to treat prisoners well, for instance, is not that it is formulated in a Convention in Geneva. It is so that the other side will treat our sons and daughters well in reciprocity.

Click to expand...

Well, that's what the whole bloody Geneva convention is about, isn't it?

What's the matter wiv' ya?

PS: I am trilingual with a smattering of three further languages. So yes I know how to spell kindergarten, but do not check texts on my mobile very closely.

Click to expand...

Most any Anglo knows how to spell kindergarten. It's when it comes to correctly spell the gardener in the same language that your "linguality" should have made for better results.

Chagos said:

If you go back and read you'll find that I was the one bringing up conventions (not German guy). If you want to take that as insinuation of your ignorance, be my guest. Fact is the condescendingly annoying tone (or annoyingly condescending tone, if you prefer) was set by you well before that.

Since you have the language you're no doubt familiar with the phrase "So wie man in den Wald hineinruft schallt es auch heraus". (implying that one shouldn't complain about the "echo").
Yeah and that reason most often defined as the way to act is "good". Anyone familiar with "the categoric imperative" thus doesn't need to go into semantics the way you're doing.Well, that's what the whole bloody Geneva convention is about, isn't it?

What's the matter wiv' ya?
Most any Anglo knows how to spell kindergarten. It's when it comes to correctly spell the gardener in the same language that your "linguality" should have made for better results.

Click to expand...

Yes, you are right. Complaining about an echo is silly. But, when one finds that it distorts in an unappetizing way, you just don't talk in that direction anymore.

joG said:

Yes, you are right. Complaining about an echo is silly. But, when one finds that it distorts in an unappetizing way, you just don't talk in that direction anymore.

Click to expand...

Actually echo doesn't distort to the extent of completely changing what one shouted. So if one's abrasive stance comes back abrasive, it's more prudent to adjust the stance rather than find the return unappetizing.

I personally don't mind getting abrasive myself. If that gets an abrasive retort I expect it and don't go into a huff about it.

PeteEU said:

About time... just need more countries on that list. Sweden also has to follow asap. The differences in rules around the EU means these criminal economic migrants are "asylum shopping". One of the worst has been Germany up to now.

Just because your country is a ****hole, does not mean that you should be allowed into the EU.

Click to expand...

Tunisia wasn´t safe for this guy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohamed_Brahmi

But more to the point shouldnt this be decided on the basis of individual cases not decided by country. Mexico may be safe, in relative terms, for many of those living there but if you are a journalist who has just published something that could get you killed then it is an entirely different kettle of fish.

Red_Dave said:

Tunisia wasn´t safe for this guy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohamed_Brahmi

But more to the point shouldnt this be decided on the basis of individual cases not decided by country. Mexico may be safe, in relative terms, for many of those living there but if you are a journalist who has just published something that could get you killed then it is an entirely different kettle of fish.

Click to expand...

And? You are saying that because one person was assassinated in Tunisia, then the whole country is unsafe? You do know how many countries would fall under that condition? Lets start with Italy, Germany, France, UK, US, .. the list goes on and on.

And it should be done preliminary at least. Egypt is a safe place, as is Tunisia, Morocco and Algeria. Anyone seeking asylum in Europe are economic migrants and need to be kicked out. Same goes for most of Africa and yes including Somalia. Like it or not, large parts of Somalia, aka Northern Somalia is very safe.

PeteEU said:

And? You are saying that because one person was assassinated in Tunisia, then the whole country is unsafe?

Click to expand...

For some yes, hence why it should be worked out on a case by case basis I.E The way that asylum is actually supposed to work everywhere else in the world.

Red_Dave said:

For some yes, hence why it should be worked out on a case by case basis I.E The way that asylum is actually supposed to work everywhere else in the world.

Click to expand...

It does work that way... you do get a case by case evaluation. However coming from a certain countries will not automatically give you a leg up.

For example... a person coming from the US, can apply for asylum. The request will be evaluated according to international law, but because it is an American from the US wanting the asylum, then the nationality and home country wont factor in as a positive in the evaluation.

This is what has changed for these north African countries. They have joined the US and others. Can their citizens be granted asylum? Of course they can, but not defacto because they come from said nation... unlike the Syrians who are defacto granted asylum because they are Syrians.