4d ago

AfD is the most popular party in Germany for the first time, with a record 26%

Germany @europe.pub

tfm @europe.pub

4d ago

Show Context

273 comments

So their policy documents etc are lies? Based on what?
Their policy documents are half-truths that point in a direction, their speeches in front of followers are often more to the point.
And these quote collections are really all over the German-language interwebs, e.g. https://www.watson.ch/international/rechtsextremismus/291420759-rechtsextremismus-in-der-afd-diese-21-zitate-sprechen-fuer-sich
And guess what kind of materials court proceedings against Afd would be based on? Quotes and overheard conversations.
Ok so you do mean illegal immigrants.
I don't. People aren't "illegal", unless you dabble in dehumanizing language.
Can someone apply for asylum in Germany without illegally entering the country?
Not currently.
A quick google shows that that is what the AfD are proposing - asylum seekers apply before entering the country.
It's a fairly transparent proposal to remove the rights of asylum seekers for any kind of due process and remove any kind of oversight. Regular German judges, lawyers, civil-rights organizations will all be far away.
Some private operator will get rich off running an internment camp. An airline will get rich off the flights there.
"The refugee doesn't care at which border he dies, whether it's the Greek or German one." - Günter Lenhardt, AfD
Germany isn’t an island so that shouldn’t be too difficult, and seems reasonable.
Germany is part of the EU, Germany is part of the Schengen agreement that is supposed to guarantee free movement within Europe, and Germany should help the EU as a whole succeed. The latter includes integrating refugees into the society.
large number of people who are not granted asylum just staying illegally, as the current situation in the USA shows.
How do people that just live and go to work hurt the system? (I.e. the vastest majority of undocumented and overstaying immigrants in the US.)
The US is currently doing a bang-up job deporting family father of 3 with no priors while not getting ahold of people who actually are criminal. (Iirc, 90% of the nameless, supposed "worst of the worst" gang members recently deported from the US had no priors.)
Normally, law enforcement capacity is scarce and normally, you should prioritize the cases that actually hurt society.
Incidentally, on a much smaller scale, so is Germany: Deporting the easy people, the people who show up to appointments and live at their registered place of residence.
They try to deport illegals who have lived there for 13+ years without even attempting to get asylum, and everyone blows up at them saying they should just leave them alone.
Possibly because these people likely are a net positive to society, have built a life, have friends, have integrated to a degree, just normal humaning.
If someone wants to rent my property I don’t let them stay in it while I process their application.
Cool story.
- Ok so you basically want unregulated immigration and think that any attempts to stop it is nazi-adjacent, or just straight up nazi behaviour.
  Nice strawman! Where did you buy it? I usually get mine at Aldi's, but I've recently wondered whether I should switch up.
  On a more serious note: Of course, immigration should be controlled. It should not be cut off though.
  Way to argue in bad faith. People can be “illegal immigrants” which is what is being discussed.
  Absolutely in good faith. There's a reason why the phrasing "illegal immigrant" was coined: It's a derogatory term to criminalize people who are usually fleeing their home countries. And often enough, it's even shortened to "illegals", making the intended dehumanization even more obvious.
  Making a process for asylum seekers to get approval to enter the country before entering the country isn’t “removing rights of asylum seekers for due process” in any way.
  Now that's a bad-faith argument! Again, that process usually centers around "welcome centers" or whatever the euphemism du jour is, in other words: offshored internment camps. I suspect there may be reasons why Italy's Albanian camp project and the UK's Rwandan camp project were each struck down by courts multiple times. Notably, cost projection for both of these were rather interesting too. But gotta make someone rich in the process, right?
  You mean the MS-13 gang member who has lived in the country illegally for 13 years without any attempt to become a legal citizen, who had twice been ordered to be deported back to his home country, where he now is?
  Don't know the specific case; is that the case with the photoshopped knuckle tattoo though?
  In any case, I was referring the sort of average profile of a person that ends up getting deported. Statistically, the chances of the deported being violent criminals is becoming much lower, the higher the number of deportations. And that's pretty logical: most people are not actually criminal, and if you're just deporting to juice the stats, you'll obviously deport the people you can arrest easily. Deportations are a shit tool if your goal is justice or safety, and they are extremely easy to abuse.
  I know someone who was nearly deported and who does live in constant fear of deportation. They are not allowed to take a job, are completely dependent on the welfare, they feel absolutely miserable all the time, and they are certainly not a career criminal.
  Like I said, your position is that all immigration should be legal.
  Lol. "Like I said, your position is", even to you that wording should be cue.
  Cool story
  So you didn’t get the point that was being made, or you have no way to refute it?
  Your experience as a landlord seemed irrelevant to the topic.
  It’s no wonder why you claim that a party who want to control immigration are Nazis and should be banned from becoming too popular.
  Shall we recap this discussion between the two of us?
  You called people who are in favor of disbanding the Afd party "nazis" and "fascists".
  I named a number of policy positions held by this party and its representatives that are in fact putting them fairly close to historic Nazism.
  I asked whether these sorts of positions were positions that could reasonably be called democratic.
  You claimed that your comment was being distorted by my listing of their policy. (Also that you were being called a nazi. Actually, where?)
  When we were done with that, you picked one of the policy items and tried to disect it.
  We've been conversing about the finer legal details of pointlessly hurting and, in effect, often killing, people since.
  Now you feel you've reduced ad absurdo enough and built yourself a few strawmen.
  You claim that I am a nazi (capital N?).
  I'd still love to know, what you think of the positions that I wrote up above. Just take them at face value. Are those positions of a normal democratic party that should remain allowed?
  I am copying what I wrote above again:
  the people who want everyone with the wrong kind of mustache to be deported, who want citizenships revoked, who want to "remove the outmoded political party system", who are already obstructing the judicial system in Thuringia, who want to defund public media because it's "too woke", who want to gut universities because they are "too woke", who want to fuck up the environment because - guess what - also "woke", and who want to overthrow the constitutional order
  
  I've actually bolded the one thing I still would like to see you answer in my above comment. Stop beating around the bush.
  
  Was in the process of editing answers/questions down the bottom of my post.
  
  Targetting dual citizenship holders first who are deemed criminals. If I had wild guess, criminals means supermarket thieves as much as climate protesters. But who knows what the end result may look like.
  Fun side note: The German constitution does not allow the state to revoke citizenships unilaterally. The reason for that is that it was one the things that the historical Nazis used to legal-wash removing parts of the population. You know, just like the German constitution includes the right to asylum, specifically because so many countries refused to take in refugees from Germany in the Nazi era.
  
  So you're just saying that I lie because of ... what? I made an informed guess on who would ultimately likely be affected, the rest of it is part of discussions [de]. And as gonservatives like to copy fascists these days, adding some form of it to the coalition treaty [de] was in fact discussed (but luckily not included in the final treaty).
  To change the constitution, you only need a 2/3 majority in parliament and 2/3 in the council of states. But that's not even the point — the point is that there are political forces who want to do away with provisions in the constitution that were specifically created because of Germany's past.
  
  It appears you absolutely don't understand modern democratic societies or what they're good for, i.e. giving every one of their members a livable, just, free, safe life. That's why e.g., there are equal rights in modern democracies, including for minorities.
  You're somehow equivocating "democracy" with a "dictatorship of the majority". That is, frankly, incredibly uneducated at best.
  You even advocate for the option that modern societies should simply be allowed to regress into slaveholder societies. Why? How is this congruent with allowing everyone decent quality of life? And if 75% of the populace decided that you have to become a slave, would you find this just? Would you go along with it?
  the size of which has never been seen before.
  Man, you seem scarily enthusiastic at the prospect. But no, fascism doesn't win landslides. In a deeply polarized society with an FPTP system, Trump won just 53%. In the richer party landscape of Germany, AfD is below 30%. The way fascism wins is not with landslides but through the undermining of democratic society.
  
  So, for one, no it's obviously not just about renewables. It's about enabling environmental abuse of whatever sort. You can literally look at Trump in many ways. Afd is, in large part, propped by the same people as he is. Elmo even spoke at their party convention.
  And nuclear is not cheap. The only reason why people think that is that usually the cost of building plants as well as the cost of insurance is subsidized somehow, and the cost of final storage for 100k+ years is a complete unknown. It doesn't even make sense to even think about final storage in economic terms, because who knows what people are capable of in 100k years. But when a nuclear plant is built, and has been humming along for a couple years, people start to think it's cheap because they fail to see either end of the process. Cheap nuclear is a mirage.
  Solar and wind actually are cheap, can be rolled out decentrally, don't require consumables, but you have to deal with their intermittency.
  Also, you have delved again into yet more topics. Which certainly is a fun distraction.
  
  Are you going to just keep removing all of my comments that you disagree with and say “bad faith”? Funny that you removed ones where I asked someone if they just want a dictatorship of their preferred party and they literally said “yes” as “bad faith” lol
  
  Yes, I removed many of your comments from other threads. In case you're wondering, yes, I did notice you're not arguing in good faith in this thread either.
  
  So when you're trying to force me into ever smaller sub-discussions just to not have to give an answer, ignore any bit of information you can't use in a retort, set up the strawman about "uncontrolled migration", added the completely misguided landlord metaphor, or the misinfo about mining and recycling needed for renewables infrastructure – that was all in good faith?
  We may have different definitions of "good", I suppose.

273 comments