That’s what the courts will determine now, I guess.
And while Staatsräson itself might not be a meaningful legal category, chanting for the elimination of Israel’s existence can already be punishable within the existing StGB, even without the currently discussed additions to it to explicitly punish calls for the elimination of nations.
Sorry, I read your initial sentence as in ‘deporting someone who hasn’t been convicted of a crime’.
Still now, half a century later, people in my country of birth remain quite sensitive and easilly alarmed by practices of those in power which are similar to the kind of things that those in power in the Fascist regime would do (for example, things like civil society surveillance).
I expect exactly the same from Germans, maybe just less of it since their Fascist days have been gone for longer
That’s something we also thought for a long time, that we are kind of bulletproof to something like this ever happening again.
The problem/main difference to your country: yes, it’s been longer ago, but also, we had reunification, where two very different places became one and defacto a large population living in a socialist dictatorship for decades had to integrate into fully-running country of the former ‘class enemy’. This rift still isn’t fully closed and it is something you won’t find in most other countries. This lead to a smaller degree of cohesion and a larger portion of people having difficulties to identify with our national architecture.
Furthermore, the people nowadays are way more influenced by the events of the German Partition and its aftermath than the Third Reich. And even there, those that themselves experienced mass surveillance and living in a state of injustice now seem to have no problems expanding surveillance and again oppressing the enemies, as long as it’s not them. In the end, people, irrespective of their nationality, can have a very short memory.
It is part of the German ‘reason of State’, as also mentioned in the article. Hence, denying Israel it’s existence is a very very bad idea in Germany.
if we continue compromising on both human rights-based asylum as well as on educational/professional migration.
Having the means of deporting isn’t what I would call compromising both of these. Especially in the case at hand, where it isn’t about human rights-based asylum at all.
cannot be giving in to irrational demands gradually.
I wouldn’t call having the means of deporting irrational either. It also isn’t anything new, introduced under the pressure of the AfD for example, but always been a part of the asylum mechanisms that states reserved the opportunity to restrict it. Therefore, instead of fundamentally opposing something that always existed, I’d hence rather ensure that this restriction is protected from abuse.
There’s no way calling for an end to a genocide (or even a war) is sufficient reason
Denying Israel it’s existence can be a sufficient reason. But we both are merely guessing, since we all do not know what actually happened/was said.
especially people in Germany.
Why Germany especially? So far, every state of injustice declared legal whatever they wanted to do, be it Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Putin,… or even the US, where you once could legally own people.
And of course there is always room for discussion whether things that are legal should be legal. Or illegal. But the chances of that having an effect on those four people here are rather slim.
The TFEU has a provision in section 45 that allows member states to limit this freedom, e.g. for security reasons. It will be up to a court to rule whether a sufficient reason was present in these cases, but a state can legally strip you of these rights.
I do think we’d do well to question whether a deportation system makes sense overall.
To regularly question the applied mechanisms in our society is something I’d also agree to. Also, I acknowledge the hardships deportations can impose, hence I think it is a tool that should only be used with consideration and absolutely not in the way e.g. the AfD wants to use it.
I also absolutely agree with you that we are dependent on immigration and also immensely benefit from it. But I also think that in order for something like our immigration system to retain the trust of the people and to function properly, it must have the possibility to be a ‘breathing’ system instead of a one way-only. That means also having the tool to have people leave again. Trying to abolish the rights to hospitality for a host entirely will only see the people flock to those parties that seek to detonate the migration system as a whole.
And I guess we both agree that this would be the worst outcome of all.
The call for deportations comes from exactly one extreme side of political world views.
While I agree with you that especially the AfD is keen on deportations in a scale as big as possible, wouldn’t you agree that a system that allows for - please excuse the technical terms - inflow must also have a mechanism of outflow? I.e. deportations in itself are a ‘necessary evil’?
who havent been committed of any crimes is very legally dubious.
TBF: as the article states, under German law it is not. Whether that is a good idea can surely be debated, but it is legal.
The article is borderline.
Yes, there is a very apparent spin. There is much emphasis on the facts that “almost none” of the allegations have been brought before a criminal court and no-one of them has been convicted, while only a few lines earlier/later also stating that a conviction is not needed for a deportation under German migration law (but it also isn’t a free-for-all for the state and that proportionality has to be observed!).
Hence, should the state decide to deport them, this is something they would do instead of charging them before court.
Some of the allegations are minor. Two, for example, are accused of calling a police officer “fascist” — insulting an officer, which is a crime.
Well, calling a member of the German state apparatus a “fascist” is not only - for obvious reasons - a very dumb idea but also something I - and especially them - wouldn’t necessarily consider “minor”. Also, it is, despite long existing layman’s opinions, not a crime to insult an officer, but to insult a person. It is as punishable insulting an officer as anybody else.
Because in this world, it is better not to be alone.
You might want to work on your tone. Check rules 3 & 5.
This is the discussion you chose to chime in on:
Article titled: Is it Time for a German Nuclear Bomb?
User A: Everyone seems so willing to break the Non Proliferation Treaty nowadays, it’s scary
User B, citing Everyone seems so willing to break the Non Proliferation Treaty nowadays, it’s scary: Non-Proliferation is based on the promise of nuclear powers to defend those who don’t have nukes. Since this promise is out of the window thanks to Trump, proliferation is the logical consequence.
To which you chose to add, citing this promise is out of the window thanks to Trump,:
*George W Bush (and Israel in general).
Given the topic of the article (Germany) and, as mentioned by User A, the currently emerging willingsness of everyone to break the Non Proliferation Treaty, I wonder where you see the connection to “George W Bush (and Israel in general)” rather than Trump’s actions that without a doubt are the source for these considerations in a country such as Germany, which, again, is the topic of this article. Maybe you can elaborate it a bit more.
This is an article about a potential German nuclear bomb. Germany is a NATO country which so far has been provided with US nukes within the framework of nuclear sharing. The only reason for the sudden ambitions for own nukes for Germany, but also eg Scandinavia, is directly linked to the apparent unreliability of Trump’s US in terms of said nuclear sharing and hence especially a concern for non-nuclear NATO members.
What does Israel have to do with the problem of non-nuclear NATO nations no longer being able to rely on the US’ promise to defend them with their nukes?
What study would that be?
Doubtful, given Trump’s displayed reluctance to honour a defence treaty.
Everyone seems so willing to break the Non Proliferation Treaty nowadays, it’s scary
Non-Proliferation is based on the promise of nuclear powers to defend those who don’t have nukes. Since this promise is out of the window thanks to Trump, proliferation is the logical consequence.
This is how NOT to do it.