this post was submitted on 22 Apr 2025
343 points (91.7% liked)
Europe
5646 readers
1404 users here now
News and information from Europe 🇪🇺
(Current banner: La Mancha, Spain. Feel free to post submissions for banner images.)
Rules (2024-08-30)
- This is an English-language community. Comments should be in English. Posts can link to non-English news sources when providing a full-text translation in the post description. Automated translations are fine, as long as they don't overly distort the content.
- No links to misinformation or commercial advertising. When you post outdated/historic articles, add the year of publication to the post title. Infographics must include a source and a year of creation; if possible, also provide a link to the source.
- Be kind to each other, and argue in good faith. Don't post direct insults nor disrespectful and condescending comments. Don't troll nor incite hatred. Don't look for novel argumentation strategies at Wikipedia's List of fallacies.
- No bigotry, sexism, racism, antisemitism, islamophobia, dehumanization of minorities, or glorification of National Socialism. We follow German law; don't question the statehood of Israel.
- Be the signal, not the noise: Strive to post insightful comments. Add "/s" when you're being sarcastic (and don't use it to break rule no. 3).
- If you link to paywalled information, please provide also a link to a freely available archived version. Alternatively, try to find a different source.
- Light-hearted content, memes, and posts about your European everyday belong in !yurop@lemm.ee. (They're cool, you should subscribe there too!)
- Don't evade bans. If we notice ban evasion, that will result in a permanent ban for all the accounts we can associate with you.
- No posts linking to speculative reporting about ongoing events with unclear backgrounds. Please wait at least 12 hours. (E.g., do not post breathless reporting on an ongoing terror attack.)
- Always provide context with posts: Don't post uncontextualized images or videos, and don't start discussions without giving some context first.
(This list may get expanded as necessary.)
Posts that link to the following sources will be removed
- on any topic: RT, news-pravda:com, GB News, Fox, Breitbart, Daily Caller, OAN, sociable:co, citjourno:com, brusselssignal:eu, europesays:com, geo-trends:eu, any AI slop sites (when in doubt please look for a credible imprint/about page), change:org (for privacy reasons)
- on Middle-East topics: Al Jazeera
- on Hungary: Euronews
Unless they're the only sources, please also avoid The Sun, Daily Mail, any "thinktank" type organization, and non-Lemmy social media. Don't link to Twitter directly, instead use xcancel.com. For Reddit, use old:reddit:com
(Lists may get expanded as necessary.)
Ban lengths, etc.
We will use some leeway to decide whether to remove a comment.
If need be, there are also bans: 3 days for lighter offenses, 7 or 14 days for bigger offenses, and permanent bans for people who don't show any willingness to participate productively. If we think the ban reason is obvious, we may not specifically write to you.
If you want to protest a removal or ban, feel free to write privately to any of the mods: @federalreverse@feddit.org, @poVoq@slrpnk.net, or @anzo@programming.dev.
founded 10 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
You’re misrepresenting their policies.
https://www.afd.de/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/2017-04-12_afd-grundsatzprogramm-englisch_web.pdf
Show me in there which policies you’re referring to please?
By mass deportation of foreigners do you mean illegal immigrants?
It seems like you’re fear mongering against the AfD based on things you think they might do simply because you believe they’re the second coming of the Nazis.
And again so you don’t take this the wrong way - if people in here were arguing for a “progressive” party to be taken off the ballot I’d be arguing against that and saying that they’re the ones being authoritarian fascists.
I am not. Their election program is misrepresenting their worldview to a degree. This is a legal strategy to avoid being too bannable by courts, nothing more. But look at quotes from influential people like Björn Höcke, Max Krah, Rene Aust, Lena Kotre or ...
In their words:
"We have to proceed very peacefully and deliberately, adapt if necessary and butter up the opponent, but when we're finally ready, we'll put them all up against the wall. (...) Dig a pit, get everyone in and put slaked lime on top."
Almost anyone who wants to claim asylum in Germany, needs to cross the border unlawfully, in their world view that makes people "illegal". The term is used to discredit people whether they ultimately gain asylum or a protection status or not.
So their policy documents etc are lies? Based on what? Verifiable proof would be great. What is being misrepresented in there exactly?
Can you provide some of these quotes that go against their policies and confirm what you’re saying they want to do?
Ok so you do mean illegal immigrants. Can someone apply for asylum in Germany without illegally entering the country? A quick google shows that that is what the AfD are proposing - asylum seekers apply before entering the country. Germany isn’t an island so that shouldn’t be too difficult, and seems reasonable. What is the issue with only people who are granted asylum being allowed in? Believe it or not, letting everyone in and then choosing who to deport leads to large number of people who are not granted asylum just staying illegally, as the current situation in the USA shows. 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.
If someone wants to rent my property I don’t let them stay in it while I process their application.
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.
I don't. People aren't "illegal", unless you dabble in dehumanizing language.
Not currently.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Way to argue in bad faith. People can be “illegal immigrants” which is what is being discussed. Illegal immigrants are immigrants that entered the country illegally. They broke the law. No one is saying a person is illegal. Thats the very definition of a bad faith argument, intentionally cherry picking words out of context and acting like they mean something that they don’t so you can attack them and/or the poster.
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. It’s giving them due process to enter the country rather than letting them in and then having to go through endless processes to remove them if they’re not granted asylum. It makes sense. It’s the smart thing to do. It fixes many issues with the current system. What rights do you think it takes away?
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? That “Maryland father”? “No priors” is also a lie. He broke the law, self admittedly, entering the country illegally. He didn’t show up to multiple court cases despite admitting he knew about them.
Like I said, your position is that all immigration should be legal. Thats a position alright, but it’s a very unpopular one that only the furthest of the far left advocate for. 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.
So you didn’t get the point that was being made, or you have no way to refute it?
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.
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.
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?
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.
Lol. "Like I said, your position is", even to you that wording should be cue.
Your experience as a landlord seemed irrelevant to the topic.
Shall we recap this discussion between the two of us?
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:
Immigration can and should be cut off at times. Here in Australia we have a massive housing crisis and cost of living crisis. We currently have all time high levels of immigration at a time when we have a housing crisis with homelessness skyrocketing. We literally cannot house the people we have, and most of the population can’t afford to buy a house because the demand far outstrips the supply which has caused house pricing to explode.
The absolute best thing we could do at the moment is to cut immigration until we can get the housing crisis under control. What good does importing another million people a year do when we have nowhere to put them?
“Illegal immigrants” is not “derogatory”, it is a factual description. They broke the law to enter the country. They are in the country illegally. They are an immigrant. Illegal immigrant. This is how language works.
Bad faith? Having people apply for asylum before entering a country is a bad faith argument? Think about what is being proposed. Someone wants to get asylum in Germany. Before entering Germany they apply for asylum. They could do that from their home in the country they’re wanting asylum from. They could do it from any other country. The AfD is just saying “don’t enter our country illegally and then ask if you can come in - ask first”, which is fair because once they’re in the country there are people who will say they should not be allowed to be deported - like you. You’re making up the existence of these “offshore internment camps” in this situation.
No, it’s the one where a bunch of room temperature IQ people thought that the annotations describing what each of the tattoos stood for were being presented as tattoos.
The US government wants to deport people who are in the country illegally. That’s the “profile”. Not a single citizen has been deported so far. Deportations are a great tool for deporting illegal immigrants. This isn’t really debatable.
Ok so you just didn’t get the point. I’ll explain it again:
Someone entering my house without being invited in is illegal entry. I offer a way for people to enter my house legally, a rental application. When someone applies to rent my house, I don’t let them move in while I review their application, because then if I chose not to accept their application they’re already in my house and I have to jump through all sorts of legal issues to get them out. Out of a place that they should not be. Instead what I do is review their application while they live in their current house, and if successful I let them move in.
Does that help?
All of your “they want to do x/y/z because they’re too woke” stuff - what actually are their policies? Do you mean that they want to defund government funded media who push certain ideologies and implement certain policies like DEI?
The “remove the outmoded political party system” seems like something most of the far left want to do doesn’t it?
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.
For who and for what? Going to have to be more specific if you want me to respond.
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.
The “fuck up the environment” one is - without knowing their policy - I’m guessing about “renewables”?
Here in Australia more and more people are realising that our “100% renewables” power plan is a complete shit show and is anything but “renewable” and will cause greater long term damage. More and more people want nuclear because it’s cheaper, cleaner, and doesn’t require the endless resources and space that “renewables” do. Our power prices have skyrocketed to some of the highest in the world the more we shift to “renewables”. Our government still refuses to tell us how much the total projected cost of the “renewables” plan is, with some estimates putting it in the trillions of dollars realm.
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.