Germania. 54.1% non vuole i migranti.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-05-05.

La Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung (FES) – Foundation for Social Democracy! è la mente pensante della socialdemocrazia tedesca.

«The Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung (FES) is the oldest political foundation in Germany with a rich tradition in social democracy dating back to its foundation in 1925. The foundation owes its formation and its mission to the political legacy of its namesake Friedrich Ebert, the first democratically elected German President.

The work of our political foundation focuses on the core ideas and values of social democracy – freedom, justice and solidarity. This connects us to social democracy and free trade unions. As a non-profit institution, we organise our work autonomously and independently.»

Similmente, il Deutsche Welle è l’organo di stampa della socialdemocrazia: usualmente assume posizioni così di sinistra da far sembrare Lenin un agit-prop del capitalismo selvaggio.

* * * * * * *

Si resta quindi stupefati a leggere dapprima il titolo e quindi l’articolo:

Germans increasingly hostile towards asylum-seekers.

Il titolo del The New York Times è eloquente:, e sembrerebbe quasi uscito in contemporanea.

Study Finds Germans Increasingly Hostile to Asylum-Seekers

«BERLIN — A study has found that Germans are increasingly hostile toward asylum-seekers, whereas prejudices toward other minorities such as homeless or gay people have declined.

The Friedrich Ebert Foundation, which commissioned the survey, said Thursday that 54.1% of respondents expressed negative opinions about asylum-seekers, up from 49.5% in 2016 and 44% in 2014.

Germany saw a significant increase in migrant arrivals in 2016, with almost 746,000 people seeking asylum that year. Numbers have since declined again, with about 186,000 asylum requests last year.

The representative telephone survey, which is conducted every two years, involved 1,890 respondents and took place between September and February.

The study also examined for the first time how receptive Germans are to conspiracy theories. It found about that 46% of respondents believed secret organizations influence political decision-making.»

* * * * * * *

«More than half of Germans view asylum-seekers in a negative light»

*

«Prejudice against the newcomers has grown even as fewer migrants come to Germany»

*

«Right-wing populist attitudes have become “normal” in Germany’s mainstream»

*

«The latest study …. shows that a record 54.1% of the respondents across Germany now hold a negative view of asylum-seekers.»

*

«these attitudes are more common in former East Germany, which is now home to less than a quarter of the country’s population — 63% to the West’s 51%.»

*

«A part of the population does not live up to their own values»

*

«almost one quarter of the survey participants believe that the media is in cahoots with German politicians»

* * * * * * *

Nulla da eccepire sui numeri.

Chiunque avesse avuto una conoscenza sia pur superficiale della Germania attuale avrebbe stimato ben oltre il 54% la quota di popolazione avversa all’immigrazione.

Né si resta sorpresi come un quarto degli intervistati ritenga che i media siano in combutta con i politici.

Si noti infine la penultima frase riportata.

Il giornale liberal da semplicemente per scontato che i propri ‘valori‘ siano quelli giusti e veri, mentre quelli degli altri altro non siano che degenerazioni ‘illiberal‘.

È questa alterigia mentale, questa arroganza suppositiva, il motivo per il quale i liberal stanno declinando: incapaci di sottoporsi a revisione critica, impermeabili ad ogni forma di dialogo costruttivo paritetico, non si arrendono nemmeno quando si ritrovino ad essere la minoranza. La loro matrice culturale rivoluzionaria giacobina arde sempre, sia pur sotto le ceneri.

---

Deutsche Welle. 2019-04-25. Germans increasingly hostile towards asylum-seekers

More than half of Germans view asylum-seekers in a negative light, a new study shows. Prejudice against the newcomers has grown even as fewer migrants come to Germany.

*

Right-wing populist attitudes have become “normal” in Germany’s mainstream, said authors of a new study presented by the left-wing  Friedrich-Ebert Foundation in Berlin on Thursday.

“The center is losing its footing and its democratic orientation,” researchers said.

The foundation has released reports on right-wing extremism since 2002. The latest study, conducted by a group of researchers from Bielefeld University, shows that a record 54.1% of the respondents across Germany now hold a negative view of asylum-seekers.

Trouble in the east

The numbers are higher now than they were ahead of the refugee crisis in 2014, when 44% of Germans expressed concerns about the group. In 2016, after the peak of the migration wave, the survey showed 49.5% of people were negative on asylum-seekers.

According to the study presented on Thursday, these attitudes are more common in former East Germany, which is now home to less than a quarter of the country’s population — 63% to the West’s 51%. The survey also shows that the level of prejudice has grown even as fewer people applied for asylum in Germany.

Voters of Germany’s AfD party are also much more likely to resent minority groups and nurse extreme right-wing positions.

Democracy vs. illiberal attitudes

The survey included 1,890 participants across Germany who had responded to interviewers’ questions by telephone between September 2018 and February 2019.

On Friday, Bielefeld University researcher Wilhelm Berghan said that the majority of the participants praise democracy and democratic values.

At the same time, many of them hold illiberal ideas about democracy and animosity towards asylum-seekers.

“A part of the population does not live up to their own values,” Berghan said.

Gut feeling and experts

Nearly one in every five Germans (19%) has a negative outlook on foreigners in general. The same percentage is critical towards Muslims, and even more (26%) view Sinti and Roma groups in a negative light.

At the same time, Germans are now more inclined to accept LGBT people and the homeless than before. They are also more likely to reject sexism.

Half of all Germans admit to being led by their own feelings more than by experts’ views. Also, almost one quarter of the survey participants believe that the media is in cahoots with German politicians.

Germania. Proposta di legge per ridurre il numero di asylum seekers.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2018-07-21.

Lo status di rifugiato politico è usualmente concesso solo ed esclusivamente a persone che sono fuggite da ambienti ove fossero in corso conflitti oppure fossero perseguitate, ovvero ancora corressero  il forte rischio di esserlo, per motivi di opinioni, quali per esempio il credo religioso oppure le idee politiche. Il rischio deve essere ben documentato e certo. Un caso da manuale era quello degli Ebrei fuggiti dalla Germania degli anni trenta.

Nel corso degli ultimi decenni governi e corti di giustizia occidentali hanno dilatato in modo non indifferente numero e qualità delle situazioni per le quali il diritto di asilo possa essere richiesto. Così, da persecuzione ‘certa‘ si è arrivati dapprima a ‘probabile‘, ed infine ‘possibile‘. Anche su cosa significhi il termine ‘persecuzione‘ è stato oggetto di ampi dibattiti. Così, dalle violenze fisiche si è giunti a quelle psicologiche, alle discriminazioni, e così via.

Dal punto di vista giurisprudenziale si è davanti ad una pletora di sentenze spesso conflittuali.

Alla fine, se non altro per dare una parvenza di ordine, molti stati hanno stilato un elenco di nazioni da essi ritenuti essere ‘sicure‘ e di altri ritenuti essere ‘persecutrici‘. Almeno in questa maniera il criterio di largizione del diritto di asilo soggiaceva ad una regola ben precisa e semplice da essere gestita.

*

Alcuni stati hanno liste di stati insicuri molto scarne, altri invece sono talmente larghi da etichettare come ‘insicuro‘ un stato, che vi compare un lungo elenco. Per la Germania la lista dei paesi ritenuti essere insicuri è sterminata.

«Germany’s government launched a renewed attempt Wednesday to declare three North African states and Georgia “safe countries of origin”, which would raise the hurdles for asylum requests by its citizens»

*

«Legislation, which aims to reduce the migrant influx to Germany, would add Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia as well as Georgia to the “safe” country list that so far includes all EU members, six Balkans countries, Ghana and Senegal»

*

Se accettata, questa proposta di legge ridurrebbe in modo molto significativo il numero di richieste di asilo accettabili per l’esame di rito.

I verdi hanno già chiarito che si opporranno.

«left-leaning ecologist party … on the three Maghreb states, arguing that journalists, homosexuals and other groups were not safe from persecution there»

In parole poverissime, sarebbe sufficiente che il migrante dichiari di essere un giornalista oppure di essere omosessuale e la richiesta di asilo sarebbe accolta in meno di un amen. Cosa che nei fatti sta accadendo regolarmente.

Lasciamo al Lettore immaginare l’enorme numero di giornalisti e di omosessuali che hanno fatto richiesta di asilo.

Parigi, in fondo, val bene una Messa.

---

→ The Local. 2018-07-19. German bill to cut asylum seekers from North Africa, Georgia

Germany’s government launched a renewed attempt Wednesday to declare three North African states and Georgia “safe countries of origin”, which would raise the hurdles for asylum requests by its citizens.

Legislation, which aims to reduce the migrant influx to Germany, would add Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia as well as Georgia to the “safe” country list that so far includes all EU members, six Balkans countries, Ghana and Senegal.

However, passage of the bill into law was far from certain after a first attempt was rejected last year in the upper house by states ruled by the Greens party, which advocates a humanitarian approach toward people seeking safe haven.

Greens party co-leader Robert Habeck said his left-leaning ecologist party had not changed its position on the three Maghreb states, arguing that journalists, homosexuals and other groups were not safe from persecution there.

“Therefore I don’t see how these countries can be called safe,” Habeck told the media group Redaktionsnetzwerk Deutschland.

Interior Minister Horst Seehofer, presenting the initiative at a Berlin press conference, argued that the bill still allows authorities to evaluate individual cases on their merits.

He said the aim was to deter asylum requests, or to speed up their processing and likely deportations, from countries whose citizens have almost no chance of being granted residency rights in Germany.

Immigration and refugee flows have become a flashpoint issue in Germany since Chancellor Angela Merkel decided in 2015 to keep borders open to a mass influx of people fleeing war and misery in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and other countries.

The move earned her praise from liberal commentators but also sparked a xenophobic backlash that last year saw the far-right and anti-Islam protest party Alternative for Germany (AfD) enter parliament for the first time.

Accordo Baviera, Austria ed Italia sugli sbarchi dei migranti.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2018-07-14.

Il titolo del The Times of India è tutto un programma e sintetizza la situazione.

– Herr Seehofer sta intraprendendo azioni non da Ministro degli Interni, bensì da Ministro degli Esteri, per non dire da Cancelliere, e la Bundeskanzlerin Frau Merkel se ne sta zitta ed a cuccia.

– Il giornale riferisce l’incontro a tre come “EU interior Ministers“. Sottilissima ironia indiana. Sono le entità attive che rappresentano l’Unione Europea, non quelle che baloccandosi con le parole nulla stanno facendo.

---

Quanto fosse fragile la vecchia Unione Europea è dimostrato dal fatto di quanto facilmente una ferma presa di posizione italiana abbia sconquassato tutto il sistema. Mr Juncker, Mr Tisk, Frau Merkel e Mr Macron erano considerati essere potenti in opere e parole solo perché così tutti di affannavano a cercare di far credere. Erano, e sono, solo vitelli di oro, adorati da molti ma totalmente impotenti.

«It will bring satisfaction if Italian proposals become European ones with a reduction of migrant departures, landings and costs»

*

«we will talk more concretely about the issue of disembarkation platforms»

*

Mr Matteo Salvini, Herr Horst Seehofer ed Herr Herbert Kickl si sono riuniti ad Innsbruck e sembrerebbero aver raggiunto un accordo sui migranti. Si ricordi come Herr Kurz sia nel semestre di Presidenza dell’Unione Europea,

L’incontro dovrebbe ripetersi il 19 luglio a Vienna.

Questo è il lacrimoso annuncio datone dal The New York Times.

«The top security officials of Germany, Italy and Austria are touting their hard line on migration issues, saying Europe needs to protect its exterior borders and crack down on human smuggling.

Germany’s Horst Seehofer held talks with his Austrian and Italian counterparts, Herbert Kickl and Matteo Salvini, Thursday morning ahead of a wider meeting of European Union interior ministers.

Kickl says the group wants “to send a clear message to the world, and especially to the traffickers, that it won’t be possible anymore in the future, shouldn’t be possible anymore to step on European soil if you don’t have a right to protection.”

Seehofer says the ministers, all hardliners on migration, are seeking European solutions, but “all three of us know that this is going to be a Herculean task.”»

*

Significativo il titolo del The Times of India.

EU interior ministers meet as nations tussle over migrant response.

The meeting in Innsbruck will focus in particular on coming up with a common migration plan, with Austria expected to push to change the EU’s migration policy so it is no longer possible to make asylum requests on European soil.

Although the number of migrants fleeing war and poverty has fallen sharply since a 2015 peak the issue is a thorny one in Europe and a key topic for the six month presidency of Austria, where a conservative-far right coalition took power last December.

Austria’s hardline interior minister Herbert Kickl, of the far right FPOE party, told journalists earlier this week that he would propose asylum requests be made in refugee camps outside Europe to “a sort of mobile commission”.

Only exiles from countries that directly border the European Unionwould be able to make their asylum requests on EU territory.

Kickl is likely to join forces with his Italian counterpart Matteo Salvini, also deputy prime minister and leader of the far right League party.

Salvini has banned NGO rescue boats that pick up migrants in the Mediterranean from docking in Italy, accusing them of aiding human traffickers to bring migrants to Europe.

In Innsbruck, which has been described as an informal meeting, he is expected to ask nations not to send ships on international missions to Italian ports. The issue of migration and asylum rights in Europe has raised tensions among the EU’s 28 member states.

Austria currently holds the rotating EU presidency, which gives it the opportunity to chair meetings and set agendas.

Germany’s interior minister Horst Seehofersaid Wednesday he hopes to reach an agreement with Italy by the end of the month on the vexed topic of returning migrants there from Germany.

A migrant deal with Rome is central to the compromise German Chancellor Angela Merkelreached with Seehofer to end a row over immigration within their coalition that has threatened to bring down the government.

Salvini said he and Seehofer shared a “common objective: fewer landings, fewer deaths, fewer migrants in Italy as well as in Germany”.

But the Italian minister said he expected to see more action to toughen the EU’s external frontiers before agreeing to any deal to take back migrants.

Kickl told the European Parliament on Monday that the Innsbruck meeting would be the first time “we will talk more concretely about the issue of disembarkation platforms” outside the EU for migrants rescued in international waters.

But European nations are divided on the feasibility and legality of these “platforms”, which several countries like Morocco and Tunisia have already said they would not host.

*

La rivolta all’Unione Europea è guidata da questi tre paesi e da quelli del Visegrad. Ci si pensi bene: tutti paesi a solido retaggio cattolico.

---

→ Corriere. 2018-07-12. Migranti, da Innsbruck un asse con Germania e Austria per fermare gli sbarchi

Un’intesa a tre per arginare i flussi migratori in modo da far arrivare in Europa solo chi fugge da una guerra. È quanto è emerso dal trilaterale a Innsbruck con Salvini e i ministri dell’Interno di Berlino e Vienna

*

Un’intesa a tre, un «asse di volenterosi» guidato da Austria, Germania e Italia per arginare i flussi migratori. È quello che è emerso dall’incontro trilaterale fra il ministro dell’Interno Matteo Salvini e gli omologhi tedeschi e austriaci, Horst Seehofer e Herbert Kickl a Innsbruck, che precede il vertice Ue. Si tratta di un’intesa per frenare le partenze di migranti e gli sbarchi, in modo da far giungere in Europa solo chi fugge da una guerra.

Salvini: «Proposte italiane diventano proposte europee»

«Le proposte italiane su migranti diventano proposte europee: contiamo che finalmente l’Europa torni a difendere i confini e il diritto e alla sicurezza dei 500 milioni di europei» ha detti Matteo Salvini. «Con i colleghi di Austria e Germania – ha spiegato al termine dell’incontro – abbiamo affrontato il grande problema degli arrivi: se si riducono questi si risolvono anche i problemi minori interni tra le nazioni e non ci sarà alcun problema alle frontiere». «Meno migranti, meno sbarchi e meno morti» ha poi aggiunto. «Chiederemo sostegno alle autorità libiche, dare a Tripoli il diritto ai rimpatri e la redistribuzione delle quote degli arrivi. Chiederemo alle missioni internazionali di non usare l’Italia come unico punto d’arrivo e il sostegno nelle operazioni di soccorso, protezione e riaccompagnamento di migliaia di clandestini nei luoghi di partenza. Credo quindi – ha detto poi Salvini – che questo nucleo di amicizia e di intervento serio concreto ed efficiente di Italia, Germania ed Austria, possa essere un nucleo che darà un impulso positivo a tutta Europa per riconoscere il diritto di asilo a quella minoranza di donne e bambini che fuggono dalle guerre ed evitare l’arrivo e la morte di decine di migliaia di persone che non scappano da nessuna guerra».

«Proteggere le frontiere esterne all’Unione Europea»

A fargli eco il ministro dell’Interno tedesco Seehofer:«I tre Paesi si sono messi d’accordo per controllare l’immigrazione. Vogliamo introdurre ordine nella politica migratoria ma garantire un approccio umanitario e proteggere effettivamente le frontiere esterne dell’Unione Europea». «Sarebbe importante – sottolinea poi il ministro – che l’intera Unione europea decidesse qualcosa. Noi possiamo avere delle iniziative, ma l’Unione europea deve avere un’opinione comune. Sono ottimista e qui abbiamo l’occasione di procedere in una direzione positiva». E il ministro dell’Interno austriaco Kickl sottolinea come «questo asse di volenterosi può prendere iniziative ma è l’intera Unione Europea che deve intervenire». «Le cose sono relativamente semplice – aggiunge – noi tre siamo d’accordo sul fatto che vogliamo mettere ordine» e «mandare il chiaro messaggio che in futuro non dovrebbe essere possibile calpestare il suolo europeo se non si ha il diritto alla protezione». Previsto un nuovo incontro a Vienna sempre fra i ministri dell’Interno di Italia Germania e Austria il prossimo 19 luglio.

---

→ Ansa. 2018-07-12. Italy-Germany-Austria migrant deal

Innsbruck, July 12 – Interior ministers Matteo Salvini of Italy, Horst Seehofer of Germany and Herbert Kickl of Austria said after talks here Thursday that an “axis of the willing” led by Vienna, Berlin and Rome would curb migrant departures and landings in Europe, so that only those who are really fleeing was arrive in Europe.
Italian proposals on migrants should become EU ones, Interior Minister Matteo Salvini said after three-way talks in Innsbruck Thursday with German and Austrian counterparts Horst Seehofer and Herbert Kickl. “It will bring satisfaction if Italian proposals become European ones with a reduction of migrant departures, landings and costs,” he said.
“If the Italian model becomes European it will be cause for pride”.

Germania. Asylum seekers. Il problema dei Tribunali che li tutelano.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2018-03-25.

Il problema potrebbe riempire decine di ponderosi tomi, ma in estrema sintesi potrebbe così configurarsi:

In un paese democratico governano gli eletti oppure i funzionari nominati?

*

Non è problema di poco conto. Per affrontarlo sarebbe quanto mai utile rimuovere dalla mente i casi particolari,  le eccezioni.

In un sistema democratico dovrebbero essere sovrani gli Elettori, che ogni certo quale periodo di tempo – quattro fino a sei anni, solitamente – si recano alle urne e rinnovano gli organi rappresentativi, ossia chi li governa: il voto è dato secondo il programma presentato ed accordato sulla scorta di quanto fatto in passato.

Gli eletti dal popolo hanno il potere di governare perché da esso vidimati e, in ogni caso, non sono eletti a vita.

*

Che una Collettività abbia bisogno di burocrati e di funzionari per fare applicare correttamente le leggi e le norme deliberate è solo un ordinario problema organizzativo, che però può degenerare sotto molte condizioni.

Ma altrettanto ovvio dovrebbe essere il fatto che tali funzionari dovrebbero restare in carica fino a tanto che dura il governo che li ha nominati: è quello che negli Stati Uniti è denominato lo spoils system. Un governo liberamente eletto dovrebbe avere la garanzia costituzionale di poter rinnovare il corpo dei burocrati e dei funzionari.

Non solo.

Qualora uno o più burocrati manifestassero visioni di vita differenti da quelli del governo, questo ultimo dovrebbe ben essere autorizzato a licenziarli, ed anche su due piedi.

Per meglio spiegarci, recentemente il Presidente Macron ha licenziato in tronco il capo di stato maggiore gen Pierre de Villiers, con questa motivazione:

«If something puts the chief of the armed forces at odds with the president of the republic, the chief of the armed forces changes» [The New York Times]

*

Nei paesi occidentali vige la concezione che i poteri dovrebbero essere divisi e non interagenti tra di loro.

Ottimo enunciato teorico, ma poco più di un proclama, quasi una grida di manzoniana memoria. Alla fine i magistrati sono pubblici funzionari nominati dalla politica, legati al potere che li ha nominati e fatti progredire di carriera.

Se i magistrati fossero esseri angelici e perfetti, il problema della magistratura non esisterebbe: ma essi sono esseri umani a tutti gli effetti e, sulla scorta di quanto accade, anche oltremodo spigliati nell’adempiere a ciò che loro indicano essere il proprio dovere.

Non solo. Mentre in molti stati essi sono nominati pro tempore, con scadenze di mandato più o meno lunghe, di norma in Occidente sono nominati a vita: assolutamente inamovibili. Nemmeno Luigi XIV aveva un simile potere.

Se il generale Pierre de Villiers fosse stato un magistrato, Mr Macron dovrebbe ancora convivere con lui.

Inutile dire con quanta soddisfazione i magistrati abbiano sviluppato la teoria in base alla quale le leggi non si applicano, bensì si interpretano.

Corti di Giustizia. Cinque anni fa era tutto l’opposto.

«Stessa identica Carta Fondamentale, stessi identici codici, stessi identici giudici (si direbbe che siano eterni), stesso identico problema.

Due verdetti opposti.»

In parole poverissime: i magistrati possono fare tutto ciò che voglio, ed in più pretendono persino di essere considerati onesti e probi.

Dei funzionari nominati, non eletti, governano de facto il paese.

L’Occidente non potrà essere considerato democratico fino a tanto che continuerà a tollerare e soggiacere ad un simile potere in essere.

* * * * * * *

* * * * * * *

Nel caso specifico, il Governo tedesco ha varato una serie di leggi, opinabili a piacere, ma pur sempre proposte dal legittimo Governo ed approvate dalla maggioranza parlamentare.

Il Germany’s Federal Migration Office, applicando tali leggi e regolamenti, ha rigettato larga parte delle richieste di asilo come rifugiati inoltrate da immigrati, spesso illegali.

Costoro, appoggiati da valenti avvocati facenti capo ad un ben determinato partito politico, sono stati portati in causa ed i giudici di primo grado hanno annullato i provvedimenti.

Poi, spesso, in secondo grado:

«The BAMF ultimately won nearly all of those cases.».

Identiche leggi, identiche persone, identiche circostanze: due verdetti diametralmente opposti.

Dovrebbe essere evidente la contraddizione dei termini.

*

È del tutto evidente come la maggior parte di queste sentenze sospensive i provvedimenti dell’Ufficio Federale dei Migranti siano sentenze squisitamente politiche, che spesso non si peritano nemmeno di riportare le loro proprie considerazioni partitiche persino nel corpo del verdetto.

Tutto ciò alla fine comporta

«The courts complained of enormous case load».

Il problema non sono i migranti quanto piuttosto i loro protettori ideologici.

---

→ Deutsche Welle. 2018-03-23. One in two rejected asylum seekers win appeal in German courts

Rejected asylum seekers in Germany almost always challenge the decision in court, and around 40 percent of them win. The number of such appeals nearly doubled from 2016 to 2017.

*

Nearly half of all rejected asylum seekers win their challenge against the decision, according to a report published Friday.

Over 328,000 asylum seekers appealed the decision to deny them asylum in Germany in 2017. The new data resulted from the government’s response to a query by the opposition Left party obtained by the Süddeutsche Zeitung daily.

That figure is almost double the amount in the previous year. Decsions were made on 146,000 cases.

Around half were formally decided in Germany’s courts, meaning they were made without a closer examination of the content of the asylum submission. That is because plaintiffs reached a deal with Germany’s Federal Migration Office (BAMF) or withdrew their claim before the verdict.

In the remaining cases, however, where the courts decide on the substance of the appeals (for instance rejection of the application to implement further asylum proceedings), some 40 percent of plaintiffs managed to overturn the BAMF’s decision.

Refugees from Syria and Afghanistan were successful in over 60 percent of the cases.

Only about 1,400 asylum seekers decided to file a second appeal after losing in court. The BAMF ultimately won nearly all of those cases.

Left Party calls for better legal counsel to refugees

The data shows that around 91 percent of asylum seekers took their case to court after being rejected by BAMF in 2017. The courts complained of enormous case load, according to the newspaper.

Senior Left party lawmaker Ulla Jelpke on Friday called for the refugees to be provided with better legal counsel. According to Jelpke, there would be fewer misunderstandings if asylum seekers were better prepared for their hearings.

“Ultimately, this will also raise the quality of BAMF’s decisions,” she said. “There would be fewer appeals und fewer overturned decisions.”

Success on appeal meant that most of the refugees received protection under the Geneva Refugee Convention, but only a few were given asylum as enshrined in the German constitution, which is a status granted only to politically persecuted people who did not come to Germany from a secure third country.

The difference in status is important, as only those who receive asylum can be legally followed to Germany by family members.

Svezia. I richiedenti asilo ‘bambini’ erano quasi tutti maggiorenni.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2017-12-06.

Ma chi lo avrebbe mai detto? Ma chi mai se lo sarebbe potuto immaginare?

Impact of Sweden’s asylum age assessment tests revealed

«The national forensic medicine agency (Rättsmedicinalverket) began carrying out the checks earlier this year after doubts were raised over whether all those who were being processed as minors were in fact underage.

The Migration Agency has so far made 5,700 decisions on the basis of assessments carried out by Rättsmedicinalverket. In 79 percent of those cases the agency decided to formally consider the applicant as older than they had initially claimed in their asylum application.

Between mid-March and late October, Rättsmedicinalverket carried out a total of 7,858 age assessments. Of those, it found that their examination suggested 6,628 were 18 or older, and 112 “possibly” 18 or older»

* * * * * * *

Ricapitoliamo.

Il 79% dei richiedenti asilo che si erano dichiarati minorenni avevano in realtà più di diciotto anni. Elemento questo che muta radicalmente la loro posizione da un punto di vista giuridico.

Tenendo conto che ogni accertamento costa grosso modo 1,200 euro, tenendo conto dei materiali, delle prestazioni professionale e dell’ammortamento della strumentazione, l’erario ha sborsato un totale di 9.4 milioni di euro. Che si aggiungono a tutto il resto: denaro pubblico che scorre a fiumi, ai quali i liberal si abbeverano con beluina ingordigia.

*

Se da una parte possiamo comprendere, anche se non giustificare, che i migranti abbiano mentito sulla loro reale età anagrafica, dall’altra resta molto meno giustificabile il comportamento dei pubblici funzionari che si sono creduti la storiella di essere di fronte a dei minori.

È difficile pensare che questi siano sempre stati in buona fede, molto difficile.

Quanto accaduto ripropone un problema già noto, ma pur sempre attuale.

La vera questione non sono tanto i migranti in sé, bensì i partiti politici ed i loro militanti liberal e socialisti che per motivazioni ideologiche fomentano e patrocinano la migrazione, e che poi lucrano sulla gestione locale dei migranti.

In altri termini, quello della migrazione non è tanto un problema africano o mediorientale, è un problema politico europeo.

Problema politico che arriverà a soluzione solo con la definitiva sconfitta elettorale dei liberal e dei socialisti ideologici europei. È un processo devolutivo già iniziato ed adesso in fase avanzata, ma non ancora arrivato al suo termine naturale.

→ Bbc. 2017-12-05. Sweden child migrant tests ‘reveal many adults’

A Swedish investigation into migrants claiming asylum as children suggests that three-quarters of those tested were over the age of 18.

Sweden’s national forensic medicine agency checked the age of nearly 8,000 people and found that some 6,600 were 18 or over.

The checks were only carried out in cases where there were doubts as to the person’s age.

Child migrants are less likely to be sent back to their country of origin.

Between mid-March and late October, the agency (Rättsmedicinalverket) carried out a total of 7,858 age assessments.

Of those, examinations suggested 6,628 were 18 or older (84%), and 112 “possibly” 18 or older, The Local newspaper reports.

The Migration Agency has so far made 5,700 decisions on the basis of those assessments. In 79% of those cases, the agency decided to formally consider the applicant as older than they had initially claimed in their asylum application, reports Svenska Dagbladet.

Age assessment is carried out by taking X-rays of wisdom teeth and MRI scans of knee joints, which are then analysed to determine age.

Many asylum seekers do not have identity documents as they may have lost them as they fled conflict or a natural disaster, says the International Organization for Migration.

In other cases their country of birth may not have the structures in place to record births, so it is not unusual for people not to know their exact age, says The Local.

When the Migration Agency assessed asylum seekers’ ages last year, before the task was handed over to Rättsmedicinalverket, it formally increased the age of 17% of those whose age was in doubt.

More than 80,000 minors (of whom 37,000 arrived in the country without a parent or guardian) applied for asylum in Sweden in 2015 and 2016, The Local reports.

Iniziata la rivoluzione per instaurare lo Stato Europeo.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2017-09-10.

Forte della recente elezione di Mr Macron a Presidente dei francesi e della scontata rielezione di Frau Merkel al Cancellierato, l’asse franco – tedesco si appresta alla battaglia per far transitare l’Unione Europea in una sorta di Impero Europeo.

Al momento attuale l’Unione Europea è una unione di stati che hanno conferito parte della loro sovranità all’Unione, senza quasi aver mai chiesto il suffragio di un referendum popolare. Se questo fu a suo tempo un vero e proprio colpo di mano, per non usare un altro ben più appropriato termine, adesso il duo Macron – Merkel si ripropone di costituire un vero e proprio stato europeo. Si inizierebbe dapprima con una totale fusione economica, con la nomina di un ministro delle finanze europeo con poterei legislativi, esecutivi, nonché coercitivi. La filosofia è quella che chi detenga i cordoni della borsa avrebbe in pugno tutti. Poi dovrebbe venire tutto il resto.

Né Mr Macron né Frau Merkel intendono proporre tale iniziativa alla vidimazione popolare.

Una simile mutazione dovrebbe avvenire in modo quasi impercettibile ai più, facendo soltanto variare il modo con cui le Corti di Giustizia Europee interpreteranno i Trattati, facendo dire loro ciò che compiace l’attuale dirigenza europea.

*

«the “real battle is just beginning”»

*

«the European Court of Justice (ECJ) threw out the case from Hungary and Slovakia against the EU’s quota scheme to spread up to 160,000 Syrian, Iraqi and Eritrean asylum seekers among the 28 member states.»

*

«Hungary is a European Union member, so the bloc’s treaties must be respected and the court’s rulings must be acknowledged»

*

«But this is not a reason to change an immigration policy that rejects migrants»

*

«The court’s ruling does not require Hungary to do anything»

*

«It is not us Hungarians who question the rules of the club, but the Commission had changed the rules and this is unacceptable»

*

«The whole issue raises a very serious question of principles: whether we are an alliance of European free nations with the Commission representing our joint interests, or a European empire which has its centre in Brussels and which can issue orders.»

* * * * * * *

Mr Viktor Orban ha sintetizzato nelle ultime due frasi il vero oggetto del contendere.

Il problema dei migranti diventa a questo punto del tutto irrilevante: è solo il pretesto.

L’Unione Europea si è cambiata le regole senza dir nulla a nessuno e vorrebbe imporle. Usiamo il verbo “imporre” perché esse non sono state votate dal popolo.

E Francia e Germania si apprestano a lasciarsi alle spalle un’alleanza economica di libere nazioni con una Commissione che rappresenti i comuni interessi per trasformarsi in quello che Mr Orban definisce lo “Impero Europeo”, impiantato a Bruxelles a dare ordini.

«the “real battle is just beginning”»

 Nota.

A molti sembrerebbe sfuggire la differenza che intercorre tra Impero e Stato.

Lo stato è una struttura centralizzata che raggruppa persone omogenee per concezione di vita e, di norma, per lingua parlata. Quando si espande, tende ad integrare: le nuove acquisizioni devono diventare parte integrante dello stato, pensare in modo identico almeno sui grandi temi. La concezione attuale dello stato è in buona sostanza quella illuminista.

L’impero invece altro non è che un governo centrale che avoca a sé politica estera e militare, nonché i grandi indirizzi economici, lasciando identitari gli stati membri. Questi continueranno a reggersi con le loro religioni, leggi e norme: l’impero ben difficilmente metterà voce nei loro affari interni.

Da questo punto di vista, una confederazione altro non sarebbe che un impero formato su base volontaria.

La Confederazione svizzera è un chiaro esempio, così come la Cina.

---

→ Aljazeera. 2017-09-08. Hungary to fight EU migrant quotas despite setback

EU top court rejected Hungary’s challenge on migrant relocation plan, but Prime Minister Viktor Orban vows to fight on.

*

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has said the “real battle is just beginning”, vowing to continue fighting against the European Union’s migrant relocation plan despite suffering a setback at the bloc’s top court.

Orban’s remarks on Friday came two days after the European Court of Justice (ECJ) threw out the case from Hungary and Slovakia against the EU’s quota scheme to spread up to 160,000 Syrian, Iraqi and Eritrean asylum seekers among the 28 member states.

“Hungary is a European Union member, so the bloc’s treaties must be respected and the court’s rulings must be acknowledged,” the populist leader said in a radio interview.

“But this is not a reason to change an immigration policy that rejects migrants,” he added.

“The court’s ruling does not require Hungary to do anything”, Orban said, because it focused only on whether the EU had the legal right to enforce refugee quotas.

He said EU countries which let in migrants, unlike Hungary, decided to do so of their own will and now they cannot ask Budapest to take a part in correcting their mistake.

“It is not us Hungarians who question the rules of the club, but the Commission had changed the rules and this is unacceptable,” Orban said.

The “real battle [against Brussels] is just beginning,” he added. 

“The whole issue raises a very serious question of principles: whether we are an alliance of European free nations with the Commission representing our joint interests, or a European empire which has its centre in Brussels and which can issue orders.”

On Wednesday, the Luxembourg-based ECJ rejected a complaint filed by Hungary and Slovakia, reaffirming the bloc’s right to order individual countries to accept refugees as part of a scheme drawn up in a bid to resettle arriving refugees more equally across the EU.

Under the scheme, Hungary is required to take in 1,294 refugees and Slovakia 902. 

The court’s decision is final and not open to appeal. As a result, European officials will continue to be able to order member state governments to take in specific quotas of refugees entering the bloc. Countries refusing to abide by the programme risk facing fines.

Refund request

Describing immigration as “poison”, Orban has been at the forefront of a rebellion in eastern and central Europe against the quotas.

At the height of the migrant crisis, Budapest erected fences on its southern borders and recruited 3,000 “border hunter” police to patrol the frontiers.

The tough measures, which were denounced by Brussels and human rights groups, slowed the influx of refugees to a trickle until the so-called “Balkan Route” was effectively closed in March 2016.

In July 2016, Human Rights Watch released a reportcriticising Hungary’s treatment of refugees and migrants detained after entering or while attempting to enter its territory, accusing the country’s authorities of “breaking all the rules for asylum seekers”.

Last month, Orban asked the EU to refund half the 800 million euros ($950m) Hungary says it has spent on the borders.

But European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker chided Hungary this week for demanding extra money while refusing to participate in the relocation scheme.

Orban on Thursday sharply criticised Juncker’s response, saying that forcing Hungary to accept immigrants amounted to “violence”.

In July, the EU Commission threatened the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland with lawsuits for not implementing the relocation measures.

Hungary and Poland remain the only EU states that “have not relocated a single person”, while the Czech Republic has not relocated anyone since August 2016, the Commission said.

---

→ Aljazeera. 2017-04-17. UN urges EU not to send asylum seekers back to Hungary

Asylum seekers, including children, are being held in shipping containers surrounded by razor fences, the UN says.

*

The United Nations has urged European Union members to stop returning asylum seekers to Hungary, blaming the country’s tough new policy of systematically detaining them in high-security container camps.

Refugees and migrants have long suffered dire living conditions in Hungary, a country accused by rights groups of “breaking all the rules” for asylum seekers, including vicious beatings and violent pushbacks by security forces.

“The situation for asylum seekers in Hungary, which was already of deep concern to UNHCR, has only gotten worse since the new law introducing mandatory detention for asylum seekers came into effect,” Filippo Grandi, the UN’s high commissioner for refugees, said on Monday.

Since the law came into force on March 28, all new asylum seekers, including children, have been “detained in shipping containers surrounded by high razor fences at the border for the entire length of their asylum procedures”, according to UNHCR.

Some 110 people, including four unaccompanied children and children with their families, are being held there currently.

The agency also said it remained very concerned over “highly disturbing reports of serious incidents of ill-treatment and violence” against people crossing the border into Hungary, including by state agents.

“These unacceptable practices must be brought to an end,” Grandi said, urging Hungary to investigate abuse allegations.

Cecile Pouilly, a UNHCR spokeswoman for Europe, told Al Jazeera that asylum seekers could be detained for up to 12 months.

The containers are “definitely not a place where you would like children to be accommodated nor detained”, she said, adding that they did not have space for beds, wardrobes or chairs.

While other countries also detain asylum seekers, Pouilly said Hungary’s new law was extremely worrying because it makes detention “systematic and mandatory”.

Some 324 shipping container homes have been installed at two separate locations called “transit zones”, according to the government. They are built into a fence that Hungary erected along its 175km-long southern border in 2015.

Defending the measure earlier this year, Prime Minister Viktor Orban said it was needed as a response to “terror” attacks in Europe, citing the November 2015 attacks in Paris.

The move reinstates Hungary’s practice of detaining asylum applicants, which it suspended in 2013 under pressure from human rights groups.

The UNHCR warned last month that the practice would “have a terrible physical and psychological impact on women, children and men who have already greatly suffered.”

In October last year, the majority of Hungarians voted against an EU referendum aimed at sharing 160,000 refugees around the 28-member bloc through mandatory quotas.

It has since not accepted any asylum seekers allocated under the scheme.

Hungary granted asylum, or some form of protection, to 425 people out of 29,432 applications in 2016. 

Germania. Il giallo della deportazione di massa degli afgani.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2016-12-18.

 

 Deportazione degli Armeni. 1915

---

Sarebbe molto utile non confondere i termini usati, perché non sono sinonimi.

– Migrante è il nome generico attribuito ad una persona che si sposti dal logo di usuale residenza, con l’intento di stabilirsi altrove.

– Migrante economico è la denominazione di un migrante in cerca di migliori condizioni di lavoro oppure di welfare state.

– Profugo indica in modo generico quanti si siano allontanati dal logo di origine a causa del deterioramento politico, economico, sociale.

– Rifugiato è un ben preciso stato giuridico che denomina chi sia fuggito o sia stato espulso dal suo paese originario a causa di pesanti discriminazioni politiche, religiose, razziali o di status nazionale. Per ottenere lo status di “rifugiato” è necessario che sia evidente al di là di ogni possibile dubbio che il profugo sia stato oggetto di una persecuzione attiva che ne abbia severamente limitato la libertà politica, sociale ed economica.

– Asylum-seeker è la persona che ha chiesto lo stato giuridico di ‘rifugiato‘ ed è in attesa del completamento della pratica.

*

«Some 12,500 Afghans whose asylum applications have been rejected will be deported from Germany»

*

«Interior Ministry estimates that 5 percent of the almost 247,000 Afghans who had reached Germany by the end of September will probably have to leave»

*

«the rate of acceptance of Afghan asylum applications fell in 2016 to 52.4 percent as compared with 77.6 percent the year before»

*

«The German interior minister has said the decision to deport a group of rejected Afghan asylum-seekers was “necessary.”»

*

«Some 2,300 Afghans returned to their home country this year»

* * * * * * *

Il problema esiste ed è reale.

Una gran parte dei migranti lo sono per motivi economici. Nulla da ridire, tranne il fatto che hanno migrato illegalmente. È la illegalità lo scoglio maggiore, non la migrazione in sé.

Un grande numero di migranti fa richiesta per ottenere lo status giuridico di “rifugiato“, ma pochi di essi possono addurre prove oggettive di averne i requisiti.

Il conto non sembrerebbe tornare per gli afgani.

Il Ministro degli Interni Thomas de Maiziere dice che sono entrati in Germania 247,000 miranti.

Ma se le richieste di asilo che sono state accolte ammontano al 52.4%, si potrebbe calcolare che quelle non accolte dovrebbero essere il 47.60%, ossia 117,572.

Questa cifra è nove volte superiore ai 12,500 riportati dal Ministro.

E di questi, solo 2,300 sono stati rimpatriati.

*

Questa, a nostro sommesso parere, non sembrerebbe essere una “deportazione di massa“.

---

→ Deutsche Welle. 2016-11-17. Germany to repatriate about 12,000 Afghans: report

Some 12,500 Afghans whose asylum applications have been rejected will be deported from Germany, a report says. Repatriations to Afghanistan are a controversial issue owing to the fragile state of security in the country.

*

Around 12,500 Afghan migrants to Germany are to be repatriated despite the civil war still raging in parts of their home country, a newspaper report said on Thursday.

According to the report in the “Neue Osnabrücker Zeitung,” which cited a German government document, the Interior Ministry estimates that 5 percent of the almost 247,000 Afghans who had reached Germany by the end of September will probably have to leave.

The government statement justifies the planned move by saying that security was guaranteed in Afghanistan’s larger cities. “A worsening of the security situation in the entire country cannot be confirmed,” the newspaper cited the document as saying.

 The document said the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF) would, however, handle applications for asylum by Afghans on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the risks faced by each applicant.

Some migrants were expected to return of their own accord, it said, but noted that other removals might be by force.

The document is the response by the government to a question posed by the hard-left Left party.

Safe country?

Forced repatriations to Afghanistan are a controversial issue in Germany, with many doubts still remaining as to how safe the country is. Attacks by the Taliban are still occurring regularly across the country, including one last week on the German consulate in Mazar-e-Sharif in which four people died.

At the start of October, the EU and Afghanistan signed a much-criticized agreement that would make the deportation of rejected asylum-seekers easier.

In the past few years, there have been few Afghan deportations owing to the civil war there.

The “Neue Osnabrücker Zeitung” reported in its article that just 27 rejected Afghan asylum-seekers had been deported so far this year, and only nine in 2015.

However, the rate of acceptance of Afghan asylum applications fell in 2016 to 52.4 percent as compared with 77.6 percent the year before.

---

→ Deutsche Welle. 2016-12-15. De Maiziere defends deporting planeload of rejected Afghan asylum-seekers

The German interior minister has said the decision to deport a group of rejected Afghan asylum-seekers was “necessary.” But not everyone agrees with that assessment.

*

German Interior Minister Thomas de Maiziere on Thursday stood by the decision to carry out the deportation of rejected Afghan asylum-seekers. 

“Such repatriation measures are correct and necessary in order to keep our asylum system functioning,” de Maiziere said at a press conference. No voluntary returnees were on board the flight that left Germany on Wednesday evening.

He confirmed that 34 men were on board the plane, a third of whom had criminal records in Germany. Convictions against some of the men included theft, robbery, drug violations, manslaughter and rape.

Some deportees expressed their disappointment with being sent to Afghanistan.

“I am not happy, everything is different for me here,” Sidiq Kuchai, a 23-year-old from northern Baghlan province who was in Germany for seven years, told the AP news agency. “I had a good job and was working in a restaurant in Cologne. But in Afghanistan, I have no job and no security.”

Ali Madad Nasiri, who had lived in Germany for three years, told Reuters news agency of his rude awakening. “It was early morning and I was sleeping when four policemen came to my home and arrested me. I didn’t have a chance to take my clothes, cellphone and laptop – all left behind,” said Masiri.

De Maiziere said 50 people were supposed to be on board, but some disappeared before departure. The deportation of a 29-year-old Afghan man was stopped by Germany’s Constitutional Court until his follow-up asylum application could be processed.

In its ruling, the court left open the question of whether deportations to Afghanistan are constitutionally justifiable and instead addressed only the one applicant’s case.

Not safe in Afghanistan

Not all in Germany are happy with the deportations. Bärbel Kofler, the human rights commissioner for the German government, warned those being deported were not safe in Afghanistan.

“I have yet to see a report that indicated to me there were safe regions in Afghanistan,” Kofler told the “Augsburger Allgemeine” newspaper.

Prelate Martin Dutzmann, a representative for the Protestant Church in Germany and the European Union, also disagreed with the decision. “We all know the human rights and security situation in Afghanistan is highly questionable,” said Dutzmann. 

Afghan security situation ‘not easy’

The plane took off from Frankfurt on Wednesday and arrived “safely and as planned in Kabul,” de Maiziere said. The returnees were met by Refugee Ministry officials, representatives of the International Organization for Migration (IOM) and a non-governmental organization for psychological aid.

The German interior minister added that that the security situation in Afghanistan is “generally not easy.” He added that in many areas in Afghanistan it is “sufficiently safe,” which made Wednesday’s group deportation a “reasonable” action. De Maiziere also pointed out that Sweden, another major refugee host, also organized a similar flight for Afghans on Tuesday.

Some 500 people gathered at Frankfurt Airport on Wednesday to protest the planned deportations.

Those deported were living in the German states of Baden-Württemberg, Bavaria, Hamburg, Hesse, North Rhine-Westphalia and Saarland.

Some 890,000 people, mostly fleeing conflict and poverty in the Middle East and Africa, entered Germany in 2015. In 2016, Afghans were the second biggest group of asylum-seekers in Germany after Syrians.

Germany and Afghanistan signed a repatriation deal in October to speed up the deportation of Afghan citizens who do not qualify for asylum. The German government has set aside some 40 million euro ($41.7 million) for Afghan migrants who voluntarily opt to return.

Some 2,300 Afghans returned to their home country this year, de Maiziere said. The Interior Ministry previously estimated around 12,500 Afghans in Germany have had their asylum applications rejected and will be repatriated.