How well is Germany dealing with the migration crisis?

Anna Sauerbrey offers an optimistic perspective on the actual outcomes (NYT):

For all its shortcomings, Europe has actually managed the crisis quite well, in practice. Its external borders are stronger, and better policed and managed. Cooperation with Libya’s border-patrol militias, however ethically suspect, has brought down the numbers crossing from that country to Italy. So has the agreement with Turkey to host migrants in return for financial aid. In 2015, more than 450,000 pleas for asylum were filed; in 2016, about 745,000. So far this year, there have been only 68,000.

According to figures by the German Federal Agency for Migration and Refugees, only about a quarter of those applying for asylum in Germany in 2018 are already registered in another European country. This means that the C.S.U. risked blowing up the government to push through a regulation that applies to about 100 individuals a day, scattered over all of Germany’s points of entry.

But she is pessimistic about the politics:

Whatever respite Germany may have gained this week is offset, and then some, by the arrival of a new and frightening political dynamic. Mr. Seehofer succeeded by going nuclear; chances are, he won’t be the last. The politics of fear and menace may be here to stay, undermining the foundations of democracy. In sound democracies, policies are the results of compromise between parties representing a majority of the voters. Through the politics of artificial crisis, minorities take the system hostage. They create policies redeeming fictional problems for fictional majorities.

Recommended, this is one of the better takes on the problem I have seen.

Comments

“Through the politics of artificial crisis, minorities take the system hostage. They create policies redeeming fictional problems for fictional majorities.”

There’s another country that seems to be having this same problem.

Really? The real problem here seems to be with the phrase "artificial crisis". I think there are a whole lot of German girls, some of whom are now dead, who do not think this crisis is artificial.

The problem in most countries is that the ruling elite hate their own people. They are determined to replace them with more vibrant, interesting - and left voting - immigrants. Illegal or otherwise. This is about a real crisis as you can get. Will Germany survive?

>Through the politics of artificial crisis

This was a global warming reference.

Open borders are indeed a very real crisis. Shame on Tyler.

Thank you for your spot-on, empirical support of the OP's comment. Well done.

2 questions:
- a whole lot of means how many exactly please, plus link.
- do you hold the position that any violence by any 1 immigrant means there is too much immigration? If not, what is the crime level of an immigrant population you find acceptable? Half of the native born cohort, a quarter?

Actually, the problem is that at at the only level that the CSU is concerned about, it still represents a majority of Bavarian voters (which makes the CSU extremely unusual - at this point, it is the only party that can reliably rule without a coalition partner at the Bundeststaat level).

But at the level of the federal government, the CSU hasl only really ever represented Bavarian voters (most East Germans, and most definitely most East German AFD voters, are not people who feel that a law mandating crucifixes in all public building is the sort of thing they consider normal, much less desirable - 'typically Bavarian' would probably sum up the broad attitude).

"In sound democracies, policies are the results of compromise between parties representing a majority of the voters. "

Very Straussian.

So Germany has basically shut down the flow of migrants. This is definitely in the "First they ignore you, then they say you're a Nazi, then they say that they've actually done what you wanted"--with Tyler emphatically among the "they."

Yes I was very surprised that radically decreasing the number of migrants is the success criterion. By this metric I imagine the author is especially impressed by Hungary. And Japan as always the gold standard.

Not before "they" get one last passive-aggressive backhand in though, "The politics of an artificial crisis".

Germany - or Hungary for that matter - does not deserve much credit. One may have noticed that the Syrian civil war is winding down, with Putin's preferred side winning.

Is a pretty tough straddle to say there are no Nazi problems, and hey don't look at Arthur Jones because that totally doesn't count.

If you boys had cleaned house more seriously 10 years ago, you would not hear so much about Nazis from the rest of us now.

If you're in a hole, stop digging. That's how you manage an influx of immiscible peoples from alien cultures.

“Europe has actually managed the crisis quite well”. As well as the Maginot line managed the German Blitzkreig, or as well as the British managed Heathrow Airport or the Charge of the Light Brigade. A Davos-crowd politician or a crooked investment banker for sure might delude thelself that the EU has managed the illegal immigrant crisis well, but for the majority of ordinary people it’s a disaster. Metkel has blood on her hands. The Germans just seem to love reorganizing Europe and shifting millions of people around, if they can’t do it by force of arms they’ll subvert law and due process of the EU to do it.

When the Germans aren't at your throat or at your feet they're busily trying to burn all the West down. Just ask the Romans.

In this case, Merkel, worried that her fellow citizens were too tired or too tamed to complete the final solution of emptying Europe of any Jewish trace, has managed to invite into the continent 1 to 2 millions of young able-bodied men already ideologically well-prepared and who would enthusiastically take the job where the German were forced to leave it in 1945.

So yes, for Merkel and her acolytes, the first part of the plan has been "managed quite well".

Well said, Joël.

Don't forget too that Europe's leaders created this crisis by destroying the government of Libya.

The Syrian civil war has something to do with Libya? Interesting perspective that just happens to not include just about everything important concerning the Syrian civil war.

You do have a talent for ignoring inconvenient facts.

"Cooperation with Libya’s border-patrol militias, however ethically suspect, has brought down the numbers crossing from that country to Italy. "

I realize that Syria is the largest group of refugees, but they are still a minority of the overall numbers. It's not so much about Syria or Libya or Iraq or any other single country as it is about an entire dysfunctional region with a high population growth.

'as it is about an entire dysfunctional region with a high population growth'

Exactly the point - Libya is just one part of a big picture.

You're full of shit epictutus, that was a scorpion that bit.

And that’s the best you can do as a counter argunent?

We have slid a long way down ourselves.

"SAN ANTONIO (AP) — Some immigrant U.S. Army reservists and recruits who enlisted in the military with a promised path to citizenship are being abruptly discharged, the Associated Press has learned."

Not even surprising anymore. Brown people need not apply, and if they did apply, and were accepted, that can be reversed.

Hey, elections have consequences and Trump has a pen and phone too.

Although it is not as if these soldiers did something really bad like suggest women don't make good ground troops.

Today's right. Split between those who will pretend it is not happening, and the real shits who will revel in it.

Meanwhile on Twitter, Tyler shares this:

https://twitter.com/clairlemon/status/1015059119403720704?s=19

That is actually funny - the CSU has always combined both (Bavarian) populism, and (Bavarian) social welfare spending into one uniquely Bavarian package.

As for the CSU's past? Well, they certainly get offended by any talk of the past, so Fawlty's advice is still valid.

Only things your du jour outrage is based on a lie.

Apparently, you are among the 28% of Americans that are so stupid as to, between belches and drools, believe the lying media.

If you ever served, or even knew a service member, you would question the outrageous by-line.

In fact, (Break out the Claritin!) they failed background checks, essential elements in the program. The AP article somewhere way down admits the people being released failed that check. They had not started basic training so they aren’t really discharged.

This is almost as bad as when you girls went nuts over the well-funded Pueblos Sin Fronteras theatrics when they bussed kids from Central America and rushed the southern border.

Not that I can see.

http://www.recorderonline.com/news/national_news/apnewsbreak-us-army-quietly-discharging-immigrant-recruits/article_4a4e567b-d155-5fe1-93ab-4a94d705b27d.html?mode=jqm

SMFS, dude you are a straight up mess

He'll die of old age soon enough!

Good one! That'll leave a mark. Meh

It's today's lawless, hypocritical left. A program created by executive order can be modified or reversed at will, and the fact that it was never authorized by Congress makes it a dubious program, but apparently it's just fine for Bushitler and then Obama to behave like imperial presidents if they are admitting more "brown" people.

Seriously? You only see this a question of technical legality, and not the honor of soldiers, and the honor we show them?

Ah yes, the highly honorable occupation of being a foreign mercenary.

Come on kid, read a little. Mercenaries fight for as many countries as will pay them, and not the one they seek to join in a real commitment.

MAVNI has been closed since 2016. It was a program to get critical needs filled with immigrants (think Pashtu speakers).

The only way they are not processing these people in is if it has taken more than two years to do a background check/schedule basic and AIT. Which is jarring and raises some questions.

Or they were told to slow walk it until it expired. Which is possible I guess.

Obama opened MAVNI to DACA kids which never made any sense to me, but I wasn’t opposed to it. Technically MAVNI recruits need to have a legal visa.

"Obama opened MAVNI to DACA kids which never made any sense to me, but I wasn’t opposed to it. Technically MAVNI recruits need to have a legal visa."

It should make sense, the connection between fighting for a country and gaining citizenship in it is ancient.

It certainly demonstrates you are serious about your commitment to your new land.

You ignored the entire first part of the comment.

MAVNI was designed to fill critical needs with immigrants during wartime. Not grunts. Translators for Arabic, Pashtu, Urdu, Dari, Farsi, etc.

You’re making a wild assumption that Latino illegal immigrants speak Dari.

I understand that I am ignoring the language issue, and concentrating on the question of service and honor.

Maybe Trumpists will ignore that too, because if they had any kind of sense of personal honor, they would not be with him.

Recall both the McCain and Khan episodes.

I mean to push this a little stronger, you tell me ..

Why was it important the tell a group of people who were willing to fight and die for the United States that no they cannot be citizens after all?

Willing to fight and die? What are you talking about?

Do you have any idea how the military works?

These are people who signed a contract to be in a non combat arms reserve unit who have not even gone to basic training or AIT. They haven’t shown the ability to make it through anything let alone a willingness to fight and die.

If they had signed up for active duty we would not be having this conversation.

Apparently some thought it was a great deal: one weekend a month in a reserve unit, some extra $$$ and legal residency.

Judging by the text (paraphrasing) it gets worse: some in the program even get honorable discharges during basic. That means we made a program in which you could fail basic training and get a green card.

Notice none of the articles outright say what they are trying to imply: that we are taking immigrant soldiers and throwing them out of the military.

I just heard a radio interview with a guy who has been serving in the reserves for 2 years. He just got his letter. No explanation. Out.

Are you guys lying or uninformed?

Neither, you just clearly are not well versed enough with military matters in the US to have a cogent opinion.

See my comment below. You’re talking about a group that has still not gone to basic or AIT or passed a background check.

They show up for drill, great. But they have not started their actual SO until they are a qualified soldier.

Nope. Here is the truth you are trying to obscure:

“All had signed enlistment contracts and taken an Army oath, Stock said. Many were reservists who had been attending unit drills, receiving pay and undergoing training, while others had been in a ‘delayed entry’ program, she said.”

I mean what's your real point? That you don't care that they've taken the oath? That they are serving in the reserves? That they are legally ready to be called up?

"You’re talking about a group that has still not gone to basic or AIT or passed a background check."

That's confirmed by the Army Times story.

https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-army/2018/07/05/us-army-quietly-discharging-immigrant-recruits/

One thing is not like the other. This is from the article you just linked:

All had signed enlistment contracts and taken an Army oath, Stock said. Many were reservists who had been attending unit drills, receiving pay and undergoing training, while others had been in a “delayed entry” program, she said.

What kind of bullshit is this? They've signed the contract. They've taken the oath. They are attending drills. They are taking pay. They can be called up.

But you invent some crazy line like "completing basic" is what we care about now?

Shame on you.

They can in no way whatsoever be activated to active duty or “called up.” They are completely untrained recruits. They show up to drill once a month. They have not begun their service obligation at all because they haven’t even done the basic 9 week course that begins your induction into the army. Or their AIT that makes someone a qualified soldier.

It’s the equivalent of discharging a ROTC cadet. They’re recruits and have signed contract.

The scandal is why it took 2 years to disqual someone due to a background check.

It is obvious now that you are just a big liar. Your own contradictions show it. You say they are showing up for training, sometimes for years, but they are completely untrained.

But again, this isn't about training. This is about commitment. Signing the contract and taking the oath is the commitment.

I have in no way contradicted myself.

You just completely fail to understand how the military works. They are recruits not soldiers.

It is a little shocking that a US citizen does not know what basic training is (full metal jacket scenes are ubiquitous) and why/how that is the actual start to one’s time in the military.

They show up to drill once a month for 2 days. They have not done the 9 weeks of basic training or their AIT. They are not soldiers.

Signing the oath is great. But it means nothing unless they can pass a background check and graduate basic training (and AIT).

Of course you have contradicted yourself. They're in the reserve, they are receiving training on a schedule set by the military.

You are suddenly saying that because the military schedule is not complete they are bad people who should be thrown out of the military.

That is an appalling position for you to take.

In the words of a great man,

“Jane, you ignorant slut.”

They have shown up for drill 2 days a month.

They are not trained or qualified since they have not undergone basic or AIT training. You clearly are either trolling in which case you win, or are so far removed from anyone who has served in the armed forces that I need to re-evaluate my stance on Bacevich.

I never said they were bad people, because why would I? It isn’t relevant to the argument, which is only to show that you are spreading misinformation.

They were not allowed to begin training because they had not passed a background check.

You are seeing the word “training” and spiraling off the deep end chasing a siren of literalism and not understanding what drill is.

If you believe people who cannot pass a background check should be able to sign up for the military, be disqualified due to said failure to pass, and then given permanent legal residence then just say that.

Again you are dishonest.

These people do not hold in their hands rejections because they failed tests.

They were discarded as a group simply because Trump did not want Obama's inductees.

Be honest about that. Own that. Because that is what you are defending.

Their contract and their Oaths were rejected without cause.

Either wildly dishonest and partisan, or trolling me hard.

If you're trolling my hat is off to you. If this is sincere please seek psychiatric care.

Link to something that says I'm wrong. Show that every one of these cases has been reviewed and rejected for cause.

Seriously, you ignore the important thing in the initial reports.

People who had joined the armed services, signed the contract, taken the oath, are being rejected without cause or recourse.

Of course it is because President Bone Spurs doesn't think actually serving in the military is worth receiving citizenship.

The cause is failure to pass a background check.

Obviously.

Provide a link.

A link to what?

If they had finished basic and AIT they would not be discharged. Because that is not how the law works.

Um....here you go? Have fun, I hope you enjoy reading it more than I did.

The Link

You'll notice the part about discharging qualified soldiers. And how recruits who have not passed basic training can be removed for failure to adapt / failure to pass initial screening requirements.

it's the initial screening requirements that this falls under.

>immigrants .... who enlisted in the military with a promised path to citizenship.... are being abruptly discharged ... the Associated Press has learned

Oh come now. This is so weak as to deserve its own complete fisking.

Promised path? The AP thinks that there is literally nothing a person can do while in the military that would prevent them from getting citizenship? Absolutely no disqualifying act? Because of the promise?

Abruptly discharged? Is there any other way to discharge someone? Does the AP think there is a 120-day warning period, like when you are getting evicted, where the US military lets you wander around with loaded machine guns while they wait to kick you out?

The AP has learned? Not according to a certain named person, or according to a specific policy? Someone simply claimed something to an AP person? And now everyone who is STILL bitter that some drunk woman threw away the 2016 election has something new to whine about while they claw through another bitter day in their empty, meaningless lives?

To say nothing of "immigrants" -- have any non-immigrants ever been
discharged from the military? Abruptly? Can the AP learn about that?

Typical weak-ass crap here.

>120-day waiting period
That's actually closer to the truth than you think. The major exception is in the first six months of service.

Lol at 120 days. That would be ideal , it’s closer to 6 months.

Exception is failure to adapt, which ivv pointed out above.

The reason it is easy to discharge these people is that they are not qualified soldiers: they haven’t done basic or AIT or passed a background check. They have signed a contract.

The blurry line is due to the weird reserve component rules. You can start to drill once a month without being trained or qualified.

Again the MAVNI program ended in 2016.

Where the heck are you getting this fake news? Some kind of right wing spin central?

"Some of the service members say they were not told why they were being discharged. Others who pressed for answers said the Army informed them they’d been labeled as security risks because they have relatives abroad or because the Defense Department had not completed background checks on them.

But the recently discharged service members have had their basic training delayed, so they can’t be naturalized."

https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-army/2018/07/05/us-army-quietly-discharging-immigrant-recruits/

That's just poor reading comprehension then.

The "Some of the service members say they were not told why they were being discharged" are the key to this whole discussion.

And if you just assume they must be "bad" because other people are, fuck you.

You come across as border-line unhinged, as often as not, the last few months.

Yeah well, I just read this:

“In hundreds of cases, Customs agents deleted the initial records in which parents and children were listed together as a family with a “family identification number,” according to two officials at the Department of Homeland Security.”

But you know, congratulations if your thing is protecting, deflecting, for this regime.

https://twitter.com/michaelluo/status/1015054959912669185

And don't worry. Plenty of news will come out this week to show that many of them were good.

Will Trumpists care?

And seriously, how many readers here had fathers or grandfathers who fought for the United States while "they had relatives abroad?"

My family did.

Someone said "weak."

Sadly, that's what it is when you hide from the main question. There are good honorable men and women here who made a commitment and are still serving.

You're saying since there are other bad people, screw these guys.

Of course that is racial prejudice in a nutshell.

So once again you don't read your own link. Big surprise.

Everybody makes mistakes, but it doesn't look like it is me this time:

AP. “All had signed enlistment contracts and taken an Army oath, Stock said. Many were reservists who had been attending unit drills, receiving pay and undergoing training, while others had been in a ‘delayed entry’ program, she said.”

another report:

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/07/the-trump-administration-is-quietly-discharging-immigrant-recruits-promised-citizenship-in-return-for-military-service.html

Look I get it that people who have never served in the armed forces can be somewhat ignorant in how the military operates. Fair.

What you don’t seem to understand is that this is a very weird aspect of the reserve forces and how they are managed.

This is a group that :

Has not passed a background check
Has not gone to basic training, let alone graduated
Has not gone to AIT for their MOS let alone graduated

Yes, they have gone to drill once a month due to Reserve Component rules. This is intentional to allow Reserve Units to maintain soldiers on the books for a few months while a slot opens up in Basic and AIT and to account for the fact that Reserve dudes have a life (college, career) and may need to wait for a semester to end prior to training.

It is in NO way meant to allow recruits to chill in a reserve unit for years completely unqualified and not ever become an actual soldier.

The scandal, if there is one, is why the background checks took 2 years.

You see the phrase “undergoing training” and completely misread the facts.

Principally I see "signed enlistment contracts and taken an Army oath"

You are defending the government braking that oath, from their side, because .. at best what? The government hasn't completed their paperwork?

Back to where I started. The oath takers were as far as we know honorable, and the government broke the bargain, was dishonorable.

There’s a joke in here somewhere about believing recruiters and governments “braking” contracts.

If a foreign national cannot pass a background check they will not be allowed to serve in the armed forces. The deal is contingent on passing a background check.

That part should not even be remotely controversial.

It should not take 2 years. That’s what the press should be investigating. And whether someone put a thumb on the scale.

However, background checks and security clearances cannot be allowed to become the next SJW battleground. That is a recipe for disaster.

It doesn't worry you at all that "has relatives overseas" is suddenly an issue for recruits?

It is a surprising turn in US history to go that fundamentally nativist. For 200 years it mattered who you were and if you were willing to be a good citizen and you were willing to fight for the United States of America, and not if you had relatives elsewhere who were not.

In fact it seems fundamentally un-American that it matters not who we are but who our relatives are.

Having led and fought beside dozens and dozens of immigrant soldiers, I can assure you that is not the reason their background check was denied.

You are spreading misinformation again. This is, again, due to your complete lack of experience in dealing with the military.

"Has relatives overseas" is going to be relevant if a recruit is trying to join the military and has a fiance, spouse, parents or children in a combat zone, in an area under enemy control, or in an area in which foreign enemies operate with impunity or tacit government approval (Waziristan or Pakistan in general for example). The reasons for this are so obvious that it should not need explanation.

The other major concern is certain foreign nationals from countries that have been repeatedly caught sending sensitive intelligence to our rivals. An example of this would be a Chinese national with close relatives who are members of the security apparatus. Or a Chinese national whose relatives cannot be located or identified with any certainty.

Please stop spreading misinformation.

What you say might have been believable, if these cases had dribbled through one by one as they were investigated.

But that's not what happened.

Given that the program ended two years ago, I assume the funding ran out and the background investigations teams were told to move on. Or, someone from the DoD or higher gave an order that said "any candidate in the program that cannot pass a background check in two years, cut em loose."

Once the press gets off its ass and does its job, we will know more.

Your unhinged misinformation rants have obfuscated more than illuminated.

An easy fix for this would be aligning the reserve forces with the rest of the military and not allowing soldiers to drill with reserve units prior to passing a background check and graduating from the initial training requirements.

You can't provide a link so you just change the subject.

A link to what?

What in the fuck are you talking about?

The nutters who have chosen to impale themselves on this issue ignore one big thing.

These are immigrants who have signed a contract and taken an oath to defend the United States. While it would certainly be fair for the US to call them on it if they break their contract or break their oath, that doesn't seem to be in evidence.

" “Margaret Stock, an Alaska-based immigration attorney and a retired Army Reserve lieutenant colonel who helped create the immigrant recruitment program, said she’s been inundated over the past several days by recruits who have been abruptly discharged,” according to the AP. "

What matters of course is what happens next. If these were just a few cases of people who were genuinely bad, people who were oath breakers themselves, this might be fine.

But if it is a start of a Trump push to clear the books of immigrant soldiers, regardless of their honor and desire for service, then it is bad. Very bad.

Lying again.

You have no idea how the military intake process works and so you obfuscate and spread misinformation.

They are not soldiers.

They are recruits attempting to join the reserves. Recruits who failed to pass a background check in 24 months.

Due to failure to pass a background check they have been removed from the books of the reserve unit they had attempted to join.

Nice try.

What we have in total, is that you, like Trump will disregard their signing of the contract, their saying of the oath, and you will set an arbitrary bar that because the government hasn't finished training them, or investigating them, their commitment is refused.

If you were honest you would recognize that this is not defect or failure to perform on their part. They were given no reason or cause.

Europe? Oh, the place with the cathedrals and museums! Used to be a fun vacation. Kind of a dump now, from what I hear.

>Used to be a fun vacation

Well, not during the 1940s. Or 1930s. Or 1910s. Or virtually all of the 1800s, and earlier. And it's only been 20-odd years since their last genocide.

I take it you a referring to a very narrow window of time that occurred recently? But not too recently? In a specific section of Europe?

Apropos of nothing- did you guys ever choke like a dog in naming Willy Willkinson to run the whatever center. He's turned into an idiot. At least put him on Twitter hiatus. He's embarassing.

Am I wrong to be suspicious of the phrase "so far this year". Sure, we are meant to think it means up to, at a minimum, June 30th, but is that so? I couldn't find where that 68,000 number came from. How many have arrived in Turkey that the EU is paying for?

The first time I have seen this figure in the media (if my memory serves me well, it was in Le Monde), which have quickly becomes a meme (in the original sense of Dawkins) among the supporters of the current UE leadership was around June 20, and the figure was suppose to go through June 15. The numbers for the full years 2015, 2016, and 2017 were given for comparison. Of course, the reader should be able to compute that 68,000 for five months and a half corresponds to about 150,000 for a year, if every month was the same. But it is not the case. Summer, and the beginning of Fall, are the seasons when the Mediterranean sea is the warmest, and when there are the most migrants trying to cross it. So 68,000 should correspond to much more than 150,000 for the full year. How much? No idea...

It would have been honest to give, for comparison, the number of migrants for the first five and a half month in 2015, 2016 and 2017.
But honesty was not the guiding principle of those circulating this figure.
Also it would have been honest, and more professional, to precise what definition of migrants was used in this figure (it does not contain legal immigration, for sure, but who exactly is called a migrant), and to also give figures concerning the migrant of past years. For instance, for those of 2015, how many have asked for asylum? How many demands have been treated yet? How many accepted? How many rejected? Among the rejected, how many have left Europe? Answers to these questions are very difficult to find. (Help requested).

Has the media come up with a name yet for Ms. Merkel's 2015 whim, the way we have the handy term Brexit for its aftermath?

Clearly, that was the most important event of the decade, but there's no agreed upon name for it.

The media certainly does not want a handy name to use to refer to an event that can be described as
- a partial open borders experiment with disastrous real world results,
- an example of fundamental cultural incompatibility between some countries and immigrant arrivals
- an example that western ideas of gender equality (however imperfectly followed) are fundamentally incompatible with muslim majority ideas of male superiority
etc etc etc
In practice any time that I refer to Merkel's Folly, Merkel's Madness or Merkelgate people know exactly what I'm referring to.

Sailer is being a bit modest. He came up with the clever "Merkel's Boner."

I feel obligated to note that Fred Merkle was treated unfairly and the Giants were cheated out of the pennant.

'The media certainly does not want a handy name to use to refer to an event that can be described as' a Christian act of charity, which is how Frau Merkel has described the motivation of her actions. But then, why would anyone ever imagine that the head of the Christian Democratic Union would care in the least about Christian acts of charity? That would be akin to a pope caring about the poor and living modestly.

That Christian acts of charity may not be a good idea for a political leader makes one wonder just how radical the teachings of Jesus are, but that is a discussion for another day. Though as one can see, Seehofer seems a lot more typically Christian in a political context - even if his party is called the Christian Social Union, it acts in typical fashion for those parties that claim they represent true Christian values.

The idea that the Merkeling was somehow a "Christian Act of Charity" does not justify it in the slightest. Quite the contrary in a country where a significant minority is not Christian (and a probable majority practices no religion).
A Christian act of charity would be for her to donate to charity or spend time working with charitable organizations and maybe taking a refugee family or two in under her own roof (paid for by her own salary).
Arguably a Christian act of Charity would be to lobby for a decision and receive majority backing.
But a unilateral decision spending massive amounts of other people's money and putting many citizens (often already the most vulnerable) at risk is no more Christian than sacrificing a goat in Paliament would be.
She's no better a Christian than she is a mother.
She needs to go, no national leader is an actual benefit to the country after 10 years (give or take two depending on the leader). She's past her sell by date and if there are no worthy heirs then that's just more of her screaming incompetence.

'The idea that the Merkeling was somehow a "Christian Act of Charity" does not justify it in the slightest.'

Seehofer definitely agrees, as not so obliquely pointed out in my comment.

'Quite the contrary in a country where a significant minority is not Christian (and a probable majority practices no religion).'

Oddly, the same man attempting to stop Merkel from performing what would appear to be a classically Christian act by offering shelter to those fleeing war is the same man whose party has now mandated crucifixes in all Bavarian public buildings. Oddly, your perspective makes you sound like a sympathizer of the SPD and Greens, both parties being motivated to offer refuge from other reasons than Christian teachings. It is sort of people that vote for Merkel and Seehofer that argue that Germany is a Christian nation. (The AfD is really, really complicated because East Germans really, really don't fit into standard Western European, much less American, political frameworks).

'A Christian act of charity would be for her to donate to charity or spend time working with charitable organizations and maybe taking a refugee family or two in under her own roof (paid for by her own salary).'

Well, Merkel seems to think that with power comes somewhat more responsibility than merely salving individual conscience in the fashion of a pharisee.

'Arguably a Christian act of Charity would be to lobby for a decision and receive majority backing.'

Well, politically smarter, no question. Strangely, Jesus never seemed overwhelmingly concerned with the idea that charity should be politically expedient and actually seemed to be scornful of those who acted in such a fashion (scriptural references available on request).

'But a unilateral decision spending massive amounts of other people's money and putting many citizens (often already the most vulnerable) at risk is no more Christian than sacrificing a goat in Paliament would be.'

Somehow it would seem you have been quite misinformed, at least compared to the experience of someone who lives here and pay taxes. And oddly, the latest German federal budget has passed - another year without new deficits or increased taxes, a state expected to the last for the next 3 years at least.

I seem to remember a lot of American media talking up Merkelgate as some kind of canny economic move that would make Germany an even bigger power in Europe - all that great human talent! the engineers! doctors! Take that stupid Hungary and your stupid border fence!
It's amazing how quickly that has turned into de facto recognition of what an effin' disaster it's been with these rationalizations about how it actually could be much worse.
The mental gymnastics of talking up the Merkeljugend while simultaneously trying to blackmail other countries in taking some of them off of Germany's hands was and is impressive.
I expect nothing less than tortured rationalizations masquerading as insight from the NYT and do they ever disappoint? Not yet!

The last two German Chancellors who were childless: Adolf Hitler and Angela Merkel.

Very small sample size, but if I were a German voter, I'd take note.

Come now, you forgot to provide the contrast - Gerhard Schröder, SPD, now about to be married a total of 5 times, with an adopted Russian child.

In other words, Schröder seems to be about as childless as Merkel and Hitler, except for that Russian connection and being married to a woman with a child from a previous relationship. At least this seems to be the case - sometimes, things are hidden in ways that are considered not quite worthy of being reported on.

Gerhard Schröder and Doris Köpf adopted two children (one before the 1998 election). He was not childless. There is a big difference between someone who can have children and chooses not to and someone who can't and adopts.

I'd classify adoptions into three broad categories (obviously there will be peculiarities and exceptions, but generally).

(1) Real parents model. Two people who can't create a child together adopt a baby or very young child to raise as their own. This is a wonderful thing.
(2) Step-parent model. Step-parent adopts spouse's child. This "parental" relationship is entirely derivative and will only be as strong, at best, as the parent-step/adoptive parent relationship. Moreover, this is usually complicated by the presence of an actual biological parent who was pressured to agree to the adoption, but still has a relationship with the child.
(3) Collect-a-kid. This seems to be popular in Hollywood and the entertainment industry. This is the situation with Mia Farrow's "adoptions."

'Gerhard Schröder and Doris Köpf adopted two children (one before the 1998 election).'

As noted in my comment. And which means that Schröder has exactly the same number of his own children as Merkel. In this case, zero, which tends to a standard way to define 'childless' - at least among those who do not fear any potential hint of offending the politically correct.

'There is a big difference between someone who can have children and chooses not to and someone who can't and adopts.'

If you say so.

A couple that adopts a child is NOT childless by almost any definition (dictionary or legal).

All things being equal, I believe a person with children will have take greater care about long term decisions. ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL.

There are noticeable (average) differences between people who are married with children (biological or adopted, not much of a difference) and those who have no children.

I have three biological children. I will freely admit that I would be very disappointed if any choose not to have their own children. But if any, God forbid, can't have kids I hope they get married and adopt a child. I certainly wouldn't consider them childless, though it arguably puts an asterisk on the family tree.

Legally adopted is not the same as biologically related, one hopes we need not discuss the point. Unless you really want to point out that such a perspective is not politically correct, in which case, I do not care.

If you wish to say that caring for children is worthwhile, that is undoubtedly true. Whether being involved in the raising of a child from your current wife's previous relationship fits the conditions for not being child free is up to you, of course.

You're being pointlessly difficult, which seems to be your function here. You're free to consult either an English dictionary or a Law dictionary.

My observation stands, the last two childless Chancellors were Hitler and Merkel. I'm not sure why that offends you, but carry on.

What's rich is the condescending attitude among certain Americans about the refugee/immigrant crisis in Europe that is the consequence of America's war in Iraq (which converted simmering sectarian tensions into all out sectarian war that spread to Syria). It's only fitting that the current president has spent a lifetime not taking responsibility for his actions.

Why should he "take responsibility?"

Trump didn't start the war in January 2017. That would be Obama, Kerry, and Hillary.

Why do they hate us? Under Obama 63 innocents were killed in US drone strikes. Under Trump: zero.

>That would be Obama, Kerry, and Hillary.

Added bonus: two of those fine folks voted for the Iraq War, too!

Nobel Peace Prizes all around, I say!

It's a consequence of Obama and Clinton having disregarded the lesson of Iraq and destroying Libya's government, leaving only chaos behind. rayward's vote helped create this human misery, and in 2016 he voted to create more. The protection that we're seeing from him now may be a manifestation of guilt.

More important was the idiocy of the quick withdrawal from Iraq when things were more stable than a chicago weekend.

This is too absurd: "the refugee/immigrant crisis in Europe that is the consequence of America's war in Iraq"

There have been sectarian conflict, war, violence, and low average standards of living in the Middle East for centuries. You can't blame all of the ills of the Middle East on a single invasion. Even the fiercest critics of the invasion admit that Saddam Hussein was threat to the whole region and his own people and the alternative to invasion was to leave Hussein in place. Next, much of the refugee crisis isn't even from the Middle East but from Africa and Central and South America. The issue isn't that living conditions and violence have gotten worse, they actually have improved, but the option of simply moving to the US or Europe, illegal or not, is a more well known and realistic possibility.

There is a dosage effect with immigration.

One “immigrant” is inspiring or tragic depending on the particulars, and elicits sympathy.

A million “immigrants” are an invasion, and reasonably elicits other emotions.

Merkel’s invitation to an invasion is belatedly being understood to be more Quisling than Churchill. But Europe’s real problem is the 100 million in line behind the ones already across the border. Absent much stronger controls than have been adopted so far, the dosage is going up.

Regarding Chancellor Merkel's "Christian Charity." One of the things Jesus never said: "Blessed Are The Tax Collectors, For True Charity Comes Not From The Heart, But Through The Glory Of Government Confiscation."

SJW's: bless their hearts.

Strangely, Jesus did talk about a Samaritan, but really, what an obscure story. And Jesus's mother was of course able to give birth in a palace, right?

And certainly someone was putting words in the mouth of this person's party giving suggestions - 'Then Jesus said to his host, “When you give a luncheon or dinner, do not invite your friends, your brothers or sisters, your relatives, or your rich neighbors; if you do, they may invite you back and so you will be repaid. But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed. Although they cannot repay you, you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous' Luke 14:12-14

You do understand that Jesus was talking to individuals about their individual behavior, not to politicians about how to run their state, right?

Interesting point. Of course, how does King Herod measure up when it comes to running his state? Don't forget the mass slaughter of infants as part of a politican running his state.

And Pilate? Hand washing as a solution? Sounds like a true politician who has certainly had many more politicans follow his example over the ages. And is still apparently a role model, unlike Merkel, head of a Christian party.

Whew, I think you’re diluting your brand with those tortured “analogies”. My advice would be to steer clear of religious justifications and instead use precedents such as the St. Louis being turned away in 1939. At least there’s a clear argument that that is somewhat analogous, and it’s merits can be discussed without reference to religion.

In case anyone is interested in some math to give context

> According to figures by the German Federal Agency for Migration and Refugees, only about a quarter of those applying for asylum in Germany in 2018 are already registered in another European country. This means that the C.S.U. risked blowing up the government to push through a regulation that applies to about 100 individuals a day, scattered over all of Germany’s points of entry.

100 people per day => (100*365) = 36,500 people per year.

That sounds big. But is it actually big? Let's compare it to Germany's native population growth rate.

Per 30 seconds on Google, Germany's population is ~82.67M and the birth rate is 18.5 per 1000.

This gives a gross birth rate of (18.5 / 1000) * (82.67M) => 1,529,395 per year.

Compared to this, those 36,500 migrants are (36.5k / 1.53M) => 1/42, or 2.38% of the total population growth rate.

Is this small? Is this big? I have no idea. But it's the number. Take it as you will

I think that statistic is misleading. from the article:

" In 2015, more than 450,000 pleas for asylum were filed; in 2016, about 745,000. So far this year, there have been only 68,000."

The numbers were far higher in 2015 & 2016. It would seem that if they've been this high in the recent few years that they could easily climb to those numbers in the next few years. So, seems to be cherry picking to use only the very low numbers of the current year as a basis for the precedent, when they can potentially effect far larger numbers going forward.

You also need to include the chain of follow on “family reunification” numbers. How many people are really being added, over say the next 10 years, for every asylum request granted?

Well, oddly enough, current German law (passed in the last two days) provides an explicit answer to that - 1,000 per month.

That's right, 12,000 “family reunification” visas per year.

I'm impressed that the commenters here are so used to Orwellian newspeak on the migration issue. Tyler Cowen isn't dumb, he knows this broad mindset of his commenter base, he's allowed it to flourish without shutting down comments or banning commenters like other similar site, yet TC still promotes some forms of this Orwellian newspeak.

Three manipulative phrases in the quote:

- "The politics of fear and menace": This is a tactical way to insult and belittle the policy preference of reducing immigration.
- "undermining the foundations of democracy": Refusing to acknowledge the real popularity of a policy preference that the news writer doesn't like.
- "artificial crisis" and "fictional problems": Obviously, the immigration issue isn't artificial or fictional. If it were, existing leaders like Merkel could easily adopt populist positions on fictional/artificial issues since they won't have much consequence, and there will no political blowback. Also, if these issues were artificial and fictional, the author wouldn't be so passionate and emotional about them. Clearly, they are extremely important issues, and that's what is motivating her to twist the truth.

"this Orwellian newspeak."

Well sure, it's an opinion piece from the NYT.

But my favorite quote from the article:

"harping on a nonexistent refugee “crisis”"

As if the author can just claim that a refugee crisis that has generated a political crisis is not, indeed, a crisis. And her reason: "refugee arrivals are down significantly"

Well sure. I guess Hurricane Katrina wasn't a crisis then, because wind levels were way down 2 years later.

Comments for this post are closed