Frau Merkel makes a Palestinian kid cry on national TV

[traininthedistance]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-33555619

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Just... wow.  This is the mask slipping.  Who cares about mercy, who cares about humanitarian imperatives.   Who cares, even, that Germany is a rich country with falling birthrates that not only could in fact handle a "flood" of immigrants, but needs that flood to stay on top.

Who cares about all of that.  Much like with Greece, those swarthy Southerners don't get to count in Germany's pure, hard, unsentimental moral calculus.  

Try to play-act at being comforting all you want, Ms. Merkel, it's fooling nobody.  The policies (and attitudes behind those policies) that you push, and that are supported by, seemingly, most Germans, are inexorably in contradiction with anything resembling "comfort" or "humanity".

Good gravy.

[Oakvale]

Good for her for having the courage to say that to someone's face rather than pandering while simultaneously vetoing asylum behind a desk like every other politician.

[traininthedistance]

Good for her for having the courage to say that to someone's face rather than pandering while simultaneously vetoing asylum behind a desk like every other politician.

The "courage" of being open about one's status as a heartless bastard is not something I'm inclined to award any brownie points for.

What would be real courage, especially in Germany it seems, is not being a heartless bastard in the first place.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Dude, all (well almost all) European countries are as bad as each other wrt the issue of refugees and asylum seekers. From a British point of view the unusual thing here is that a leading politician actually met an asylum seeker: we prefer to keep them concentrated in camps.

[Cassius]

1 like = 1 tear.

More seriously, the fact that a supposedly serious (and publically funded) source of news like the BBC puts this irrelevant and pointless clickbait on their website does make one wonder. Besides, what is she supposed to do? Reverse government policy on the basis of one teary eyed little girl? Be reasonable.

[Antonio the Sixth]

That's genuinely jaw-dropping.

[Silent Hunter]

Germany did have the 'guest workers' from Turkey, you will remember.

[traininthedistance]

1 like = 1 tear.

More seriously, the fact that a supposedly serious (and publically funded) source of news like the BBC puts this irrelevant and pointless clickbait on their website does make one wonder. Besides, what is she supposed to do? Reverse government policy on the basis of one teary eyed little girl? Be reasonable.

Their government's policy was already unreasonable and in dire need of reversal before this incident.  However, this is powerful demonstration of the how and why that, hopefully, might get through to some folks who haven't thought about the issue beyond nationalistic sloganeering.

[traininthedistance]

Dude, all (well almost all) European countries are as bad as each other wrt the issue of refugees and asylum seekers. From a British point of view the unusual thing here is that a leading politician actually met an asylum seeker: we prefer to keep them concentrated in camps.

That's why I'm proud to be an American.  USA!  USA!  USA!

(Yes I know that we suck on this issue as well, ugh.  But in our history and rhetoric we've tried to be better at times.)

[Simfan34]

Good for her for having the courage to say that to someone's face rather than pandering while simultaneously vetoing asylum behind a desk like every other politician.

Curiously enough, she just signed an asylum bill today.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Dude, all (well almost all) European countries are as bad as each other wrt the issue of refugees and asylum seekers. From a British point of view the unusual thing here is that a leading politician actually met an asylum seeker: we prefer to keep them concentrated in camps.

That's why I'm proud to be an American.  USA!  USA!  USA!

(Yes I know that we suck on this issue as well, ugh.  But in our history and rhetoric we've tried to be better at times.)

At least in the US, the idea of the police checking people's immigration status out of mere suspicion is controversial...

[traininthedistance]

Dude, all (well almost all) European countries are as bad as each other wrt the issue of refugees and asylum seekers. From a British point of view the unusual thing here is that a leading politician actually met an asylum seeker: we prefer to keep them concentrated in camps.

That's why I'm proud to be an American.  USA!  USA!  USA!

(Yes I know that we suck on this issue as well, ugh.  But in our history and rhetoric we've tried to be better at times.)

At least in the US, the idea of the police checking people's immigration status out of mere suspicion is controversial...

In my part of the US, this is thankfully true!  But we contain multitudes, and some of those multitudes are Arizona.

[politicus]

Nobody in Europe takes more refugees than Germany (even per capita they are second only to Sweden) and there is a real pressure on local communities in many places.

The world desperately needs a coordinated solution to the refugee crisis, but taking care of refugees in developed countries costs a lot more than doing it in poor countries - so you get to help fewer people, it gives incentives to continued human trafficking (with all the nasties that entail) and it blocks repatriation later on - it is not necessarily the best option.

Staying "on top" by taking immigrants is not really a viable option in an ethnically defined nation states - at least only up to a point. Adjusting to a lower population (and maybe lower living standard) is preferable to a lot of people. It is a legitimate political choice about what kind of society you want and not an expression of evil or stupidity.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Staying "on top" by taking immigrants is not really a viable option in an ethnically defined nation states - at least only up to a point. Adjusting to a lower population (and maybe lower living standard) is preferable to a lot of people. It is a legitimate political choice about what kind of society you want and not an expression of evil or stupidity.

We should just accept the fact that the notion of "ethnically based nation-states" is a worthless relic of the past that shouldn't (and anyways won't) reflect what Western countries will be in the 21st century.

[SATW]

I was going to make my own response to this, but Charlotte Hebdo nailed it. Great post!

[Antonio the Sixth]

Dude, all (well almost all) European countries are as bad as each other wrt the issue of refugees and asylum seekers. From a British point of view the unusual thing here is that a leading politician actually met an asylum seeker: we prefer to keep them concentrated in camps.

That's why I'm proud to be an American.  USA!  USA!  USA!

(Yes I know that we suck on this issue as well, ugh.  But in our history and rhetoric we've tried to be better at times.)

At least in the US, the idea of the police checking people's immigration status out of mere suspicion is controversial...

In my part of the US, this is thankfully true!  But we contain multitudes, and some of those multitudes are Arizona.

Even there, there are people who speak out against it, no? Didn't AZ Dems oppose Brewer's bill?

[Simfan34]

Staying "on top" by taking immigrants is not really a viable option in an ethnically defined nation states - at least only up to a point. Adjusting to a lower population (and maybe lower living standard) is preferable to a lot of people. It is a legitimate political choice about what kind of society you want and not an expression of evil or stupidity.

We should just accept the fact that the notion of "ethnically based nation-states" is a worthless relic of the past that shouldn't (and anyways won't) reflect what Western countries will be in the 21st century.

But is it? If so, why? What should nationhood be based on in the 20th century, if not?

It should be readily apparent that we are not yet "ready" (if we ever will be) for a single world-nation or, as the events in Europe should show, continent-nations. Hence it seems we should have nations, and they best be based on something.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Staying "on top" by taking immigrants is not really a viable option in an ethnically defined nation states - at least only up to a point. Adjusting to a lower population (and maybe lower living standard) is preferable to a lot of people. It is a legitimate political choice about what kind of society you want and not an expression of evil or stupidity.

We should just accept the fact that the notion of "ethnically based nation-states" is a worthless relic of the past that shouldn't (and anyways won't) reflect what Western countries will be in the 21st century.

But is it? If so, why? What should nationhood be based on in the 20th century, if not?

It should be readily apparent that we are not yet "ready" (if we ever will be) for a single world-nation or, as the events in Europe should show, continent-nations. Hence it seems we should have nations, and they best be based on something.

It's certainly going to take time (perhaps even more than a century), but we need to start preparing the transition instead of desperately clinging to the old order. And fully embracing migratory fluxes is the best way to achieve that.

[Simfan34]

But why should we transition at all? What if people like the old order? I feel as if you are putting the horse before the cart here.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Transition to what?

Anyway, the issue of refugees ought to be decoupled from that of entirely voluntary immigration (which is always going to be contentious as an issue; like it or not). Or at least it's not politically clever for people who favour better treatment of refugees to fail to do so.

[Simfan34]

Transition to what?

Anyway, the issue of refugees ought to be decoupled from that of entirely voluntary immigration (which is always going to be contentious as an issue; like it or not). Or at least it's not politically clever for people who favour better treatment of refugees to fail to do so.

The transition Antonio speaks of, which I assume I is to a "single world-nation", as I mentioned above.

[Antonio the Sixth]

But why should we transition at all? What if people like the old order? I feel as if you are putting the horse before the cart here.

You could always ask, in 1750, what if people liked feudalism better than industrial capitalism. Certainly many people did, and for good reason, but that just won't be an option in a couple decades. And in the long run (and I do mean when we're all dead) the new order will be better for an overwhelming majority of people than the ancient one ever was.

[traininthedistance]

Staying "on top" by taking immigrants is not really a viable option in an ethnically defined nation states - at least only up to a point. Adjusting to a lower population (and maybe lower living standard) is preferable to a lot of people. It is a legitimate political choice about what kind of society you want and not an expression of evil or stupidity.

We should just accept the fact that the notion of "ethnically based nation-states" is a worthless relic of the past that shouldn't (and anyways won't) reflect what Western countries will be in the 21st century.

But is it? If so, why? What should nationhood be based on in the 20th century, if not?

It should be readily apparent that we are not yet "ready" (if we ever will be) for a single world-nation or, as the events in Europe should show, continent-nations. Hence it seems we should have nations, and they best be based on something.

Well, what is American nationhood based on?  

I have a fair bit of sympathy for historically oppressed groups that want their own nation in order to protect themselves.  I understand that, as a practical matter, it's easier to have economic, bureaucratic, and social ties with people who speak the same language as you.  (Note that this girl is a fluent German speaker, BTW.)  But freedom of movement is sacrosanct– it is not something that the majority, however defined, has any business curtailing.

[Simfan34]

But why? (Antonio)

Even if it was going to be better, people didn't "prepare" for industrial capitalism in advance. Nor did people try to persuade them. It just came, and they adjusted accordingly. But you haven't explained why  the "single world-nation" is desirable in the first place.

Staying "on top" by taking immigrants is not really a viable option in an ethnically defined nation states - at least only up to a point. Adjusting to a lower population (and maybe lower living standard) is preferable to a lot of people. It is a legitimate political choice about what kind of society you want and not an expression of evil or stupidity.

We should just accept the fact that the notion of "ethnically based nation-states" is a worthless relic of the past that shouldn't (and anyways won't) reflect what Western countries will be in the 21st century.

But is it? If so, why? What should nationhood be based on in the 20th century, if not?

It should be readily apparent that we are not yet "ready" (if we ever will be) for a single world-nation or, as the events in Europe should show, continent-nations. Hence it seems we should have nations, and they best be based on something.

Well, what is American nationhood based on?  

I have a fair bit of sympathy for historically oppressed groups that want their own nation in order to protect themselves.  I understand that, as a practical matter, it's easier to have economic and bureaucratic ties with people who speak the same language as you.

American nationhood is based on civic values derived from its nature as a settler state. They cannot be grafted on to nations that formed by other means.

Why do only oppressed groups deserve nations? Do un-oppressed groups not have such a right?

[Antonio the Sixth]

But why? (Antonio)

Even if it was going to be better, people didn't "prepare" for industrial capitalism in advance. Nor did people try to persuade them. It just came, and they adjusted accordingly. But you haven't explained why  the "single world-nation" is desirable in the first place.

Because I am convinced that it will reduce social ills and improve people's well-being to an extent that is outright unimaginable to this point.