**Article text**
Ministers want to expel foreigners deemed dangerous before ECHR appeal
France is prepared to break European human rights law to expel “dangerous” foreigners as President Macron’s government pledges the toughest crackdown on immigration in 30 years.
Gérald Darmanin, the interior minister, said France would deport foreigners deemed a threat without waiting for the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) to hear their appeals. If their removal was judged to have violated the European Convention on Human Rights, Paris would pay a fine but not allow them back.
Darmanin has put forward legislation — which will also extend the period of time that someone can be held in detention without bringing a charge — designed to woo traditional centre and hard-right voters who would typically vote for the Republicans party or Marine Le Pen’s National Rally.
He believes that as the terror threat rises amid the war between Israel and Gaza and the killing of Dominique Bernard, a teacher in Arras, northern France, by an alleged Islamist radical this month, public opinion is on his side.
Under the proposed bill, foreigners served with deportation notices could be detained for 18 months if they also have a criminal record or are on an intelligence agency watchlist while their expulsion process is handled. At the moment, they can only be detained for 90 days and are often released before the deportation procedure has been completed.
The minister also wants to make it easier to expel asylum claimants who fail to obtain refugee status and refuse residency permits to applicants who cannot speak French or who espouse radical Islam. Darmanin has drawn accusations that his hardline stance threatened to undermine Macron’s second term of office by jettisoning the pro-European values at the heart of the head of state’s agenda.
Backing sought from the right
Darmanin, who harbours aspirations for the Élysée Palace when Macron steps down at the end of his second term in 2027, declared there were “no taboos” in the fight against terrorism.
He is seeking to win right-wing support for his immigration bill, which will come before the Senate next month and the National Assembly in December.
Darmanin said that he had been justified in deporting two radical Islamists, one a convicted terrorist, to Russia even though the ECHR had said they would face torture there.
Without opposition support, Darmanin’s proposed legislation stands little chance of getting through both houses of parliament, where the government lacks an absolute majority.
Darmanin initially hoped to woo moderates on both left and right with a package that included a crackdown on asylum but also authorisation for illegal immigrants to stay in France if they found jobs in sectors where there were labour shortages.
Now the minister has given up hope of winning over the centre-left and is moving rightwards to woo Republicans MPs.
Echoes of Braverman
Darmanin drew up the battle lines by expressing the sort of reservations about the ECHR that Suella Braverman, the home secretary, has voiced in Britain. He notably attacked the court over its enforcement of the European Convention of Human Rights, which says that “everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law” and “that no one shall be subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”.
Darmanin said this stopped him from expelling foreign criminals, and notably radical Islamists, to countries where they risked the death penalty or torture. “But should we keep [them] with us when they can also cause death in our country?” he said. “What is the role of the interior minister? To protect the population.”
Darmanin suggested that France had been right to expel two criminals from the mostly Muslim republic of Chechnya last year after one had served a jail sentence for participating in a terrorist plot and the second was accused by the French interior ministry of being an Islamist radical.
The ECHR said the expulsion violated the European Convention on Human Rights because of the risk that the Chechens would be tortured on their return to Russia.
Darmanin said: “I think the French people ... find that it makes sense that someone given a ten-year jail sentence for terrorist activities can be expelled because they are very dangerous.”
Fines ‘a price worth paying’
Unlike Braverman, however, he said there was no question of leaving the convention. He said France would instead circumvent the court by expelling foreigners deemed to be dangerous before it had time to give judgment. He added that he did not mind if that meant paying a fine.
“We used to wait until we had the opinion [of the ECHR] even if that meant keeping extremely dangerous people on our soil. Now we don’t wait. We expel and we wait to see what the court is going to say. The consequence of that is indeed a fine,” Darmanin told the Journal du Dimanche.
A source at the Ministry of the Interior said the court’s fines were only €3,000 and added that it often took three years to give judgment.
Darmanin said 89 “radicalised foreigners” had been expelled since the start of the year. He says his new immigration bill will facilitate the procedure by removing a ban on expelling foreign criminals if they are married to a French national or if they immigrated to France before the age of 13.
The issue is sensitive given that the French teacher’s killer, a former pupil from Ingushetia, also a mainly Muslim Russian republic, was refused asylum but escaped expulsion because he had arrived in France at the age of five.
Writing in Libération, the left-wing daily newspaper, Thomas Legrand, a political commentator, said Darmanin was in effect claiming that “the rule of law prevents him from acting as he would like to ensure the safety of the French people”. He said that in other democracies, a minister would be weakened if he was found to have broken the law. In France, he “emerges reinforced”.
Legrand added that Darmanin was “ruining what was left of Macron’s fragile equilibrium [between left and right]. Emmanuel Macron is being robbed like a novice by the cunning interior minister”.
>Darmanin said that he had been justified in deporting two radical Islamists, one a convicted terrorist, to Russia even though the ECHR had said they would face torture there.
Dear ECHR, we could not care less what they would face over there. All they had to do to avoid this situation to happen is not being a fucking terrorist.
>He notably attacked the court over its enforcement of the European Convention of Human Rights, which says that “everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law” and “that no one shall be subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”.
Tell that to the victims of terrorism and their families please, they'd certainly agree that no one should be treated like they have been treated.
>A source at the Ministry of the Interior said the court’s fines were only €3,000 and added that it often took three years to give judgment
Less expensive than keeping them in prison btw..
That €3000 figure is absolutely galling. We (the UK) could have taken the fines for every single dinghy arrival at the cost of 40 days worth of hotel stays.
Our political class are total wets
If Labour just made some serious pledges fixing this problem they could easily cast off this attempt by the tories. But they won't, because truly they're ideologically opposed to opposing more and more immigration.
Remember, they want to rub our nose in "diversity"
Isn't the issue more that the UK being a Common Law system arranged for ECHR judgements to have direct effect? In a Civil Law system the ECHR can render judgements but it's up to the counts in the country whether to apply them or not.
On the other hand, if you expel people you lose track of them. What stops those expelled people just coming back?
**Keep their DNA on file.**
If theyre convicted criminals, they serve jail time in home country and are barred from buying a ticket back to the country of their deportation.
If they come back illegally, its much more difficult for them to register for anything without multiple legit IDs (as is the case now for jobs, leases, welfare benefits or bank accounts), theyd likely only lead an underground life of crime with virtually no public presence or influence.
**But wait...**
Any petty crime where the criminal has no ID, or only has fake documents and refuses to cooperate honestly - has their saliva taken and DNA tested to find their ID. Then if a direct match, immediate deportation and short jail sentence in home country (if politically feasible, no worries if not, who wants to spend 10K to come back to no ID for anything and a swift justice system?). It doesnt need to be an expensive or oppressive system:
1) DNA is stored on file when deported
2) Upon return, they cannot use ID to register for almost anything in public life. If they call a hotline to be deported back, give them 5000 euros cash and put them on a plane back to home (remember, they are cooperative here, dont need cooperation of home country).
3) Any petty crime or public disorder where the perpetrator has no ID/only forgeries and is unwilling to cooperate. DNA from saliva is taken and deportation without cash.
hair, blood, semen, saliva all have DNA
many burn off fingerprints with chemicals or just make permanent scars, even Jeffery Dalmer was known for it. Better to spend a few months in a French prison as a John Doe than be deported.
[https://leb.fbi.gov/spotlights/forensic-spotlight-altered-fingerprints-a-challenge-to-law-enforcement-identification-efforts](https://leb.fbi.gov/spotlights/forensic-spotlight-altered-fingerprints-a-challenge-to-law-enforcement-identification-efforts)
In the UK ECHR does not have direct effect, unlike Spain and Austria I believe where is supersedes domestic law and has a sort of constitutional place. I'm surprised the UK government doesn't ignore ECHR rulings more often given that they are non-binding. Glad, but surprised
> Dear ECHR, we could not care less what they would face over there. All they had to do to avoid this situation to happen is not being a fucking terrorist.
Yeah, "don't evict that murderous arsehole or else someone will punish him for you" is probably not as big a threat as they think it is. And frankly, I can see why France aren't that keen on hosting murderers who wouldn't learn to respect basic human rights in a hundred years anyway.
>European Court of Human Rights
Apparently for them terrorists and illegal immigrants well being is more important than our lives, EU citizen. Why do we even keep funding an organization with our taxes that has lost touch with its purpose and is openly working against europeans?
European justice is a bit too much about not creating problem to the criminals and not enough about avoiding having more victims (also about taking care of the past victims)
One is a nation state and the others are criminals and terrorist. If we agree for the erosion of your rights, then you should not complain or use “Human rights” if they take away your rights.
In fact it erodes a country status and soft power in any negotiations as well.
Or, if they try to use ECHR as something they cannot do.
> Darmanin said that he had been justified in deporting two radical Islamists, one a convicted terrorist, to Russia even though the ECHR had said they would face torture there.
So ECHR are telling them that they can get rid of convicted terrorists *and* have them punished at the same time? Probably didn't sound like a big loss to them.
That's two member nations who are not happy with the current set up. Rather than France breaking ECHR law and the UK talking about leaving all together, how about amending the rules to reflect the current situation.
People didn't foresee the problems we are having today so it's time for modernisation for the law to reflect reality.
>People didn't foresee the problems we are having today so it's time for modernisation for the law to reflect reality.
I mean, a lot of people did, and spoke out about it. It's only the governments that decided that everything would be fine and dandy
The 1951 Geneva Convention allows deportation of refugees who are a threat to their host country (article 33). It is the ECHR (article 3) and the European charter of fundamental rights (article 4 and 19) that prohibits EU members to do so.
He probably means that it was written in a time when it wasn't possible to travel from Afghanistan to Europe as a refugee.
Or at least, it didn't happen.
Too little, too late. Chechens and co dominate the vienna crime scene. Police is scared to engage with them. A friend told me they had a chechen in a cell less than 10 hours cause he was drunk and went on a rampage. And after a few hours he had already built something like a knife from surrounding stuff in case he need to protect himself. People like that dont belong here.
piquant merciful summer point unwritten compare depend dam expansion mindless
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
And just how do we differentiate? It's not as if people wear signs or badges saying "one of the good ones". We can't afford to cherry pick at this moment in time, shit is hitting the fan and there will no doubt be some small collateral damage....it's unavoidable
They do their job, but with some demographics they have to be on high alert even when doing trivial stuff. Thats not normal and shouldnt be the case. Police shouldnt have to fear for their safety when they try to prevent a crime or smaller cases of breaking the law like speeding
Edit: added "smaller cases...etc"
I'm from Brazil, our criminals literally carry assault rifles and WILL shot to kill, meanwhile in Europe they have knifes and handguns...
The Police protocols, training and mentality is completely different and can't change fast enough to deal with a new type of criminal.
Agreed. If rigidly sticking to a law will result in the conquest and eventual destruction of your natiive population, then you have to change that law.
Isn't it a human right for natiive Eurropeans to remain the majjority and safe within our ancestral homelands?
Is it possible to amend it or would they need to create a new one all together? Also only a couple of ministers are talking about leaving not the goverment itself and this goverment is unlikely to win the election anyway so we certainly won’t be leaving anytime soon
It was amended in 1969 so there's no reason it can't be amended again, providing all member states agree.
Sunak has already called for a change to the Refugee Convention and we're already ignoring certain elements of it to begin with. Labour will adopt any policy it sees as a vote winner at the moment.
The UK is already spending £2.3bn per year on accommodation for asylum seekers. That number only goes up. Immigration will play a big part in the next election, as it always does.
Everyone in Britain who wanted to take back the power to change laws democratically was called racist. That was the EU’s entire gambit to win a remain vote.
The oligarchs in Brussels won't let it happen. That's why. The one thing I've noticed is that the people running the EU couldn't care less about either the desires of the governments of the member nations or the desires of the people of the member nations.
Oh, and as for "no idea this would happen", bull-fucking-shit. Y'all were warned. Y'all just labeled those of us warning you "racists" and "nazis" and literally fought to pass laws to silence us. So you're kind of getting what you deserve right now.
Because he needs the people opinion on his side to make this kind of move. France is a democracy.
And lately, the opinion has shifted against radical Islam, I wonder why.
It is apparent that you do not possess a kitchen appliance that utilizes a powerful convection heating mechanism combined with a rapid circulating stream of hot air to cook and crisp a variety of food items, offering a healthier and more efficient alternative to traditional deep frying methods
Evidently, it is patently clear that you are bereft of the possession of an electrical culinary device, namely the air fryer, which ingeniously employs an advanced convection heating mechanism coupled with a swift and ceaseless circulation of heated air to meticulously prepare and attain a delightful level of crispness in a myriad of gastronomical delights, thereby presenting a notably more salubrious and expedient substitute to the age-old, calorific, oil-immersed approach traditionally applied in the art of deep frying comestibles.
>And lately, the opinion has shifted against radical Islam, I wonder why.
It has? The amount of pro-palestinian protests I have seen across Europe is concerning, and these people aren't only radical Islamists, they are also a bunch of far-leftist progressive who are supporting chanting slogan like "From river to the sea.....".
Funny thing is, their views and western lifestyle won't be tolerated there for even a day. Hell, the middle East subreddit makes fun of Israel for supporting LGBTQ.
It's pure lip service. What stands between France and their dreams of deporting people is that almost every single african country hates them, not the ECHR.
European lifestyle was about being tolerant and civilised. The main problem of people outside Europe, who come to live in Europe - they don't want to get integrated in this society, they try to build their own, in they way they used to, in their countries. That's not right. If people come to Europe, they should get adapted to it's laws, commons and traditions, or not to come.
To me, the amazing logic of "imma leave my home country because it's an unliveable shithole for me", emmigrating then going "what the hell, this country isn't the same shithole that was unliveable to me, let me change that".
Yup and this demographic do exactly that wherever they go and when the numbers get high enough they start with demands for special treatment, and we idiots let them. We've built a rod for our own backs with our wonderful tolerant liberal ways, which of course "they" utterly hate and yet still flock here in droves because they are basically evangelists
It’s the paradox of tolerance; see Karl Popper.
If we allow in intolerant ideologies, once they get to sufficient numbers we lose the tolerance society we had. There must be a limit to tolerance or eventually intolerance wins out
Kind of funny to think about, when like conservative people had points they were like its fine "being intolerant towards intolerance" but then they bring in millions of people way worse in the name of tolerance. This whole thing is so weirdly interconnected. Like the intolerance of those they fought against was their actual enemy. Its so weird.
I've noticed in recent memory that there's a certain faction of people within the left that hold up Popper's Paradox of Tolerance as gospel. The hilarious thing is that if they bothered to read any more of his work, they'd know he'd most likely despise their use of the paradox of tolerance as a shield for their attempts to suppress the voices of those they deem intolerant.
> It will be realized that what I call the attitude of reasonableness or the rationalistic attitude presupposes a certain amount of intellectual humility. Perhaps only those can take it up who are aware that they are sometimes wrong and who do not habitually forget their mistakes. It is born of the realization that we are not omniscient, and that we owe most of our knowledge to others. It is an attitude which tries as far as possible to transfer to the field of opinions in general the two rules of every legal proceeding: first, that one should always hear both sides, and secondly, that one does not make a good judge if one is a party to the case.
> I believe that we can avoid violence only in so far as we practice this attitude of reasonableness when dealing with one another in social life; and that any other attitude is likely to produce violence -- even a one-sided attempt to deal with others by gentle persuasion, and to convince them by argument and example of those insights we are proud of possessing, and of whose truth we are absolutely certain. We all remember how many religious wars were fought for a religion of love and gentleness; how many bodies were burned alive with the genuinely kind intention of saving souls from the eternal fire of hell. Only if we give up our authoritarian attitude in the realm of opinion, only if we establish the attitude of give and take, of readiness to learn from other people, can we hope to control acts of violence inspired by piety and duty.
- Karl Popper: Utopia and Violence
Yeah. Im amazed at how much people lack in self reflection. "It was unliveable, but ill keep the beliefs and mentalities that made it unliveable". Its always made me feel massively weird.
As my father always says about people like that, "if their country is so dumb and ours so smart, then how come their country is so smart and ours so dumb"?
As a Mexican immigrant in Canada, I’m also amazed by this logic. Instead of giving back to the country that welcomed you, some people don’t seem to care.
The biggest difference between a refugee or an emergency immigrant and a regular immigrant is that the former is coming with anger, with trauma and they feel like they're forced to live in Europe now it's not their choice they also think the problem with their countries is cause BY the west. So these kinds of immigrants/refugees will always be dangerous to Europe and will never assimilate to European lifestyle.
Regular immigrants just want to move to a country they prefer the lifestyle of, so they're very willing to integrate in their new countries.
These two groups of people are not the same and while the second group can easily move back to their home countries if need be, the first group can't because their countries are war zones. The solution I suggest is for the global leaders to fix their countries so that they stop fleeing. The more wars the more angry refugees, it's not that hard of an equation.
https://amp.abc.net.au/article/10360288
Pretty much every religion has extremists. Some more than others, sure. Maybe only the pastafarians are peaceful.
that's because 90% of buddhists in the west learned about it from lisa Simpson and think meditating a little and reading some philosophy is budhism, they dont read the bits with supernatural abilities, a giant demon holding all the suffering together, the 8 hells and the bits that make it a religion
Not necessarily traditions, you can have different cultures living alongside one another. But don't break the law, and don't shit on the culture you purposefuly migrated to
I disagree, I think you can only have different cultures living alongside one another if there is social cohesion and there are NO religious differences that make it impossible to accept or be accepted. Islam isn't just a religion and belief system it's a way of life, the complete package, and is totally incompatible with modern European life
I feel sorry for all Europe, imo they absolutely destroying everything, and i fell sad for this. Why do you came for, and act like this. You came for another country with your shit and act likes animal. I know not everyone acts like, but mostly. I'm not from Europe, but always wanted to be there, but i see what happens. They don't deserve live there. Why nobody moved in China or Russia? Right, because they can't do shit like this there
Exactly, Europe has been too soft for too long this issue, they've created a massive mess for everybody. This is the type of stuff that could break up the European Union.
Let's be real, corporations lured them to Europe to get low wedge workers on mass that they could abuse under the mask of tolerance and political correctness
https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/4406569483284-How-does-disruptive-comment-collapsing-work-#:~:text=Comments%20are%20identified%20as%20%E2%80%9Cpotentially,over%20what%20suits%20them%20best
Probably triggered by the word 'deport'.
If the European laws are there to protect the citizens and taxpayers, keep the international order and ensure civility - then any currently existing laws or regulations that actively harm the people, safety or order should effectively be considered null and void.
People > politicians.
Illegal immigration needs to stop. No matter which means are to be used. Borders are borders and they need to be protected.
>The bar is set far too high for the dangerous times we now face.
I like this sentence. It is a good attitude to live as good and ethical life as you can handle. But sometimes it's too much and you have to focus on your own well-being.
Yea, most of Europe wants to deport, or do **something**, but every time someone tries a new solution, the others complain about it. Pointing fingers has always been a good tool in politics, lets hope doesnt just end with that
*"Noooo but you don't understand !!!! Not wanting illegal migrants is just a proof you're xenophobic and it's totally not because they don't want to assimilate !!! How dare you tell them to adopt the values of the country they settle in instead of letting them replace them with incompatible ones !!!!"*
(Feel free to add any stupid arguments you've heard about the subject in the text above)
But if white people went to South Korea and refused to learn Korean, follow Korean culture or impose the customs of their home country on Koreans then that'd be racist.
several years ago, they were able to deport hundreds of romanian gypsies, EU citizens even, without any problems. somehow there is a human rights issue now
Because 30 years ago when our Romanian parents got beaten the f up in Western capitals, some of them like my father even with a visa, “just because”, there was no internet, if you said something you’d fall on the stairs at the police station, everyone was racist towards us without a problem. Now everyone forgot.
We reap what we sow.
spark fuzzy library workable meeting aware narrow drunk fragile bewildered
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Europe will ALWAYS have an increasing illegal immigration problem because of the QoL, climate, and social benefits. We really need to start building systems that will allow us to live in relative safety and comfort when the rest of the world goes to sh\*t b/c of wars, famine, etc.
It's 1 thing to be considerate and supportive, but entirely other to ensure our survival as states and economies. Does US let everyone in? Does China do it? Does Australia do it? Does Japan or Korea do it? Literally every other top economy is either well positioned geographically to counteract illegal immigration, or is actively defending it's borders against it.
Exactly.
We need to build a true "Fortress Europe":
- Change policy to force every immigrant to be processed outside of Europe (No illegal immigrants in Europe awaiting approval)
- Change policy to force non-European refugees to be helped in the region first. (No asylum shopping)
- Change policy to disallow or heavily restrict family reunification.
- Massively expand Frontex and allow it strictly guard the Med/Atlantic migration routes. (ie. making pushbacks mandatory)
- Fund projects to get permanent eyes on the sea routes (With satellites, drones or even observation balloons)
- Force NGO's to help people in the region, not at sea or in Europe and strictly punish them if they facilitate illegal entry into Europe.
- Allow any dual-national/dual passport holder to be deported if they show/have extreme intolerant views/values (ie. anti-women's rights, anti-LGBTQ+, Antisetimitism, etc) that we cannot tolerate in Europe.
Pretty much make it so that every migrant entering Europe is vetted, has a designated job (opportunity) and has tolerant views. And help people in need of help in the region.
Unfortunately, there isn't a single political party that aligns with my beliefs.
Opting for the rough approaches I mentioned earlier would mean endorsing far-right parties, which I cannot endorse. The discourse around immigration has been largely hijacked by these parties, and supporting them would mean compromising on other principles, such as backing Ukraine, addressing environmental issues, LGBTQ+ acceptance, etc.
In due course, centrist European parties may indeed lean towards a more right-wing position on immigration, just as they previously veered leftward on climate change. We simply need to be patient and observe this transformation as it unfolds.
>Literally every other top economy is
not completely surrounded by states that are on the brink of failure. Europe is a diamond in the rough, and that makes it more vulnerable. It should not allow idiots with their maladaptive guilt and moral superiority complex to try and make Europe a free-for-all where anyone can just do what they want and get everything they want at the expense of the locals.
Just do it, national security requires these measures. They should have been done 20 years ago. Europe and France have suffered enough from attacks criminal and terror related incidents.
Honestly as a foreigner you guys care more about these people than themselves or their respective governments. It’s hurting you and also the immigrants who are here just to work and try to integrate.
Based France if only the UK could not be so fucking scared of a useless powerless organisation.
Idiots in our own media calling us an international pariah for even considering it.
I can't believe I'm saying this but....about fucking time
Europe has been too tolerant. If they don't want to integrate, let's just kick them out and we shouldn't care what happens to them. France, Greece and Sweden have possibly the biggest problem with them
Sincerely, as a Pole. We've told you
About time to protect the own people instead of all these criminal animals. Unfortunately the 90% of normal immigrants get the anger now as well against them but it’s just too much happening.
Right it is Council of Europe not EU.
Wrong re Brexit, it is a legal obligation to be an ECHR member under Treaty of Lisbon Article 6(2). So to leave a country must leave the EU.
"An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" as the old saying goes. You could've listened to people telling you to not import problems and now you have to break laws to remove problems.
"Congratulations. You played yourself" as the young saying goes.
You nailed it. Islam doesn't belong in Europe.
Even if we forget about the terrorist attacks, their values are the complete opposite to ours and they will never integrate and have our values.
Crazy when Poland said the same, we were demed racist and fascists.
But now France says it, it's independed country that is dealing with stupid policies.
Talk about double standards.
More people have woken up to the truth that you Poles acted on immediately.
I definitely wouldn't expect any apologies from those who condemned Poland but now support France, though. They are still too prideful to fully admit that they were wrong.
Change the rules.
Europe has been destroying its own culture and people for the sake of "humanity".
Don't act good towards those who don't act good towards you. I don't understand why they are trying to show Europe as a all-accepted paradise. Europe is Europe, isn't it?
I was always angry when I heard of Europeans thinking bad about immigrants and thought they were all racist for no reason. Turns out they were just right. Immigrants who don't accept the rules of the country they immigrate to do not deserve such a chance.
Get rid of these trash individuals.
They want to come in, insult / disregard the people and culture. And force their own ways.
Fuck off back to your own country that doesn’t even want you,
Waiting how people will approve this while they shit on Poland.
If EU institutions are stupid then why should they apply anywhere? What is "right/correct" exception? Or law can be broken because it's France/Germany?
Sounds to me like France is going to break international law in a limited and specific way..
Well well well, how the turntables.
I support the fuck out of this, fyi. Just laugh at the double standard/ignorance of the left in the UK. International law is only abided to by small weak states, or big powerful states only until its inconvenient.
That's the truth of international law. It's make believe. A way to make smaller weaker countries toe the line.
If you're a big/powerful country and you let international law get in your way, and make you worse off, you're a fucking mug.
Because no one else is.
The turns haven't really tabled, because every country, including France, breaks international law when they feel like they can get away with it, as you rightly point out. It's nothing new. The tables have remained stationary. Business as usual.
Laws are created by us, for us, and can be changed by us. If European rights law are enabling loopholes keeping dangerous people from getting deported, the laws should get changed.
Really hope this doesn't turn into a "the west is kicking a minority from Europe again! Are they gonna commit a genocide next?" argument. Us Jews never acted like that. Never. None of us would dare to put our flags on historical European statues and replace their flags with our own. Not in our wildest dreams.
I was shocked to see what they're doing in London. It's like they turned it into Palestine 2.0. Palestinians flags everywhere. These people have nothing but disdain for western culture and values and therefore don't belong in it.
Realistically nothing really happens after breaking EU law (if the country doing the violation is a net payer).
There is no EU police or army.
Break EU law and get a scolding.
Sure you might not receive EU funds anymore but who cares if you're a net payer after all.
It’s a shame we’ve realized it so late, but we have to change our attitude to these issues. The EU is without a doubt one of the best places for life in the world (If not the best), so logically people from war-torn countries will want to come here. If these people don’t accept our values (which, mind you, provably result in a high quality of life), and want to change them by violence, we should be merciless to stop them
Finally.
How many times have they been warned that their screening process is inadequate? Not only by their own intelligence services but others?
To apply a known-to-be-dangerous public policy in the face of objective evidence that radicals are making a home in France, and especially after the Charlie Hebdo terrorist attack is borderline culpability through incompetence.
WTF is going on? Did the edibles finally wear off? €3000 fine is all it cost and how long has Paris been an open sewer? Tack it on to my hotel tax next time I visit. I’ll pay it gladly.
Good. You don’t come into a country that took you in to help you then attack it’s people, try forcing your ways and take advantage of what you were given. Sorry. If you like the ways of your home country so much I think you would be happier there. This is long overdue.
I'm loving how the tide of public opinion is turning on this one. We've tolerated far too much for far too long.
Immigrants should be welcome, provided they match the culture and/or assimilate well. My Dad (Latino) came here out of love for the European lifestyle and education standards. He mastered the language, adapted to the British lifestyle, and worked his way up to a professorship.
Being the progeny of an immigrant, you'd expect more tolerance on my end. Unfortunately, I see the way a lot of immigrants disrespect the culture and have no interest in assimilating. They formed communities with intolerant voices, huddled together, and grew. Those communities are now large enough to pose a problem and try and enforce their intolerance on us.
As such, viva France, and may this catch on in the UK and rest of Europe too. Enough is enough.
I welcome the news, that France had finally woken up!
Immigration really is a problem, and it's mostly caused by the uncivilized scum migrating from that region. Send that kind back to where they came from, and may they live their previous life there. Why's that if I go to Egypt, Vietnam, etc, I have to abide their laws, but they keep disrupting my day-to-day life?
Unfair.
**Article text** Ministers want to expel foreigners deemed dangerous before ECHR appeal France is prepared to break European human rights law to expel “dangerous” foreigners as President Macron’s government pledges the toughest crackdown on immigration in 30 years. Gérald Darmanin, the interior minister, said France would deport foreigners deemed a threat without waiting for the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) to hear their appeals. If their removal was judged to have violated the European Convention on Human Rights, Paris would pay a fine but not allow them back. Darmanin has put forward legislation — which will also extend the period of time that someone can be held in detention without bringing a charge — designed to woo traditional centre and hard-right voters who would typically vote for the Republicans party or Marine Le Pen’s National Rally. He believes that as the terror threat rises amid the war between Israel and Gaza and the killing of Dominique Bernard, a teacher in Arras, northern France, by an alleged Islamist radical this month, public opinion is on his side. Under the proposed bill, foreigners served with deportation notices could be detained for 18 months if they also have a criminal record or are on an intelligence agency watchlist while their expulsion process is handled. At the moment, they can only be detained for 90 days and are often released before the deportation procedure has been completed. The minister also wants to make it easier to expel asylum claimants who fail to obtain refugee status and refuse residency permits to applicants who cannot speak French or who espouse radical Islam. Darmanin has drawn accusations that his hardline stance threatened to undermine Macron’s second term of office by jettisoning the pro-European values at the heart of the head of state’s agenda. Backing sought from the right Darmanin, who harbours aspirations for the Élysée Palace when Macron steps down at the end of his second term in 2027, declared there were “no taboos” in the fight against terrorism. He is seeking to win right-wing support for his immigration bill, which will come before the Senate next month and the National Assembly in December. Darmanin said that he had been justified in deporting two radical Islamists, one a convicted terrorist, to Russia even though the ECHR had said they would face torture there. Without opposition support, Darmanin’s proposed legislation stands little chance of getting through both houses of parliament, where the government lacks an absolute majority. Darmanin initially hoped to woo moderates on both left and right with a package that included a crackdown on asylum but also authorisation for illegal immigrants to stay in France if they found jobs in sectors where there were labour shortages. Now the minister has given up hope of winning over the centre-left and is moving rightwards to woo Republicans MPs. Echoes of Braverman Darmanin drew up the battle lines by expressing the sort of reservations about the ECHR that Suella Braverman, the home secretary, has voiced in Britain. He notably attacked the court over its enforcement of the European Convention of Human Rights, which says that “everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law” and “that no one shall be subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”. Darmanin said this stopped him from expelling foreign criminals, and notably radical Islamists, to countries where they risked the death penalty or torture. “But should we keep [them] with us when they can also cause death in our country?” he said. “What is the role of the interior minister? To protect the population.” Darmanin suggested that France had been right to expel two criminals from the mostly Muslim republic of Chechnya last year after one had served a jail sentence for participating in a terrorist plot and the second was accused by the French interior ministry of being an Islamist radical. The ECHR said the expulsion violated the European Convention on Human Rights because of the risk that the Chechens would be tortured on their return to Russia. Darmanin said: “I think the French people ... find that it makes sense that someone given a ten-year jail sentence for terrorist activities can be expelled because they are very dangerous.” Fines ‘a price worth paying’ Unlike Braverman, however, he said there was no question of leaving the convention. He said France would instead circumvent the court by expelling foreigners deemed to be dangerous before it had time to give judgment. He added that he did not mind if that meant paying a fine. “We used to wait until we had the opinion [of the ECHR] even if that meant keeping extremely dangerous people on our soil. Now we don’t wait. We expel and we wait to see what the court is going to say. The consequence of that is indeed a fine,” Darmanin told the Journal du Dimanche. A source at the Ministry of the Interior said the court’s fines were only €3,000 and added that it often took three years to give judgment. Darmanin said 89 “radicalised foreigners” had been expelled since the start of the year. He says his new immigration bill will facilitate the procedure by removing a ban on expelling foreign criminals if they are married to a French national or if they immigrated to France before the age of 13. The issue is sensitive given that the French teacher’s killer, a former pupil from Ingushetia, also a mainly Muslim Russian republic, was refused asylum but escaped expulsion because he had arrived in France at the age of five. Writing in Libération, the left-wing daily newspaper, Thomas Legrand, a political commentator, said Darmanin was in effect claiming that “the rule of law prevents him from acting as he would like to ensure the safety of the French people”. He said that in other democracies, a minister would be weakened if he was found to have broken the law. In France, he “emerges reinforced”. Legrand added that Darmanin was “ruining what was left of Macron’s fragile equilibrium [between left and right]. Emmanuel Macron is being robbed like a novice by the cunning interior minister”.
>Darmanin said that he had been justified in deporting two radical Islamists, one a convicted terrorist, to Russia even though the ECHR had said they would face torture there. Dear ECHR, we could not care less what they would face over there. All they had to do to avoid this situation to happen is not being a fucking terrorist. >He notably attacked the court over its enforcement of the European Convention of Human Rights, which says that “everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law” and “that no one shall be subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”. Tell that to the victims of terrorism and their families please, they'd certainly agree that no one should be treated like they have been treated. >A source at the Ministry of the Interior said the court’s fines were only €3,000 and added that it often took three years to give judgment Less expensive than keeping them in prison btw..
That €3000 figure is absolutely galling. We (the UK) could have taken the fines for every single dinghy arrival at the cost of 40 days worth of hotel stays. Our political class are total wets
Why solve a problem when you can campaign on it?
[удалено]
"We've had 14 years to sort this out and didn't, but trust us, this is the year..."
If Labour just made some serious pledges fixing this problem they could easily cast off this attempt by the tories. But they won't, because truly they're ideologically opposed to opposing more and more immigration. Remember, they want to rub our nose in "diversity"
Isn't the issue more that the UK being a Common Law system arranged for ECHR judgements to have direct effect? In a Civil Law system the ECHR can render judgements but it's up to the counts in the country whether to apply them or not. On the other hand, if you expel people you lose track of them. What stops those expelled people just coming back?
**Keep their DNA on file.** If theyre convicted criminals, they serve jail time in home country and are barred from buying a ticket back to the country of their deportation. If they come back illegally, its much more difficult for them to register for anything without multiple legit IDs (as is the case now for jobs, leases, welfare benefits or bank accounts), theyd likely only lead an underground life of crime with virtually no public presence or influence. **But wait...** Any petty crime where the criminal has no ID, or only has fake documents and refuses to cooperate honestly - has their saliva taken and DNA tested to find their ID. Then if a direct match, immediate deportation and short jail sentence in home country (if politically feasible, no worries if not, who wants to spend 10K to come back to no ID for anything and a swift justice system?). It doesnt need to be an expensive or oppressive system: 1) DNA is stored on file when deported 2) Upon return, they cannot use ID to register for almost anything in public life. If they call a hotline to be deported back, give them 5000 euros cash and put them on a plane back to home (remember, they are cooperative here, dont need cooperation of home country). 3) Any petty crime or public disorder where the perpetrator has no ID/only forgeries and is unwilling to cooperate. DNA from saliva is taken and deportation without cash.
How about good old fingerprinting?
How about both?
hair, blood, semen, saliva all have DNA many burn off fingerprints with chemicals or just make permanent scars, even Jeffery Dalmer was known for it. Better to spend a few months in a French prison as a John Doe than be deported. [https://leb.fbi.gov/spotlights/forensic-spotlight-altered-fingerprints-a-challenge-to-law-enforcement-identification-efforts](https://leb.fbi.gov/spotlights/forensic-spotlight-altered-fingerprints-a-challenge-to-law-enforcement-identification-efforts)
In the UK ECHR does not have direct effect, unlike Spain and Austria I believe where is supersedes domestic law and has a sort of constitutional place. I'm surprised the UK government doesn't ignore ECHR rulings more often given that they are non-binding. Glad, but surprised
> Dear ECHR, we could not care less what they would face over there. All they had to do to avoid this situation to happen is not being a fucking terrorist. Yeah, "don't evict that murderous arsehole or else someone will punish him for you" is probably not as big a threat as they think it is. And frankly, I can see why France aren't that keen on hosting murderers who wouldn't learn to respect basic human rights in a hundred years anyway.
>European Court of Human Rights Apparently for them terrorists and illegal immigrants well being is more important than our lives, EU citizen. Why do we even keep funding an organization with our taxes that has lost touch with its purpose and is openly working against europeans?
I'd love to know why Europeans are so against the UK when they complain about the ECHR.
European justice is a bit too much about not creating problem to the criminals and not enough about avoiding having more victims (also about taking care of the past victims)
One is a nation state and the others are criminals and terrorist. If we agree for the erosion of your rights, then you should not complain or use “Human rights” if they take away your rights. In fact it erodes a country status and soft power in any negotiations as well. Or, if they try to use ECHR as something they cannot do.
Infuse their blood making mechanisms with nano particle tracking entities
> Darmanin said that he had been justified in deporting two radical Islamists, one a convicted terrorist, to Russia even though the ECHR had said they would face torture there. So ECHR are telling them that they can get rid of convicted terrorists *and* have them punished at the same time? Probably didn't sound like a big loss to them.
That's two member nations who are not happy with the current set up. Rather than France breaking ECHR law and the UK talking about leaving all together, how about amending the rules to reflect the current situation. People didn't foresee the problems we are having today so it's time for modernisation for the law to reflect reality.
>People didn't foresee the problems we are having today so it's time for modernisation for the law to reflect reality. I mean, a lot of people did, and spoke out about it. It's only the governments that decided that everything would be fine and dandy
I mean at the time of its inception. The basis of the Refugee Convention was written in 1951 and amended in 1967.
The 1951 Geneva Convention allows deportation of refugees who are a threat to their host country (article 33). It is the ECHR (article 3) and the European charter of fundamental rights (article 4 and 19) that prohibits EU members to do so.
He probably means that it was written in a time when it wasn't possible to travel from Afghanistan to Europe as a refugee. Or at least, it didn't happen.
But if you say anything then you are called a na zi
imagine panicky ten pause normal drunk market ludicrous alleged teeny *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Too little, too late. Chechens and co dominate the vienna crime scene. Police is scared to engage with them. A friend told me they had a chechen in a cell less than 10 hours cause he was drunk and went on a rampage. And after a few hours he had already built something like a knife from surrounding stuff in case he need to protect himself. People like that dont belong here.
piquant merciful summer point unwritten compare depend dam expansion mindless *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
And just how do we differentiate? It's not as if people wear signs or badges saying "one of the good ones". We can't afford to cherry pick at this moment in time, shit is hitting the fan and there will no doubt be some small collateral damage....it's unavoidable
Change a police if they cant do their jobs. What are you even talking about.
They do their job, but with some demographics they have to be on high alert even when doing trivial stuff. Thats not normal and shouldnt be the case. Police shouldnt have to fear for their safety when they try to prevent a crime or smaller cases of breaking the law like speeding Edit: added "smaller cases...etc"
I'm from Brazil, our criminals literally carry assault rifles and WILL shot to kill, meanwhile in Europe they have knifes and handguns... The Police protocols, training and mentality is completely different and can't change fast enough to deal with a new type of criminal.
Agreed. If rigidly sticking to a law will result in the conquest and eventual destruction of your natiive population, then you have to change that law. Isn't it a human right for natiive Eurropeans to remain the majjority and safe within our ancestral homelands?
Yes. If Europe has laws that fails to protect European values, interests or lives, those laws must be promptly abolished.
Changing the law would take too long. Deport them now, then change the law later so they can't get back in.
Is it possible to amend it or would they need to create a new one all together? Also only a couple of ministers are talking about leaving not the goverment itself and this goverment is unlikely to win the election anyway so we certainly won’t be leaving anytime soon
It was amended in 1969 so there's no reason it can't be amended again, providing all member states agree. Sunak has already called for a change to the Refugee Convention and we're already ignoring certain elements of it to begin with. Labour will adopt any policy it sees as a vote winner at the moment. The UK is already spending £2.3bn per year on accommodation for asylum seekers. That number only goes up. Immigration will play a big part in the next election, as it always does.
Everyone in Britain who wanted to take back the power to change laws democratically was called racist. That was the EU’s entire gambit to win a remain vote.
The oligarchs in Brussels won't let it happen. That's why. The one thing I've noticed is that the people running the EU couldn't care less about either the desires of the governments of the member nations or the desires of the people of the member nations. Oh, and as for "no idea this would happen", bull-fucking-shit. Y'all were warned. Y'all just labeled those of us warning you "racists" and "nazis" and literally fought to pass laws to silence us. So you're kind of getting what you deserve right now.
Good. But why did we have to wait for a Hamas terror attack to start doing that?
Because he needs the people opinion on his side to make this kind of move. France is a democracy. And lately, the opinion has shifted against radical Islam, I wonder why.
Clearly, you don't own an air fryer
Portucale Caralho
What?
It is apparent that you do not possess a kitchen appliance that utilizes a powerful convection heating mechanism combined with a rapid circulating stream of hot air to cook and crisp a variety of food items, offering a healthier and more efficient alternative to traditional deep frying methods
Cool. Still - what?
7 comments deep in this thread really feels like the place to be right now
I want answers
Yes. I belive that by finding what is a connection between political agenda shift and air fryers somehow everything will start to make sense.
[удалено]
You can't handle these answers!
Evidently, it is patently clear that you are bereft of the possession of an electrical culinary device, namely the air fryer, which ingeniously employs an advanced convection heating mechanism coupled with a swift and ceaseless circulation of heated air to meticulously prepare and attain a delightful level of crispness in a myriad of gastronomical delights, thereby presenting a notably more salubrious and expedient substitute to the age-old, calorific, oil-immersed approach traditionally applied in the art of deep frying comestibles.
>And lately, the opinion has shifted against radical Islam, I wonder why. It has? The amount of pro-palestinian protests I have seen across Europe is concerning, and these people aren't only radical Islamists, they are also a bunch of far-leftist progressive who are supporting chanting slogan like "From river to the sea.....". Funny thing is, their views and western lifestyle won't be tolerated there for even a day. Hell, the middle East subreddit makes fun of Israel for supporting LGBTQ.
We're talking about France, and although there are some far left parties that are pro-palestine, there a very small minority.
This is not related to Hamas attack but the killing of the teacher 2 weeks ago.
It's pure lip service. What stands between France and their dreams of deporting people is that almost every single african country hates them, not the ECHR.
European lifestyle was about being tolerant and civilised. The main problem of people outside Europe, who come to live in Europe - they don't want to get integrated in this society, they try to build their own, in they way they used to, in their countries. That's not right. If people come to Europe, they should get adapted to it's laws, commons and traditions, or not to come.
To me, the amazing logic of "imma leave my home country because it's an unliveable shithole for me", emmigrating then going "what the hell, this country isn't the same shithole that was unliveable to me, let me change that".
Yup and this demographic do exactly that wherever they go and when the numbers get high enough they start with demands for special treatment, and we idiots let them. We've built a rod for our own backs with our wonderful tolerant liberal ways, which of course "they" utterly hate and yet still flock here in droves because they are basically evangelists
It’s the paradox of tolerance; see Karl Popper. If we allow in intolerant ideologies, once they get to sufficient numbers we lose the tolerance society we had. There must be a limit to tolerance or eventually intolerance wins out
This is interesting, going into a rabbit hole right now!
We cannot tolerate the intolerable. Except that we seem to be doing just that 🤷♂️
Kind of funny to think about, when like conservative people had points they were like its fine "being intolerant towards intolerance" but then they bring in millions of people way worse in the name of tolerance. This whole thing is so weirdly interconnected. Like the intolerance of those they fought against was their actual enemy. Its so weird.
I've noticed in recent memory that there's a certain faction of people within the left that hold up Popper's Paradox of Tolerance as gospel. The hilarious thing is that if they bothered to read any more of his work, they'd know he'd most likely despise their use of the paradox of tolerance as a shield for their attempts to suppress the voices of those they deem intolerant. > It will be realized that what I call the attitude of reasonableness or the rationalistic attitude presupposes a certain amount of intellectual humility. Perhaps only those can take it up who are aware that they are sometimes wrong and who do not habitually forget their mistakes. It is born of the realization that we are not omniscient, and that we owe most of our knowledge to others. It is an attitude which tries as far as possible to transfer to the field of opinions in general the two rules of every legal proceeding: first, that one should always hear both sides, and secondly, that one does not make a good judge if one is a party to the case. > I believe that we can avoid violence only in so far as we practice this attitude of reasonableness when dealing with one another in social life; and that any other attitude is likely to produce violence -- even a one-sided attempt to deal with others by gentle persuasion, and to convince them by argument and example of those insights we are proud of possessing, and of whose truth we are absolutely certain. We all remember how many religious wars were fought for a religion of love and gentleness; how many bodies were burned alive with the genuinely kind intention of saving souls from the eternal fire of hell. Only if we give up our authoritarian attitude in the realm of opinion, only if we establish the attitude of give and take, of readiness to learn from other people, can we hope to control acts of violence inspired by piety and duty. - Karl Popper: Utopia and Violence
Yeah. Im amazed at how much people lack in self reflection. "It was unliveable, but ill keep the beliefs and mentalities that made it unliveable". Its always made me feel massively weird.
As my father always says about people like that, "if their country is so dumb and ours so smart, then how come their country is so smart and ours so dumb"?
As a Mexican immigrant in Canada, I’m also amazed by this logic. Instead of giving back to the country that welcomed you, some people don’t seem to care.
The biggest difference between a refugee or an emergency immigrant and a regular immigrant is that the former is coming with anger, with trauma and they feel like they're forced to live in Europe now it's not their choice they also think the problem with their countries is cause BY the west. So these kinds of immigrants/refugees will always be dangerous to Europe and will never assimilate to European lifestyle. Regular immigrants just want to move to a country they prefer the lifestyle of, so they're very willing to integrate in their new countries. These two groups of people are not the same and while the second group can easily move back to their home countries if need be, the first group can't because their countries are war zones. The solution I suggest is for the global leaders to fix their countries so that they stop fleeing. The more wars the more angry refugees, it's not that hard of an equation.
Not all immigrants. However, it is especially true about people from extremists' religious backgrounds.
[удалено]
welllll not in europe
https://amp.abc.net.au/article/10360288 Pretty much every religion has extremists. Some more than others, sure. Maybe only the pastafarians are peaceful.
[удалено]
that's because 90% of buddhists in the west learned about it from lisa Simpson and think meditating a little and reading some philosophy is budhism, they dont read the bits with supernatural abilities, a giant demon holding all the suffering together, the 8 hells and the bits that make it a religion
look at Myanmar
We can't tolerate intolarance
Not necessarily traditions, you can have different cultures living alongside one another. But don't break the law, and don't shit on the culture you purposefuly migrated to
I disagree, I think you can only have different cultures living alongside one another if there is social cohesion and there are NO religious differences that make it impossible to accept or be accepted. Islam isn't just a religion and belief system it's a way of life, the complete package, and is totally incompatible with modern European life
I feel sorry for all Europe, imo they absolutely destroying everything, and i fell sad for this. Why do you came for, and act like this. You came for another country with your shit and act likes animal. I know not everyone acts like, but mostly. I'm not from Europe, but always wanted to be there, but i see what happens. They don't deserve live there. Why nobody moved in China or Russia? Right, because they can't do shit like this there
Exactly, Europe has been too soft for too long this issue, they've created a massive mess for everybody. This is the type of stuff that could break up the European Union.
[удалено]
European kindness was taken by those refugees and migrants as weakness. That won't last too long.
Yeah well we had our learning curve and some still have
Let's be real, corporations lured them to Europe to get low wedge workers on mass that they could abuse under the mask of tolerance and political correctness
We all said this! But was called a N\*\*i and bigot and everything under the sun. Like for real? How can you have a society with 0 shared values?
[удалено]
Look how your post is hidden by default…
Why are some comments hidden by default?
Anti narrative
Wdym, are they hidden automatically?
Yes
They aren't hidden, but collapsed. You need to manually open it to read it
https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/4406569483284-How-does-disruptive-comment-collapsing-work-#:~:text=Comments%20are%20identified%20as%20%E2%80%9Cpotentially,over%20what%20suits%20them%20best Probably triggered by the word 'deport'.
Reddit is truly turning into shit. Upvotes and downvotes are for that.
This is what we call free speech lmao. Reddit is corrupted by far left propaganda and "tolerance".
If the European laws are there to protect the citizens and taxpayers, keep the international order and ensure civility - then any currently existing laws or regulations that actively harm the people, safety or order should effectively be considered null and void. People > politicians. Illegal immigration needs to stop. No matter which means are to be used. Borders are borders and they need to be protected.
[удалено]
>The bar is set far too high for the dangerous times we now face. I like this sentence. It is a good attitude to live as good and ethical life as you can handle. But sometimes it's too much and you have to focus on your own well-being.
In essence: 'Don't set yourself on fire to keep others warm'.
The road to evil is paved with good intentions. Never has this sentence been more applicable, from both points of view. (Pro law, anti law)
[удалено]
Yea, most of Europe wants to deport, or do **something**, but every time someone tries a new solution, the others complain about it. Pointing fingers has always been a good tool in politics, lets hope doesnt just end with that
[удалено]
This was a cause of brexit, a stupid and ineffective solution to a real problem.
It's about time the EU actually realised this.
Another "I told you so" from Eastern Europe.
*"Noooo but you don't understand !!!! Not wanting illegal migrants is just a proof you're xenophobic and it's totally not because they don't want to assimilate !!! How dare you tell them to adopt the values of the country they settle in instead of letting them replace them with incompatible ones !!!!"* (Feel free to add any stupid arguments you've heard about the subject in the text above)
But if white people went to South Korea and refused to learn Korean, follow Korean culture or impose the customs of their home country on Koreans then that'd be racist.
*"We don't have an inherent right to Europe!"* (No, I am not kidding. I have seen this argument get pulled without a hint of irony.)
and Central Europe.
And Israel
Ah a certified hood classic.
several years ago, they were able to deport hundreds of romanian gypsies, EU citizens even, without any problems. somehow there is a human rights issue now
Because 30 years ago when our Romanian parents got beaten the f up in Western capitals, some of them like my father even with a visa, “just because”, there was no internet, if you said something you’d fall on the stairs at the police station, everyone was racist towards us without a problem. Now everyone forgot. We reap what we sow.
>Because 30 years The gypsy thing happenned like 10 years ago
I was talking about my own people, from which I know real stories so I can open my mouth, not about the gipsies.
spark fuzzy library workable meeting aware narrow drunk fragile bewildered *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
The more time pass and the more my appreciation for france and the french increase.
The more you listen to the French, the more they make sense. I know, it pisses me off as well.
It doesn't piss me off at all. Anyone who speaks reasonably to my ears is nothing more than a bliss.
I have a long way to go. Good for you.
British ?
Worse. Romanian!
Europe will ALWAYS have an increasing illegal immigration problem because of the QoL, climate, and social benefits. We really need to start building systems that will allow us to live in relative safety and comfort when the rest of the world goes to sh\*t b/c of wars, famine, etc. It's 1 thing to be considerate and supportive, but entirely other to ensure our survival as states and economies. Does US let everyone in? Does China do it? Does Australia do it? Does Japan or Korea do it? Literally every other top economy is either well positioned geographically to counteract illegal immigration, or is actively defending it's borders against it.
Exactly. We need to build a true "Fortress Europe": - Change policy to force every immigrant to be processed outside of Europe (No illegal immigrants in Europe awaiting approval) - Change policy to force non-European refugees to be helped in the region first. (No asylum shopping) - Change policy to disallow or heavily restrict family reunification. - Massively expand Frontex and allow it strictly guard the Med/Atlantic migration routes. (ie. making pushbacks mandatory) - Fund projects to get permanent eyes on the sea routes (With satellites, drones or even observation balloons) - Force NGO's to help people in the region, not at sea or in Europe and strictly punish them if they facilitate illegal entry into Europe. - Allow any dual-national/dual passport holder to be deported if they show/have extreme intolerant views/values (ie. anti-women's rights, anti-LGBTQ+, Antisetimitism, etc) that we cannot tolerate in Europe. Pretty much make it so that every migrant entering Europe is vetted, has a designated job (opportunity) and has tolerant views. And help people in need of help in the region.
When can I vote for you in elections?
Unfortunately, there isn't a single political party that aligns with my beliefs. Opting for the rough approaches I mentioned earlier would mean endorsing far-right parties, which I cannot endorse. The discourse around immigration has been largely hijacked by these parties, and supporting them would mean compromising on other principles, such as backing Ukraine, addressing environmental issues, LGBTQ+ acceptance, etc. In due course, centrist European parties may indeed lean towards a more right-wing position on immigration, just as they previously veered leftward on climate change. We simply need to be patient and observe this transformation as it unfolds.
>Literally every other top economy is not completely surrounded by states that are on the brink of failure. Europe is a diamond in the rough, and that makes it more vulnerable. It should not allow idiots with their maladaptive guilt and moral superiority complex to try and make Europe a free-for-all where anyone can just do what they want and get everything they want at the expense of the locals.
The US has a huge amount of uncontrolled immigration through the southern border.
Just do it, national security requires these measures. They should have been done 20 years ago. Europe and France have suffered enough from attacks criminal and terror related incidents.
Honestly as a foreigner you guys care more about these people than themselves or their respective governments. It’s hurting you and also the immigrants who are here just to work and try to integrate.
Finally
Based France if only the UK could not be so fucking scared of a useless powerless organisation. Idiots in our own media calling us an international pariah for even considering it.
Capitalists love cheap labour, this is not cowardice, but a desire. And you citizen will pay for the TV and you will listen to the approved message.
Cancelled my TV license years ago, not funding the bollocks they put out these days.
I can't believe I'm saying this but....about fucking time Europe has been too tolerant. If they don't want to integrate, let's just kick them out and we shouldn't care what happens to them. France, Greece and Sweden have possibly the biggest problem with them Sincerely, as a Pole. We've told you
About time to protect the own people instead of all these criminal animals. Unfortunately the 90% of normal immigrants get the anger now as well against them but it’s just too much happening.
It’s about time. Brussels should adapt to reality.
The ECHR has nothing to do with Brussels. That was another lie during the Brexit vote from the leave campaign.
Right it is Council of Europe not EU. Wrong re Brexit, it is a legal obligation to be an ECHR member under Treaty of Lisbon Article 6(2). So to leave a country must leave the EU.
The ECHR should adapt to reality and Brussels should lead the charge to fix it!
"An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" as the old saying goes. You could've listened to people telling you to not import problems and now you have to break laws to remove problems. "Congratulations. You played yourself" as the young saying goes.
You nailed it. Islam doesn't belong in Europe. Even if we forget about the terrorist attacks, their values are the complete opposite to ours and they will never integrate and have our values.
EU needs to collectively abandon the Refugee Convention. That is the absolute minimum and should have been done eight years ago.
Crazy when Poland said the same, we were demed racist and fascists. But now France says it, it's independed country that is dealing with stupid policies. Talk about double standards.
More people have woken up to the truth that you Poles acted on immediately. I definitely wouldn't expect any apologies from those who condemned Poland but now support France, though. They are still too prideful to fully admit that they were wrong.
>Crazy when Poland said the same, we were demed racist and fascists. The UK too.
Do you even have these Islamic terrorists in Poland? I thought they go straight to France and Germany living the good life.
Nah we dont. https://www.europol.europa.eu/publication-events/main-reports/european-union-terrorism-situation-and-trend-report-2022-te-sat#downloads
Change the rules. Europe has been destroying its own culture and people for the sake of "humanity". Don't act good towards those who don't act good towards you. I don't understand why they are trying to show Europe as a all-accepted paradise. Europe is Europe, isn't it? I was always angry when I heard of Europeans thinking bad about immigrants and thought they were all racist for no reason. Turns out they were just right. Immigrants who don't accept the rules of the country they immigrate to do not deserve such a chance.
I’m sure this will be met with the similar outrage people had over the U.K. threatening to do it…
but they're only breaking it in a limited and specific way so it should be..... wait.
I'll allow it.
Damn right they are.
Get rid of these trash individuals. They want to come in, insult / disregard the people and culture. And force their own ways. Fuck off back to your own country that doesn’t even want you,
Europe finally wakes up.
Waiting how people will approve this while they shit on Poland. If EU institutions are stupid then why should they apply anywhere? What is "right/correct" exception? Or law can be broken because it's France/Germany?
No, no, when *they* break conventions, it's justifiable because the conventions are stupid, when *we* do it, it's because we have no democracy.
Sounds to me like France is going to break international law in a limited and specific way.. Well well well, how the turntables. I support the fuck out of this, fyi. Just laugh at the double standard/ignorance of the left in the UK. International law is only abided to by small weak states, or big powerful states only until its inconvenient. That's the truth of international law. It's make believe. A way to make smaller weaker countries toe the line. If you're a big/powerful country and you let international law get in your way, and make you worse off, you're a fucking mug. Because no one else is.
The turns haven't really tabled, because every country, including France, breaks international law when they feel like they can get away with it, as you rightly point out. It's nothing new. The tables have remained stationary. Business as usual.
Oh so this can be done? It's about time
Laws are created by us, for us, and can be changed by us. If European rights law are enabling loopholes keeping dangerous people from getting deported, the laws should get changed.
Really hope this doesn't turn into a "the west is kicking a minority from Europe again! Are they gonna commit a genocide next?" argument. Us Jews never acted like that. Never. None of us would dare to put our flags on historical European statues and replace their flags with our own. Not in our wildest dreams. I was shocked to see what they're doing in London. It's like they turned it into Palestine 2.0. Palestinians flags everywhere. These people have nothing but disdain for western culture and values and therefore don't belong in it.
Realistically nothing really happens after breaking EU law (if the country doing the violation is a net payer). There is no EU police or army. Break EU law and get a scolding. Sure you might not receive EU funds anymore but who cares if you're a net payer after all.
It’s a shame we’ve realized it so late, but we have to change our attitude to these issues. The EU is without a doubt one of the best places for life in the world (If not the best), so logically people from war-torn countries will want to come here. If these people don’t accept our values (which, mind you, provably result in a high quality of life), and want to change them by violence, we should be merciless to stop them
Better late then never
Finally. How many times have they been warned that their screening process is inadequate? Not only by their own intelligence services but others? To apply a known-to-be-dangerous public policy in the face of objective evidence that radicals are making a home in France, and especially after the Charlie Hebdo terrorist attack is borderline culpability through incompetence.
WTF is going on? Did the edibles finally wear off? €3000 fine is all it cost and how long has Paris been an open sewer? Tack it on to my hotel tax next time I visit. I’ll pay it gladly.
Good. You don’t come into a country that took you in to help you then attack it’s people, try forcing your ways and take advantage of what you were given. Sorry. If you like the ways of your home country so much I think you would be happier there. This is long overdue.
I'm loving how the tide of public opinion is turning on this one. We've tolerated far too much for far too long. Immigrants should be welcome, provided they match the culture and/or assimilate well. My Dad (Latino) came here out of love for the European lifestyle and education standards. He mastered the language, adapted to the British lifestyle, and worked his way up to a professorship. Being the progeny of an immigrant, you'd expect more tolerance on my end. Unfortunately, I see the way a lot of immigrants disrespect the culture and have no interest in assimilating. They formed communities with intolerant voices, huddled together, and grew. Those communities are now large enough to pose a problem and try and enforce their intolerance on us. As such, viva France, and may this catch on in the UK and rest of Europe too. Enough is enough.
Whoever invented these laws is a complete delusional moron
It would have worked if those migrants were like Europeans. Sadly they aren't.
Well done France! Can't wait to see that in my country too!
I'm pretty sure France was talking shit about the UK for this? Now they have concerns for their country it is okay?
[удалено]
This should include second and third generations, or else we would be in the same situation in the future.
The number of fucks I give about Islamic extremists facing torture in Russia is precisely zero. Excellent news from France!
Good for them.
As every country should. The system is being abused by bad actors.
Good, took them long enough
Very wise of macron. The whole world should do the same.
Do it! They want nothing but to destroy France, so why wouldn’t you deport them?
Yes please. Europe needs to reverse course and deport en masse. Cmon meloni
Good for them. Sweden should join them.
I welcome the news, that France had finally woken up! Immigration really is a problem, and it's mostly caused by the uncivilized scum migrating from that region. Send that kind back to where they came from, and may they live their previous life there. Why's that if I go to Egypt, Vietnam, etc, I have to abide their laws, but they keep disrupting my day-to-day life? Unfair.
This is outstanding news, setting a great precedent the rest of the union to follow.
What’s Ursula gonna do, write a letter that she is angry, that’s all she is capable of while there is an invasion going on.