Germany has deported 20 people to Afghanistan on what was the first flight directly agreed with the Taliban since the militants’ return to power in 2021
Germany has deported 20 people to Afghanistan on what was the first flight directly agreed with the Taliban since the militants’ return to power in 2021
They’re not being deported as a punishment, they’re being deported because they’re in Germany illegal and are no longer qualified to have an asylum case, so they’re being sent back to their country.
What is it now? Are they deported because they’re illegal or because the are “convicted of heinous crimes (drug trafficking and rape)”, as you wrote before?
And if they’re “only illegal”: how can they not be qualified for an asylum case, if their country tortures and murders political opponents?
Edit: and if they’re criminals, but are deported because they’re illegal: where’s the justice in that? The law states 6 months to 5 years minimum for different acts of rape, for example. So they get a free pass now, because they’re of another nationality? Society deems that the proper punishment for rape, apparently, so why are they not punished accordingly, then? And our juidical system thinks of people who served their sentence as redeemed, so after their sentence they could qualify for asylum again, as maybe Afghanistan is still unsafe then, but they’re redeemed?!
It’s not complicated:
Foreign national enters the country illegally to seek asylum (which is fine) -> commits a serious crime -> their asylum case is no longer valid -> they no longer have legal status to remain the country -> deported
They don’t. They almost carry out their sentence in Germany first and the get deported right after. This is not a get out jail free card. This is a you’re leaving the country after you finish your sentence in jail card.
It is very complicated.
If their asylum case is dismissed because of crimes, that would be a direct violation of human rights. The right to asylum does not depend on whether you’re a nice or very shitty person.
So in the eyes of the law they’re redeemed and attoned? How is their crime then relevant in the legal discussion about deportation? You, personally, can still hate them for their crimes, the state cannot. So it’s back to “do they have a reason for asylum?”. I’d say yes, very much, it’s an easy case for Afghanistan.
But it does depend on whether or not you’re a genuine threat to society, which these individuals are.
They’re not German citizens or residents. Germany has no obligation to keep them in the country. They lost their legal status and chance at attaining asylum when they committing the crimes, and they’re no longer allowed in the country once they serve their sentences.
I’m not sure why you’re willing to go so far to defend literal rapists being deported, but there’s no credible evidence that the Taliban has gone after any of the deportees from the previous deportation rounds that Germany made. These are muslim Afghani men who were rejected from the west, I think the Taliban will embrace them if anything.
Ah, that clears up your misundestanding. You misinterpret the second paragraph in Article 14.
The second point of Article 14 is not about “you lose your right to asylum if you perpetrate a crime”. It is about “you cannot claim asylum for the prosecution of a crime”. So if they were e.g. commiting murder in Afghanistan, fled from there and claimed asylum in Germany, because they were prosecuted in Afghanistan for said murder, they had no right to asylum.
No. Here’s the funny thing: having human rights depends on nothing! That is what makes them ‘universal’ and ‘inalienable’.
Again not how human rights work. I’m pretty sure that even the state has better reasoning for the deports than you, as this would be such a blatant violation of human rights, that it would be very awkward for Germany.
You made that allegation often in this thread. But you do realize that defending the individual and their deed is very different from defending their rights? All those ‘Western’ and ‘Christian’ values? Here we could really show them and fill those words with meaning. Having values and standing for them becomes hard, when you have to apply them to rapists, yes. But that’s also the test, whether you’re serious about those grandiose values.
Yes, they do. What alternate world do you live in? The UN declaration of human rights is nothing more than a listing of guiding principles to establish liberal based international order. The right to seek asylum literally has conditional in the original document. Like what are we even talking about?
It’s not a violation. You can repeat the same thing like a broken record, but it doesn’t mean anything if it’s not true. Germany doesn’t have to host them if they are a danger to German society or if they lied about their claim to asylum. It’ll only be a violation of human rights IF their claim to asylum was genuine AND they aren’t causing real harm to the host society. In this case, they violated both and therefore their cases got rejected. They’re not entitled to be in Germany or any country, again, this is literally baked in into article 14 of the human rights declaration.
That’s not allegation. That’s literally what you’re doing. You don’t seem to understand that you DON’T have a moral argument here. Germany is acting in accordance with human rights, the people in question got due process, deserve to get deported, and they got due process. What is there to complain about? It’s not like this is the first round of deportations to Afghanistan under the Taliban that Germany has had, and there has been no credible reports or evidence that any of the deportees have been abused or tortured for being deported. If that’s the case, why are you so hellbent here to defend these criminals? Your central argument simply doesn’t hold, and therefore, it’s not unreasonable to assume that you’re just defending the criminals because you think they’re entitled to be in Germany no matter what.
@Gorilladrums @kossa
“IF their claim to asylum was genuine AND they aren’t causing real harm to the host society.”
So, logically, if the “IF” condition is True and the “AND” condition is False, they maintain their rights to asylum. 🤷
“Moral arguments” are subjective. (Especially in this thread. 😏) “Send them to certain death” & “All humans have rights” can both claim subjective moral rectitude. 🤷