No you don’t want to debunk them.
Your agenda is obvious.
The non-White world has pretty much always sucked. This divide, between the West and the rest, has become even more pronounced since the Industrial Revolution and laissez-faire capitalism took hold in the last few centuries. Although a handful of polities – most notably Singapore, South Korea, and Hong Kong – have managed to adopt Western values and institutions, but the overwhelming majority of places have not. As such, most of the world remains stuck in slow-motion Malthusian collapse, producing an endless supply of ‘refugees’ looking for a better life.
No doubt their life will in fact be better in the West, but the problem is that when you import third world people, you also import third problems, like your citizens getting beheaded on the streets of London, or your residents disappearing to the Middle East to run slaves and burn people in cages.
This refugee flood isn’t abnormal historically and isn’t going to end. For millennia, foreign invaders – from the Moors in Spain to the Huns in Germania – have been trying to gain access to the green fields and fertile lands of Europe. And this invasion isn’t expected to end; Africa, for example, is expected to quadruple in population to four billion by the end of the century. The only difference between now and the past is that your ancestors had the guts to repel invaders and were willing to lay down their lives to secure an existence for their future and their children. That tradition, and the survival of our people, may end within our lifetimes.
Hmmm. Germany and Sweden are the “green fields and fertile lands of Europe”. I never knew that. Maybe they want to make a detour to Ukraine…
As for “our people”, speak for yourself, bub.
Thank goodness the proud history of north American is absent of poor, oppressed migrants.
/shiningbeacon
Germany is an attractive destination for refugees and illegal immigrants because there is free housing, free health care (with a higher standard than is available to most Germans and legal immigrants in Germany, BTW, since they don’t pay into to the public health insurance and the government has to pick up the tab) and financial support which is roughly equivalent to the base welfare rate in Germany.
Can you provide a cite supporting that illegal immigrants in Germany receive health care “with a higher standard than is available to most Germans”? Baseless claims like that contribute a lot to the ugly increase in racist violence we have seen recently. By repeating them you - intentionally or not - are singing the tune of the neo-nazis.
You do not seem to know your history very well. Neither the Huns nor the Moors came to Europe as refugees. They were conquerors. I am sure that it fits your agenda well to liken the influx of refugees and migrants into Europe to an attempt at conquest. But it isn’t one. The last serious attempt at military conquest in Europe by a “non-white” power ended in the 17th century. All later conquests went the other way.
Yes, the law is called Asylbewerberleistungsgesetz (Asylum Seekers’ Benefits Act). Under the German health care system, there are basically two ways in which a medical provider will be reimbursed: (1) The regular public health insurance (which covers, I believe, but I don’t have the exact figure, about 90 % of the population and (2) private health insurance (for affluent individuals and also most tenured civil servants).
Public health insurance in Germany is highly regulated, there are strict rules about how much a medical provider is allowed to charge, there are co-payments etc. Under the private system, the medical provider can charge more liberally, better treatments and therapies are available. It is also easier to get an appointment with specialists who are in high demand (for instance ophthalmologists).
Asylum seekers basically fall into category (2), although there are some some regional differences, for instance the state of Hamburg has, if I recall correctly, included them in the public system.
Fwiw, one of you is talking about illegal immigrants, the other about asylum seekers. No, they are not the same. And neither are (necessarily) economic migrants or refugees.
Our people?
I’m a white male Swede and reading what you wrote, I’d like you to take me off the list of your “our people”. I don’t want to be part of that tribal and racist nonsense. There is no “our people”, there’s just people. Your ignorance and cultural bias is your own.
It is true that in Germany, technically, there aren’t indeed many illegal immigrants since (unlike in the in U.S.), it is very difficult to fly under the radar and especially to be gainfully employed without being properly registered (the ones who go this route are typically from Eastern Europe).
“Immigrants without prior authorization” would be an adequate description (and don’t forget to throw away that passport).
The percentage of asylum seekers in Germany who are eventually recognized as being legit has traditionally been in the low one-digits. However, this is a long-term average and there are always special circumstances (Yugoslavia in the 1990s or currently Syria) and privileged groups (for instance ethnic Germans from Eastern Europe who can claim right of return or Jews from the former Soviet Union in the early 1990s).
Ok, now I see where you are coming from. It seems to me that you are both right and wrong. It is true that the members of your category 2 usually get better treatment. But that is not universally so. By law private health insurances must offer a cheaper basic care option which provides for pretty much the same medical care as the public insurances. The description of medical care in §4 of the law you quoted does not seem to contain any indication that the treatments covered here go beyond that basic care. Am I missing something?
That basic rate is for customers of private insurance companies who have fallen on hard times and who no longer can afford to pay their premiums. Asylum seekers don’t have to pay anything, and that alone makes it a very good deal. I am not sure, however, if they get exactly the same perks as privately insured individuals. They most definitely don’t. Private health plans vary in detail, anyway.
For those seeking political asylum it is true that only a small fraction (less than 2%) are eventually granted that title in Germany. However, you are failing to mention that the majority of people coming to Germany these days are not asylum seekers but refugees who have a legal claim to staying in Germany based on the 1951 Refugee Convention (which became part of German law in 1953). The share of refugees who are accepted on that basis is far higher. For Syrians it currently is near universal.
It is a bit unfair to only point to the low acceptance quota for asylum seekers and thus create the impression that all the others have no legal business being here.
The problem is that most refugees never return once the reason for them being granted refuge is gone. That’s true for refugees from the civil war in Lebanon in the early 1980s and especially from the former Yugoslavia in the 1990s. Kosovo is now an independent country, but the former refugees prefer to stay in Germany.
Being given free medical care when you need it is definitely a good deal - no denying that. But it is a deal that everyone in Germany gets, not only refugees. If you are unable to pay for basic medical care yourself, the state will take over - regardless of whether you ever have spent a single Euro on medical insurance yourself.
Asylum seekers who have money or an income are expected to use that to cover their bills just as locals are.
No, that is not correct. There are cases (and I have seen at least one myself) in which individuals without insurance coverage are being sued by their medical providers. It is true that in Germany, an ambulance will pick you up when they find you lying on the street and bleeding profusely and you will indeed be treated, but that’s not the issue.
Once you are confirmed indigent and a welfare recipient, you are fine. But there are indeed people who are not, often folks with small businesses that went south.
So what do you suggest? Not grant them refuge in the first place, because they might eventually stay? It is not ideal. Their staying here causes all kinds of problems - not the least for their home countries where they might be needed for rebuilding society. But the longer a conflict drags out the less realistic it becomes to send them back.
Right. If your small business owner stops paying his insurance bills, he will lose coverage. If the reason he lost it was because his enterprise went bust and he is now broke, he can apply for social welfare, which includes health insurance. As long as he does not do that, he will have to pick up his medical bills himself, and if he cannot do that, his medical provider will sue.
There is no scenario in this, where he will not be given necessary medical treatment though. I do not see how you get from that observation to your “asylum seekers have it better” conclusion.