European Migrant Crisis Megathread

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

...

You really have a high regard of your own opinion, don't you?


They did have an important role in African politics, especially in the South. By their action, the Boer war dragged on for three years longer than it should have, thus making possible a peace more favourable to the Boers.

I am aware that Kaiser Wilhelm sent a telegram to the "Boers" pledging his support but I am not aware that any significant help was sent. May I have a source for that please.

'De Boerenoorlog', by Martin Bossenbroek. I suggest you start there.

Wilhelm sent rifles, pistols, cannon, munitions and machine guns to help the Boers fight in the conflict. The German Mauser rifles were superior at range and had a greater rate of fire than the British rifles. Using them, in combination with machine guns, the Boers could lay down large amounts of lead to supress the British superior numbers when they began a frontal assault. The British formations could not close the distance with the Boers, preventing the Brits from engaging in their favourite close-by fighting. Boers, in turn, were great at fighting at range, and this meant the battles in the first months generally went to the Boers, all thanks to the Mauser and the Maxim. Only when lord Redvers Buller was replaced by lord Roberts as supreme commander did the Boers began to lose ground, and it took them another two years before they surrendered entirely. Had the Boers not had the Mauser, the war would have been over much sooner, and much less in favour of the guerilla forces that would later pop up.

[Traxa]

I am aware that Kaiser Wilhelm sent a telegram to the "Boers" pledging his support but I am not aware that any significant help was sent. May I have a source for that please.

'De Boerenoorlog', by Martin Bossenbroek. I suggest you start there.

Wilhelm sent rifles, pistols, cannon, munitions and machine guns to help the Boers fight in the conflict. The German Mauser rifles were superior at range and had a greater rate of fire than the British rifles. Using them, in combination with machine guns, the Boers could lay down large amounts of lead to supress the British superior numbers when they began a frontal assault. The British formations could not close the distance with the Boers, preventing the Brits from engaging in their favourite close-by fighting. Boers, in turn, were great at fighting at range, and this meant the battles in the first months generally went to the Boers, all thanks to the Mauser and the Maxim. Only when lord Redvers Buller was replaced by lord Roberts as supreme commander did the Boers began to lose ground, and it took them another two years before they surrendered entirely. Had the Boers not had the Mauser, the war would have been over much sooner, and much less in favour of the guerilla forces that would later pop up.

I was just being practical, most of the refugees should go back they will be nothing but a drain otherwise

[Gravlen]

'De Boerenoorlog', by Martin Bossenbroek. I suggest you start there.

Wilhelm sent rifles, pistols, cannon, munitions and machine guns to help the Boers fight in the conflict. The German Mauser rifles were superior at range and had a greater rate of fire than the British rifles. Using them, in combination with machine guns, the Boers could lay down large amounts of lead to supress the British superior numbers when they began a frontal assault. The British formations could not close the distance with the Boers, preventing the Brits from engaging in their favourite close-by fighting. Boers, in turn, were great at fighting at range, and this meant the battles in the first months generally went to the Boers, all thanks to the Mauser and the Maxim. Only when lord Redvers Buller was replaced by lord Roberts as supreme commander did the Boers began to lose ground, and it took them another two years before they surrendered entirely. Had the Boers not had the Mauser, the war would have been over much sooner, and much less in favour of the guerilla forces that would later pop up.

I was just being practical, most of the refugees should go back they will be nothing but a drain otherwise

That's not very practical.

[BalkanWarrior]

I was just being practical, most of the refugees should go back they will be nothing but a drain otherwise

That's not very practical.

How not? If they could cross 10 000 of km to come to Germany, it is not a problem for them to go back.

[Imperializt Russia]

That's not very practical.

How not? If they could cross 10 000 of km to come to Germany, it is not a problem for them to go back.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

'De Boerenoorlog', by Martin Bossenbroek. I suggest you start there.

Wilhelm sent rifles, pistols, cannon, munitions and machine guns to help the Boers fight in the conflict. The German Mauser rifles were superior at range and had a greater rate of fire than the British rifles. Using them, in combination with machine guns, the Boers could lay down large amounts of lead to supress the British superior numbers when they began a frontal assault. The British formations could not close the distance with the Boers, preventing the Brits from engaging in their favourite close-by fighting. Boers, in turn, were great at fighting at range, and this meant the battles in the first months generally went to the Boers, all thanks to the Mauser and the Maxim. Only when lord Redvers Buller was replaced by lord Roberts as supreme commander did the Boers began to lose ground, and it took them another two years before they surrendered entirely. Had the Boers not had the Mauser, the war would have been over much sooner, and much less in favour of the guerilla forces that would later pop up.

I was just being practical, most of the refugees should go back they will be nothing but a drain otherwise

That goes against the internationally-accepted principle of non-refoulment, which is part of cumpulsory international law. What you suggest is forbidden by international treaties, which work above national constitutions. It's legally impossible, exepct for certain special circumstances (non of which are being met).

[Daburuetchi]

I always wondered who gets to declare something a megthread or not

[Rio Cana]

I am aware that Kaiser Wilhelm sent a telegram to the "Boers" pledging his support but I am not aware that any significant help was sent. May I have a source for that please.

'De Boerenoorlog', by Martin Bossenbroek. I suggest you start there.

Wilhelm sent rifles, pistols, cannon, munitions and machine guns to help the Boers fight in the conflict. The German Mauser rifles were superior at range and had a greater rate of fire than the British rifles. Using them, in combination with machine guns, the Boers could lay down large amounts of lead to supress the British superior numbers when they began a frontal assault. The British formations could not close the distance with the Boers, preventing the Brits from engaging in their favourite close-by fighting. Boers, in turn, were great at fighting at range, and this meant the battles in the first months generally went to the Boers, all thanks to the Mauser and the Maxim. Only when lord Redvers Buller was replaced by lord Roberts as supreme commander did the Boers began to lose ground, and it took them another two years before they surrendered entirely. Had the Boers not had the Mauser, the war would have been over much sooner, and much less in favour of the guerilla forces that would later pop up.

Kind of off topic - Question, how did the German supplies get through. After all the only way for the supplies to get through would be to transport them via British controlled territory or via Portuguese Mozambique.

Map of the area back then -
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-F5fWPwtvRn8/T ... ar_map.jpg

[Arkinesia]

That's not very practical.

How not? If they could cross 10 000 of km to come to Germany, it is not a problem for them to go back.

I mean it's not like they're returning to certain death in the middle of a warzone or anything.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

I always wondered who gets to declare something a megthread or not

I do! I throw a d20 to decide whether or not something is a megathread. This system once turned an 'icecream vs popsickle'-thread into a mega.

'De Boerenoorlog', by Martin Bossenbroek. I suggest you start there.

Wilhelm sent rifles, pistols, cannon, munitions and machine guns to help the Boers fight in the conflict. The German Mauser rifles were superior at range and had a greater rate of fire than the British rifles. Using them, in combination with machine guns, the Boers could lay down large amounts of lead to supress the British superior numbers when they began a frontal assault. The British formations could not close the distance with the Boers, preventing the Brits from engaging in their favourite close-by fighting. Boers, in turn, were great at fighting at range, and this meant the battles in the first months generally went to the Boers, all thanks to the Mauser and the Maxim. Only when lord Redvers Buller was replaced by lord Roberts as supreme commander did the Boers began to lose ground, and it took them another two years before they surrendered entirely. Had the Boers not had the Mauser, the war would have been over much sooner, and much less in favour of the guerilla forces that would later pop up.

Kind of off topic - Question, how did the German supplies get through. After all the only way for the supplies to get through would be to transport them via British controlled territory or via Portuguese Mozambique.

Map of the area back then -
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-F5fWPwtvRn8/T ... ar_map.jpg

It is kind of off topic, but it's a simple question. If you want to know more, you best TG me. But the German supplies reached the Boers via Portugese Mozambique, primarily though the port city of Lourenço Marques, modern day Maputo. It took quite a bit of diplomatic haggling to allow this, but after some deliberation, the Portugese allowed the Boers to build a railway from Lourenço Marques to the Transvaal border. This was originally intended for peaceful purposes, to allow the Boers to import materials for the new gold mines in Johannesburg (then newly created), and to export the fruits of their labour. When the British began to threaten with war (after the foiled Jameson Raid, google it), the Boers used the railway to import weapons and munitions. This continued until the British seized the railway connection to Portugese Mozambique, which was one of the last objectives they actually took. From then on, the guerillas had to rely on scavenged supplies, stolen rifles and whatever stock they had left. So, to answer your question: via Portugese Mozambique.

[Trollgaard]

I was just being practical, most of the refugees should go back they will be nothing but a drain otherwise

That goes against the internationally-accepted principle of non-refoulment, which is part of cumpulsory international law. What you suggest is forbidden by international treaties, which work above national constitutions. It's legally impossible, exepct for certain special circumstances (non of which are being met).

Legality is really meaningless unless the laws are enforced. You can crow all you want about something, but if Germany and other nations said enough, and started deporting migrants en masse who would stop them? Nobody.

[Imperializt Russia]

That goes against the internationally-accepted principle of non-refoulment, which is part of cumpulsory international law. What you suggest is forbidden by international treaties, which work above national constitutions. It's legally impossible, exepct for certain special circumstances (non of which are being met).

Legality is really meaningless unless the laws are enforced. You can crow all you want about something, but if Germany and other nations said enough, and started deporting migrants en masse who would stop them? Nobody.

Germany flouting international law has poor historical precedent.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

That goes against the internationally-accepted principle of non-refoulment, which is part of cumpulsory international law. What you suggest is forbidden by international treaties, which work above national constitutions. It's legally impossible, exepct for certain special circumstances (non of which are being met).

Legality is really meaningless unless the laws are enforced. You can crow all you want about something, but if Germany and other nations said enough, and started deporting migrants en masse who would stop them? Nobody.

That counts for every law in existence. If everyone stopped following a law, it would be impossible to enforce. But are we all going about stealing things? I didn't think so.

As for the myth that no-one enforces international law: that's bullshit, too. It is true that there is no international body that acts as a world government to force nations to do anything. Luckily, we don't need that at this stage. Nations make other nations comply. Nations that don't follow treaty obligations get a very bad reputation hit, and it will be quite difficult for them to sign good treaties in the future. And then we have the ICJ, which other nations can use to force some other state to comply. If they don't, we sail right into the waters of the Draft Articles for the Responsibilities of States (DARS), which basically states that a nation that doesn't comply to treaty obligations should pay out of their asses. International law is enforced allright, even if it's not by some international superorganistion.

[Draakonite]

That's not very practical.

How not? If they could cross 10 000 of km to come to Germany, it is not a problem for them to go back.

But I would walk 500 miles
And I would walk 500 more...

I was just being practical, most of the refugees should go back they will be nothing but a drain otherwise

That goes against the internationally-accepted principle of non-refoulment, which is part of cumpulsory international law. What you suggest is forbidden by international treaties, which work above national constitutions. It's legally impossible, exepct for certain special circumstances (non of which are being met).

Depends on how far "back" they go. Theres an awful lot of "safe" states between western europe and syria.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

How not? If they could cross 10 000 of km to come to Germany, it is not a problem for them to go back.

But I would walk 500 miles
And I would walk 500 more...

That goes against the internationally-accepted principle of non-refoulment, which is part of cumpulsory international law. What you suggest is forbidden by international treaties, which work above national constitutions. It's legally impossible, exepct for certain special circumstances (non of which are being met).

Depends on how far "back" they go. Theres an awful lot of "safe" states between western europe and syria.

Doesn't matter. Here's the article:

ARTICLE 32. EXPULSION
1. The Contracting States shall not expel a refugee lawfully in their territory save on grounds of national
security or public order and in pursuance of a decision reached in accordance with the process of law.
2. Each refugee shall be entitled, in accordance with the established law and procedure of the country, to submit
evidence to clear himself and to be represented before the competent authority.
3. The Contracting States shall allow such refugee a reasonable period within which to seek legal admission into
another country. The Contracting States reserve the right to apply during that period such internal measures as they may
deem necessary.

So, yeah. There is no ground to expel any refugee if a nation accepts them. And nations have begun accepting refugees. There is no turning bac from there.

[Draakonite]

But I would walk 500 miles
And I would walk 500 more...



Depends on how far "back" they go. Theres an awful lot of "safe" states between western europe and syria.

Doesn't matter. Here's the article:

ARTICLE 32. EXPULSION
1. The Contracting States shall not expel a refugee lawfully in their territory save on grounds of national
security or public order and in pursuance of a decision reached in accordance with the process of law.
2. Each refugee shall be entitled, in accordance with the established law and procedure of the country, to submit
evidence to clear himself and to be represented before the competent authority.
3. The Contracting States shall allow such refugee a reasonable period within which to seek legal admission into
another country. The Contracting States reserve the right to apply during that period such internal measures as they may
deem necessary.

So, yeah. There is no ground to expel any refugee if a nation accepts them. And nations have begun accepting refugees. There is no turning bac from there.

Edit: What does refugee mean in that context? One that was accepted already, eg got through the whole application and got a shiny new citizenship?

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Doesn't matter. Here's the article:

ARTICLE 32. EXPULSION
1. The Contracting States shall not expel a refugee lawfully in their territory save on grounds of national
security or public order and in pursuance of a decision reached in accordance with the process of law.
2. Each refugee shall be entitled, in accordance with the established law and procedure of the country, to submit
evidence to clear himself and to be represented before the competent authority.
3. The Contracting States shall allow such refugee a reasonable period within which to seek legal admission into
another country. The Contracting States reserve the right to apply during that period such internal measures as they may
deem necessary.

So, yeah. There is no ground to expel any refugee if a nation accepts them. And nations have begun accepting refugees. There is no turning bac from there.

Edit: What does refugee mean in that context? One that was accepted already, eg got through the whole application and got a shiny new citizenship?

Refugee, in this context, is defined as follows, according to the 1951 convention:

Article 1
definition of the term “refugee”
A. For the purposes of the present Convention, the term “refugee” shall
apply to any person who:
(1) Has been considered a refugee under the Arrangements of 12 May 1926
and 30 June 1928 or under the Conventions of 28 October 1933 and 10
February 1938, the Protocol of 14 September 1939 or the Constitution of
the International Refugee Organization;
Decisions of non-eligibility taken by the International Refugee Organization
during the period of its activities shall not prevent the status
of refugee being accorded to persons who fulfil the conditions of paragraph
2 of this section;
(2) As a result of events occurring before 1 January 1951 and owing to wellfounded
fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality,
membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside
the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear,
is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who,
not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former
habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such
fear, is unwilling to return to it.
In the case of a person who has more than one nationality, the term “the
country of his nationality” shall mean each of the countries of which he
is a national, and a person shall not be deemed to be lacking the protection
of the country of his nationality if, without any valid reason based
on well-founded fear, he has not availed himself of the protection of one
of the countries of which he is a national.

Of course, this leaves a half century wide gap, so the 1967 protocol amended that with the following:

"For the purpose of the present Protocol, the term “refugee” shall, except
as regards the application of paragraph 3 of this article, mean any person
within the definition of article 1 of the Convention as if the words “As a result
of events occurring before 1 January 1951 and ...” “and the words”... “a result of
such events”, in article 1 A (2) were omitted."

In short, a refugee is someone who is:
1) Outside of his country
2) Can't return to that country in safety
3) Due to fear of death or prosecution

[Gravlen]

That goes against the internationally-accepted principle of non-refoulment, which is part of cumpulsory international law. What you suggest is forbidden by international treaties, which work above national constitutions. It's legally impossible, exepct for certain special circumstances (non of which are being met).

Legality is really meaningless unless the laws are enforced. You can crow all you want about something, but if Germany and other nations said enough, and started deporting migrants en masse who would stop them?

The courts of law in Germany and other countries.

[Draakonite]

Legality is really meaningless unless the laws are enforced. You can crow all you want about something, but if Germany and other nations said enough, and started deporting migrants en masse who would stop them?

The courts of law in Germany and other countries.

We kinda have the legal basis to threat them like illegal immigrants... that would be a pretty big hit on our publicity though.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

The courts of law in Germany and other countries.

We kinda have the legal basis to threat them like illegal immigrants... that would be a pretty big hit on our publicity though.

Not really, because Germany has vowed to take in 800.000 immigrants. As soon as they are taken in, they are considered legal. And due to EU legal principles, you can't just shove them across the border to another state. germany has no legal basis to treat them like illegals. At least, they have no basis to throw them out of the nation.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Germany has stated that it expects 800,000 asylum applications. In nowhere except fabricated by the minds of certain opinionated people does it state that it will accept them all.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Germany has stated that it expects 800,000 asylum applications. In nowhere except fabricated by the minds of certain opinionated people does it state that it will accept them all.

Germany accepts nearly all applicants for asylum. It's why Germany is such a sought after destination. They accept a large percentage of the people that come to seek asylum. So, nowhere except in fabrications by the mind of certain opinionated people does that meant that there will be a significant difference between applications and acceptances.

[Draakonite]

We kinda have the legal basis to threat them like illegal immigrants... that would be a pretty big hit on our publicity though.

Not really, because Germany has vowed to take in 800.000 immigrants. As soon as they are taken in, they are considered legal. And due to EU legal principles, you can't just shove them across the border to another state. germany has no legal basis to treat them like illegals. At least, they have no basis to throw them out of the nation.

Article 31
refugees unlawfully in the country of refugee
1.
The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their
illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory
where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1, enter or
are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present
themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their
illegal entry or presence.

Did i miss the new nazi dictator in austria?

[Jochistan]

Not really, because Germany has vowed to take in 800.000 immigrants. As soon as they are taken in, they are considered legal. And due to EU legal principles, you can't just shove them across the border to another state. germany has no legal basis to treat them like illegals. At least, they have no basis to throw them out of the nation.

Article 31
refugees unlawfully in the country of refugee
1.
The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their
illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory
where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1, enter or
are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present
themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their
illegal entry or presence.

Did i miss the new nazi dictator in austria?

Some would argue that they aren't refugees. That would be the way to get around that. Also, I forgot how many Godwins this makes.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Not really, because Germany has vowed to take in 800.000 immigrants. As soon as they are taken in, they are considered legal. And due to EU legal principles, you can't just shove them across the border to another state. germany has no legal basis to treat them like illegals. At least, they have no basis to throw them out of the nation.

Article 31
refugees unlawfully in the country of refugee
1.
The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their
illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory
where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1, enter or
are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present
themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their
illegal entry or presence.

Did i miss the new nazi dictator in austria?

What's your point exactly? That article 31 exists?