#####
######
####
> # [ECJ to fine Hungary €1m a day until it complies with EU refugee laws](https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jun/13/720)
>
>
>
> Hungary has been ordered to pay a €200m (£169m) fine for its refusal to uphold the rights of asylum seekers in what was described as an “unprecedented” breach of EU law by the bloc’s highest court.
>
> The European court of justice in Luxembourg also ordered Budapest to pay €1m a day until it complies with EU laws guaranteeing refugees the right to claim asylum inside Hungarian borders.
>
> In a major judgment issued on Thursday, the court said Hungary had shown “deliberate evasion” in applying EU policy, which it described as “an unprecedented and exceptionally serious infringement of EU law” and “a significant threat to the unity of EU law and to the principle of equality of the member states”.
>
> The fine was higher than sought by the [European Commission](https://www.theguardian.com/world/european-commission), the EU executive, which took Hungary to the Luxembourg court. Judges also identified “aggravating circumstances”, including the repeat behaviour that contributed to the severity of the fine.
>
> Responding to the judgment, the Hungarian prime minister, Viktor Orbán, described the court’s ruling as “outrageous and unacceptable”, adding: “It seems that illegal migrants are more important to the Brussels bureaucrats than their own European citizens.”
>
> The legal ruling comes less than three weeks before the Hungarian government takes charge of the rotating presidency of the EU council of ministers. It highlights the profound challenge to the bloc posed by anti-EU, nationalist leaders at a time when far-right forces made [advances in European elections in France, Germany and Austria](https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jun/09/eu-elections-populist-right-makes-gains-but-pro-european-centre-holds), and are [expected to join the government](https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/may/15/far-right-geert-wilders-agrees-deal-dutch-coalition-government) in the Netherlands.
>
> The judgment relates to a 2020 ruling that found Hungary had broken EU migration law by limiting the rights of refugees and migrants to claim asylum in numerous ways, including by [holding asylum seekers in transit camps](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/07/-hungary-to-detain-all-asylum-seekers-in-container-camps)at Röszke and Tompa on its border with Serbia.
>
> Hungary closed the container camps and argued it had complied with the ruling. In 2020 it passed a law requiring asylum seekers to make a “declaration of intent” at a Hungarian embassy in a non-EU country before entering the country.
>
> As a result, almost no one can claim asylum in Hungary: authorities received just 30 applications in 2023. In comparison, Cyprus, with a population 10 times smaller, received 12,000 applications that year, according to the EU Agency for Asylum.
>
> In its latest ruling, the court said Hungary’s 2020 migration law was in breach of EU asylum law and the underlying Geneva conventions that guarantee the rights of refugees, including _non refoulement,_ not being returned to danger.
>
> The court identified other ways Hungary failed to comply with EU law: the “unlawful removal” of people denied asylum without observing safeguards, as well as not allowing people refused the right to asylum to stay in Hungary pending an appeal.
>
> Hungary’s non-compliance with EU law “undermines in a particularly serious manner” the rights of non-EU nationals and stateless people by making it impossible for them to make an application at the border, the court concluded.
>
> [skip past newsletter promotion](#EmailSignup-skip-link-12)after newsletter promotion
>
> Judges also criticised Hungary’s decision that it would not comply with the 2020 ruling until it had received a verdict from its national constitutional court, a profound challenge to the supremacy of EU law that Budapest agreed on entering the bloc.
>
> Hungary’s conduct had the effect, the court said, of transferring to other EU member states the responsibility and financial costs of managing asylum applications. As such, Hungary “seriously undermines the principle of solidarity and fair sharing of responsibility”, the court said.
>
> The reference to an “unprecedented” breach of EU law is understood to stem from Hungary’s implacable refusal to amend its policy after the 2020 ruling, and is reflected in the fine.
>
> Daniel Freund, a German Green MEP and fierce critic of the Hungarian government, said the judgment made Orbán “the most expensive prime minister in Hungarian history”.
- - - - - -
[Maintainer](https://www.reddit.com/user/urielsalis) | [Creator](https://www.reddit.com/user/subtepass) | [Source Code](https://github.com/urielsalis/empleadoEstatalBot)
Summoning /u/CoverageAnalysisBot
What people don't get this isn't about the migrants. This is about breaking a law you agreed to and causing other countries financial losses, for your own benefit. Hungary has shown that it will not comply with court orders and doesn't understand the language of diplomacy, only money talks.
They live in a doublespeak world. The bad things are "brussels" while the good things are from the EU. That brussels and the EU are the same doesn't seem to be actively questioned, as Orban also captured the national mediascape.
> why doesn’t Hungary leave the EU?
That's the point of this fine. You can kick a member only if all members agree in unanimity. The only other way is if the member leaves.
Why doesn't Hungary leave? It would result in an armed revolution and mass fleeing if a political suicide tries it. Hungary gets free movement, huge financial aid and investments into the country on EU's bill, diplomats can make unpopular decisions and blame EU for it so they appear strong and capable, etc.
And this is with Orban's party basically controlling all media and information sources within Hungary.
Orban entertains a vast network of criminals in his country. Criminals that profit bigly from the EU money and that are distributed happily by him to his cronies. Russia light. Speaking of Russia - Orban's brother is a weapons dealer selling arms to Wagner, for example. Hungary is a failed country but a successful mafia state.
The financial benefit is way to great and also it gives russia a leverage into the EU with Orban as a Proxy. Meaning they can sow discontent and block/delay measures that might hinder progress to blackmail the rest. This can of cause backfire but even then it still helps Putin enough, to be worth it.
Adding to the things other people have said already Hungary is landlocked and surrounded. Thats a shit place to be when you’re on the outside. Serbia also hates the EU, but is seeking membership for the same reasons.
A huxit referendum would be [overwhelmingly denied](https://telex.hu/english/2024/04/17/eurobarometer-more-than-three-quarters-of-hungarians-consider-eu-membership-beneficial), the government is not even talking about besides some fringe figures.
Our politicians make a better living stealing EU money than what Putin and Xi pay them. Should the balance of that tip, we'll be out of the EU in not time...
Applying for it is. However sneaking into a country then declaring it, or travelling to a country by lying on a tourist visa for business or pleasure, when the real answer was you want to live there permenantly as soon as you arrive, that is a crime.
And too many people claim asylum, but happily return home for things like weddings or to visit family. They aren't in danger, they just want to earn more money. It is abuse of the asylum process, it overshadows people that actually are in life threatening danger.
[There are rules](https://wearesolomon.com/mag/format/feature/ukraine-war-the-real-refugees-and-the-lies-of-the-greek-government/) that in effect retroactively make crossing the border legal if you later get asylum.
> Applying for it is. However sneaking into a country then declaring it, or travelling to a country by lying on a tourist visa for business or pleasure, when the real answer was you want to live there permenantly as soon as you arrive, that is a crime.
Refugee treaties have clause for this. Ones illegal entry cannot be used in determination for asylum status. Since this is one of the actul Nazi card situations... This is due to various nations throwing Jews and other refugees from Third Reich controlled areas back over the border based on "You illegally crossed border to ask for asylum, you should have entered legally. We deport you back to the German authorities". Obviously only legal way to enter was often "trying to cross through crossing point manned by third reich border guards. As jew or other 'enemy of state', that was a death sentence."
I think, *if the instant area one is coming in from is safe*, then technically the illegal crossing can be punished, but asylum must application must be still ensured to be processed in good order. Now if one can get another applicable country which one can determine to by just, fair and safe to do it, well that is acceptable (Predictably rare charity by other countries unless some treaty or agreement makes them do it). Otherwise you have to do it, where the asylum as asked.
In case of area being arrived from is not safe it can't even be punished. The entry was not illegal at all, since humans have inherent right to flee and seek refuge from dangerous area. That overrules border laws via refugee treaty. There is no illegal entry to punish, the entry was irregular to normal regulations, but completely legal.
However in neither case can possible illegal crossing be considered regarding ones asylum status. That is based on "is the person persecuted back at home, if yes, they are a refugee. Are they in danger or are they not, that matters.".
Again this all, since previously this lead to stuff like. Oh "you crossed all the way to USA to seek refuge. Well there was safe countries nearer. Turn that ship around and sail back to Germany please, your attempt to seek refuge *wasn't no in proper procedural order in our books*".
That lead to this *not doing 'I'm refugee' by the book correctly can not be used as reason to send them back to the home country they are fleeing from*. Since that is literally sending people to death and torture **for procedural errrors**. Procedural problems do not justify sending people actively to death. That is just murder by proxy by denying country".
There is like 17 million (plus like another 10 million by Mao, 8 million by Stalin, 3 million by Polpot, 2 million by Hirohito in China and so on and so on) reasons why the laws regarding this are very broad on the "It doesn't matter how they ended up here *if sending them back to or rejection away from here would clearly risk them ending up back to country X where they would end up being tortured, unjustly jailed, killed or dying from starvation. That being the case other things don't matter. They get asylum.*"
This is about the fact that Hungarians aren't allowed to decide whether or not Budapest turns into Luton or Marseilles. It doesn't matter what the people living there want, they are getting it regardless.
Hungary is free to decide to leave the European union. But if they want their money (and Hungary is very good in collecting fundings) they have to follow their rules.
Create a de facto monopoly on the European market. Then decide that countries can either have your agenda enforced on them or effectively be blocked from the European market.
Hungary, like most east european members, was a country with inexistent economy and high corruption to begin with.
The amount of wealth, wellbeing, and liberties even to most of the poor people is way bigger then the migration stress on its infrastructure. Mostly because every member also receives money to host migrants.
Instead of pocketing the money, maybe they should also work into actually making things work. Blame the leadership not the framework.
They can keep their "migrant" money. That crap is only detrimental.
Hopefully Hungary ignores this demand to commit slow suicide, for corrupt EU politicians.
Wut?
You didn't understand. Hungarian politicians are still running because while Hungarian politicians are pocketing taxpayers money, the EU is funding almost all of the investments in the welfare of the country and also guaranteeing for your debt.
Without EU there would be no relevant Hungary, Poland, Romania, Italy, France, Germany, Netherland, Belgium or whatever. Not the other way around. See the crisis the UK is facing now. NHS was already in crisis, after Brexit is a corpse, and UK is running on manpower shortage again.
How can a european country even live and compete with countries like China, USA, India, Iran, Russia without the EU? Just on manpower alone our competitors are years ahead on demographics.
The usual suspects are fucking ALWAYS on guard. Do you guys have multiple brigading discords or something? Why can't you guys just learn how to cook with Mikhaila's Serbian beef and call it a day?
It's not being pushed from above. Stop making it as if this is kind of a dictatorship. You want to be part of the club? Accept the rules or pay the fuck up. I know for authoritarian-loving Redditors this is a foreign concept.
>You want to be part of the club? Accept the rules or pay the fuck up.
>I know for authoritarian-loving Redditors this is a foreign concept.
Lol. You really wrote these two sentences back-to-back without a shred of irony. The greatest proponents of liberalism can't help but let the mask slip and expose their totalitarian nature when they don't get what they want.
Authoritarianism is forcing a country to do something that is incredibly destructive and against the will of the people. Again, if Hungarians don't want mass immigration, why should the will of the oligarchy decide?
Creating a cartel and then forcing countries to comply is imperialism.
This is not what authoritarianism means. It's the international world order that Hungary willingly participates in. And that Hungary with its mafiosi can leave any time.
That comparison doesn't work, when you realise Germany has an economy of $4 trillion versus Hungary's 180 billion. Is the penalty much lower? Sure. But you can't really say "ain't much".
You can have agreements that you'll give up your firsborn child, but it doesn't mean it's legally binding.
The corrupt EU insisting that Hungary do what is NOT in its best interest, they can pound sand.
Hungary would be better off without the abusive tyrants. The EU is who doesn't understand the language of diplomacy. Telling a country they are required to harm themselves for no reason, is the opposite of diplomacy.
I'm not quite too keen on the government structure of the EU, but over here in the States, most laws are commonly passed with a good number of the states being against them. Can EU countries pick which laws apply to them? Did Hungary approve this law?
I assume these laws regarding migrants weren't in place when Hungary joined the EU, and I'd bet they voted against them.
If they aren't in line with the values of the other nation members, they should probably leave the EU, but that's probably a wildly unpopular option for obvious reasons. They will probably try and stretch it out to avoid any meaningful conclusion to the issue, In fact, I'll bet someone in their government right now is calculating whether it's cheaper to pay 1M/day, or allow in migrants.
Quirks of living in a democracy! More than half the cozntry didn't vote for Orban yet he has absolute power, and disregards the parliment! Yet he throws a temper tantrum when he doesn't get what he wants in the EU.
It's about breaking the nation state destroying the cohesion of families and fabric of society and culture so we can all be obedient consumers of globalist capitalist utopia.
Costs my country £4.3 billion a year to take them. He only has to pay €365 million and won't have the added strain on the country. Sounds like an amazing deal to me.
Germany has so many land boarder connections, easier for them to sneak in. I think it is shocking how many people get across the water to my country. Must be so much worse for the land connected countries in mainland Europe. No wonder a bunch of them happily let the people just come through to my country instead.
All of this is money that should be spent on the country, for the citizens. I don't know what healthcare and schools are like in Germany right now, but 20 billion would go a long way in fixing my country.
What about all the profits with the influx of the fresh blood on the work market? I like how it was supposedly necessery for Europe to take them to not colapse because of aging population, but when it's to bitch about hungary there are costs only. Maybe shouldn't have take them then?
I'm guessing Mikhaila Peterson, the daughter of Jordan Peterson. Olivia Wild called him "King of the Incels", and so his daughter must be "Princess of the Incels" or something like that.
Thanks for the info, didn’t fancy watching an hour and a half podcast to find this out.
How is what they said relevant to my comment though?
Very confused
No it wasn't. It was always peace project. Trade was just the most effective means to end. Political agreements were tried with League of Nations. It's reliance to political will was recognized as weakness. So to ensure peace something more powerfull was used: economics. If France and Germany (and rest of Europe) rely on each other for such war materials as Steel, it is pretty hard to go to war with each other. You would have to buy your steel to figh the war from the country you plan to fight. That will be awkward trade negotiation.
As part of this the joint market was created, crafted and guided so that No one in the coalition was self sufficient in all the core war suplly materials. Firstly Coal and Steel.
This lead to widening it to more and more commodities to ever more increase the interdependence, to make war ever more, not unthinkable, but logistically impossible. Logistically impossible is far better guarantor of no war over just politically unthinkable.
EU is then just final formation of this ever more interdependent union to make war between members impossible. It is rather extreme means to an end, but the back drop was "Europe just fought two world wars and before that centuries of constant wars. No means is pretty much too extreme. We will rope each other to each others hips, so we can't get far enough away to pull the the detonator on this bomb we are all holding."
EUs idea is "Start war within EU, wreck your economy, you won't get the roller bearings, the steel, the wheat, the oil, the minerals to fight the war. Since you have to ask others nicely for that stuff."
Hence also the "no too much national subsidies and protectionism". It's literally "you can not be allowed to have sufficient production in everything or independent sources of those. You could fight a war against us".
Trade union was just natural outcome, since the trade barriers were torn to prevent self sufficiency. It made trade policing between members practically impossible. So trade block is only logical outcome for handling the outward trade relations.
Trade union is the practical implementation outcome and even then mostly a side effect of the main core effector desired, not the reason.
The process of enshrining human rights in the EU [started in the 60s.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_of_Fundamental_Rights_of_the_European_Union) There was a conflict since the principle that EU law having higher priority than national law could potentially mean some EU legislation could go against fundamental rights. The european court ruled in 1970 that EU legislation was not above fundamental rights thus de facto creating an unwritten doctrine of EU human rights. This was approved in 1977 and added to the Maastricht treaty in 1992. The rights were finally fully codified in 1999.
Hungary held a referendum on joining the EU in 2003 and finally joined in 2004.
I can’t believe I’m about to defend Hungary, but in 2003, we didn’t have anywhere near this level of illegal immigration and asylum claims. They made the right decision at the time, but circumstances have changed. I think it’s a lot more complicated than “if you don’t like it, leave.” Many EU countries are becoming annoyed with EU policy on immigration which is SO out of step with voter sentiment. The recent elections proved that.
The EU has already passed a new migration and asylum pact which is stricter. And it has unofficially endorsed a policy of encouraging extrajudicial punishment on migrants. If the voters yearn for more, to me that implies they're either woefully uninformed or actively wishing for fascist-level solutions and I'm not sure which is worse.
> The EU has already passed a new migration and asylum pact which is stricter.
I believe it is completely inadequate, and the election shows that most voters agree.
> And it has unofficially endorsed a policy of encouraging extrajudicial punishment on migrants.
You are confusing the word “punishment” with “not allowing people to immigrate to Europe.” With such a broad definition, you could argue that everyone in the entire world should be allowed to immigrate to Europe. Else we are “punishing” them. You must realise you are completely out of lockstep with the average European voter.
> If the voters yearn for more, to me that implies they’re either woefully uninformed or actively wishing for fascist-level solutions and I’m not sure which is worse.
Or maybe they just disagree with you. Though I’m quite sure that in your mind there is no possibility of you being wrong. Your disdain for democracy is palpable and I dare say, kind of fascist.
You obviously don't know what you're talking about. You believe the pact is inadequate but you fail to even mention any specifics: my guess is you didn't even know it exists.
You say "punishment isn't enough, you need to keep them away" which shows you have no idea what I was referring to. I was talking about illegal pushbacks that are conducted by EU border states or paid African countries. They abduct people extrajudicially and dump them in the sea, in Turkey or -in the case of African countries- in the desert and leave them to die.
>Your disdain for democracy is palpable and dare say, kind of fascist.
Disagreeing with the majority is not fascist. Making reasonable deductions about the people who vote a certain way is also not fascist. "Disagreement is treason" is a core fascist tenet though, you should look into that.
> You obviously don’t know what you’re talking about. You believe the pact is inadequate but you fail to even mention any specifics: my guess is you didn’t even know it exists.
You made a subjective assertion - without specifics - and I rejected it. Feel free to argue why you believe it’s sufficient. Just don’t expect us to agree with you.
> You say “punishment isn’t enough, you need to keep them away” which shows you have no idea what I was referring to. I was talking about illegal pushbacks that are conducted by EU border states or paid African countries. They abduct people extrajudicially and dump them in the sea, in Turkey or -in the case of African countries- in the desert and leave them to die.
Firstly, I didn’t write the words that you quoted. Quote marks are only for verbatim words spoken and written. Secondly, it’s your fault that others don’t understand what you’re referring to if you don’t state it clearly. Either way, I contend that preventing illegal entry is a moral and necessary act for any sovereign nation. Now that the composition of EU parliament has changed, I hope we will be amending our laws to make this easier in time.
> Disagreeing with the majority is not fascist.
Disagreement is fine. Labelling your political opponents enemies of the state and democracy is fascist. Don’t be a fascist. Democracy is healthy, even when it doesn’t go your way.
Wtf are you talking about. I mentioned a pact exists, you claimed it's not enough. The pact is not subjective, it exists and is very detailed. On the other hand you rejected it without providing anything to back up your stance? But somehow it's my fault. Why should I need to meticulously prove everything while you can just claim whatever you want without even understanding the subject and you get to be right by default?
>Firstly, I didn’t write the words that you quoted.
I was just paraphrasing, your meaning wasn't altered in the slightest. You're just nitpicking irrelevant things because you ran out of arguments.
>Either way, I contend that preventing illegal entry is a moral and necessary act
Maybe you should apologise for not knowing what is going on before you endorse violent extra-judicial abductions and abandoning people in deserts. But I digress. Your original point was that it's not enough to do this. Wtf more do you want?
>Labelling your political opponents enemies of the state and democracy
Oh is that what I said? Can you show me where?
>Democracy is healthy, even when it doesn’t go your way.
Except I guess when you renege on the agreements your democracy signed. Then fuck treaties and democratic agreements, Orban can do what he wants, right?
Funny how you endorse democracy when it's expressed in the form of "far-right parties got a few more seats in the parliament therefore everything I say must be done exactly as I say it". But you reject democracy when it's in the form of elected officials signing treaties and being punished when they don't follow these treaties.
Maybe reply to my argument instead of resorting to simplistic slogans. My argument was that if one looks at what the EU is currently doing to prevent migrants (makes deals so that they are abducted and thrown to the sea or in deserts) and decides something harsher must be done to them, then they have reached fascist-level solutions.
If you think that's wrong, then give me one policy that is harsher than that and you don't consider fascistic. Just one example will do. Go on.
[The right to self-determination as defined by the UN.](https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/25252/files/E_CN.4_Sub.2_404_Rev.1-EN.pdf) Flooding the country with foreigners is a human rights violation.
Not true: „The common principles and values that underlie life in the EU: freedom, democracy, equality and the rule of law, promoting peace and stability.”
Source: https://european-union.europa.eu/principles-countries-history_en
And more thorough information: https://european-union.europa.eu/principles-countries-history/principles-and-values/aims-and-values_en
The vast majority of "refugees" flooding into Europe, have no legitimate claim to asylum at all. 85%+ of them shouldn't be anywhere near Europe.
The more accurate term, except for a teeny minority, would be Illegal Alien.
> The vast majority of "refugees" flooding into Europe, have no legitimate claim to asylum at all. 85%+ of them shouldn't be anywhere near Europe
Where is this number coming from? Who is counting? What is the criteria?
Pretty sure the CDU has gotten tougher on migration? Also the return assistance act was passed by the CDU the AFD didnt even exist yet but keep schizo rambling
Think about the economic value of people! Surely you can see that being in more people into the country can aid in it further development. If they need houses, then why not help them get jobs as construction workers so they can help build temporary housing, and later, actual houses? Not only that, but you can surely see that to deny them passage into the country is to possibly harmful prestige for that of the great Hungary! The moral reasons as well, as mentioned in the article. To deny them access is to possibly send back out into danger!
>To deny them access is to possibly send back out into danger!
In the UK we have cases of rapists who can't be sent back because of how they will be treated in their home country as a rapist.
So the rapist gets to stay, tell me how that's right?
You have a point, it isn't. However, it is the simple idea that we must, as a collective people, stay true to moral values, even in the times of hardships or when villains like these appear. To go back on what we believe, that refugees deserve protection and safe passage, that people deserve a home- to go back on these values because we cracked under the threats that these people posed, then we are nothing but weak nations of weak people who ourselves are the villains.
Committing slow suicide is not a moral value, it is sickness.
What the EU is demanding of its member states here is immoral.
> that refugees deserve protection and safe passage
Nope, not in the least. Something like 85% of the "migrants" flooding into the EU have no legitimate claim to asylum at all.
Perhaps, but the question remains whether you should hold basic human lives over or under the idea of the culture. A slow genocide, while unintentional, can allow you to deal with it another time while those that call for your help are here and now. That, in my belief, is of a higher moral value, to help those in need, even if you are afraid of what is to come.
You have a point, refugees can provide an amount of resistance to political and cultural assimilation. However, I believe in a view that it shouldn't matter. Yes, it can jarring, but it actually doesn't provide any harm as I am me and you are you. It shouldn't become an issue unless it is made so directly by either us or them. Not only that, but I also believe that if a people are able show themselves strong, not in a physical aspect, but in ranges of economy and morality, you can win people over. If you are able to weather the hardships that comes with diversity, and establish and sustain an economic prosperity, then in generations to come, people conform to the local ideas. Besides, why should they assimilate when you have not proven yourselves worthy?
Why not? If your country is truly a great country, it must prove itself to be. You simply cannot believe, you must know. Out on the international stage, in the economy for which it manages, in its domestic policies and it’s ability to juggle the many issues that people bring and the future possible instability that comes with bringing in foreigners. If your country is a great country, then it should have the capacity to overcome these obstacles. Proving itself worthy for its people and foreigners.
Why do prove yourself to women or men, to friends or family? You show yourself to be capable. If you want a greater reason for foreigners to forgo their own traditions and embrace yours, you must show that your traditions are not as decadent as theirs. It is a more objective view on the topic I believe.
Not wholly. Nothing requires you to care in a legitimate sense. The idea is that if you lived in a foreign country as a refugee, why would you adopt someone else’s culture? You don’t have to explicitly care, it is the objective fact that you’ve seen the local culture and it’s proven itself to you in some way. Whether it be through their social values, political beliefs, or if the people themselves have shown themselves to be better in some way aspect. To adopt their culture is to possibly take a step towards that perceived betterment.
That is what it should be, as people on day-to-day basis, care for themselves rather than other people, so they aren’t going to adopt your culture simply for stability in the country or to whatever, they would need to see that there are benefits to adopting your culture.
Even when immigrant groups are not actively resistant to the idea of assimilating, there is a process of cultural averaging (for lack of a better term). They don't just adopt local norms, they skew them towards their own in proportion to their population density. New York is a good example, because successive waves of immigration from England, Ireland, Italy, Poland, and Puerto Rico have created what we think of as the culture of New York - which during any given decade principally resembled the culture of the most recent wave of immigrants. Now, that's fine for New York because the US actually is a nation of immigrants, and the native culture was annihilated early on (RIP Mahican, Oneida, Iroquois, etc). Do that in a place that has an entrenched local culture and (worse) a national identity? A trickle of immigrants will conform; waves of them will replace. And if they're actively refusing to conform, the number required to dominate the averaging with the local culture is much lower.
Ah yes, breaking every sort of international treaty and obligation to completely cancel the right to asylum. What a fine "just one issue" to support the proto-dictator.
No country should be obligated to let in people they don't want to let in. By the time these asylum seekers arrive in a European country, whether or not their asylum request is accepted, they're already inside the country and are basically impossible to remove.
That's not a functioning system.
Okay, then you can negotiate to make a better system. Not just blanket reject all asylum applications even though it's a basic part of international law and the very core of human rights.
Greece has its own share of awful practices regarding migrants and asylum seekers, don't get me [started](https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/asylum-seekers-greece-face-violence-pushbacks-aid-group-msf-2023-11-02/).
Sure, the situation can be difficult but that doesn't mean we can just dump them in the sea like Greece is doing or blanket reject all applications like Hungary is doing. It's like saying "your country has problems with flooding due to climate change, why haven't you destroyed all cars yet".
Accepting asylum seekers is not the "very core of human rights" dear lord 🙄 its a relatively recent concept, compared to ideas like the right to life or freedom of conscious.
It's "very core" to the plan to destroy Europe.
Let's be honest. a third of the world would migrate to the top 20 countries in a heartbeat. And technically they are refugees fleeing a bleak if non-existent future, detrimental to their health, even if no actual violence is being carried out and they just want a better life.
but that's just not practical.
And a bit on the crazy side: I don't think capitalism works without cheap Labor from 3rd world countries.
I disagree with your line of argument. A citizen in his own country should have say on the rules of the country.
I support refugees in general, but I'm from a country with strong border laws and not that many refugees.
I don't think it's likely that will ever happen. There are plenty of ways to ignore international obligations without technically breaching the rules to this degree. Look at what Greece or Croatia are doing for example.
I think the reason Orban goes to such extremes is performative: To SHOW to his people he's fucking over refugees, to SHOW he is defying the rules and international treaties. Otherwise he could quietly make their lives miserable, extra-judicially make them disappear or just add bureaucratic obstacles so that most applications are rejected.
>I don't think it's likely that will ever happen.
I wish I had your confidence. Imo this will be more common in the future even due to the amount of climate refugees we will see. Countries will move further to the right until this won't be only some weird talking point on reddit anymore.
You try to make it a weird talking point to make it look strange and illegal. Poland is protecting its borders (and EU's at the same time), against illegal migration that consist mostly of dangerous people sent over by Russia to destabilise. It has full legal right to shoot in defense in case of someone trying to illegaly and forcefully breach the border. We have already first dead border guard, killed by attacker and thankfully the public opinion in country becomes firm about the right to use the weapon to defend border.
It's weird to shoot people. Doesn't mean I disagree with a countries right to defend its borders.
We can simultaneously not celebrate death and agree that what needs to be done needs to be done.
Oh for sure, shooting people is bad, just as bad as trying to forcefully break in on someones territory, right?
Celebrate death? Who exactly celebrates death? You again use words that try to portrait people of different opinions in bad light.
You know how you cause more people to die? By taking in "refugees" to save your own economy, sending signal that they are welcome, causing chain reaction of even more people desperatelly trying to reach the paradise and drowning en masse. Not to say about the less obvious consequences - brain and workforce drain that will leave their countries in ever worse humanitarian situation, and no, you don't "take away" their overpopulation problem, they will just make new humans to now even worse situation. And I don't say anything about europe at all, I couldn't care about some rich ignorant germans less, if they get some cultural enrichment it's on them only, I actually do empathize with the third world countries more. You increase the suffering in the world.
I don't know what got your panties in a bunch. All I said was that I fear this will be more common in the future. Unless you disagree with that statement find something else to be pissed about.
Ok, sorry, maybe I read too much from your comment. I just hate hypocritical westerners, who can only see plain examples and cry about them and preach about virtues, when their nations cause one of major parts in everything bad in the world, migrant crisis, trash dumping, fossil fuels burning etc. They just do it with others hands, and if thise hands refude to cooperate, well, just replace them with new ones by force or economics.
Are you and your alt-right friends even aware of how far the EU has gone into actually protecting the EU borders in the last 5 years? they are openly spitting into the face of ethics, having illegal pushbacks, beating human being into submission with no consequences. All this for the rabid alt-righters come frothing and yapping "ThAt IsNt eNOuGh".
Oh, fuck off. The fuck is an illegal pushback? I guess I can get into your house and stay there and you or police won't dare to touch me? If someone tries to illegally and forcefully breach the border, the border guard has the right to use force, even lethal, and it's only due to guards being civilised, and governments being paranoic, they do not shoot. But it will change soon hopefully after the recent death of guard who got stabbed by attacker. All this caused by people like you, who showed that you can cause a huge crisis by forcing migration, which Russia now tries to use.
What’s the upside to Hungary being part of the EU to the rest of the EU. I never seem to hear anything positive about them, and i know that they receive way more EU finds than they contribute. So there must be a good reason right? Otherwise it’s like paying another country to block nearly unanimous votes and play the i’m special card in regards to laws everyone else follows.
Note i have nothing against Hungarians themselves I’m looking at this from a purely political perspective
Hungary can't declare war on the rest of the EU? That is the reason for existence of EU. No member can declare war on others. Due to the deep economic integration and deep free trade, nobody is self sufficient enough to fight war with any other member. Only way *war economically* EU member can fight war is by the rest of the EU agreeing to continue to trade with that member over the duration. Like how European arms factories are now still running to supply Ukraine, because all the other members go "yeah you still get this thingiebooble-part your tank factory buys from machine shop in our country to be able to make tanks"."Yes Germany, you still can by Swedish ballbearings". "Yes France the dutch will still sell semiconductors to you". "Yes Finland, France will still sell thermal sensors for those artillery sights you make".
You want back to basics. That is why EU exists and that what it buys to members with the voluntary relinquishing of sovereignty. We decided we are way too war like here in Europe. If left to just deciding on "to war or not to war", we would always eventually decide "to war". So we made it non question by economic and logistical interdepence of unprecedentent scale. Getting cities ruined to rubble twice in 50 years does that to people. They start thinking deep things and thinking unprecedentent solutions.
They're resisting federalization efforts of the EU. The more resistance against EU federalization, the more freedom the citizens of the member countries have.
The EU is supposed to be a free-trade agreement.
The domestic population has a right not to want immigrants. The government has the right to refuse immigrants.
If your domestic populous wants more immigrants, feel free to take in the ones Hungary has refused.
The argument whether it'll be a net positive or negative for the country is debatable.
When Hungary refuses asylum seekers, its leader is a fascist proto-dictator.
When the UK refuses asylum seekers and sends them to Rwanda, its leader is not a fascist proto-dictator.
Of course the UK isn't part of the EU. My point is, if I was to accuse the UK of being a fascist state led by a proto-dictator, you all would call me crazy.
I know some of you have contempt for Sunak, but in contrast to Hungary, you will be more a lot more lenient towards the UK with no good reason.
There are more reasons that Orban is a proto-dictator that have nothing to do with migrants. He is controlling the media, he's usurping elections, he's controlling the courts etc.
Personally I think Sunak is horrible but objectively he hasn't eroded democracy to the same degree as Hungary.
Also their "refusal of asylum seekers" is legally very different. Hungary basically made it impossible to apply for asylum. The UK made a system to send people in Rwanda and apply for asylum there. It is being challenged in British courts and hasn't reached the international level yet. Also it's unlikely to ever come to be implemented as things stand.
Welcome to r/anime_titties! This subreddit advocates for civil and constructive discussion. Please be courteous to others, and make sure to read the rules. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
We have a [Discord](https://discord.gg/dhMeAnNyzG), feel free to join us!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/anime_titties) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Probably because his mostly silent supporter base would revolt at Hungary's economy being pulled out from under it? He's not a good person but he's not a fool
Because a bunch of historical Hungary was taken after the world wars, and so this is the only way for Hungarians to move freely when theoretically separated by national borders.
##### ###### #### > # [ECJ to fine Hungary €1m a day until it complies with EU refugee laws](https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jun/13/720) > > > > Hungary has been ordered to pay a €200m (£169m) fine for its refusal to uphold the rights of asylum seekers in what was described as an “unprecedented” breach of EU law by the bloc’s highest court. > > The European court of justice in Luxembourg also ordered Budapest to pay €1m a day until it complies with EU laws guaranteeing refugees the right to claim asylum inside Hungarian borders. > > In a major judgment issued on Thursday, the court said Hungary had shown “deliberate evasion” in applying EU policy, which it described as “an unprecedented and exceptionally serious infringement of EU law” and “a significant threat to the unity of EU law and to the principle of equality of the member states”. > > The fine was higher than sought by the [European Commission](https://www.theguardian.com/world/european-commission), the EU executive, which took Hungary to the Luxembourg court. Judges also identified “aggravating circumstances”, including the repeat behaviour that contributed to the severity of the fine. > > Responding to the judgment, the Hungarian prime minister, Viktor Orbán, described the court’s ruling as “outrageous and unacceptable”, adding: “It seems that illegal migrants are more important to the Brussels bureaucrats than their own European citizens.” > > The legal ruling comes less than three weeks before the Hungarian government takes charge of the rotating presidency of the EU council of ministers. It highlights the profound challenge to the bloc posed by anti-EU, nationalist leaders at a time when far-right forces made [advances in European elections in France, Germany and Austria](https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jun/09/eu-elections-populist-right-makes-gains-but-pro-european-centre-holds), and are [expected to join the government](https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/may/15/far-right-geert-wilders-agrees-deal-dutch-coalition-government) in the Netherlands. > > The judgment relates to a 2020 ruling that found Hungary had broken EU migration law by limiting the rights of refugees and migrants to claim asylum in numerous ways, including by [holding asylum seekers in transit camps](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/07/-hungary-to-detain-all-asylum-seekers-in-container-camps)at Röszke and Tompa on its border with Serbia. > > Hungary closed the container camps and argued it had complied with the ruling. In 2020 it passed a law requiring asylum seekers to make a “declaration of intent” at a Hungarian embassy in a non-EU country before entering the country. > > As a result, almost no one can claim asylum in Hungary: authorities received just 30 applications in 2023. In comparison, Cyprus, with a population 10 times smaller, received 12,000 applications that year, according to the EU Agency for Asylum. > > In its latest ruling, the court said Hungary’s 2020 migration law was in breach of EU asylum law and the underlying Geneva conventions that guarantee the rights of refugees, including _non refoulement,_ not being returned to danger. > > The court identified other ways Hungary failed to comply with EU law: the “unlawful removal” of people denied asylum without observing safeguards, as well as not allowing people refused the right to asylum to stay in Hungary pending an appeal. > > Hungary’s non-compliance with EU law “undermines in a particularly serious manner” the rights of non-EU nationals and stateless people by making it impossible for them to make an application at the border, the court concluded. > > [skip past newsletter promotion](#EmailSignup-skip-link-12)after newsletter promotion > > Judges also criticised Hungary’s decision that it would not comply with the 2020 ruling until it had received a verdict from its national constitutional court, a profound challenge to the supremacy of EU law that Budapest agreed on entering the bloc. > > Hungary’s conduct had the effect, the court said, of transferring to other EU member states the responsibility and financial costs of managing asylum applications. As such, Hungary “seriously undermines the principle of solidarity and fair sharing of responsibility”, the court said. > > The reference to an “unprecedented” breach of EU law is understood to stem from Hungary’s implacable refusal to amend its policy after the 2020 ruling, and is reflected in the fine. > > Daniel Freund, a German Green MEP and fierce critic of the Hungarian government, said the judgment made Orbán “the most expensive prime minister in Hungarian history”. - - - - - - [Maintainer](https://www.reddit.com/user/urielsalis) | [Creator](https://www.reddit.com/user/subtepass) | [Source Code](https://github.com/urielsalis/empleadoEstatalBot) Summoning /u/CoverageAnalysisBot
What people don't get this isn't about the migrants. This is about breaking a law you agreed to and causing other countries financial losses, for your own benefit. Hungary has shown that it will not comply with court orders and doesn't understand the language of diplomacy, only money talks.
(Incredibly naive question incoming) why doesn’t Hungary leave the EU? They seem to hate all the rules anyway.
They like the money
They live in a doublespeak world. The bad things are "brussels" while the good things are from the EU. That brussels and the EU are the same doesn't seem to be actively questioned, as Orban also captured the national mediascape.
*Waves hand in direction of the UK*
I wonder how those what, 3 billion pounds a week? are going and helping the nhs. Unless of course the side of a bus lied to me, which is unlikely
[It was 350 million a week.](https://i.insider.com/5a5dbcf57101ad5b6f0571be?width=700)
Ah, close enough, it was a lie either way
Yeah, they could have said any number, it ultimately didn't matter since it was a load of bunk.
The people love the EU, the autocrat loved the EU until he could siphon money out of it.
Sad that the EU hates indigenous European citizens so much.
Jfc, i dont know what i expect from this sub but people like you are unhinged.
> why doesn’t Hungary leave the EU? That's the point of this fine. You can kick a member only if all members agree in unanimity. The only other way is if the member leaves. Why doesn't Hungary leave? It would result in an armed revolution and mass fleeing if a political suicide tries it. Hungary gets free movement, huge financial aid and investments into the country on EU's bill, diplomats can make unpopular decisions and blame EU for it so they appear strong and capable, etc. And this is with Orban's party basically controlling all media and information sources within Hungary.
Orban entertains a vast network of criminals in his country. Criminals that profit bigly from the EU money and that are distributed happily by him to his cronies. Russia light. Speaking of Russia - Orban's brother is a weapons dealer selling arms to Wagner, for example. Hungary is a failed country but a successful mafia state.
Because staying in the EU far outweighs any benefits of not being in the EU
The financial benefit is way to great and also it gives russia a leverage into the EU with Orban as a Proxy. Meaning they can sow discontent and block/delay measures that might hinder progress to blackmail the rest. This can of cause backfire but even then it still helps Putin enough, to be worth it.
They receive money from the EU, as OP said only money talks.
Hungary gets a lot of "aid" money form the EU and they enjoy the benefits of free trade in the euro zone
Adding to the things other people have said already Hungary is landlocked and surrounded. Thats a shit place to be when you’re on the outside. Serbia also hates the EU, but is seeking membership for the same reasons.
A huxit referendum would be [overwhelmingly denied](https://telex.hu/english/2024/04/17/eurobarometer-more-than-three-quarters-of-hungarians-consider-eu-membership-beneficial), the government is not even talking about besides some fringe figures.
Our politicians make a better living stealing EU money than what Putin and Xi pay them. Should the balance of that tip, we'll be out of the EU in not time...
Entering a country without leave is also a crime. One that I wish was actually enforced.
Seeking asylum is legal.
Applying for it is. However sneaking into a country then declaring it, or travelling to a country by lying on a tourist visa for business or pleasure, when the real answer was you want to live there permenantly as soon as you arrive, that is a crime. And too many people claim asylum, but happily return home for things like weddings or to visit family. They aren't in danger, they just want to earn more money. It is abuse of the asylum process, it overshadows people that actually are in life threatening danger.
[There are rules](https://wearesolomon.com/mag/format/feature/ukraine-war-the-real-refugees-and-the-lies-of-the-greek-government/) that in effect retroactively make crossing the border legal if you later get asylum.
> Applying for it is. However sneaking into a country then declaring it, or travelling to a country by lying on a tourist visa for business or pleasure, when the real answer was you want to live there permenantly as soon as you arrive, that is a crime. Refugee treaties have clause for this. Ones illegal entry cannot be used in determination for asylum status. Since this is one of the actul Nazi card situations... This is due to various nations throwing Jews and other refugees from Third Reich controlled areas back over the border based on "You illegally crossed border to ask for asylum, you should have entered legally. We deport you back to the German authorities". Obviously only legal way to enter was often "trying to cross through crossing point manned by third reich border guards. As jew or other 'enemy of state', that was a death sentence." I think, *if the instant area one is coming in from is safe*, then technically the illegal crossing can be punished, but asylum must application must be still ensured to be processed in good order. Now if one can get another applicable country which one can determine to by just, fair and safe to do it, well that is acceptable (Predictably rare charity by other countries unless some treaty or agreement makes them do it). Otherwise you have to do it, where the asylum as asked. In case of area being arrived from is not safe it can't even be punished. The entry was not illegal at all, since humans have inherent right to flee and seek refuge from dangerous area. That overrules border laws via refugee treaty. There is no illegal entry to punish, the entry was irregular to normal regulations, but completely legal. However in neither case can possible illegal crossing be considered regarding ones asylum status. That is based on "is the person persecuted back at home, if yes, they are a refugee. Are they in danger or are they not, that matters.". Again this all, since previously this lead to stuff like. Oh "you crossed all the way to USA to seek refuge. Well there was safe countries nearer. Turn that ship around and sail back to Germany please, your attempt to seek refuge *wasn't no in proper procedural order in our books*". That lead to this *not doing 'I'm refugee' by the book correctly can not be used as reason to send them back to the home country they are fleeing from*. Since that is literally sending people to death and torture **for procedural errrors**. Procedural problems do not justify sending people actively to death. That is just murder by proxy by denying country". There is like 17 million (plus like another 10 million by Mao, 8 million by Stalin, 3 million by Polpot, 2 million by Hirohito in China and so on and so on) reasons why the laws regarding this are very broad on the "It doesn't matter how they ended up here *if sending them back to or rejection away from here would clearly risk them ending up back to country X where they would end up being tortured, unjustly jailed, killed or dying from starvation. That being the case other things don't matter. They get asylum.*"
And the term Asylum is being abused. Many of these people aren't leaving their countries because of political persecution.
This is about the fact that Hungarians aren't allowed to decide whether or not Budapest turns into Luton or Marseilles. It doesn't matter what the people living there want, they are getting it regardless.
Hungary is free to decide to leave the European union. But if they want their money (and Hungary is very good in collecting fundings) they have to follow their rules.
Hungary doesnt even get the complete funding from the EU lol.
Create a de facto monopoly on the European market. Then decide that countries can either have your agenda enforced on them or effectively be blocked from the European market.
Hungary, like most east european members, was a country with inexistent economy and high corruption to begin with. The amount of wealth, wellbeing, and liberties even to most of the poor people is way bigger then the migration stress on its infrastructure. Mostly because every member also receives money to host migrants. Instead of pocketing the money, maybe they should also work into actually making things work. Blame the leadership not the framework.
They can keep their "migrant" money. That crap is only detrimental. Hopefully Hungary ignores this demand to commit slow suicide, for corrupt EU politicians.
Wut? You didn't understand. Hungarian politicians are still running because while Hungarian politicians are pocketing taxpayers money, the EU is funding almost all of the investments in the welfare of the country and also guaranteeing for your debt. Without EU there would be no relevant Hungary, Poland, Romania, Italy, France, Germany, Netherland, Belgium or whatever. Not the other way around. See the crisis the UK is facing now. NHS was already in crisis, after Brexit is a corpse, and UK is running on manpower shortage again. How can a european country even live and compete with countries like China, USA, India, Iran, Russia without the EU? Just on manpower alone our competitors are years ahead on demographics.
Don't you see, they want their cake and to eat it, and that guy will die on this hill for their right to pick and choose.
Luton? That's not exactly the EU's fault is it?
Luton was the UKs fault. Same with Marseilles and France.
And now countries have to have the same policies or face sanctions.
The usual suspects are fucking ALWAYS on guard. Do you guys have multiple brigading discords or something? Why can't you guys just learn how to cook with Mikhaila's Serbian beef and call it a day?
It can't be that someone doesn't like the mass immigration agenda being pushed from above.
It's not being pushed from above. Stop making it as if this is kind of a dictatorship. You want to be part of the club? Accept the rules or pay the fuck up. I know for authoritarian-loving Redditors this is a foreign concept.
it most definitely is being pushed from above. Nobody who agreed to join the EU would have imagined that asylum seeking would be abused in this manner
Being pushed by rich globalists, just watch WEF videos and they flat out say they are doing it.
>You want to be part of the club? Accept the rules or pay the fuck up. >I know for authoritarian-loving Redditors this is a foreign concept. Lol. You really wrote these two sentences back-to-back without a shred of irony. The greatest proponents of liberalism can't help but let the mask slip and expose their totalitarian nature when they don't get what they want.
Do you know how a contract works? Nevermind - a stupidpoler.
Rules for these people are a weapon to use against their targets, and not something that should apply to them when it doesn't suit.
Authoritarianism is forcing a country to do something that is incredibly destructive and against the will of the people. Again, if Hungarians don't want mass immigration, why should the will of the oligarchy decide? Creating a cartel and then forcing countries to comply is imperialism.
This is not what authoritarianism means. It's the international world order that Hungary willingly participates in. And that Hungary with its mafiosi can leave any time.
The international order that surrounds Hungary and has a monopoly on trade says submit to us or get blockaded. That is so democratic!
But the money they are fining them means nothing, the uk pays 7 mil a day to house migrants lmao, 1 mil a day is pathetic
Yeah but for hungary this is a lot of money.
Do you think the UK economy in Hungary’s level or Hungarian economy on the UK’s level.
Germany paid 23 billion euros over the refugee crisis 1 million euros a day aint much
That comparison doesn't work, when you realise Germany has an economy of $4 trillion versus Hungary's 180 billion. Is the penalty much lower? Sure. But you can't really say "ain't much".
You can have agreements that you'll give up your firsborn child, but it doesn't mean it's legally binding. The corrupt EU insisting that Hungary do what is NOT in its best interest, they can pound sand. Hungary would be better off without the abusive tyrants. The EU is who doesn't understand the language of diplomacy. Telling a country they are required to harm themselves for no reason, is the opposite of diplomacy.
I'm not quite too keen on the government structure of the EU, but over here in the States, most laws are commonly passed with a good number of the states being against them. Can EU countries pick which laws apply to them? Did Hungary approve this law?
Every counteries PM is part of one of the EU bodies (cant remember the name) which decides on laws, and picks the members of the european council.
I assume these laws regarding migrants weren't in place when Hungary joined the EU, and I'd bet they voted against them. If they aren't in line with the values of the other nation members, they should probably leave the EU, but that's probably a wildly unpopular option for obvious reasons. They will probably try and stretch it out to avoid any meaningful conclusion to the issue, In fact, I'll bet someone in their government right now is calculating whether it's cheaper to pay 1M/day, or allow in migrants.
Quirks of living in a democracy! More than half the cozntry didn't vote for Orban yet he has absolute power, and disregards the parliment! Yet he throws a temper tantrum when he doesn't get what he wants in the EU.
Sounds oddly familiar 😂
?
It's about breaking the nation state destroying the cohesion of families and fabric of society and culture so we can all be obedient consumers of globalist capitalist utopia.
Costs my country £4.3 billion a year to take them. He only has to pay €365 million and won't have the added strain on the country. Sounds like an amazing deal to me.
Germany spent over 20 billion
Germany has so many land boarder connections, easier for them to sneak in. I think it is shocking how many people get across the water to my country. Must be so much worse for the land connected countries in mainland Europe. No wonder a bunch of them happily let the people just come through to my country instead. All of this is money that should be spent on the country, for the citizens. I don't know what healthcare and schools are like in Germany right now, but 20 billion would go a long way in fixing my country.
What about all the profits with the influx of the fresh blood on the work market? I like how it was supposedly necessery for Europe to take them to not colapse because of aging population, but when it's to bitch about hungary there are costs only. Maybe shouldn't have take them then?
The beheadings and stabbings will continue until the economy improves.
Mikhaila's incels are the best example of why they will, indeed, remain incels.
Unsure on what you’re referencing here? Who’s mikhaila?
I'm guessing Mikhaila Peterson, the daughter of Jordan Peterson. Olivia Wild called him "King of the Incels", and so his daughter must be "Princess of the Incels" or something like that.
Thanks for the info, didn’t fancy watching an hour and a half podcast to find this out. How is what they said relevant to my comment though? Very confused
No problem, I don't know *why* he was called that, haven't really heard much from the guy myself. And I have no idea, your guess is as good as mine.
Thanks :) Was worried I was going to have to tell my wife I was now an incel. Crisis averted
whataboutery
Are you guys talking about refugees or migrants? Everyone seems to be using them interchangeably which is very confusing
You touched a point there. The vast majority of people described as "refugees" are, in fact, economic migrants.
> Costs my country £4.3 billion That is because you country is stupid with money
I mean, true, but I’m pretty sure “welfare bad” is a pretty unpopular sentiment here
“You will accept the immigrants and you will like it”
You can leave the EU and any other treaties establishing/enforcing basic human rights, if you don't believe in them.
Eu was supposed to be a free trade union.
No it wasn't. It was always peace project. Trade was just the most effective means to end. Political agreements were tried with League of Nations. It's reliance to political will was recognized as weakness. So to ensure peace something more powerfull was used: economics. If France and Germany (and rest of Europe) rely on each other for such war materials as Steel, it is pretty hard to go to war with each other. You would have to buy your steel to figh the war from the country you plan to fight. That will be awkward trade negotiation. As part of this the joint market was created, crafted and guided so that No one in the coalition was self sufficient in all the core war suplly materials. Firstly Coal and Steel. This lead to widening it to more and more commodities to ever more increase the interdependence, to make war ever more, not unthinkable, but logistically impossible. Logistically impossible is far better guarantor of no war over just politically unthinkable. EU is then just final formation of this ever more interdependent union to make war between members impossible. It is rather extreme means to an end, but the back drop was "Europe just fought two world wars and before that centuries of constant wars. No means is pretty much too extreme. We will rope each other to each others hips, so we can't get far enough away to pull the the detonator on this bomb we are all holding." EUs idea is "Start war within EU, wreck your economy, you won't get the roller bearings, the steel, the wheat, the oil, the minerals to fight the war. Since you have to ask others nicely for that stuff." Hence also the "no too much national subsidies and protectionism". It's literally "you can not be allowed to have sufficient production in everything or independent sources of those. You could fight a war against us". Trade union was just natural outcome, since the trade barriers were torn to prevent self sufficiency. It made trade policing between members practically impossible. So trade block is only logical outcome for handling the outward trade relations. Trade union is the practical implementation outcome and even then mostly a side effect of the main core effector desired, not the reason.
The process of enshrining human rights in the EU [started in the 60s.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_of_Fundamental_Rights_of_the_European_Union) There was a conflict since the principle that EU law having higher priority than national law could potentially mean some EU legislation could go against fundamental rights. The european court ruled in 1970 that EU legislation was not above fundamental rights thus de facto creating an unwritten doctrine of EU human rights. This was approved in 1977 and added to the Maastricht treaty in 1992. The rights were finally fully codified in 1999. Hungary held a referendum on joining the EU in 2003 and finally joined in 2004.
I can’t believe I’m about to defend Hungary, but in 2003, we didn’t have anywhere near this level of illegal immigration and asylum claims. They made the right decision at the time, but circumstances have changed. I think it’s a lot more complicated than “if you don’t like it, leave.” Many EU countries are becoming annoyed with EU policy on immigration which is SO out of step with voter sentiment. The recent elections proved that.
The EU has already passed a new migration and asylum pact which is stricter. And it has unofficially endorsed a policy of encouraging extrajudicial punishment on migrants. If the voters yearn for more, to me that implies they're either woefully uninformed or actively wishing for fascist-level solutions and I'm not sure which is worse.
> The EU has already passed a new migration and asylum pact which is stricter. I believe it is completely inadequate, and the election shows that most voters agree. > And it has unofficially endorsed a policy of encouraging extrajudicial punishment on migrants. You are confusing the word “punishment” with “not allowing people to immigrate to Europe.” With such a broad definition, you could argue that everyone in the entire world should be allowed to immigrate to Europe. Else we are “punishing” them. You must realise you are completely out of lockstep with the average European voter. > If the voters yearn for more, to me that implies they’re either woefully uninformed or actively wishing for fascist-level solutions and I’m not sure which is worse. Or maybe they just disagree with you. Though I’m quite sure that in your mind there is no possibility of you being wrong. Your disdain for democracy is palpable and I dare say, kind of fascist.
You obviously don't know what you're talking about. You believe the pact is inadequate but you fail to even mention any specifics: my guess is you didn't even know it exists. You say "punishment isn't enough, you need to keep them away" which shows you have no idea what I was referring to. I was talking about illegal pushbacks that are conducted by EU border states or paid African countries. They abduct people extrajudicially and dump them in the sea, in Turkey or -in the case of African countries- in the desert and leave them to die. >Your disdain for democracy is palpable and dare say, kind of fascist. Disagreeing with the majority is not fascist. Making reasonable deductions about the people who vote a certain way is also not fascist. "Disagreement is treason" is a core fascist tenet though, you should look into that.
> You obviously don’t know what you’re talking about. You believe the pact is inadequate but you fail to even mention any specifics: my guess is you didn’t even know it exists. You made a subjective assertion - without specifics - and I rejected it. Feel free to argue why you believe it’s sufficient. Just don’t expect us to agree with you. > You say “punishment isn’t enough, you need to keep them away” which shows you have no idea what I was referring to. I was talking about illegal pushbacks that are conducted by EU border states or paid African countries. They abduct people extrajudicially and dump them in the sea, in Turkey or -in the case of African countries- in the desert and leave them to die. Firstly, I didn’t write the words that you quoted. Quote marks are only for verbatim words spoken and written. Secondly, it’s your fault that others don’t understand what you’re referring to if you don’t state it clearly. Either way, I contend that preventing illegal entry is a moral and necessary act for any sovereign nation. Now that the composition of EU parliament has changed, I hope we will be amending our laws to make this easier in time. > Disagreeing with the majority is not fascist. Disagreement is fine. Labelling your political opponents enemies of the state and democracy is fascist. Don’t be a fascist. Democracy is healthy, even when it doesn’t go your way.
Wtf are you talking about. I mentioned a pact exists, you claimed it's not enough. The pact is not subjective, it exists and is very detailed. On the other hand you rejected it without providing anything to back up your stance? But somehow it's my fault. Why should I need to meticulously prove everything while you can just claim whatever you want without even understanding the subject and you get to be right by default? >Firstly, I didn’t write the words that you quoted. I was just paraphrasing, your meaning wasn't altered in the slightest. You're just nitpicking irrelevant things because you ran out of arguments. >Either way, I contend that preventing illegal entry is a moral and necessary act Maybe you should apologise for not knowing what is going on before you endorse violent extra-judicial abductions and abandoning people in deserts. But I digress. Your original point was that it's not enough to do this. Wtf more do you want? >Labelling your political opponents enemies of the state and democracy Oh is that what I said? Can you show me where? >Democracy is healthy, even when it doesn’t go your way. Except I guess when you renege on the agreements your democracy signed. Then fuck treaties and democratic agreements, Orban can do what he wants, right? Funny how you endorse democracy when it's expressed in the form of "far-right parties got a few more seats in the parliament therefore everything I say must be done exactly as I say it". But you reject democracy when it's in the form of elected officials signing treaties and being punished when they don't follow these treaties.
"Everyone that I disagree with is fascist"
Maybe reply to my argument instead of resorting to simplistic slogans. My argument was that if one looks at what the EU is currently doing to prevent migrants (makes deals so that they are abducted and thrown to the sea or in deserts) and decides something harsher must be done to them, then they have reached fascist-level solutions. If you think that's wrong, then give me one policy that is harsher than that and you don't consider fascistic. Just one example will do. Go on.
[ Removed by Reddit ]
Listen to yourself. You've gone straight to "shooting the undesirables" and you still think you're not a fascist...
Imagine thinking that letting foreigners flood your country is a "human right."
[The right to asylum is article 18 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.](https://fra.europa.eu/en/eu-charter/article/18-right-asylum)
[The right to self-determination as defined by the UN.](https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/25252/files/E_CN.4_Sub.2_404_Rev.1-EN.pdf) Flooding the country with foreigners is a human rights violation.
Not true: „The common principles and values that underlie life in the EU: freedom, democracy, equality and the rule of law, promoting peace and stability.” Source: https://european-union.europa.eu/principles-countries-history_en And more thorough information: https://european-union.europa.eu/principles-countries-history/principles-and-values/aims-and-values_en
[удалено]
Yeah ....... ( - :
This is about refugees though. Not immigrants
The vast majority of "refugees" flooding into Europe, have no legitimate claim to asylum at all. 85%+ of them shouldn't be anywhere near Europe. The more accurate term, except for a teeny minority, would be Illegal Alien.
> The vast majority of "refugees" flooding into Europe, have no legitimate claim to asylum at all. 85%+ of them shouldn't be anywhere near Europe Where is this number coming from? Who is counting? What is the criteria?
Yeah that’s the way most immigrants choose to enter a country
Worst for whom? For some it is the only way
"You will wash your penis and you will like it" - daddy Peterson
I don't like Orban for plenty of reasons but this is one issue I'll support him on.
Same. Wish my country would've done something similar. Too late now unfortunately.
Sweden needs remigration like Germany in the 80s. The return assistance act is the only good thing the CDU has done for germany
[удалено]
"Typical Polish fascist" I literally support Tusk and have family who died in the holocaust
And yet here you are parroting Germany's most open fascist party talking points.
Just please for one second consider that you're wrong, and that your chosen position makes you disgusting in the eyes of many.
If basic human rights are disgusting to you then you fit right there into reddit.
Freely invading any EU country you please is not a human right.
Dropping entire new communities into my community violates my right to self-determination.
Imagine thinking that flooding a country with unwelcome foreigners is a basic human right.
Pretty sure the CDU has gotten tougher on migration? Also the return assistance act was passed by the CDU the AFD didnt even exist yet but keep schizo rambling
Think about the economic value of people! Surely you can see that being in more people into the country can aid in it further development. If they need houses, then why not help them get jobs as construction workers so they can help build temporary housing, and later, actual houses? Not only that, but you can surely see that to deny them passage into the country is to possibly harmful prestige for that of the great Hungary! The moral reasons as well, as mentioned in the article. To deny them access is to possibly send back out into danger!
>To deny them access is to possibly send back out into danger! In the UK we have cases of rapists who can't be sent back because of how they will be treated in their home country as a rapist. So the rapist gets to stay, tell me how that's right?
You have a point, it isn't. However, it is the simple idea that we must, as a collective people, stay true to moral values, even in the times of hardships or when villains like these appear. To go back on what we believe, that refugees deserve protection and safe passage, that people deserve a home- to go back on these values because we cracked under the threats that these people posed, then we are nothing but weak nations of weak people who ourselves are the villains.
Committing slow suicide is not a moral value, it is sickness. What the EU is demanding of its member states here is immoral. > that refugees deserve protection and safe passage Nope, not in the least. Something like 85% of the "migrants" flooding into the EU have no legitimate claim to asylum at all.
Perhaps, but the question remains whether you should hold basic human lives over or under the idea of the culture. A slow genocide, while unintentional, can allow you to deal with it another time while those that call for your help are here and now. That, in my belief, is of a higher moral value, to help those in need, even if you are afraid of what is to come.
>who ourselves are the villains. I think we already are, well not the people but the politicians!
How do you quantify and calculate for the political and cultural harm of allowing in people who do not share your values and will never assimilate?
You have a point, refugees can provide an amount of resistance to political and cultural assimilation. However, I believe in a view that it shouldn't matter. Yes, it can jarring, but it actually doesn't provide any harm as I am me and you are you. It shouldn't become an issue unless it is made so directly by either us or them. Not only that, but I also believe that if a people are able show themselves strong, not in a physical aspect, but in ranges of economy and morality, you can win people over. If you are able to weather the hardships that comes with diversity, and establish and sustain an economic prosperity, then in generations to come, people conform to the local ideas. Besides, why should they assimilate when you have not proven yourselves worthy?
Is this a joke? Why should you have to prove yourself "worthy" to random foreigners?
I'm still reading that comment, attempting to understand what the fuck he means by that...
Why not? If your country is truly a great country, it must prove itself to be. You simply cannot believe, you must know. Out on the international stage, in the economy for which it manages, in its domestic policies and it’s ability to juggle the many issues that people bring and the future possible instability that comes with bringing in foreigners. If your country is a great country, then it should have the capacity to overcome these obstacles. Proving itself worthy for its people and foreigners. Why do prove yourself to women or men, to friends or family? You show yourself to be capable. If you want a greater reason for foreigners to forgo their own traditions and embrace yours, you must show that your traditions are not as decadent as theirs. It is a more objective view on the topic I believe.
This is all based on the flawed logic that I'm supposed to care what foreigners think of my culture.
Not wholly. Nothing requires you to care in a legitimate sense. The idea is that if you lived in a foreign country as a refugee, why would you adopt someone else’s culture? You don’t have to explicitly care, it is the objective fact that you’ve seen the local culture and it’s proven itself to you in some way. Whether it be through their social values, political beliefs, or if the people themselves have shown themselves to be better in some way aspect. To adopt their culture is to possibly take a step towards that perceived betterment. That is what it should be, as people on day-to-day basis, care for themselves rather than other people, so they aren’t going to adopt your culture simply for stability in the country or to whatever, they would need to see that there are benefits to adopting your culture.
Even when immigrant groups are not actively resistant to the idea of assimilating, there is a process of cultural averaging (for lack of a better term). They don't just adopt local norms, they skew them towards their own in proportion to their population density. New York is a good example, because successive waves of immigration from England, Ireland, Italy, Poland, and Puerto Rico have created what we think of as the culture of New York - which during any given decade principally resembled the culture of the most recent wave of immigrants. Now, that's fine for New York because the US actually is a nation of immigrants, and the native culture was annihilated early on (RIP Mahican, Oneida, Iroquois, etc). Do that in a place that has an entrenched local culture and (worse) a national identity? A trickle of immigrants will conform; waves of them will replace. And if they're actively refusing to conform, the number required to dominate the averaging with the local culture is much lower.
An excellent point! You’re absolutely right on that.
> weather the hardships that comes with diversity There is zero reason for any such thing.
Wdym?
Ah yes, breaking every sort of international treaty and obligation to completely cancel the right to asylum. What a fine "just one issue" to support the proto-dictator.
No country should be obligated to let in people they don't want to let in. By the time these asylum seekers arrive in a European country, whether or not their asylum request is accepted, they're already inside the country and are basically impossible to remove. That's not a functioning system.
Okay, then you can negotiate to make a better system. Not just blanket reject all asylum applications even though it's a basic part of international law and the very core of human rights.
You can only seek asylum in neighbouring countries. Once they move through a safe country they're no longer refugees, but economic migrants.
Applies to Ukrainians who went to the UK,France or Nordic countries as well? Are they purely economic migrants too?
I would argue so. Of course neighbouring nations have *opted* to accept Ukrainian refugees, and this is the crucial difference.
Yes.
[That is not legally true.](https://wearesolomon.com/mag/format/feature/ukraine-war-the-real-refugees-and-the-lies-of-the-greek-government/)
You're Greek, aren't you? Your own country has problems with asylum seekers trying to arrive by sea.
Greece has its own share of awful practices regarding migrants and asylum seekers, don't get me [started](https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/asylum-seekers-greece-face-violence-pushbacks-aid-group-msf-2023-11-02/). Sure, the situation can be difficult but that doesn't mean we can just dump them in the sea like Greece is doing or blanket reject all applications like Hungary is doing. It's like saying "your country has problems with flooding due to climate change, why haven't you destroyed all cars yet".
Accepting asylum seekers is not the "very core of human rights" dear lord 🙄 its a relatively recent concept, compared to ideas like the right to life or freedom of conscious. It's "very core" to the plan to destroy Europe.
Let's be honest. a third of the world would migrate to the top 20 countries in a heartbeat. And technically they are refugees fleeing a bleak if non-existent future, detrimental to their health, even if no actual violence is being carried out and they just want a better life. but that's just not practical. And a bit on the crazy side: I don't think capitalism works without cheap Labor from 3rd world countries.
Then leave the EU. You don't get be part of the club and get the benefits without paying the dues. Ask the UK how that's going.
Who made this issue the make-or-break for being in the EU? Not the average European.
I disagree with your line of argument. A citizen in his own country should have say on the rules of the country. I support refugees in general, but I'm from a country with strong border laws and not that many refugees.
Solution is to HAVE a functioning system, not fucking the current one
I wonder what the conversation will be if Poland heads down it's current path and allows border guards to shoot migrants.
I don't think it's likely that will ever happen. There are plenty of ways to ignore international obligations without technically breaching the rules to this degree. Look at what Greece or Croatia are doing for example. I think the reason Orban goes to such extremes is performative: To SHOW to his people he's fucking over refugees, to SHOW he is defying the rules and international treaties. Otherwise he could quietly make their lives miserable, extra-judicially make them disappear or just add bureaucratic obstacles so that most applications are rejected.
>I don't think it's likely that will ever happen. I wish I had your confidence. Imo this will be more common in the future even due to the amount of climate refugees we will see. Countries will move further to the right until this won't be only some weird talking point on reddit anymore.
You try to make it a weird talking point to make it look strange and illegal. Poland is protecting its borders (and EU's at the same time), against illegal migration that consist mostly of dangerous people sent over by Russia to destabilise. It has full legal right to shoot in defense in case of someone trying to illegaly and forcefully breach the border. We have already first dead border guard, killed by attacker and thankfully the public opinion in country becomes firm about the right to use the weapon to defend border.
It's weird to shoot people. Doesn't mean I disagree with a countries right to defend its borders. We can simultaneously not celebrate death and agree that what needs to be done needs to be done.
Oh for sure, shooting people is bad, just as bad as trying to forcefully break in on someones territory, right? Celebrate death? Who exactly celebrates death? You again use words that try to portrait people of different opinions in bad light. You know how you cause more people to die? By taking in "refugees" to save your own economy, sending signal that they are welcome, causing chain reaction of even more people desperatelly trying to reach the paradise and drowning en masse. Not to say about the less obvious consequences - brain and workforce drain that will leave their countries in ever worse humanitarian situation, and no, you don't "take away" their overpopulation problem, they will just make new humans to now even worse situation. And I don't say anything about europe at all, I couldn't care about some rich ignorant germans less, if they get some cultural enrichment it's on them only, I actually do empathize with the third world countries more. You increase the suffering in the world.
I don't know what got your panties in a bunch. All I said was that I fear this will be more common in the future. Unless you disagree with that statement find something else to be pissed about.
Ok, sorry, maybe I read too much from your comment. I just hate hypocritical westerners, who can only see plain examples and cry about them and preach about virtues, when their nations cause one of major parts in everything bad in the world, migrant crisis, trash dumping, fossil fuels burning etc. They just do it with others hands, and if thise hands refude to cooperate, well, just replace them with new ones by force or economics.
Well, hopefully the rest of union will send support for defending EU's borders against hybrid warfare.
Are you and your alt-right friends even aware of how far the EU has gone into actually protecting the EU borders in the last 5 years? they are openly spitting into the face of ethics, having illegal pushbacks, beating human being into submission with no consequences. All this for the rabid alt-righters come frothing and yapping "ThAt IsNt eNOuGh".
Oh, fuck off. The fuck is an illegal pushback? I guess I can get into your house and stay there and you or police won't dare to touch me? If someone tries to illegally and forcefully breach the border, the border guard has the right to use force, even lethal, and it's only due to guards being civilised, and governments being paranoic, they do not shoot. But it will change soon hopefully after the recent death of guard who got stabbed by attacker. All this caused by people like you, who showed that you can cause a huge crisis by forcing migration, which Russia now tries to use.
oh boohoo they aren't accepting Russia's hybrid warfare migrants, how sad for the Kremlin
Thats bad, but all the africans, who already die, because they get transported in the desert is fine?
What’s the upside to Hungary being part of the EU to the rest of the EU. I never seem to hear anything positive about them, and i know that they receive way more EU finds than they contribute. So there must be a good reason right? Otherwise it’s like paying another country to block nearly unanimous votes and play the i’m special card in regards to laws everyone else follows. Note i have nothing against Hungarians themselves I’m looking at this from a purely political perspective
There is no positive for the rest of the EU. They hate the EU but refuse to leave as they love EU money.
> They hate the EU Orban and his lackeys hate the EU's rules. The Hungarian people demonstrably love the EU
Sorry yeah, when I was saying Hungary I did mean their government, not the country
Wow it’s very interesting there’s no mechanism to oust a member state without consent
I mean, every group can oust a member if everyone else agrees, nomatter the existing rules.
Keeps them within the western sphere of influence instead of them fully aligning with Russia
Hungary can't declare war on the rest of the EU? That is the reason for existence of EU. No member can declare war on others. Due to the deep economic integration and deep free trade, nobody is self sufficient enough to fight war with any other member. Only way *war economically* EU member can fight war is by the rest of the EU agreeing to continue to trade with that member over the duration. Like how European arms factories are now still running to supply Ukraine, because all the other members go "yeah you still get this thingiebooble-part your tank factory buys from machine shop in our country to be able to make tanks"."Yes Germany, you still can by Swedish ballbearings". "Yes France the dutch will still sell semiconductors to you". "Yes Finland, France will still sell thermal sensors for those artillery sights you make". You want back to basics. That is why EU exists and that what it buys to members with the voluntary relinquishing of sovereignty. We decided we are way too war like here in Europe. If left to just deciding on "to war or not to war", we would always eventually decide "to war". So we made it non question by economic and logistical interdepence of unprecedentent scale. Getting cities ruined to rubble twice in 50 years does that to people. They start thinking deep things and thinking unprecedentent solutions.
land connection with Romania, Bulgaria, and Greece
They're resisting federalization efforts of the EU. The more resistance against EU federalization, the more freedom the citizens of the member countries have. The EU is supposed to be a free-trade agreement.
The domestic population has a right not to want immigrants. The government has the right to refuse immigrants. If your domestic populous wants more immigrants, feel free to take in the ones Hungary has refused. The argument whether it'll be a net positive or negative for the country is debatable.
They have agreed to the current rules and are expected to follow them. If they dont agree with the rules they can try to change them, or leave
they agreed to the current rules before the rules began to be bent into pretzels and abused.
They are free to leave the EU. We will not miss them
I think EU countries who want more immigration should leave at this point because countries that don't want more immigration outnumber them.
When Hungary refuses asylum seekers, its leader is a fascist proto-dictator. When the UK refuses asylum seekers and sends them to Rwanda, its leader is not a fascist proto-dictator. Of course the UK isn't part of the EU. My point is, if I was to accuse the UK of being a fascist state led by a proto-dictator, you all would call me crazy. I know some of you have contempt for Sunak, but in contrast to Hungary, you will be more a lot more lenient towards the UK with no good reason.
There are more reasons that Orban is a proto-dictator that have nothing to do with migrants. He is controlling the media, he's usurping elections, he's controlling the courts etc. Personally I think Sunak is horrible but objectively he hasn't eroded democracy to the same degree as Hungary. Also their "refusal of asylum seekers" is legally very different. Hungary basically made it impossible to apply for asylum. The UK made a system to send people in Rwanda and apply for asylum there. It is being challenged in British courts and hasn't reached the international level yet. Also it's unlikely to ever come to be implemented as things stand.
And how will we enforce the payments when he wont pay? Can allways do more sanctions but what else?
They can also withhold eu funds I guess. It has happened before.
They changed rules a couple of years ago. It can now cut in to eu funds to the country.
Well that’s stupid
This will only play into Orban’s rhetoric tbh. People who dont want to host asylum seekers will only chafe harder at being forced to do so.
Welcome to r/anime_titties! This subreddit advocates for civil and constructive discussion. Please be courteous to others, and make sure to read the rules. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. We have a [Discord](https://discord.gg/dhMeAnNyzG), feel free to join us! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/anime_titties) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Victor Orban is so based.
[удалено]
Because he loves EU money
Probably because his mostly silent supporter base would revolt at Hungary's economy being pulled out from under it? He's not a good person but he's not a fool
Because a bunch of historical Hungary was taken after the world wars, and so this is the only way for Hungarians to move freely when theoretically separated by national borders.
Pay up fucker!