The liberalization means Germany will, for the first time, allow multiple citizenship on principle — rather than as an exception for EU and Swiss nationals and those who can prove "special hardships."
"Finally, our law is doing justice to our diverse society," Federal Interior Minister Nancy Faeser said in a recent statement.
That number is set to increase substantially in the coming year: State governments across Germany have already reported a rise in applications.
The opposition parties, the Alternative for Germany (AfD), which is partly made up of right-wing extremists, and the conservative Christian Democrats (CDU), claim that the German passport will become cheapened.
The so-called guest worker generation — mainly Turkish people who moved to West Germany in the 1960s to work — will no longer have to take a naturalization test.
Those who reject equal rights for men and women or live in polygamous marriages are also not eligible for a German passport.
The original article contains 614 words, the summary contains 151 words. Saved 75%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Great, i like that its getting better. Faster Passport as the goal of integration will be a positive for the integration of immigrants in Germany. And i also like that you have to accept our cultural values such as equality and the ban for antisemitic people.
Yes and i hope it works, the crimes against LGBT and Woman are on the rise again, especially discrimination. Its not acceptable to have that sort of people vote here. We already have enough people of our own with that mindset, and we cannot take the passport away again ever if someone violates our laws, cultural standards or Values as society.
And here’s why Germany is ranked among the worst countries for expats. You desperately need people. Both the dirty work like cleaning and blue collar work and high skilled jobs that most Germans aren’t qualified enough for, mainly in tech.
You still treat the Indian, Turkish, Vietnamese immigrant like they’re here to make your food and the Eastern European immigrant like they’re gonna steal your bike if they’re not alcoholics. Yet these are nowadays the people that pay the highest taxes in Germany and other countries with a tech sector.
Who’s gonna pay for your retirement? Who’s gonna take care of you when you’re old and your family dumps you at a nursing home? Germany is still doing well but SMEs aren’t as relevant as building software products, the 80s are over. This attitude is already hurting Germany and it’s only getting worse. Not gonna be my problem but people like you really need a reality check.
Regardless that we need more working age people, those coming to us have to follow our liberal-democratic basic order (freiheitlich-demokratische Grundordnung).
We can't get rid of anti-democrats born here, but we must be able to chose who is coming into Europe.
I am familiar with the concept, I find it ridiculous to assume that the default is that foreign people would not follow the law.
I don’t agree with you that „we must be able to choose“ because I don’t believe it is our achievement that we were born here and we have contributed nothing to how things are in Europe.
The thing that has contributed most to how rich Europe is is colonial exploitation of the global south. As of now our European borders are a deeply racist construct aimed at keeping the consequences of hundred of years of exploitation away from us, and don’t get me started with climate change.
Just because fascism has become popular in Europe again, there’s no need to parrot their brainrot uncritically. I am very worried about the future of Europe due to the rise of fascism. I believe if we continue going down this route we will become economically irrelevant, all humanitarian aspects left aside.
Business and qualified people go rather somewhere stable and predictable than to Germany or France where a new Nazi Reich is a possibility. Europeans are just still too stuck in their colonial mindset to realize that. If you don’t believe me then just look over to the UK, this could be us.
Isn't it weird how all these stridently isolationist voices are taking Russian money? I just can't seem to connect this dot. Putin must really hate woke 🙃
They are. They are redfash. Talking about the horseshoe is one thing, but lets use the political Compass, they are peek Auth left and AFD is peek Auth right, they can work together to destroy democracy, wich is their long therm goal, or rather the goal of the Countries behind both parties. (Russia and China)
BSW is already evaluating their chances at a majority in coalition with AfD and who knows else, but certainly not with any leftist party. To consider them left is showing a fundamental lack of basic understanding of the German political landscape.
The entire party is a Russian proxy. Same with the German right wing.
Same goes for the left wing in France and BSW (left wing hardcore SED clone) in Germany.
Fuck extremism! They will run our continent into the wall and just because they profit from it. Both sides are paid by China and Russia to destroy our Unity!
BSW is no SED-Clone. BSW is a personal cult for Sahra Wagenknecht very populistic, pro workers ( which are left positions) but also pro putin and anti migration (which are all but left positions).
Also, Die Linke (left wing party) has no ties to Russia since Wagenknecht and her peers left.
And stop that "BoTh SiDeS" BS. It has no merit and is a false narrative.
Honestly, this is why using only a left-right axis to describe politics is inadequate. If the term wasn't prestressed, BSW would be literally National Socialist (but please don't use that term, because, you know, Hitler, and she's far from that).
Oh and BSW being a SED clone is regarding Wagenknecht being a SED politician and her very close ties into the Kremlin.
That's oversimplifying if I've ever seen oversimplifying. To the point of disinformation. Wagenknecht wasn't allowed to study because she clashed with the regime, was accused of a hunger strike during military training and joined SED *half a year before the Wall fell with the intention of reforming it. And licking Putin's boots is not enough to be an SED clone.
Lol. I never said National Socialist was left, I said BSW is not left. It is not considered left in the german political landscape (except by right wing nutjobs like AfD).
I got my political knowledge straight, you're making stuff up.
BSW has too many positions that are not considered left (their stance towards migration alone is all but left). And where are it's authoritarian positions?
You're throwing around a lot of terms that don't mean what you think they mean.
People like you are why such extremism can root freely. You want to avoid calling them left because you are left yourself and believe they aren't. They absolutely are. And you just don't accept reality.
Bro you just ignore arguments, also both of our arguments is that something is or isn't Left in a political sense. You don't support your claims with arguments either, probably because we are both right depending on who we ask.
The most important takeaway however is that BSW is undeniably a hardcore authoritarian party and mostly a east Germany phenomenon.
If its left or right will be seen next election, depending on where they take seat in the Bundestag, since they are a break away from the Left party, they will probably sit left from the view of the podium. The core problem we are at, is that nither left or right in common use are sufficiently defined to make a perfect point her.
If we'd take the Horseshoe theory again, BSW would be so far down left that its just "center" extremism but radical center is just not what they actually are.
Another takeaway is that they are absolutely a threat to democracy, just as the AFD is, and that they both suck putin dong.
You bring no arguments I could ignore. You only make assumptions and claims.
How do you even come to the conclusion BSW was authoritarian (that describes the use of (or desire to reach) a strong central power the rejection of political plurality) or left wing (which is defined by striving for societal progress and especially equal rights and equal chances for everyone, which BSW denies migrants).
and mostly a east Germany phenomenon.
That is something you never brought up before. What point do you think you make with this phenomenon?
they will probably sit left from the view of the podium.
Where you sit usually concurs with your political positions, but does not define it.
If we'd take the Horseshoe theory again
Why should we, since it's debunked?
Another takeaway is that they are absolutely a threat to democracy,
Again something you claimed but never supported with anything.
BSW is left "conservative", is way stronger in east Germany than west, has ties to Russia (due to Wagenknecht herself)
How do you even come to the conclusion BSW was authoritarian (that describes the use of (or desire to reach) a strong central power the rejection of political plurality) or left wing (which is defined by striving for societal progress and especially equal rights and equal chances for everyone, which BSW denies migrants).
BSW doesn't have a official party program, but from what Wagenknecht herself and most of her followers are standing for, they are for stuff like mass surveillance, chat control... They don't like wrongthink wich might, just might be because Wagenknecht was very involved in the last years of SED, the party that is known for hardcore authoritarian shit. Also who they are funded and allied with speaks volumes, Putin and Xi aren't known to be very libertarian or democratic.
That is something you never brought up before. What point do you think you make with this phenomenon?
As seen in sources for proof of the fact.
I think the east, due to the very short democratic time is tending towards extremism, in general. The east was also more supportive of NSDAP and especially Saxony is extreme. I don't know why its like this, what i day here isn't provable, but based on evidence. Afd is btw the strongest party in all of the east basically.
Where you sit usually concurs with your political positions, but does not define it.
In language it kinda does as the left right thing is essentially based on this.
Why should we, since it's debunked?
Well, firstly i just used it as a example and Secondly, who debunked it? Can you give insight, i think its rather more proven than anything. Both sides tend to authoritarian and antidemocratic views thats the key takeaway, and the further down they go their side, the more similar they become, they do however not reach each other, a horseshoe has a finite end and the sides are still apart, it's explicitly not a circle.
Again something you claimed but never supported with anything.
BSW tries to get closer to AFD, they are anti EU and have ties to Russia and China, they want to end all help for Ukraine, want to leave nato and what not to throw the state Germany under the bus. They are a threat to democracy because they would like to deliver Germany to Russia/China on a silver plate.
You are just digging a bigger hole with every comment, adding more inconsequential arguments.
Your original claim was that they are an SED clone. Which is just not true. That would also not make sense, given that we live in a vastly different time than the original Cold War era.
BSW is a party that, for the moment, has way more presence in political talk shows than it does substance. They have a prominent ex-Linke face, they have ex-Linke members, but they also have nationalist and socially regressive views. Calling them left-wing is thus not particularly appropriate either.
And just like CyberEgg, I absolutely don't understand why you bring in all the arguments that don't do anything for your case. E.g: Yes, BSW is popular in Eastern Germany. But that doesn't mean they're an SED clone or left-wing. It just means that a bunch of people in Eastern Germany voted for this weird cult.
And for the record, none of that means that either CyberEgg or I like BSW.
Well, what you will get is a "reactionary, hateful, nationalist" that is in addition unelected and largely unaccountable. Have fun with the inevitable military coup.
This is a valid point of view. However, in the current french constitution, as it, the elected president has the final authority over the army, which even without the majority at the parliament makes the president able to manage foreign policy. (Sure the parliament can not vote the budget which would technically limit this power).
If Macrons wants to send troops to Ukraine next year, Le Pen, won't have many way to stop him. Well, the parliament can not votes the budget which would strongly limit the ability of the "troops" to work effectively, but that's it. In the previous case of cohabiation, it wasn't a big proble, conservative and socialists are reasonable person who can work together well enough to find arrangement on foreign policy. Think can be more complex with neo-liberals like Macron and far-righter like Le pen
I'm not much too deep into french politics. I just wanted to point out that there are more options than either of two persons having too much control, simply because I hate false dichotomy fallacies.
Most cars sold in the EU are still combustion engines. Replacing them with EVs would make enviromental sense and China giving state money to make EU EVs cheaper is not that bad a move.
Problem is obviously that the EUs automotive industry has to compete, but that can be done by matching subsidies as well.
Personal EVs are not a solution. We need less cars overall, not replace combustion with EV. EVs still significantly contribute to pollution, noise and car-centered infrastructure. EVs are just the car industry's way of continuing business as usual without changing anything and is not environmentally friendly.
The only solution is more and better public infrastructure, more bikes and walkable cities, where the important things are either close by or sufficiently accessible by public transport.
And EVs are still better then combustion engines. Even better the EU is not going to be able to match Chinese subsidies. So the EU car industry is going to die and replaced by Chinese cars. However those will have a much harder time lobbying for car focused infrastructure. Just compare Germany and the Netherlands for example. One has a massive car industry and the other does not.
re: rich countries: Car infrastructure is very, very expensive and the additional car infrastructure between every building also makes life in cities much more expensive. Also, cars themselves are very expensive. So, no, you don't need to be rich to build public transit and bike lanes. It actually makes most sense when you're not.
re: small countries: For one, "small" doesn't make any sense — "densely populated" makes a bit more sense. However, when you look at it, the vast majority of humanity lives in cities today and their commutes are short, even in the US. And these commutes would in fact on average become shorter with more public transit and biking.
Cars have a place but right now, any industrialized nation has several times more cars than it would need, especially if city planning were more sensible.
As we replace ICE cars with EVs people will think "problem solved" and refuse to fund transit, bike lanes, denser housing. I see the point you are making but I'm worried society's capitalist attitude will use EVs as an excuse to kick the can of centric planning down the road.
We need to both. We need to bring all urban areas up to walkable standards and make them serviceable by transit. We need to provide EVs for rural people and those who refuse any other mode of transit for whatever reasons.
Just building the same way but with EVs instead of ICEs is still a massive impact on the environment. It wastes vasts amount of valuable urban lands while also being one of the least energy effecient modes of travel.
Georgia's path to EU membership is being blocked by the passing of a controversial foreign influence law, European leaders have said at a summit in Brussels.
"The European Council calls on Georgia’s authorities to clarify their intentions by reversing the current course of action which jeopardises Georgia’s EU path," the leaders said in a document released on Thursday.They added that they maintained their "steadfast solidarity with the Georgian people" and expressed a "readiness to continue supporting Georgians on their path towards a European future".
Georgia was granted EU candidate country status in December after being given a list of steps it needed to take to proceed, including justice reform.
Under it, media and non-governmental organisations that receive over 20% of their funding from abroad will have to register as “organisations acting in the interest of a foreign power”, submit themselves to stringent audits, or face punitive fines.The Georgian government argues the rules will ensure transparency of money flowing to support NGOs and protect Georgia from foreign interference.Its opponents have dubbed it "Russian law” because of its similarities with an existing law in Russia and believe the real reason for the legislation is to stifle dissent ahead of October's parliamentary elections.
The US has previously said the law threatens free speech.Thousands of Georgians have protested against it and there have been reports of NGO workers, activists and opposition politicians receiving threats or being physically assaulted at rallies.
They said they would continue to monitor the situation in Georgia closely and called on the government to ensure the upcoming elections were "free and fair".
The original article contains 375 words, the summary contains 262 words. Saved 30%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Who on Earth refers to electric vehicles as "e-cars"? Lol
EVs or BEVs is the terminology I've always heard.
That aside, I don't really see how European companies can compete at the low end without slapping tariffs on Chinese goods. Europe doesn't have the benefit of things like forced labour.
Also, I think it's unwise to allow our reliance on China to grow even further. We've seen from Russia that making a hostile nation integral to our economies not only makes us reluctant to hold them to account properly, but it also causes us tremendous disruption if we do go about severing ties.
100% agree with this, we have to put tariffs on China and assume the consequences when they respond with a little courage, if at the first increase they make in tariffs on wine or pork we cower, this will fall on us
Of course, the problem is to expect the industry to "come back" we must not let it go, for the issue of cars the example of solar panels should be instructive, if the factories close today, they will not reopen tomorrow, when China has the monopoly of a sector we will not be able to have a part again,
We must act quickly and forcefully
Or maybe we could see that china invested money and had an actual plan, it's so dumb everyone gets mad at china fir doing the right thing.
We need to move away from oil, all the major players should be investing in solar production to lower the price and increase adoption- all the world leaders say this at their climate conferences. China actually does it and all anyone cares about is how to shut them down.
Ask yourself if you hate climate change or Chinese people more, it's shocking how many people pick the latter. Cheap solar is good, if your country wants to make solar then invest in it like china did.
The problem with China is not that it invests in one sector or another, we can invest in moving away from oil as much as you want, I would support that. The problem with china is that we can't compete with their labor costs.
So as long as they do not have paid vacations and health insurance for their employees at the European level, we have to compensate for that cost difference with tariffs or our companies compete with one hand tied behind their backs.
Europe
Älteste(r)