Merkel–obviously not at risk herself given the level of security that surrounds her and other more obvious reasons–is ignoring the enormous loss of freedom that young German women now face, particularly after dark. All the pretense in the world can remove the very real risk they face.

Nor that freedom cannot be restored by flooding a few special events (Cologne on New Years Eve) with cops. It can only be maintained by expelling and keeping out likely offenders. When deeds are indefensible, the mere risk of committing them is sufficient reason.

In Germany, legal immigrants—and particularly their German-born children—are not completely barred from becoming citizens. Here’s the way it works:

From 1990 the [naturalization] law was steadily tightened each year to limit the number of immigrants, requiring immigrants to prove language skills and cultural affiliation…

Children born on or after 1 January 2000 to non-German parents acquire German citizenship at birth if at least one parent:

has a permanent residence permit and
has been residing in Germany for at least eight years.

In order to retain German citizenship, such children are required to take affirmative measures by age 23, after which their German citizenship otherwise expires. These affirmative measures may include proof of the applicant’s link to Germany, which comprises either of the following:

resided in Germany for at least eight years during their 21 first years of life
has attended a school in Germany for at least six years
has graduated from a school in Germany
successfully finished vocational/ professional training in Germany

These requirements are fulfilled in the vast majority of cases. If they are not fulfilled, the applicant can alternatively prove that he or she does not hold any foreign citizenship other than in a European Union member nation or a nation such as Morocco, Nigeria, or Iran whose domestic law provides that citizenship in it cannot be lost…

Between 1995 and 2004, 1,278,424 people obtained German citizenship by naturalization. This means that about 1.5% of the total German population was naturalized during that period.

That is followed by a chart that states that, between 1995 and 2012, about 670,000 people of Turkish origin became German citizens, 66,500 Iranians, a very similar number of Serbians and Montenegrans, about 34,000 Afghans, 43,000 Moroccans, and large numbers from several other Muslim countries. All of these totals are larger than the number coming from any European country and getting German citizenship.

The newest arrivals (since the Syrian war) are not citizens yet, of course; the multi-year waiting period has not been fulfilled yet. But they and their children will be eligible later on.

Also, by the way, it says in that Wiki article on German naturalization that “refugees and stateless persons may be able to apply after 6 years of continual residency.”

More here.

It’s dead on target.

It means that the titanic issue of ultimate politics is unresolved….

And very reversible.

&&&&

When Americans admit refugees, the presumption is that they have every shot at becoming American citizens. Indeed, there is the presumption that they will.

This is NOT true anywhere else.

Virtually all other nations regard such refugees as entering a social ‘parking lot.’

This is a “news flash” to modern Americans.

Even Cuba will admit of political refugees. But only of a trickle. As new citizens ? Nope.

It’s just as well, they’re (American) criminals, with rare exception.

Philip Says:
December 31st, 2016 at 9:21 pm

You’ve skipped past the fact that ALL European nations don’t recognize birth-right citizenship.

—

I “skipped past” it because it wasn’t relevant to the subject at hand. Did you perhaps mean to direct that at someone else?

Weirdly, the MORE that the kafir help them out — the MORE the Muslims disrespect and HATE the kafir.

Such charity is ALWAYS explained away, by the imam, as supplication.

Which Muslims have entirely ‘covered’ by their “scriptures.”

We’ve been through all of this before:: Jews trying to deal rationally with Nazis.

But, there was NEVER any rational dealings with the Nazis.

Question:

What is the difference between Wahhabis and Nazis ?

Absolutely, no-one knows.

Yup.

What is the difference between ISIS and Nazis ?

Absolutely, no-one knows.

What is the difference between ISIS and KSA ?

Absolutely, no-one knows.

Yup.\

Who (institutionally) hid Osama bin Laden for Y E A R S ?

So that Islamabad could shake down Washington // the kafir/ / for enough lucer to ramp up their atomic program ( with Red Chinese $$$ and plans ) to surpass BOTH France and Brtain ?

That such astounding expenditures mean that Pakistan LACKS the ability to provide fresh water to its own farmers… !

Yes, jihad demanded that Islamabad deny countless hydro-power projects — so that hate would fill the guts of Pakistanis — not food — not rice — not electric power, nor fresh water. THIS even though few nations have the hydrology of Pakistan.

{ It’s fantastic … near to Peru … the most astounding of the entire planet. ]

Yes, NO Pakistani project of import has happened since the Carter administration. ( Considering the delays … probably the Ford administration. ]

You’ve skipped past the fact that ALL European nations don’t recognize birth-right citizenship.

Each nation has its variation… but…. even American-Europeans have a HARD time becoming citizens.

Does ANYONE bring that up in the MSM ?

NOPE !

The Swedes, the Danes, the Brits, the Germans, the French ALL want the moral superiority of being Americans. Not ONE of them wants to pay the citizenship price.

THAT’S reality.

.

I find a lot to admire in Chancellor Merkel’s New Year’s speech, honestly. I have some disagreements with it, too, but I find it interesting that she can still speak optimistically about things and is trying to take the long view. She admits that it’s hard to do these days.

But at the same time that she is a diehard optimist when it comes to the ability of the German social market economy to meet the crises and changes of the time, as she says, better than any other economic system in the world. And she emphasizes the values of German democracy throughout. She’s – I wouldn’t quite say begging, but let’s say almost imploring people not to give up on parliamentary democracy or the European idea.

I think Chancellor Merkel has in this speech missed or glossed over some of the real reasons for that dissatisfaction – not totally, but at the same time clearly not giving enough honest attention to those reasons to satisfy the average AfD member, I would imagine. I think she does to some extent want to have it both ways, as you put it, but maybe not in the sense that you mean it.

In my reading of it, her wanting it both ways is in the sense that on the one hand, as I said, Merkel remains optimistic about the robustness of German society and so on. But on the other hand, there is a certain pessimism about the ability of Germany to stand economically or otherwise as a truly independent country, for example. This is coupled with a certain grim hanging-on attitude when it comes to making the European project work over the long term.

At least she doesn’t seem to me to do what His Majesty at 1600 Pennsylvania would have done in her place – just continue to wave off all worries, criticisms, fears for the future of one’s country as just a “false choice” and give objectors the back of his hand.

But she focuses on the problem of terrorism too exclusively, I think, as the source of this disquiet. I get the feeling from the German commentators that I read that they’re motivated much more by the little things that, cumulatively, make a bigger difference than the occasional spectacular terror attack. I’m not convinced that Merkel understands this yet. In that sense, I think she’s laid herself wide open to the criticism of being ostrich-blind.

Still, I give her some credit for her continuing faith in what she honestly considers to be good German values – though that faith comes at a significant cost to her people at this point.

So which would you say was closest to her meaning in this instance — the German government website’s “compassionate” or the BBC’s “considerate”? My English-language brain sees a difference in those words.