> All the recent war involvements of Germany are inherently against the German constitution
You'll have to back that up a little. Which wars? Which involvement is considered unconstitutional? Because a lot of those have been tested in the constitutional court and found to be covered by the constitution - see the courts judgement from 1994 https://www.servat.unibe.ch/dfr/bv090286.html#
"BVerfGE 90, 286 (286)1. Die Ermächtigung des Art. 24 Abs. 2 GG berechtigt den Bund nicht nur zum Eintritt in ein System gegenseitiger kollektiver Sicherheit und zur Einwilligung in damit verbundene Beschränkungen seiner Hoheitsrechte. Sie bietet vielmehr auch die verfassungsrechtliche Grundlage für die Übernahme der mit der Zugehörigkeit zu einem solchen System typischerweise verbundenen Aufgaben und damit auch für eine Verwendung der Bundeswehr zu Einsätzen, die im Rahmen und nach den Regeln dieses Systems stattfinden.
2. Art. 87a GG steht der Anwendung des Art. 24 Abs. 2 GG als verfassungsrechtliche Grundlage für den Einsatz bewaffneter Streitkräfte im Rahmen eines Systems gegenseitiger kollektiver Sicherheit nicht entgegen."
I mean you can justify all you want, and there is various critiques on how the Verfassungsgericht has become an instrument of politics where the top assignments are now based on party affiliation. But regardless of what you think of it's decision and what you think of it's decisions, Artikel 2 of the GG says this:
> Art 2
> (1) Jeder hat das Recht auf die freie Entfaltung seiner Persönlichkeit, soweit er nicht die Rechte anderer verletzt und nicht gegen die verfassungsmäßige Ordnung oder das Sittengesetz verstößt.
> (2) Jeder hat das Recht auf Leben und körperliche Unversehrtheit. Die Freiheit der Person ist unverletzlich. In diese Rechte darf nur auf Grund eines Gesetzes eingegriffen werden.
"(2) Everyone has the right to life and physical integrity. The freedom of a person is inviolable. These rights may only be interfered with on the basis of a law."
You kill someone, you bomb someone, you support someone that is bombing someone -> you are inherently violating article 2 of the GG no matter how the VerfG decides to justify the Kosovo or Iraq war or justify it as a act of selfdefense.
EDIT: yes, on the basis of a law - that I retroactively rewrote in order to justify a "defensive war" that is on the other side of the planet. Let's not kid ourselves here. The German and US MIC has done a fantastic job in white washing the violation of something that has been proven to be a false pretence by now. Even assuming that the WMD defence held up in court AT THE TIME(which is a joke TBH, since there was no evidence available), we all know that all the officials admitted that it was a lie by now.
_these rights may only be interfered with on the basis of a law_. There is a law that covers it, just as there is a law that covers all the restrictions to freedom when you commit a crime. Killing in self defense is not a violation of the constitution. That's outlandish.
Killing in a war is not in violation of the constitution. The GG itself establishes an army used for territorial defense. Article 24(2) covers the case of integrating that army into a defense and security pact (NATO, EU army, UN) and from that derives the right to deploy german soldiers in NATO and UN missions. And if they have to kill on those missions, they are _not in violation of the GG Article 2_
Edit: When reading the GG, you also need to take into account that there are many fundamental rights that are in contradiction to each other. These need to be balanced out, there's no single right that always trumps the others. Take the case of an armed robbery: My right to my property (which is codified in Art 14) is opposed to the right of the robbers physical integrity (or even life). It would be outlandish to resolve this as "the robbers right to not be hurt trumps my constitutional right" and indeed, there is the Notwehrparagraph (StGB § 32 Notwehr https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stgb/__32.html) which codifies your right to self defense with whatever means necessary to stop the attack. (The boundaries of what's necessary are murky and difficult to generalize, but let's leave that aside here)
The German constitution has been very much subject to changes to reflect the will of the people (requires a 2/3 majority in parliament). It is true that Germans do not quite are so obsessive about their constitutional rights like US citizens, however, I would say our constitution is a quite solid basis. The general approval ratings for the legal system and the constitution are really not bad [1]
It’s obsessed about in the US so much because we have a federal government that oscillates between parties who want to violate it one way or another. Their whims being unconstitutional is our only defense.
>"Germans do not quite are so obsessive about their constructional rights"
In this case "obsessive" is a very desired quality. People's constitutional rights must be guarded from the sweaty paws of the governments that may treat those as a mere annoyance.
> It specifically prohibits discrimination and welcomes people from other nations, both of which the average German does not actually like
Isn't "prohibiting discrimination" something else entirely as "allowing all foreigners to come in without questions asked"? Germans profited from the ability to take refugee during and after WWII themselves.
The claim is wild because the german constitution does not encourage immigration.
It contains paragraphs that prohibit discrimination. It guarantees asylum for people that are prosecuted in their home country for political views [1]. There's also a paragraph that widens the definition of "German citizen" in the GG to those that were german citizens in 1937 or who lost their german citizenship due to the nazis. After the reunion some groups from russia emigrated to Germany (Russlanddeutsche) [2]. That is wildly different from wanting more immigration.
[1] there's a long laundry list of exceptions to that rule, for example you have to travel straight to germany without passing through a safe country. It's effectively void. See Art 16a https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/gg/art_16a.html
You're being disingenuous. And given on your follow-up you're actually misrepresenting what I say, which is wilfully malicious behaviour in a discussion. German politicians have repeatedly called for a reform of article 16a of the GG. The paragraph is about the right of asylum. And yes, during what they call the "migration crisis" article 16a clearly supported the case for mass migration to Germany.
You claim was that the GG imposes immigration on the unwilling german citizenship. That's just plain wrong. Are there applicants for asylum that try to apply despite not being covered? Probably. Is that in the GG? No.
I am as sympathetic to the Germans who dont want racial diversity and as anti globalist as it gets.
But here is the counter argument. Europe (if you don’t take the Slavs and the albenians into account) has a negative birth rate. There is no way to sustain current standard of living without immigration. The politicians in Bundestag who control the EU knows that. And if there is one thing that they are afraid of is to encounter the shortage of labour and have to increase wages that comes from that. As the crisis from Covid has shown us.
I think the root cause of the decline of the national and cultural identity of Europe is not because of immigration but because of a local population that has mostly no interest in family formation.
>"but because of a local population that has mostly no interest in family formation"
I am in Canada so do not know what the trends are in Europe but I can clearly see that having kids here is quickly becoming a financial burden many people can not afford. Part of it because people want higher living standard while the other is our fucking politicians creating such conditions.
Taiwan has a completely different demographic and a negative birth rate and no real immigration "problem" and to me it is clear that the negative birth rate is indeed more related to the cost of living crisis than it is to other factors that people like to attribute it to. Their salaries have stagnated for 30 years, while cost of living has skyrotted for anyone but expats. In relation to the income Taipei is one of the most expensive cities in the world. Who wants children if you have to live in a room in your parents flat(at 35) because you can't afford to live on your own.
And yes, while Germany and other European countries have great benefits for child rearing, regardless of that a lot of Germans are actually struggling being able to afford living in the cities. Everyone here, myself included probably makes a lot more than an average worker in Germany.
What do you mean by “want more immigration”? More tax payers? More potential customers? More cheap workforce? Immigration as a help for unfortunate people in other countries?
You're perhaps in a sociopolitical bubble if you find that claim wild. Even if you don't personally know anyone with this perspective, I would hope that it's logical, rational, and expected that a significant proportion of an indigenous population targeted for "diversification" would be opposed to the idea.
(As a counter-anecdote, I don't personally know a single person in my social circle, in Australia, who is supportive of racial diversity, ranging from indifference to a depressing powerlessness and helplessness to protest what is being done to us by the government, to open and outright racist hostility to the concept.)
When I read the original post I was getting nervous, a little angry and wanted to make the same post and mark that claim as wild. But now that I've read your comment I thought a little about my experience here in southern germany.
I recently left Berlin after over 30 years. I have been outside, but not for long to get to know "other germans". And yes, you are right, the mindset here in the south is a lot more narrow minded and what people say about refugees/foreigners is just mind blowing. Which is kinda sad. I like it here, but I doubt I can live around these people for much longer.
I'm curious which population in Australia you are designating as "indigenous". Here in the UK, "indigenous" usually means white. But I think of indigenous Australians as the aboriginals.
So there's history in Australia of white immigrants trying to force aboriginals to "integrate" with whites. I suppose you could call that "targeted diversification". But you make it sound as if your social circle is white people, objecting to "diversity" in the sense of deviation from whiteness.
Well I'm not going to argue with a blood-and-land white nationalist from Oz, telling me how people feel here in Europe. I'm going to butt out, because I have blood-pressure problems. Bye.
