Comment by inigyou
1 day ago
Alternative for Germany (Alternativ für Deutschland, AfD) is a party that wants to revoke citizenship of brown people and expel them from the country. There are very good reasons they should be banned. Their opposition to chat control is completely incidental.
Belgium can revoke citizenship of dual nationals on certain ground. What off it?
What are the certain grounds?
Democracy, as long as everyone votes for what you want, right?
This appears to be blatant misinformation. They want to expel various noncitizens and remove or restrict various pathways to citizenship. It's important not to misrepresent others even when you vehemently disagree with them.
There are other (voices in other) parties that want to expel/restrict foreigners. There is a spectrum, and the AfD holds a rather large portion of the people tentatively agreeing with what you call misrepresentation.
How many people of their party must make such statements while being welcome in the party, for it to not be misinformation/misrepresentation.
I mean, yeah. They push some things that would help - to sell its ideas to peole, but in the end if they got to power they would tripple down and do horrible things.
If the german government and its parties actually listened to people, the AFD would have like 5% and would be non issue. Same with all extremist parties tht try to latch on some idea to get voted in.
[flagged]
the party program doesn't state it, but some high figures were caught talking about it. E.g. Björn Höcke and Maximilian Krah. They did not mention "brown people" as gp states, but called out people foreign to the local culture.
What's so undemocratic if current inhabitants of some land do not want foreign culture influence in their society?
4 replies →
[flagged]
I see nothing here rebuking the above claim. Maybe you would’ve had better luck coming up with something if you had bothered to write it yourself.
The claim was that they want to deport citizens. The above list does not contain any entries that correspond to citizens. So unless you believe the above list to be incomplete or somehow otherwise in error it is a sound refutation of the original claim.
I'm inclined to vouch for the comment however I'm not clear if the self admitted AI copy and paste is in keeping with the current HN guidelines.
did your AI train on the Potsdam meeting notes that leaked to journalists?
[flagged]
Maybe don't trust AI so much.
Obviously the fascists don't put their most odious ideas in writing, they plan them in secret instead.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/19/turmoil-in-ger...
> discuss removing asylum seekers
Those aren't citizens though? I don't agree with their ideals but lets please be honest about what they do and don't support.
9 replies →
[flagged]
[flagged]
Your quote is very different from the situation you describe. Revoking citizenship is different than no pathway to citizenship. A pathway to citizenship is not open doors.
a country can change its mind though
4 replies →
The overwhelming majority of countries around the world have processes for naturalization [1]. They are often fairly onerous, but that is true of many European countries as well.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalization#Summary_by_coun...