The German Forced to Become a Turk

kmguru

kmguru

Staff member
The German Forced to Become a Turk

Mohammad Eke was born and grew up in the German city of Essen. Until authorities found out that his parents had entered the country illegally, Germany was his home. Then Eke was deported to Turkey, even though he'd never visited the country and didn't speak the language. It's just another run-of-the-mill case of German immigration policy in action.


This does not happen in the USA. Does this mean that nazi era rules are still in effect?
 
Humanity is a matter of imagination, not found where its expected and rarely expected where it is found.
 
kmguru said:
The German Forced to Become a Turk

Mohammad Eke was born and grew up in the German city of Essen. Until authorities found out that his parents had entered the country illegally, Germany was his home. Then Eke was deported to Turkey, even though he'd never visited the country and didn't speak the language. It's just another run-of-the-mill case of German immigration policy in action.


This does not happen in the USA. Does this mean that nazi era rules are still in effect?
Click to expand...

Nazi? Come on. They just happen to lack the same law as the US which gives citizenship to anyone born here.
 
This law is a means of keeping people from claiming citizenship by simply becoming pregnant in the new land they wish to reside. Its a just law and the consequences are a deterrent for anyone who thinks they can slip through the cracks by virtue of having a child of citizenship in the country. Children born in Cambodia are also not given instant citizenship but no one calls them a nazi for it, I think the same goes for Thailand, China and Lao.

In these cases the children have the domicile of their parents. So if the parents want their children to have citizenship then they have to go through the normal channels of application.

Citizenship is a privilege not a right. The OP is incorrect. Although he may have been enculturated in Germany he is by nationality a 'Turk'.

From what Sam is saying anyone and everyone should be able to flood Indian borders because its the 'humanitarian' thing to do. Just happens to be that many Indians are leaving Indian and not too many people are fighting their way to get in. I say the Indian government should offer instant citizenship to all those whom the European and American government refuses. Hey we won't complain about it, though I am sure many of the immigrants would be upset about their new country of choice. I mean who would give up living in Turkey for India? :shrug:

In any case the Indians can put up with the influx of immigrants they neither want nor need and put on a forced smile while doing it.
 
Last edited:
Lucysnow said:
This law is a means of keeping people from claiming citizenship by simply becoming pregnant in the new land they wish to reside. Its a just law and the consequences are a deterrent for anyone who thinks they can slip through the cracks by virtue of having a child of citizenship in the country.
Click to expand...
It did not deter him. He could not be deterred by the law. He was unborn.
From what Sam is saying anyone and everyone should be able to flood Indian borders because its the 'humanitarian' thing to do.
Click to expand...
All those unborn flooding the borders, knowing once they get out of the womb, they have it made.

In this case you are forcing an innocent into culture shock. A judge should be able to rule he can stay.

I understand that the US law can allow guardians to stay with their US born children, but in this case an innocent is being punished.

It is small fry stuff compared to what the Nazis did, but cruel and unusual.
 
Doreen he had no choice right? I mean he was born in Germany but by law that doesn't make one an instant german citizen. I have no idea what you mean by him being 'unborn'. During Thatcher there were many children who were born in England who lost their status and given the domicile of their parents, that was the law and it didn't matter if they had ever been to the land of their parents or not. It was Thatcher's attempt at controlling immigration. This guy is a grown adult Doreen not an infant. The fact that its his parents who made the decision is meant to thwart parents into thinking that they can gain status for their children and themselves by simply having a child in the country.

Its like this case here in Ireland:

"Justice Minister, Michael McDowell, has insisted that a European Court ruling on citizenship, involving a Chinese woman whose baby was born in Northern Ireland, is further proof of the need to hold a citizenship referendum here.

Man Levette Chen purposely travelled to Belfast in 2000 to give birth, so that her child, a daughter, would gain Irish citizenship. Ms Chen and her daughter now live in Wales, where they hopes to stay. However the British authorities had rejected her application to live permanently in Britain.

Ms Chen appealed the decision and the European Court of Justice was asked to determine whether her daughter, an Irish national and therefore EU citizen, was entitled to stay and if Ms Chen could also remain. In a preliminary ruling, the Advocate General of the court yesterday said that Ms Chen should be allowed to stay on account of her Irish-born child."

http://www.irishhealth.com/article.html?id=5897

My guess is that they will vote No.
 
Lucysnow said:
This law is a means of keeping people from claiming citizenship by simply becoming pregnant in the new land they wish to reside. Its a just law and the consequences are a deterrent for anyone who thinks they can slip through the cracks by virtue of having a child of citizenship in the country. Children born in Cambodia are also not given instant citizenship but no one calls them a nazi for it, I think the same goes for Thailand, China and Lao.

In these cases the children have the domicile of their parents. So if the parents want their children to have citizenship then they have to go through the normal channels of application.

Citizenship is a privilege not a right. The OP is incorrect. Although he may have been enculturated in Germany he is by nationality a 'Turk'.

From what Sam is saying anyone and everyone should be able to flood Indian borders because its the 'humanitarian' thing to do. Just happens to be that many Indians are leaving Indian and not too many people are fighting their way to get in. I say the Indian government should offer instant citizenship to all those whom the European and American government refuses. Hey we won't complain about it, though I am sure many of the immigrants would be upset about their new country of choice. I mean who would give up living in Turkey for India? :shrug:

In any case the Indians can put up with the influx of immigrants they neither want nor need and put on a forced smile while doing it.
Click to expand...

I agree with Lucysnow completely. I do feel bad for the guy, but "anchor babies" (as they're called here in America) are a huge part of our immigration problem.

I believe that children should inherit the citizenship status of their parents. If your parents are citizens, so are you. If they're legal immigrants, so are you. If they're illegal immigrants, so are you.
 
why not just let the kid stay and the parents deported? bye-bye incentive for parents to pull stuff like this.
 
s0meguy said:
why not just let the kid stay and the parents deported? bye-bye incentive for parents to pull stuff like this.
Click to expand...

No. For many to have their children is an avenue to having an entire family in a system which is what they are trying to avoid. Its the case of Ms Chen and her deliberate attempt to have her children born in Europe. What is it that you think they separate newborns from their parents?
 
Lucysnow said:
No. For many to have their children is an avenue to having an entire family in a system which is what they are trying to avoid. Its the case of Ms Chen and her deliberate attempt to have her children born in Europe. What is it that you think they separate newborns from their parents?
Click to expand...

did you read the article? its not like the kid is only a few years old or just got born - in which case i would be arguing for everyone involved to be kicked out of germany - but this guy is 21 years old and fully accustomed and integrated into german society. i don't see good reason to kick him out now, aside from a law technicality.

anyhow, it shouldn't be too long until turkey becomes a full blown member of the EU, resulting in turks being allowed to live anywhere in europe they please.
 
s0meguy said:
did you read the article? its not like the kid is only a few years old or just got born - in which case i would be arguing for everyone involved to be kicked out of germany - but this guy is 21 years old and fully accustomed and integrated into german society. i don't see good reason to kick him out now, aside from a law technicality.

anyhow, it shouldn't be too long until turkey becomes a full blown member of the EU, resulting in turks being allowed to live anywhere in europe they please.
Click to expand...

Ultimately its not about him is it? Its about the choices his parents made. If you make an exception for him you are forced to make an exception for all and that's an immigration nightmare.

Turkey will never be allowed into the EU, it was a nice start but it doesn't look likely (especially with Tony Blair one of the biggest champions on the oust).
 
I think Turkey should stay out of the EU, and build relations with its neighbors. It has the potential to become a regional leader to rival Iran.

Once it can build a sufficient pan-Middle Eastern Union, it will have sufficient clout for any EU membership to become redundant. The Chinese and Russians would welcome it too.
 
S.A.M. said:
I think Turkey should stay out of the EU, and build relations with its neighbors. It has the potential to become a regional leader to rival Iran.

Once it can build a sufficient pan-Middle Eastern Union, it will have sufficient clout for any EU membership to become redundant. The Chinese and Russians would welcome it too.
Click to expand...

Its a question of costs vs benefits though.
Would the effort required to build a huge political union such as you suggest be worth the potential benefits?
If so would the net benefits be more than the net benefits from joining the EU (assuming Turkey was ever able to join the EU)?

These are of course questions for Turkey to answer for themselves but I can't see how it would be in their interest to try and build a new political union as long as they beleive they still have a chance of joining the EU.
 
S.A.M. said:
I think Turkey should stay out of the EU, and build relations with its neighbors. It has the potential to become a regional leader to rival Iran.

Once it can build a sufficient pan-Middle Eastern Union, it will have sufficient clout for any EU membership to become redundant. The Chinese and Russians would welcome it too.
Click to expand...

Well this video clip should be of informative. There are some opinions I believe would interest you:

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/europe/2009/12/2009121995740941984.html

Its seems that Turkey isn't interested in banning churches or religious buildings but political parties (specifically Kurdish), something that works against them in terms of EU membership requirements.
 
S.A.M. said:
I think Turkey should stay out of the EU, and build relations with its neighbors.
Click to expand...
First with its own Kurdish citizens, and then next I would say with Albanian and other historians. These two steps seem utterly primary for me for those in power in Turkey.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top