That’s incorrect, let me post the german law:

(1) 1Der Verlust des Rechts nach § 2 Abs. 1 kann unbeschadet des § 2 Absatz 4 und des § 5 Absatz 4 nur aus Gründen der öffentlichen Ordnung, Sicherheit oder Gesundheit (Artikel 45 Absatz 3, Artikel 52 Absatz 1 des Vertrages über die Arbeitsweise der Europäischen Union) festgestellt und die Bescheinigung über das Daueraufenthaltsrecht oder die Aufenthaltskarte oder Daueraufenthaltskarte eingezogen werden. 2Aus den in Satz 1 genannten Gründen kann auch die Einreise verweigert werden. 3Die Feststellung aus Gründen der öffentlichen Gesundheit kann nur erfolgen, wenn es sich um Krankheiten mit epidemischem Potenzial im Sinne der einschlägigen Rechtsinstrumente der Weltgesundheitsorganisation und sonstige übertragbare, durch Infektionserreger oder Parasiten verursachte Krankheiten handelt, sofern gegen diese Krankheiten Maßnahmen im Bundesgebiet getroffen werden. 4Krankheiten, die nach Ablauf einer Frist von drei Monaten ab dem Zeitpunkt der Einreise auftreten, stellen keinen Grund für eine Feststellung nach Satz 1 dar.

(2) 1Die Tatsache einer strafrechtlichen Verurteilung genügt für sich allein nicht, um die in Absatz 1 genannten Entscheidungen oder Maßnahmen zu begründen. 2Es dürfen nur im Bundeszentralregister noch nicht getilgte strafrechtliche Verurteilungen und diese nur insoweit berücksichtigt werden, als die ihnen zu Grunde liegenden Umstände ein persönliches Verhalten erkennen lassen, das eine gegenwärtige Gefährdung der öffentlichen Ordnung darstellt. 3Es muss eine tatsächliche und hinreichend schwere Gefährdung vorliegen, die ein Grundinteresse der Gesellschaft berührt.

(3) Bei der Entscheidung nach Absatz 1 sind insbesondere die Dauer des Aufenthalts des Betroffenen in Deutschland, sein Alter, sein Gesundheitszustand, seine familiäre und wirtschaftliche Lage, seine soziale und kulturelle Integration in Deutschland und das Ausmaß seiner Bindungen zum Herkunftsstaat zu berücksichtigen.

(4) Eine Feststellung nach Absatz 1 darf nach Erwerb des Daueraufenthaltsrechts nur aus schwerwiegenden Gründen getroffen werden.

(5) 1Eine Feststellung nach Absatz 1 darf bei Unionsbürgern und ihren Familienangehörigen, die ihren Aufenthalt in den letzten zehn Jahren im Bundesgebiet hatten, und bei Minderjährigen nur aus zwingenden Gründen der öffentlichen Sicherheit getroffen werden. 2Für Minderjährige gilt dies nicht, wenn der Verlust des Aufenthaltsrechts zum Wohl des Kindes notwendig ist. 3Zwingende Gründe der öffentlichen Sicherheit können nur dann vorliegen, wenn der Betroffene wegen einer oder mehrerer vorsätzlicher Straftaten rechtskräftig zu einer Freiheits- oder Jugendstrafe von mindestens fünf Jahren verurteilt oder bei der letzten rechtskräftigen Verurteilung Sicherungsverwahrung angeordnet wurde, wenn die Sicherheit der Bundesrepublik Deutschland betroffen ist oder wenn vom Betroffenen eine terroristische Gefahr ausgeht.

(6) Die Entscheidungen oder Maßnahmen, die den Verlust des Aufenthaltsrechts oder des Daueraufenthaltsrechts betreffen, dürfen nicht zu wirtschaftlichen Zwecken getroffen werden.

(7) Wird der Pass, Personalausweis oder sonstige Passersatz ungültig, so kann dies die Aufenthaltsbeendigung nicht begründen.

(8) 1Vor der Feststellung nach Absatz 1 soll der Betroffene angehört werden. 2Die Feststellung bedarf der Schriftform.

(9) Die Absätze 1 bis 8 finden auf Personen, die ein Recht zur Einreise und zum Aufenthalt im Bundesgebiet nach § 3a Absatz 1 haben, entsprechende Anwendung.

https://www.buzer.de/6_FreizuegG-EU.htm

So, what does this say: Paragraph 1 says that you can lose the Freizügigkeit only because of “öffentliche Ordnung” , “öffentliche Sicherheit” and “health” (think Covid restrictions).

Paragraph 2 is the one in question and that says that you can’t lose the Freizügigkeit because you are sentenced by a court. You have to be a danger to society (“gegenwärtige Gefährdung der öffentlichen Ordnung”) and just a criminal conviction doesn’t say that. This paragraph doesn’t say that you can’t lose the Freizügigkeit without a court order, it basically prevents the state from deporting every foreigner who commits a crime.

If you read the FragdenStaat text based on this knowledge, it is exactly what happens. The clerk gets asked to start with the process to take away their Freizügigkeit and says that he can’t do this because there are no criminal convictions. And then the higher ups are saying “you don’t need a criminal conviction, our order is based on the police files that prove the danger to society”. So yeah, read the law and be sure to read it correctly.

(And since they have a lawyer that can explain that to them, the whole Guardian article is trash)

I’m sure that the Trump administration won’t report correct inflation data, but that will be a wild ride for Americans

If you take a look into the laws, no it doesn’t.

I’m not a fan of those food stamp regimes - but there is a fundamental difference between “you can’t use some money you got from the state for social reasons for cigarettes or alcohol” and “everybody has to spend 20% of his income in restaurants”

Ok, let me explain how the german system works:

• After the vandalism, some “protestors” were arrested and some protestors tried to stop the police from arresting them. Those four were part of that and that is a crime.
• If you take a look at the relevant news about this, officials of course said that they will be charged
• Police will investigate the crime and they also might show up at your doorstep and search your room or take your phone and computers.
• Prosecutors will build a case from this evidence. That will take some time as all evidence has to be collected and so on
• If prosecutors are deciding to charge you after reviewing the evidence, you will get a letter in the mail with those charges
• You will also get a date for your trial. That date will be in most cases several months or years after the crime itself. Courts are kind of overloaded, but the state is also giving you time to search for a lawyer and time to prepare a defense
• Then the trial will happen

There is due to privacy concern no communication about the charges to the public. I know that the US works differently, but we do not have a public list that says “Hans Müller charged for driving drunk” , “Peter Meier charged for beating his wife” or “Claudia Maschmeyer charged for bank robbery”.

So where are we:

• They have commited crimes for political reasons
• There might be a charge being prepared or they even might have it. We don’t know - officials are not allowed to talk about it and the protestors are obviously not telling the truth. So we do know nothing.
• They keeping to commit crimes for political reasons
• The State is using a law to kick out foreigners who are commiting crimes

And there is due process: They had their time to follow the order (as you can read in the article) and they are able to sue against that order.

Such a system is not in place even in the harshest dictatorships. What makes you think that the democratic EU wants to implement such an regime?

“pro-genocide germans”? Seriously?

We’ve discussed the same topic in several threads already. And this one is really a new low. The issue at hand is that they are suspected of being involved in a violent occupation attempt of a university building that caused 100.000€ in damages and during which employees were threatened. Everything they say in their long article about this is “due to allegations around my involvement in the pro-Palestine movement”.

That, my friends, is called a lie.

No, LLMs are really good at spelling.

Subcontracting is a way to skip around labor laws. It should be banned or regulated more heavily.

It is something to fight against the constant distraction of modern tech. It’s hard to write a novel when social media is just a click away, your friends are chatting in your group, you’re getting news alerts from everywhere and you even might fall into a wikipedia hole while researching about mongol tribes. So there really is a use case for devices who are only able to do one thing.

(it’s kind of the same with phones: Get a dedicated camera and go on a walk and you won’t be distracted be someone whatsapping you)

I’ve given up because of time. I do not have that much time to game and when games started to hide better weapons and gear behind paywalls and progression systems that will take several hundreds of hours to complete, it sucks. So you’re fighting against those 14year olds who have spend an ungodly amount of time on the game and have better gear and that is not a good experience

TBH they haven’t done much to solve the problem with the switch lite. So I’m really sceptical here

I’m not sure where to continue here. Why is the president “criminal”? Was he convicted in a court of law?

And I’m not really sure what your general point is. Yes, the state wants to get rid of those protesters and now we are getting a court decision on the issue. So where exactly is the issue?

Yeah, it’s awesome. You already have multiple chargers. They are small and portable - taking one of those big Bosch chargers with you is nothing you do normally. A small USB-C charger? Sure! Something broken? You already have more USB-C cables and chargers lying around, no need for an expensive proprietary replacement. Want to charge at work? Take a cheap adapter. Stranded on a tour? Just roll into a café and someone there will have a charger. It’s an awesome idea :)

Yeah. I run Wordpress on my personal blog, but after this I won’t use it for future projects. A community fork without all that stupid Jetpack shit would be great

It still is their choice that they willingly started that violence. And let’s be honest: If you want to protest against the war or even maybe try to find a way to find a way for peace in the middle east, violent destruction of a german university building is not the way

Hey Saleh,

we had this in another post and why are you still spreading misinformation about this? The university itself posted about this on the same day as the attack. Without any involvement of an parliamentary inquiry.

https://www.fu-berlin.de/presse/informationen/fup/2024/fup_24_206-versuchte-besetzung/index.html

At least 40 people attempted to occupy the Presidential Building of Freie Universität Berlin on Thursday, October 17th at lunchtime. The attempted occupation was immediately broken up by the police. The people were extremely violent and physically attacked and verbally threatened employees. People were injured. Rooms were vandalized and slogans and Hamas triangles were sprayed on the walls of the historic building. Vandalism caused considerable damage to property throughout the building.

Employees reported that they were asked to leave their offices in English that was difficult to understand, under threat of violence. People who did not comply were physically attacked. Attackers tried to force open office doors that employees had locked from the inside for their own protection. The FU employees found it particularly worrying that they were unable to assess the intentions of the attackers who had entered the building.

So yeah, fuck those protestors.

I think the issue is not a peaceful occupation. Those are happening quite frequently, but the massive destruction they did. I participated in some occupations during my studies and that went without any damage. People did occupy a lecture hall or some university building, but left it without doing six-figure damages or threatening employees. That was quite a different thing here and therefore is handled differently.

Exactly this. We knew that everything would get shaky after he fired all those people and a data leak is the consequence