Refugees force woman out of the home she lived in for 23 YEARS after migrant influx

I don't know how accurate the source of the article is but if true this sucks. I am surprised (in some ways) that she did not set fire to the house and let the recent immigrants camp in the ashes.. On the other hand any government that says, "come on down and we will take care of you" does have certain obligations.. I bet the citizens never thought just how the "come on down" thingy would actually effect themselves in ways that they would lose their long time homes.

Gabrielle Keller and her neighbours are being kicked out of their properties by the local council because a mass influx of refugees need housing.

Ms Keller, who lives in Eschbach, Germany, received the eviction notice last month informing her that she must vacate her government-owned home.

The council revealed it is going to use the house - in which she raised her two sons - to provide additional accommodation for refugees because the town's three shelters are too full.

www.express.co.uk...

a reply to: 727Sky

Well its "governance owned home" - which means as needed the government decides who lives in there. Its welfare or what ever you call it. So whats the big deal?

originally posted by: Guenter
a reply to: 727Sky

Well its "governance owned home" - which means as needed the government decides who lives in there. Its welfare or what ever you call it. So whats the big deal?

The big deal is that a government kicks its own citizens out who it is supposed to be elected to take care of in order to house foreign refugees.

This sort of thing makes me madder than hell!

Help refugess? Yes

At the expense of your own citizens? Definitely not.

I too was incensed when I read this, but after talking to a few German friends, they told me according to the German press, she is severely behind on her rent, the eviction is for non-payment of her rent and damage to the property. They have given her to the end of the year to find alternative accommodation, but her landlord no longer wants her as a tenant, because it costs them too much time to keep recovering the rent off her.

Thats only what my German friends tell me, I have no idea if its true.

originally posted by: BMorris
I too was incensed when I read this, but after talking to a few German friends, they told me according to the German press, she is severely behind on her rent, the eviction is for non-payment of her rent and damage to the property. They have given her to the end of the year to find alternative accommodation, but her landlord no longer wants her as a tenant, because it costs them too much time to keep recovering the rent off her.

Thats only what my German friends tell me, I have no idea if its true.

Hmmm, are you sure that story is correct? The landlord wants here gone? Wouldn't the landlord be the state?

Being evicted over non payment of rent is another story altogether. Have we a source to verify this - it would debunk the OP if it were true.

originally posted by: markosity1973

originally posted by: Guenter
a reply to: 727Sky

Well its "governance owned home" - which means as needed the government decides who lives in there. Its welfare or what ever you call it. So whats the big deal?

The big deal is that a government kicks its own citizens out who it is supposed to be elected to take care of in order to house foreign refugees.

This sort of thing makes me madder than hell!

She lives 23 years there and now as the posts below show she behind her rent too. mean she is NOT what a German welfare system would call a 'deserving citizen'. so don't cry codicil tears for thesis one.

originally posted by: markosity1973

originally posted by: Guenter
a reply to: 727Sky

Well its "governance owned home" - which means as needed the government decides who lives in there. Its welfare or what ever you call it. So whats the big deal?

The big deal is that a government kicks its own citizens out who it is supposed to be elected to take care of in order to house foreign refugees.

This sort of thing makes me madder than hell!

Help refugess? Yes

At the expense of your own citizens? Definitely not.

Well if the German citizens are unhappy with the way their government takes (or doesnt take) care of them, arent they free to rise up and revolt? Blood in the streets and all that?

originally posted by: markosity1973

originally posted by: Guenter
a reply to: 727Sky

Well its "governance owned home" - which means as needed the government decides who lives in there. Its welfare or what ever you call it. So whats the big deal?

The big deal is that a government kicks its own citizens out who it is supposed to be elected to take care of in order to house foreign refugees.

This sort of thing makes me madder than hell!

Help refugess? Yes

At the expense of your own citizens? Definitely not.

If the citizen is not responsive and and acts contrary to gvt. policy i see no reason why ti evict the citizen.
I had worked at times for a landlord owning many properties
I seen what so called "citizens" can to on damage what a refugee would never do.
No give me more input on her before i hoot for her

a reply to: Guenter

originally posted by: Guenter
a reply to: 727Sky

Well its "governance owned home" - which means as needed the government decides who lives in there. Its welfare or what ever you call it. So whats the big deal?

I suppose there is a rent contract. So yes it would be a big deal if she was evicted just to make place for refugees. This is the situation you responded to with that comment.

I see that you are using information that was added to this thread later, which might be true or not be true, to backtrack on your initial comment.

originally posted by: Guenter
a reply to: 727Sky

Well its "governance owned home" - which means as needed the government decides who lives in there. Its welfare or what ever you call it. So whats the big deal?

Yeah, who cares. All lives matter right? Oh, maybe that's a USA policy. We will be right there shortly. Anywhose, that would be wrong because, evidently hers doesn't.

originally posted by: Urantia1111

originally posted by: markosity1973

originally posted by: Guenter
a reply to: 727Sky

Well its "governance owned home" - which means as needed the government decides who lives in there. Its welfare or what ever you call it. So whats the big deal?

The big deal is that a government kicks its own citizens out who it is supposed to be elected to take care of in order to house foreign refugees.

This sort of thing makes me madder than hell!

Help refugess? Yes

At the expense of your own citizens? Definitely not.

Well if the German citizens are unhappy with the way their government takes (or doesnt take) care of them, arent they free to rise up and revolt? Blood in the streets and all that?

No actually, they aren't allowed. They're paying penance for Hitler's actions. They are waaaaay on the other side of the pendulum. All that political correctness and such.

They are truly cutting off their nose to spite their face.

Government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have.

a reply to: projectvxn

What do you mean? Are you saying that this woman who is renting a government owned home is given everything she wants?

originally posted by: RogueWave

originally posted by: Guenter
a reply to: 727Sky

Well its "governance owned home" - which means as needed the government decides who lives in there. Its welfare or what ever you call it. So whats the big deal?

I suppose there is a rent contract. So yes it would be a big deal if she was evicted just to make place for refugees. This is the situation you responded to with that comment.

I see that you are using information that was added to this thread later, which might be true or not be true, to backtrack on your initial comment.

Why would it be a big deal?

The cost of caring for refugees and integrating them into German society could cost Germany from 1.8 billion to 3.3 billion euros in 2016, German Labor Minister Andrea Nahles said Tuesday, Reuters reported. Sep 1, 2015

originally posted by: BMorris
I too was incensed when I read this, but after talking to a few German friends, they told me according to the German press, she is severely behind on her rent, the eviction is for non-payment of her rent and damage to the property. They have given her to the end of the year to find alternative accommodation, but her landlord no longer wants her as a tenant, because it costs them too much time to keep recovering the rent off her.

Thats only what my German friends tell me, I have no idea if its true.

This is what I like about ATS ! There are people from many different walks of life (countries) and are able to find (in many cases) what is behind some of the outlandish articles that are posted and we read. I like your explanation much better than what the article implied; for sure.. Thanks

originally posted by: RogueWave
a reply to: projectvxn

What do you mean? Are you saying that this woman who is renting a government owned home is given everything she wants?

Government giveth, and government taketh away.

Oh its not hers its the government's

Suppose its not even as bad as eminent domain.

I'm not one to support the 'we were here FIRST' attitude when it comes to welfare all folk deserve an equal change, and in the case with refugees some comfort for what they're running from (America's wars).

a reply to: 727Sky



I am definitely against the current immigrant insanity if Europe, but the bottom line is, I'd bet this woman wasn't paying much to live in that property if anything. It's a council house, and for those not familiar with the term, it's basically local government-owned/subsidized housing where people in need can live for free, or much reduced rent compared to the normal available private market.

She might be past due for eviction already if her 2 kids are grown and moved out (which it seems to sound like).

Often council housing is supposed to be short-term and your rent is re-assessed based on your life situation. Like the nurse story referenced in the article, if she was making enough money to pay the current market value of the council house, then she would either be required to start paying that, or face eviction. Someone making 50k a year generally isn't entitled to a council home.



The other possibility here is that the council has been seduced by the 670euro the German federal government is offering to local governments for housing immigrants. So if say 8 immigrants could live in that house, they're looking at €5360 versus whatever the woman is currently paying.

Of course that 670euro per head is German taxpayer's money, and the Bundestag has zero right to use the peoples money paying for housing immigrants that were not brought into the nation via a democratic vote.

Isn't European SOCIALISM just the BEST?