Commission migration proposal faces criticism but are there any alternatives?
Lotte van Buuren, 14 May 2015
The European Commission yesterday published its plan to address the complex issues of asylum seekers dying while attempting to cross the Mediterranean and the distribution of migrants across European countries. In correspondence with tackling this humanitarian crisis, the Agenda on Migration aims to address both the long-term root causes of the migration crisis and to take immediate action. The latter includes an expected tripling of the funding for Frontex operations to €89 million and increased efforts to tackle smuggling networks, while in the long term the Commission intends to reinforce the European common asylum policy, Schengen border protection and co-operation with third countries.
More controversial aspects of the plan are to grant asylum to 20,000 non-EU refugees in 2015 and 2016 and to reallocate asylum seekers to European countries according to GDP, unemployment rate, population size and the number of asylum seekers already hosted. Given the European economic and financial crises, it is questionable whether the extra €50 million put aside by the Commission will suffice to realise these proposals. A more problematic issue raised by this redistribution scheme is whether migrants can be forced to stay in the country they have been allocated to. How can migrants be prevented from travelling to other EU states in the Schengen area?
Moreover, the political explosiveness of these plans can hardly be understated. Italy and other southern countries are pushing hard for a fairer system, while there is hardly any public support in Eastern and Northern EU member states to accept more non-EU migrants. Political leaders of Hungary, Estonia, Poland and the Netherlands were indeed quick to express criticism. This thorny political disagreement may impede the implementation of the Agenda, given that it requires unanimous acceptance by all 28 member states before coming into effect.
The UK, Denmark and Ireland have all secured opt-out and are highly unlikely to participate in the redistribution plan. UK Home Secretary Theresa May immediately took a hard line approach by proposing that asylum seekers should be sent back once they are saved. The effectiveness and moral legitimacy of this course of action can be debated, as migrants are already putting their lives at great risk by attempting to cross the Mediterranean. In combination with the fact that the UK would have to take in a mere 2,309 (0.0036% of the UK population) extra non-EU immigrants in the plan, it seems that this reaction has more to do with the post-election confidence of the Tories and their tough stance in the renegotiation of the EU migration terms. The difficulty of the migration issue for European leaders and the arguably low cost of co-operating with this plan begs the question whether it would be an option to create goodwill among EU leaders by taking in some more refugees who are in immediate need of protection.
The French writer Jean Raspail’s Camp of the Saints describes a situation not unlike that of the present exodus from North Africa and the Middle East. In Raspail’s book the invasion is by large ships crammed with Third World migrants coming to Europe where the ships are beached and the migrants flood into Europe, a Europe which has lost the will to resist because of decades of politically correct internationalist propaganda. Europe and eventually the entire developed world falls to the invasion of the Third World hordes who are armed only with their misery and the Pavlovian response of First World populations brainwashed to believe that they collectively are to blame for third world ills and who consequently cannot morally deny the invaders entry to their lands.. This is the scenario which is now being acted out in the Mediterranean, but with, in the main, small boats, rather than large ones carrying the mi grants.
The stark truth is that mass immigration is invasion resulting in the effective colonisation of parts of the invaded country because immigrants from a similar background have a pronounced tendency to congregate in the same area. Any other description of mass immigration is wilfully dishonest. It is as reasonable for a people to resist invasion by mass immigration as it is to an invasion by an armed invader.
Anti-immigration parties are on the rise because all over the developed world their elites have ignored the wishes of their people and forced mass immigration on them. In Britain (and many other first world countries) this has been accompanied by the increasingly punitive application of the criminal law to those who protest about mass immigration and its effects.
Nor is it only the developed world. Everywhere mass immigration is abhorred, for example, in South Africa where the government has just had to send in the army to stop attacks on migrants
The promotion of mass immigration is a particularly deep treason, because unlike an invasion by military force the legions of the immigrant army are disparate and cannot be readily expelled. Where mass immigration is deliberately promoted by a government, as happened under Blair according to ex-No 10 advisor Andrew Neather, to deliberately change the nature of a society (in Neather’s words, “to rub the Right’s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date”) it is the most contemptible of treasons.
Mass immigration is a form of theft by the elites who permit it. It robs a people of their collective and individual sense of national security and an enjoyment of a culture and history in which all share. Mundanely it steals from it people, and especially the poor, the things which are necessary for a decent life: housing at a decent price, schools which are near to where children live and which do not boast “96 languages are spoken here”, ready access to GPs and hospital treatment and well paid jobs which have not had their wages suppressed through immigrant labour. The whole business is made even more repulsive because the elites who inflict this on their people take good care to live in very white, and in England, very English, worlds whilst incessantly extolling the joy of diversity. These people know precisely what they are inflicting on others.
The answer to the migrants flooding across the Mediterranean is very simple, spend money on surveillance methods such as drones and satellites and a substantial fleet of fast manoeuvrable ships which can patrol the Mediterranean and intercept immigrant laden boats and ships and tow them back from whence they came. The ideal would be to unload the migrants and then destroy the ships.
It is also probable that the drone and satellite surveillance would provide information on where human traffickers are assembling their passengers and where the boats likely to be used to transport them are harboured. If so, action could be taken by the Western powers to destroy their boats whilst in harbour. Lest there be a wail against Western states interfering with Third World countries, those contemplating such a complaint should reflect on the palpable fact that the states from which the migrants are coming are either failed states or are actively conniving with the traffickers to get migrants from North Africa and the Middle East into Europe.
If such a scheme cost a billion pounds a year it would be cheap at the price. In fact if it cost ten billion a year it would be cheap. Such a scheme would be undeniably practical. All that is required is the political will, of elites and the governed in the West, to cast aside the politically correct mentality which says people must be allowed to come, must be saved from perils into they have placed themselves, regardless of the cost to the Western societies who have until now been expected to take them in.
Read more at https://livinginamadhouse.wordpress.com/2015/04/22/see-mass-migration-for-what-it-is-invasion/