Asylum Tourism

Asylum tourism
by H. Numan

I just helped translate a parliamentary debate with Geert Wilders (PVV) arguing against Joram van Klaver (GL), Alexander Pechtold (D66) and Attje Kuiken (PvdA). An interesting debate, warmly recommended to watch. If only because of my effort in translating it. 😉

Now, I noticed something interesting: only Wilders knew exactly what he was talking about. The others, not at all. They simply knew the topic and their party’s position in it. All they did was to try to nail Wilders down on minor points and make him change his position to be politically correct.

Of course, it doesn’t work like that. Wilders is a very strong debater. One can only change a strong debater by presenting good arguments. None of them had any.

If you haven’t already watched this video, (and even if you have) you should know the facts. Here are a few:

  • Most North African refugees come from West and Central Africa.
  • From poor countries, yes. But not from war-torn regions.
  • Only a minority come from war-torn countries, such as Iraq and Syria.
  • Practically all refugees are young and adult males, between 15 and 35 years.
  • They are predominantly Muslim.
  • Women, children and/or Christian refugees are relatively rare.
  • Many refugees openly state when asked that they come for the money.
  • Most refugees are either analphabetic or semi-analphabetic.
  • Most refugees have a Muslim and rural background, and many of them openly state they abhor Western society and what it stands for. They come, as stated above, for the money.

That’s not exactly what the media tell you, is it?

Wilders argued that the Australian solution should be tried: the “push-back policy”. When refugees arrive in Australian waters, they are send back immediately. If their boats aren’t seaworthy, Australia provides them with new and safe boats, food and water, navigation aids. Whatever they need to get back alive. Because no matter what, back they will go.

That simple policy is all it took to reduce the Australian refugee problem to nearly zero. Nobody even bothers to try, because it’s useless.

Our dynamic progressive trio above was appalled, if not outright horrified. How inhumane is that blond monstrosity on the rostrum!

According to van Klaver, Kuiken and to a (slightly) lesser extend Pechtold, all refugees are pitiful political refugees coming from war-torn nations, to be warmly welcomed with open arms (and open wallets).

All they did was repeat their questions ad nauseam or move the goalposts. If that didn’t work, they went for ad hominems. Because Wilders is … (a bad man, inhumane, etc.) his argument was invalid. Mrs. Kuiken did very well in that department, but of course Alexander Pechtold is the true master here.

Now, look again at my list above. Our progressive trio (GL, PvdA and D66 are all progressive parties) remained as vague as possible while blaming Wilders for not being specific enough. I can’t really make a firm list of what they see as refugees, but this is what I could distill out of it:

  • The vast majority or all come from war-torn countries, such as Iraq and Syria.
  • No mention of gender or age.
  • Religion was not mentioned, unless Christian. And only then to (try to) counter Wilders.
  • Women, children and/or Christian refugees were particularly mentioned.
  • All of them were political refugees.
  • Refugees fleeing to Australia were vastly different from those fleeing North Africa.

All three demanded very specific solutions from Wilders. None of them accepted any solution offered. Why? Because:

a)   it came from Wilders,
b)   it didn’t match their party’s ideology
c)   it would be admitting Wilders is right after all.

They’d rather go to hell in a hurry than commit such blasphemy.

At the end of the debate Wilders mentioned the annual cost of a refugee. At best €26,500. At best, mind you. Because it can be a lot more at worst. When they, at the taxpayer’s expense, appeal to the High Court or need expensive medical treatment, for example.

Wilders contrasted this with the state old-age pension (AOW). Each such state pension is €13,000 annually. That’s before taxes are deducted. There are plenty of people who have to subsist on this meager income. Wilders found this abysmal. The other three “social”-minded parties didn’t even want to talk about it.

There is one big difference between that old-age pensioner and a healthy young African men looking for nice place to retire in comfort. That pensioner paid for his paltry pension his entire life… The young healthy African man hasn’t paid anything at all, and expects a lot more.

There are many stories abound about refugees refusing accommodation, not accepting clothing or food because they want, demand and expect better. Very often they get away with it. Something our old-age pensioner doesn’t even try. He knows he’d be laughed away and might even get a deduction to teach him his proper place.

Generally speaking, refugees try to obtain housing in major cities and refuse to be housed in smaller cities and villages.

One item not mentioned is what is eventually to happen with those refugees. At the moment, the caring socialists want to do nothing. Just support them any way possible to come over, and take it easy. As easy as you like it.

Now, most of those refugees are young healthy African men in the prime of their lives. Many are either analphabetic or semi-analphabetic. What kind of jobs can they do? The demand for that kind of unskilled labor in Europe is practically zero.

You can’t have them roaming the streets or keep them in a hostel indefinitely. Sooner or later they either have to go back (or at least somewhere else) or start to become contributing members of society. The first option is out of the question (according to our progressive friends) and the second next to impossible. Educating semi-analphabetic adults is very difficult, and equally expensive.

Methinks that Wilders’ Australian solution is by far the most humane and affordable. The most inhumane solutions came from our progressive trio — they don’t want to do anything at all, apart from opening a free shuttle service, including free bed and breakfast, across the Mediterranean.

— H. Numan

20 thoughts on “Asylum Tourism

  1. “They come, as stated above, for the money.”

    Reminds me of a Latino activist who argued that “Anglos” have no right to demand linguistic or cultural assimilation from (illegal?) immigrants/aliens like herself because, after all, they “came here for the economics.” And the country-club Republicans see nothing wrong with that.

  2. It seems to me that the only way to stabilise the whole war/poverty/refugee problem is to take out all of the tin-pot governments in Africa and the M.E. and re-colonise them, by force if necessary. Colonialism had it’s problems and was by no means perfect but it did instil a sense of order and control on peoples who have demonstrated time and time again of being incapable of governing themselves or living at peace with others. Pax Europa if needs be.

    They want our resources but not our rule. They cannot have one without the other, it is back to the golden rule… he who has the gold makes the rules.

    • Trying to recolonize Africa would lead to Iraq or Libya times 34. Independence, remember, is just about the only thing many poor countries have to be proud of. It is a totally insane idea. The situation is pretty hopeless, if you ask me, as long as basket-case countries are tripling their populations in two generations (not just Muslim states; check out the stats for Vietnam and the Philippines; they’re nearly all at it). There is not much you can do except haul up the drawbridge.
      The only external governance model that has a cat in hell’s chance is creating a UN agency to do the job. Even that would just be viewed as a white man’s pawn though.
      The “tinpot governments,” by the way, are often the only thing holding total chaos at bay and creating a semblance of order.

      • I agree, I was musing about solutions. They must be stopped at the source AND stopped at the border with a no right of appeal to repatriation.

        I didn’t say that colonisation would be easy or practical and you are right, it would likely be impossible. If do-able it would go a long way to solving the problem.

  3. My problem with Wilders is that he is being far too soft. Migrating across the Pacific is a daunting prospect, doing it only to be sent away is extremely discouraging. Crossing the Mediterranean from south to north is…something a healthy (even if completely uneducated) young man can do in a rowboat in a couple of days. The only reason the North African migrants can’t simply swim across is because they have generally a higher density and thus less natural buoyancy than Europeans.

    Giving the migrants seaworthy boats when turning them back is basically just rewarding them for having set out in the first place, and virtually assures that their subsequent attempts will be far more successful. Unless the boats are soaked in some kind of persistent nauseating chemical (and there is an interesting idea) or have timed self-destruct mechanisms (cool but impractical), it is folly to hand them over to those attempting illegal invasion of Europe.

    • That’s always my problem with Wilders, too. He is too soft. But there is no way of knowing whether he is so soft on the inside too, or just realizes the political reality of living in Zombieland and therefore the necessity to voice only the milder arguments on the least controversial points.

      As to me, I’ve thought about these issues long and hard, with lots of supporting data. The best way I have for highlighting how different the situation is from what our dissident public figures talk about is to posit that even if, by a magic trick, all copiesof the Koran would disappear tomorrow and forever, worldwide, the Western peoples’ rush to the edge of the cliff would not slow down.

      Furthermore, if all Muslims worldwide disappeared too, byt the same magic wand, our race to self-erasure would be merely slowed down and by no means stopped. And not a single public voice, anywhere, talks about the causes, the reasons and the consequences of this.

      • Yes, I agree, non-warlike nations do not survive long term, and war does not have to involve shoot up scenarios. War is about establishing colonies in the other guy’s territory, by force, by deceit or by purchase.

        And we have been sold down the line by corrupt elected officials.

    • I certainly wouldn’t give them the boats.

      They should be ferried across and dropped on the farther shore.

    • Refugees travelling to Australia from Indonesia are not ‘migrating across the Pacific’, the journey to North Western Australia or Australian island territories is similar to a journey across the Mediterranean.

    • Illegals arriving in Australia by boat do not cross the Pacific. They usually travel from Java in Indonesia to the Australian territory of Christmas Island, a distance of 430 kilometres. The boats they are given to return in to Indonesia are new, 90 seat lifeboats equipped with engines, fuel, water, food and air-conditioning. The boats cost about $500,000 and are usually abandoned on the beach after return to Indonesia. Australia regards the cost of these boats as a good investment because only a few of them were used before the illegals got the message and it is much more costly to look after them in Australia.

      • Yeah, but they are starting off for a relatively tiny island, and missing means that they just keep going into the Indian Ocean. And it’s a tiny island that happens to be close enough to reach, meaning that if they don’t have a chance of being shipped to the mainland, it doesn’t much matter if the make land and try to hide in the large urban populations of their co-religionists.

        If it were the Mediterranean, and their target was just some Northern coastline, they’d try again and again.

    • Wilders too soft? He is as outspoken as he can be. And that is already too much for too many…

  4. Thank you for helping to translate. Like all of Wilder’s speeches, it was inspiring and informative.

    There was a disconnect, though, and we might as well face it. The leftists debating Wilders worked under the assumption that ultimately, Europe is responsible for the fate and well-being of genuine political refugees. That didn’t leave out the other refugees, but their ultimate fallback position was that there were at least some refugees who were fleeing active persecution and who feared for their lives.

    Wilder’s most prominent response was that they had other places to go along the African and Middle Eastern coasts: wealthy Saudi Arabia for one. He also stated, not so often, that Europe could not accept responsibility for the fate of the refugees, other than ensuring they didn’t drown on the return trip.

    But, that has to be our ultimate principle: we are not required to impoverish ourselves or destroy our own culture because other people are in genuine need. The principle of being responsible for everyone was at the heart of the leftist’s arguments. They would not accept that both the deserving and undeserving illegal refugees had to return safely to their fate.

    Demographers note that the birthrate of a population goes down as prosperity goes up. My own interpretation (probably not in the least original) is that the time and money costs of raising a child in an advanced society is tremendous. But, I’m not aware (I’m not a scholar, so that doesn’t mean they’re not there) of studies of people on welfare in a technological society, but my impression is that the birth rate goes up. The people have access to advanced resources, without the commitment in time and effort necessary for a productive family.

    Therefore, as you provide free support to needy populations, the size of the needy population will increase faster than the productive population.

    So, it is clearly suicidal for Europe or the United States to accept the unfiltered surplus population of low-technology areas whose genetics have in the past countered the very high child death rate by a very high birth rate.

  5. Ah ha, Interesting contrast: The Chinese immigrants to the US are
    not for the money, but spend what they’ve brought with them!

    • Even when they don’t bring much money with them, Chinese immigrants are from a comparable level of civilization but where there’s less opportunity in areas like mainland China. So they get to the U.S. and they tend to take the educational and job opportunities that they didn’t have in China.

    • Of course they do. Nothing wrong with that. The US wouldn’t have had railways if the Chinese had stayed home.

      The big difference is that Chinese are very much willing

      • TO WORK for their money. Have you ever heard a Chinese complain about working conditions or not receiving the right set of free clothing?

        • You probably have, but they might have done so in Chinese. The general imperative in Chinese culture (characteristic of many East Asian cultures) is to keep your head down and avoid drawing attention to yourself, let the exceptional contest with each other for preeminence while you focus on not standing out from the crowd. China has been ruled by foreigners in the past without losing its cultural continuity, and Chinese people can likewise live abroad and submit to the authority of foreigners while privately keeping their own culture.

          The idea that there is safety in docility is, like many cultural traditions, a great fiction. In reality, being content to leave politics alone never means politics will leave you alone, and this is historically even more true in China than in most places. But as a general idea it has meant that the Chinese have succeeded as a nation in ways which would not have been possible otherwise. And the flip side of the coin IS true, in China, amassing great wealth or political power doesn’t provide anything like the kind of impunity of personal action which it does in other societies. Americans look at Japan as the land of the ninja, but Japan and other Asian cultures see China as the land of the assassin (although the Asian terminology has different implications). Nobody is “too big to fail”, and the personal consequences of failure are much more likely to scale with the magnitude.

          That would have very troubling implications for any other nation foolish enough to let a substantial plurality or outright majority of Chinese immigrate without carefully considering how to keep them happy. In fact, it’s already been pretty bad for America, but mostly in the form of espionage rather than sabotage and murders. And of course the exploitation of the Western belief that one can be “too big to fail” has considerably eased the process of setting the dollar up for total collapse.

          Chinese people play a conservative, prudent game…but they also play to win. That’s true of the masses and the elites, they don’t just passively accept the status quo. No matter how subtle or patient their schemes to change it in their favor, they DO have and implement such schemes. These schemes needn’t be evil (i.e. intended to harm or victimize anyone). Chinese people scheme ‘against’ others for their own good as often as not (or so they may claim after the fact, I wouldn’t give absolute credence to all such assertions). But they ALL scheme. I’m scheming right now, in fact.

  6. Either Europe takes Geert Wilders’s advice or it will be turned into an asylum alright – an insane asylum.

  7. I live in eastern Sicily and what we are witnessing, with no small degree of trepidation, is a planned mass invasion from the criminal underbelly of Africa. The media would have the Europeans believe that these are poor frightened men who are so shell-shocked that they fled their war-zones leaving the women, children and old folks behind, wearing nothing but the clothes on their backs. That this clothing just happens to be high-priced designer label sports gear seems to pass by most of the jubilant journalists, intent in photographing every aspect of this dinghy armada. Once ashore these “refugees” are automatically entited to accomodation, food, water, gym equipment, cigarettes, cell phone credit as well as the promise by the Tricky Nicky Italians that they will be given the necessary documents to enable them to reach the promised land of their choice: France, Germany, Sweden, Norway, the UK. It hasn’t crossed anybody’s mind however, that none of these countries require an unskilled labour force of illegals. And neither does Italy which is why they’re passing the buck to Europe. Literally.

    Now this brings me to my second and most crucial point. Women. How long are these men going to be contained in poorly-guarded accomodation centres and paid-by-the-taxpayer hotels before they start breaking out to seek a different kind of accomodation in the form of local females bodies? Are we expected to sacrifice our daughters to the lust of these African men in the spirit of humanitarian genorosity? It’s already been suggested that Italians with an extra home or room take in an African for the overwhelming sum of £ 35 a day. God knows how much Matteo Renzi’s government will be prepared to offer if a nubile daughter is thrown into the bargain?!! Wake up Europe the dark, dreaded night is encroaching and the lamps have already since gone by one

Comments are closed.