The latest lunacy to emerge from the European Parliament beggars description. The leftists that run the place brook no disagreement, and anyone who opposes unlimited immigration into the EU is branded a waaaycist. According to the gutmenschen of the EP, the Hungarians were racists just for asking voters their opinion about the proposed migration quotas.
These bizarre shenanigans seem to be a corollary to Joseph Heller’s famous Catch-22*: To question the legality of any official EU ruling is itself illegal, according to laws that you are not permitted to question.
Many thanks to CrossWare for translating this Hellerian report from the Hungarian news portal Pesti Srácok:
“Even the question in your referendum was racist” — Liberal EP representatives answered us in Brussels
As soon as possible and in its strictest form the leftist opinion leaders of the European Parliament would like to see introduced unlimited mandatory migrant quotas, which are contained in the Dublin IV plan draft. They do not even want to hear about any kind of rethinking or revision of the migrant politics of the EU. This is what we found out in the meeting of EU’s “Civil Liberties Justice and Home Affairs” (LIBE) committee meeting, where our journalist (pestisracok.hu) visited. After the session we asked many Western European Liberal and Socialist politicians about their opinions. Some of them with humbling simplicity just called the V4 countries migration politics “Nazi”. Others stated that only colonizers practice the politics of exclusion, and they have evolved beyond that point. It came up that the terrorism is not really a big problem, but it is an excellent safety test for the authorities. They made it clear to us that their plan is to keep the migrants in the country they will be assigned to, by making it mandatory to provide equal and standardized care for them everywhere. In this Leftist-Liberal majority committee — with the ferocious agreement of the Hungarian Liberal Péter Niedermüller — the only experts allowed to offer their opinion were without exception on the side of unlimited acceptance of migrants. The questions and opinions of the EU’s People’s Party representatives were completely ignored.
In May the European Commission presented their plan for the corrective distribution of migrants or Dublin IV, which heavily makes use of flowery language to avoid the word “quotas” — even so this is a much harsher quota system than the earlier plan was. Based on this plan, the migrants still have to apply for asylum in the country in which they stepped onto EU soil, but based on this “fair distribution system” they would be distributed among countries if the receiving member state(s) have “disproportionately high pressure” on their immigration system.
Countries would get a “reference number” (in its maiden name: quota) based on their size and economic power, and if the number of migrants applying there for asylum reaches 150% of the original number, then the other countries would receive the overflow based on their “reference number”. The system does not consider closing down the external borders of the EU, just the opposite — with the creation of a European refugee agency it will make the illegal migration a permanent and institutionalized system. If this become enforced law, there would be no upper limit. because no matter how many immigrants arrive, some percentage would be distributed to each member state.
United Front for Migration
On Monday the LIBE conducted a hearing involving “experts” on this topic (migration). The committee makes its voice heard on sensitive issues, while it simply ignores problems which would be in its mandate. The European Parliament’s “elastic” laws makes this possible. It looks like this committee is intended to be a political weapon rather than proper representation, because in its present configuration many female liberal, socialist and communist representatives smoothly work together. Last time the committed advocates for migrant rights officially worried about democracy in Poland, and according to MEP Kinga Gál (Fidesz), it can be expected that the committee will soon take on the Hungarian referendum as well. The Hungarian Liberal Party representative Péter Niedermüller is already using every opportunity to attack Hungary and its government.
Where the Yes Gets 100 Percent!
In the session on Monday the reports of experts followed one right after another. On the 98% results of the Hungarian referendum, many members compared to election results to South Asian dictatorships, but in this hearing not even 2% was given to opposing opinions. All the “experts” made a commitment to support the European Commission’s Dublin IV plan, and the liberal, socialist and communist committee members in the Q&A part of the session zealously campaigned for their experts and praised the “fantastic presentations”. The protesting voices were ignored. The repeated questions of the right wing representatives the experts always forgot to answer: How would they ensure that migrants would stay in the countries selected for them? All the experts “forgot to answer” while they were providing rehearsed showcase answers. At the end the of the session “unfortunately” the time ran out exactly at the moment when one of the EPP [European People’s Party — right-wing conservative group; Orbán’s Fidesz is a member party there] representatives started to complain that he did not get an answer to his questions.
The session’s main guiding thought was that all member states must show solidarity and share the burden of responsibility concerning migrants. The invited experts only examined rights from the migrants’ point of view. Some really unbelievable sentences were spoken:
We need to accept many more migrants…
The asylum seekers must have easier access to protection…
Instead of the obligations of migrants, they only talked about the member states’ obligation to “show more solidarity”.
Instead of Migration and Terrorism, They are Terrified of Honesty
In the presentations and discussions, the question of whether Europe should or should not accept everybody never even came up. The liberal, socialist and communist representatives eagerly philosophized with each other on whether picking out the best and brightest for their own countries and dumping the rest on someone else would be discrimination or not, and also spent a significant time discussing the problems of “unaccompanied minors”, not bothered by the fact that four-fifths of migrants are military-age men.
Terrorism — which is now proven to be correlated with the migration — they called a “controllable danger”, as if they were talking about the neighbor’s kid shooting out the window with a sling-shot, and not fanatic mass-murderers dedicated to the invasion of Europe. It is almost like “the hurricane just picking up the house over our heads, but we are deep in discussion about which pot to use to capture the rainwater to avoid discrimination.”
It is a miracle that the words “solidarity and responsibility” did not get used up completely by the end of the session. But also it was perceptible that political correctness was depressingly dampening the way the representatives expressed themselves. A female Swedish EPP representative explained the ratio of male to female migrants is 11:1. Also so many migrants have arrived in the last couple of years that “we need to take a breath so we can integrate the ones who arrived earlier.” All the while it was very clear that the migrants cannot be integrated and they bring a tsunami of crimes, but she — like anybody else in the room — was not able to express that.
They Gave Outraged Answers to the Questions of PestiSrácok.hu
The journalist of PestiSrácok.hu asked questions of many MEP advocates of the topic of migration. From Ana Gomes, a Portuguese Socialist representative, we wanted to know why she thinks the defense of EU borders is unnecessary?
“This is outrageous, we are not colonial countries!” she answered heatedly, and as a delegate from an ex-colonial country, she immediately gave testimony about how little she thinks of the more recently admitted Central and Eastern European countries — who by the way never had any colonies. Of course she thinks that sharing the burden of the responsibilities on migrants is naturally expected. She emphasized that Hungarians should know better about this, because the UN created the international refugee law for the Hungarians in 1956. (Of course madame representative is absolutely wrong on this topic, because the foundation of the refugee law was created in 1926 and the 1951 refugee agreement is the core of the international refugee laws even today.)
For our next question, of how many Asian and African migrant we must take responsibility for, she answered: we must help peace everywhere to solve the problem, but we should take responsibility for endless waves of migrants because this is “the history of humanity”.
Everybody comes from somewhere else, she said, but she did not explain to us whether anybody’s ancestors, while they were coming from somewhere else, received free transportation and financial aid in their journey.
We have no other choice but let all the migrants come to Europe; we can’t have walls and fences just because they want to save their lives. Should we let them drown or shoot at them? No! I am not a fascist, I am not a Nazi!” her brief statement concluded.
They Want to Give the Same Amount of Aid in Every Country to the Migrants!
Sophie in’t Veld, a Dutch Liberal representative, believes that only common European policies can help to keep the migrants in the country where they were distributed, to stop them returning to Germany or Sweden.
As much as possible we want to create a similar reception environment in all EU countries, so we need some common standards, she explained to PestiSrácok.hu. We asked: Would that mean that every country has to give exactly the same social benefits to the migrants? She stated the EU needs some basic elements pointing in this direction, then quickly contradicted herself and she said they did not find the necessary formula, but the social benefits must follow the specific country’s standard of living, because the locals would not accept if the migrants getting more benefits than they were. This reveals that they actually considered this solution, which confirms some gossip in Brussels.
By In’t Veld’s admission, they have no exact idea of how to solve the problem of social benefits, so to avoid the problem and fleeing forward, she thinks the key question is to introduce the migrants into the workforce as soon as possible. To accept the fact that most migrants do not have such ambitions must be avoided at all costs.
Wikström Raises the Bet: Terrorism is a “Good Safety Test”
Cecilia Wikström Swedish Liberal representative is the senior representative of the new migrant asylum legislation in the LIBE committee. We asked her how much they expect the common responsibility to be that is shared by all the state members of the European Union? In her answer she assured us that the largest portion of the 65 million migrants will end up in developing countries because “they do not want to come to Europe”.
The 28 countries that joined the EU agreed and signed at the time that they will obey the rules of the game and accept laws from the Union, said Wikström, generously omitting the fact that back in 2004 when the Central and Eastern European states joined, and before that, no such agreement was proposed. She also addressed the issue that only half of the 1-1.5 million migrants will receive asylum in Europe. In her opinion the rest will just peacefully leave Europe — not bothered by the fact what Germany reported: they can’t deport the majority of migrants because so many of them are in unknown locations.
To aid the rest we are rich enough, she added with Western European self-confidence. She is against the financial punishment of €250,000 per migrant not taken (the lifetime earnings of an average Hungarian teacher!) and she sees it as one of many plans of the European Commission. Of course this does not mean it will not be accepted later by the EC.
For some reason in her mind the refugees of 1956 also came to mind as a parallel, but when we brought it to her attention that not a single terrorist was in the midst of the Hungarian refugees while these migrants have plenty, she became agitated. According to her it is not proven that the Parisian terrorist attacks (Bataclan) were committed by Moroccan and Algerian terrorists who came with fake passports. She explained with extreme cynicism, that the borders must stay open, and filtering out dangerous people is a “good safety test” for the European law enforcement agencies.
Wikström called the Hungarian referendum question “racist”, and she said the billboards were spreading lies [the Hungarian government rented a large number of billboards to help mobilize the voters]. We asked her what kind of lies she was thinking about, exactly? Then, with a halting voice, she brought up an example which asserts an equivalence between terrorists and migrants. When we proved that there was no such billboard, she with an uncertain voice claimed she saw it with her own eyes.
It is absolutely crazy what kinds of opinions prevail about the migrant crisis in the bureaucratic depths of the European Union. All measures are aimed at letting as many migrants as possible legally into all member states of the European Union. Such statements are now openly expressed by “experts” hired by the European Parliament. The direction is absolutely clear; they do not even bother to deny it anymore. In the meantime, the European Commission introduced their suggestions for the Dublin IV law package, but some of the most prominent MEPs supporting it still stated in an interview in October that they had not found the proper formula for keeping the migrants at their distributed location, which shows how well organized the EC is under the leadership of Juncker.
|*|| “Catch-22,” the old woman repeated, rocking her head up and down. “Catch-22. Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can’t stop them from doing.”
“Didn’t they show it to you?” Yossarian demanded, stamping about in anger and distress. “Didn’t you even make them read it?”
“They don’t have to show us Catch-22,” the old woman answered. “The law says they don’t have to.”
“What law says they don’t have to?”