EU Migration Pact: The Next Conflict on Immigration

Many thanks to Hellequin GB for translating this article from Tichys Einblick:

EU Migration Pact: The next conflict on immigration

The EU Commission has presented a “Pact for Migration and Asylum”.

Critics fear that this will accelerate the UN migration pact that promotes immigration, and that the pact is intended to be the lever to break the resistance of the Eastern European states to migration.

The question that arises is whether the planned migration and asylum pact is more of a defense against “too many” immigrants, especially illegal immigrants and those who are actually not supposed to be in the country — or means a further opening towards more regular, steady and numerically expanded migration, as many critics fear in the commentary section on the “Roadmap”.

This cannot be answered with certainty at the moment — since there is still no concrete (published) pact text that could be evaluated, and presumably the authors of the pact are also torn between humane intentions and the recognition of all kinds of practical problems.

In addition, the commission shies away from open conflict with Eastern European states, which, unlike Germany, are fighting for a limitation and see the German situation as a deterrent.

There is simply no one ideal solution for major global migrations from densely populated, rather poorer regions; this was sufficiently shown by the dispute over the UN migration pact of 2018.

The European conflict remains and is intensifying.

The conflict between the self-proclaimed immigration countries such as Germany and the opponents of massive and unbridled immigration is coming to a head — and it is to be feared that Angela Merkel will try to break the resistance against immigration.

Extensive declarations of intent

The currently available statements on the EU pact contain declarations of intent that amount to a “defense”, control and reduction of the number of migrants. There should be a (security, health and identity) preliminary examination of asylum seekers at the EU’s external borders, the consistent return to their countries of origin of persons not entitled to protection, i.e. the prevention of long-term stays in Europe without authorization. The EU border authority Frontex is to be strengthened and a more intensive security-related exchange between the countries is to control migration. So far so good.

However, the drafts up to now also contain elements such as the principle of the routine EU-wide distribution of all persons considered eligible, as well as a yes to legal migration and resettlement programs for refugees. This increases the potential for immigration and is also intended to cover those regions in which the rights of the state population are taken into account even more, and which do not see themselves as immigration countries, as is the case in Germany. One may understand this passage as an attack on Poland, Austria, the Czech Republic and Hungary, which generally reject further migration and distribution mandates.

Signal for more migration to Europe

There is a risk that the new migration and asylum pact will dramatically increase in their countries of origin the number of people willing to migrate, and that it will be interpreted as a signal that Europe also accepts and wants to (and can) manage more extensive migration.

Asylum centers at the EU’s external borders may contribute to this, especially if they are coupled with intensive legal protection (the possibility of objecting to negative asylum notifications, etc.) in the interests of human rights organizations.

The EU is clearly endeavoring to use new, specific regulations and procedures to convert the current, sometimes chaotic, weaknesses of real immigration into a clear, controlled, regular system. Which should be easier in theory than in practice.

It remains to be seen — beyond the crucial question of how migration will develop in terms of magnitude in the coming years — to what extent many possibly meaningful theoretical building blocks can be implemented in real life and with which goal.

This concerns, for example, the successful securing of the external borders — whereupon the role of private and church “sea rescue”, which Germany promotes as a lever for more African immigration, would have to be clarified.

What needs to be clarified is the harmonious cooperation with numerous countries of origin and transit, the acceptance of the EU-wide distribution mechanisms by the affected immigrants, who in case of doubt would also have to accept Finland or Romania as their new home.

So far, immigrants have chosen the destination country with the highest level of benefit for them.

In general, the willingness of migrants to respect rejected asylum notices should be promoted — this is also a conflict: rejected asylum seekers can effectively remain in Germany; the restrictive effect of the asylum law is not applied.

This state of de facto open borders between states and their social systems is encountering resistance in more and more countries, not only in Eastern Europe, but also in Scandinavia.

Will the resistance of Eastern Europe be broken?

The biggest question mark remains, for example, how Eastern European countries can be integrated into a common European asylum system.

Should countries, possibly EU net recipients, “avoid” accepting immigrants through financial payments, these will accordingly cluster in willing states such as Germany, which has virtually ceased carrying out deportations and always accepts new waves of immigration.

Basically, the EU-wide distribution of migrants is lacking because the living conditions and socio-economic requirements / benefits for migrants are very different in individual countries — and migrants behave accordingly.

In the comments on the “Roadmap” website, which gathers numerous constructive contributions, the EU project is seldom welcomed unreservedly, but it is often emphasized that the current and future state of the host countries also plays a role in migration issues.

For example, in the shadow of the Corona crisis, commentators point to the dangers of overloading the social systems, excessive economic migration and the immigration of poverty.

Problems with the integration of the existing immigrants, population density and land consumption in the host country, too few vacancies, etc. are emphasized.

The issues of asylum and migration (in general) should be clearly separated. Many observers are concerned that continuous immigration will overwhelm European states.

Seen in this way, perhaps the core objective of the new migration and asylum pact, described on the website, is “to create a comprehensive, sustainable and crisis-proof framework for the management of asylum and migration in the EU and the entire migration route from the country of origin and transit to the host countries to be covered.”

It is about an integration pact that addresses the question of how the refugees and migrants received can be specifically integrated into the host countries.

Ultimately, ideally, the causes of migration should also be taken into account.

These are the real, difficult issues, not just the European standardization and redistribution of more and more so-called “refugees”.

Therefore, the fear remains that the pact will only serve to promote immigration and remove resistance to it.

23 thoughts on “EU Migration Pact: The Next Conflict on Immigration

  1. “Many observers are concerned that continuous immigration will overwhelm European states.”
    This is the intention of the executors of the Coudenhove-Kalergi plan, Merkel & Co.

  2. The German Chancellor has been ineffectual against the Eastern countries and will continue to be, the E.U. is only powerful if countries’ intuitions acquiesce (not going to happen in Hungary) as proven by the constant breaking of its rules whenever it suits a particularly country, usually Macron.

  3. The objective of the “plan” is not to control immigration, but to grease the skids to the elimination of native European countries and ethnic groups. I presume the scam works more-or-less as it does in the US:
    1) Economic refugees, including adventurers and general losers, all apply for asylum status based on the coaching of globalist immigration lawyers;
    2) a country agrees with the assertion that if a refugee has some kind of faint claim to have been persecuted or in danger of persecution, the receiving country has an obligation to give the refugee asylum, shelter, and material support;
    3) Over years the refugees coalesce into interest groups, applying financial and political pressures to not only admit more of their kind, but to give their members special consideration in treatment of crimes;
    4)Eventually, becoming politically impossible to openly deal with the question of immigration and the attendant crime and other social disruption.
    5) Even without immigration, European countries are often almost evenly divided between the nationalists and the advocates of self-immolation. Immigration tips the balance and makes any realistic actions (i.e., stop all immigration completely) even more impossible.

    • A major strike against democracy as a form of government.

      While it sometimes can result in good leadership as in Orban in Hungary, it more often than not results in a Merkel or a Macron, or the despicable leader of Sweden who upon losing an election simply stayed in power since none of the other parties could agree on forming a new government.

      The process is made worse through deliberate demographic change precipitated by illegal and (barely) legal immigration in states such as Minnesota, where once the imported alien culture reaches a certain percent they have the power to tilt elections in their favor. Once started, the demographic change quickly becomes irreversible with long term implications for the native inhabitants.

      A constitutional republic which forbid such mischief would be a good alternative, but such requires wise leaders to craft it and then safeguard against future fools and the evil elites looking to subvert it. This requires a moral and well-educated populace to elect good leaders in the first place. The likelihood of such favorable preconditions existing anywhere in the West is so unlikely as to be astronomically improbable.

      My money is on dictatorships eventually arising in many countries of the West in order to straighten things out and restore law and order. Of course this is not without consequence, but a dictator has the advantage of being able to act unilaterally and use whatever means are required to crush and indeed put to death opponents who wish to subvert the wishes of the dictator. A dictator can also be explicitly nationalist and anti-foreigner without apology, and moves such as unilaterally expelling hordes of invasive africans and muslims across the border may indeed be done.

      • Actually, there are problems with the limited republic form of government you described, as well as with a dictatorship form.

        The early US under the Constitution was a limited-franchise republic. In many places, you had to own a certain amount of land or property to vote. The North and the South took somewhat different pathways.

        In the North, you had the buildup of industrialization, with not only employees, but independent craftsmen and small shop owners being created. These people demanded a say in the government, and there was much justification in their arguments.

        In the South, you had the landed aristocracy whose wealth tended to be tied up in land and plantations. These were heavy slaveowners. Slaveowners had an inordinate political power, but the use of slaves encouraged very inefficient use of labor and of land. You had big tensions arising between the small farmers, the mountaineers, and the landed aristocracy. The question of slavery and freed slaves exacerbated the problems. The point being, even the Southern slaveholding aristocracy had to bring in the non-propertied classes as voters.

        My point is that limiting the franchise puts a millstone around the neck of the society, gives inordinate power to the traditional classes even they are in decline, and provides a barrier to the development of new institutions and means of production.

        A dictatorship is like the girl with the curl: “When she was good, she was very, very good; but when she was bad, she was horrid.”

        Hitler and Mussolini made their countries function, but pulled them into disastrous wars; same for Saddam Hussein in Iraq. On the other hand, Franco saved Spain from the communists and kept it out of World War II. But dictatorships don’t seem to last past the life of the original dictator, so you’re just punting the problems.

        • The Augean Stables need to be extirpated of their filth, and those tasked with doing so seem to have developed a vested interest in allowing them to remain full of filth.

          I agree that dictatorships are not an ideal solution for many reasons, but they are more able to deal decisively with the current problems than democracies can. And yes, I agree that it is only trading one problem for another but I would rather deal with how to get rid of a dictator who has overstayed his usefulness than hordes of filth from the cesspools of the Third World out-reproducing rats and roaches across every western country as demographics inexorably takes our own inheritance away.

      • In the Roman Republic, a dictator was an honourable title. In modern language it is a loaded name. Be careful what you wish for, old chap!

        • Kieth, what is coming is the day of the Generals, who will take over and as Moon states, will clean out our western nations of the 3rd world filth infesting our nations with an Old Testament zeal that has to be done if we as a European people are going to survive. Let it rain!

          • Well, I’ll keep my counsel until then. Georgie Patton was a favourite if mine, but I don’t think he approved of military dictatorship. Straight-backed civilian government is what we need.

          • Democracy in Europe is all but dead, so welcome to the coming dictatorships that will spring forth because they will be needed. The feckless traitorous pols wrought this and the people allowed it and voted for it, so now that they have danced to the Devil’s tune, it is time to pay the fiddler, for the Devil always gets is due.

    • Merkel is a communist and always has been a communist, as her actions clearly demonstrate. She is the doomsday that SOB Honaker snuck in as revenge for the collapse of East Germany.

  4. The only conflict should be over how many migrants to arrange a meeting with their 72 virgins each year. I’d helpfully suggest starting with the total number of incoming freeloaders that year minus one. Problem solved.

    And I’d also suggest doing no organ harvesting a la Chinois. However if China wants to buy (I mean contract for hire) a quantity of shiploads of ‘factory workers’ per year, that works too.

  5. The Eastern European nations including Austria are not going to put up with that commie Merkel and her 3rd world invasion. Even the natives of western Europe are getting angry at this blatant treason and insanity.

  6. Quote from the article ‘…. it is to be feared that Angela Merkel will try to break the resistance against immigration.’ That has been the almost pathalogical determination of the EU & Germany to get the Dublin arangements replaced with a mandatory and permanant migrant quota system implemented for at least the past 5 years. The most stupid, stupid idea ever. If it did get implemented it would be the EU who decides the size of each countries quota and it would outsource the divving up of the migrants to the NGOs. The receiving country has no say in the numbers in their quota and have to take whoever is sent – psychpaths, sociopaths, mass murderers, crimimals escaping justice in their home country, jihadi fighters, members of the Taliban or ISIS or Boko Haram, Al-Shabab. I could never fathom out why any country in the EU (or any country in the world) would agree to such a dangerous proposal.

    It seems to me very suspicious that this fire in the camp on the island of Lesbos was started at this time. In the EU one of its governing bodes has a rotating presidency which changes every 6 months. From the first of July, Germany took up that position and had already stated that during this six months presidency it would be pushing for this new migrant arangement.

    Then last week the Ursula von der Leyen, the President of the EU Commission gave the annual State of the Union speech where she refered to the fire in the camp as a way to pressurise countries to step up. She said ‘…. But I want to be clear: if we step up, then I expect all Member States to step up too.’ (it isn’t clear who the ‘we’ is that she is refering to. It isn’t the EU itself. The EU isn’t the ‘we’. I suspect that the ‘we’ refers to Germany!!)

    And now we come convieniently at this precise point in time, to the EUs New Pact for Migration.

    Just a coincidence that the fire occured now??

    • Seems like it doesn’t matter that much. If the countries can be pressured by a fire to take unassimilable refugees, they can be pressured without a fire.

  7. Are we having nightmares yet?
    Muslim intimidation becoming too much to ignore? More enemy coming ashore hourly.
    Welcomed armed barracked. We may never have to leave Europe again for a good old war. The nothingness of diversity will have us and our children waking up screaming nightmares?

Comments are closed.