EU’s sick “asylum policy”: Cui bono?
By Nicolai Sennels
The EU’s open borders policy has allowed large numbers of Islamic terrorists to enter vulnerable and unprepared member states, from where they, according to the CIA, easily can travel to the USA. Several deadly jihad attacks have since claimed more than a hundred lives, including in Paris (130 dead), three attacks in Germany, and also in Stockholm (five dead). The family of the Muslim suicide bomber who killed 22 at a youth concert in Manchester also came to Europe as refugees.
Inviting millions of migrants and refugees into the open Schengen Area has led to an ever growing crime wave affecting millions of people. In Germany alone police registered 69,000 crimes related to migrants in just three months—and that’s just the official number of registered crimes.
The costs for accommodating them are in the billions. It is estimated that in just five years (2016-2020) migrants and refugees in Germany will cost the taxpayers 93.6 billion euros.
Recent research shows that only 2.65 percent of migrants crossing the Mediterranean are refugees, the rest are fortune seekers and terrorists.
Transporting people from Islamic countries to Europe is a major industry, not only enabled but, aided by the EU’s absurd asylum policy.
Instead of helping real refugees in local safe zones or paying Third World countries to host them, the EU has transformed itself into a deadly honey pot: Thousands die on their way to the promised land, mostly from diseases, murder or drowning. The human smuggling mafia is a cruel business known for selling fake life vests and suffocating hopefuls in airtight containers.
New reports disclose just how this cruel industry—of which the EU is very much a part—works: Migrants too sick or injured by their strenuous journeys are buried alive:
“Migrants trying to reach Europe often spend months in squalid and dangerous conditions while waiting for boats to across [sic] the Mediterranean.
Humanitarian groups have revealed that by the time boats are ready, some migrants are too sick or injured to travel as they have fallen victim to diseases or suffered gunshot wounds from local Libyan militia groups.
Smugglers and trafficking gangs, which make millions of pounds extorting migrants who dream of reaching Europe, are now said to be burying alive those they deem not ‘fit enough to travel’.”
Spokesman for the International Organization for Migration, Flavio Di Giacomo, says:
“They don’t care about the lives of migrants. If a migrant is a problem, they will kill them. A lot of migrants are shot dead on the beaches if they refuse to board the boats. It might be that they see the boats are overcrowded or the weather conditions are very bad.”
Besides their dangerous travels, many migrants suffer from post migration stress disorder in their host country: Living in a completely different culture and climate, not knowing the language, and being under pressure to adapt to the West’s high-tech work market can be traumatizing.
The obvious solution would be to host real refugees in safe zones that are as close as possible to their homes (so they can easily return once the danger is over) or pay Third World countries to host them as part of our development aid, just like Australia does.
This would deter illegals from trying to make the deadly trip to Europe, and save thousands of lives. One obvious consequence of such a policy would be that the West could field vastly greater funds to help people in real need.
Helping a single asylum seeker inside Denmark for one year costs 30,000 euros. Hosting a refugee at the Kilis camp in Turkey, branded “the perfect refugee camp“, costs 5 percent of that. Rouba Bakri, 30, has been at Kilis since 2012: “It’s perfect,” she says inviting one journalist into her home. “It is a 23-by-10-foot trailer with three rooms, like every other trailer. The front door is lockable. The bathroom is serviced by its own plumbing and hot-water tank; the kitchen is equipped with both a refrigerator and a stove. In the living room, long cushions and pillows were propped against the walls, and from a color TV in the corner blared the Cartoon Network.” Asked how many TV channels she has, Bakri laughed and said: “So, so many. A thousand?”
In other words: Denmark could help 20 times as many people for the same money—and in a culture where the refugees feel at home, know the language, and can afford to bring their families with them. In the future, such areas might be segregated by gender and religion for those who wish and, if necessary, provided with anti-aggressive or fertility-lowering medicine in the drinking water.
Aiding people closer to their home would also shield the West from terrorists hiding in the stream of refugees and illegals.
But no, the EU insists on bringing them here. Why?
Is it as Peter Sutherland, a long time member of the Bilderberg group, the UN’s Special Representative of the Secretary-General (SRSG) for International Migration, head of the Global Forum on Migration and Development, and non-executive chairman of Goldman Sachs International (an interesting mixture of power) said at a EU top meeting: The EU should “do its best” to undermine the cultural “homogeneity” of the member countries, since our particular cultures are a hindrance for non-Westerners to integrate. According to the powerful Sutherland, migration is a “crucial dynamic for economic growth”.
Looking at the cost of non-Western migration, it is safe to say that the economic argument is invalid. This is especially so in the face of extreme unemployment in large parts of South Europe and in an age where robots and artificial intelligence are about to replace a very large share of our jobs: According to the Boston Consulting Group up to a quarter of jobs will be replaced by either smart software or robots in 2025. A study from Oxford University suggests that, “35 percent of existing UK jobs are at risk of automation in the next 20 years”.
It’s time to ask: Cui bono? Who really benefits from the EU’s sick asylum policy?
There is no doubt that migration dilutes our national cultures, creating space for the EU’s dream of a supranational, semi-democratic state. Could that be it? There also is no doubt that Islamists benefit from the EU’s “asylum policy”. Could they be involved? Or are powerful banks making money by destabilizing regional security and economies, (e.g. through lending billions to the affected countries or speculating on fluctuating markets)? Or does the EU—along with other types of anti-democratic globalist forces—see a pathway to more power and control by using the heightened insecurity as an excuse to ratchet up surveillance and implement draconian laws?
One thing is for sure: To the West, and for a vast majority of refugees in the world, it is a catastrophe.
Video: Immigration expert Roy Beck’s colorful presentation of data from the World Bank and U.S. Census Bureau:
sponsored:
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment