Post: #101

(04-25-2015 04:18 PM)MidWest Wrote:  ...
Also I don't really buy that because of immigration all of a sudden unemployment rises. The biggest illegal immigration wave to the U.S was in 96 and Bill Clinton had a 4.2 unemployment rate. George Bush in his first term had an even lower rate of 3.3 which was the lowest it has been in decades.

That video is correct. Illegal immigrants are just a scapegoat for the country's problems. They need someone to blame it on so they choose the weakest among the weak to pick on.

As for legal immigration that's a whole other thing altogether.

That's a common misunderstanding. Clinton and Bush at first had expansionary monetary and economic climates. If you have real monetary expansion, then you can invite any amount of people into your country - as long as sufficient jobs and credit is being created - no problem.

But since the current model is based on debt in combination with a decrease of real income & decrease of labor participation it was only upheld by increased consumer debt, then the dot-com boom, then the housing boom - essentially the middle class has been financing their increased expenditures just by increased debt. The final straw was the property bubble that will only precede the student debt bubble - but that one will deflate slowly impoverishing the new generation for decades.

So yes - theoretically if you expanded the money supply in a positive way (interest free money, local investments, strong unions etc.), then practically all immigrants would be absorbed by the economy and the US would benefit greatly from their increased consumer spending. All people would be walking down the street with the pockets filled with sestertii.

But alas - it's all similar to Asterix and the Gaul economy - Obelix & Co:




Recommended economice literature - it's quite fitting for most idiotic boom-bust cycles.

While we can still hope that there will be some positive cycles, personally I think that this is the end of the rope. Maybe the Fed will blow some prosperity faking QE out, but most of it will likely be used for stock-buybacks.

In any case - whether my models are right or the libertarian models financed by the billionaires is irrelevant. Won't change a thing.... poverty and mayhem serves them more, since it's not about money any more.

Post: #102

(04-25-2015 03:41 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  A few questions if anyone has answers:

How many of these impoverished refugees show up in Europe per year?

Roughly 250,000 in 2014, up to 440,000 as per OECD estimates. But we can't be sure as most slip through Europe's coast guard.

Quote:Do they permanently remain there or are many returned back at some point?

Most stay in Europe. There is no EU wide immigration policy.

Quote:What do they do once they arrive? Are they strictly working on farms? Sweat shops? I can't imagine they can get normal employment.

The informal economy. Same as illegal migration the USA. Farms, construction, low paying under the table work. Those who don't find informal work usually end up as street vendors, selling tidbits on the streets and markets.

Quote:Are they entitled to social assistance? Where do they actual live? Do they get apartments? Are they given government housing?

Depends on the country. Contrary to popular belief, there is no social assistance for many, especially in southern Europe. In Italy and Spain most work for farms, and live near or on the farms. Some small Italian villages which have been depopulated through emigration are being re-filled with immigration. In Northern Europe, many end up squatting in dilapidated housing.

Quote:Do they get birthright citizenship for their kids?

European countries do not offer birthright citizenship.

The article link provides some interesting pictures.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/in-si...-in-italy/

Post: #103

Europe used to constitute 25% of the world's population around 1850s. It's now around 11% and dropping sharply still

Post: #104

(04-27-2015 11:50 AM)Que enspastic Wrote:  Europe used to constitute 25% of the world's population around 1850s. It's now around 11% and dropping sharply still

That's not surprising. Europe saw an exodus of it's population between 1800s to the 1920s to the Americas (and Australia), and subsequently 2 world wars that cost 47 million lives. In addition, having being burdened with being the most developed continent earliest, they saw their birthrates decline first.

Post: #105

A New Stockholm To Be Built Within 6 Years

"Open your hearts Swedes": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7IaCcAJQwY

Post: #106

(04-29-2015 11:43 AM)N°6 Wrote:  A New Stockholm To Be Built Within 6 Years

"Open your hearts Swedes": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7IaCcAJQwY

What do typical Swedes think about this? And given that Sweden has no history of colonialism what exactly is it about Sweden that makes it so enthusiastic about mass immigration?

My honest opinion about this is that it's insanity. The thing with immigration is that whatever its effect, it's irreversible. With other contested social issues like taxes or welfare or fiscal policy etc, if it turns out to be a mistake, you can reverse course with the stroke of a pen. But with immigration, there's no such thing. If it turns out they made a mistake and didn't foresee the consequences years ahead, the cat is not going back in the bag short of an ethnic war.

It's one thing if we're talking about countries like Canada, the US or Australia where everyone immigrated from somewhere else. But when you're talking about Scandinavia, this is their ancestral homeland that they've been in since the ice age. If I was Swedish I'd want to preserve it as such. I'd say that about any ethnic group on the planet. I think Nigeria should remain mostly Nigerian and Japan mostly Japanese. And even as someone who enjoys traveling, if I go to Italy, I want to see Italians and experience Italian culture, not Africans and Arabs. If I want to see Africans, I'll go to Kenya. If I want to see Arabs I'll go to Egypt. Which I'm sure are both amazing places to visit too. I'd hate to go to Japan and see nothing but white people. Or go to Mexico and it's all Chinese.

I think immigration on some reasonable level is fine, but when you're talking about literally displacing entire groups that are native to that region that is truly demographic suicide. I really don't know what's wrong with those people. In the past, something like this would've provoked a war. Now ones own displacement is welcomed with open arms and paid for.

If they think they are actually doing something to help the world, they should see this:





Not only are they not making any dent in alleviating world poverty, they are sacrificing their own nation's ethnic heritage in doing so. If I came from a small and ethnically homogenous nation with a culture going back thousands of years tied to that land, I'd never support something like this.

edit --

And one other thing. I'm not against immigrants or even small scale immigration. I totally get why people would want to flee a place that sucks with no future to live in a place with affluence. That's about as natural a process as water flowing from high to low. But just as we build damns and levees to control the flow of water and stop it from flooding a city, we have to have sound immigration policy to do the same with the flow of people. But liberals basically want to blow up the damns.

Post: #107

(04-29-2015 02:52 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(04-29-2015 11:43 AM)N°6 Wrote:  A New Stockholm To Be Built Within 6 Years

"Open your hearts Swedes": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7IaCcAJQwY

What do typical Swedes think about this? And given that Sweden has no history of colonialism what exactly is it about Sweden that makes it so enthusiastic about mass immigration?

Nothing. It was picked as a test-bed. Social engineering at it's finest.

The US is getting a similar tactic but just shrouded in different terms and less apparent. It's way less official, but the US government is not publishing CFR documents which state clearly that long-term plans include making Spanish the main indigenous language within a couple decades there. It's the slowly cooked frog syndrome.

In fact just as was stated in that little documentary Sweden had a violent back-lash in the 1990s against immigration and it took extreme social conditioning to brainwash the population to accept that.

Now again whenever I am making such comment I reiterate that I don't accuse immigrants - they are just responding to forces beyond their control and try to improve their lives and that of their loved ones. The so-called "betters" are doing that. For other countries there are different strategies which let the people accept that.

Post: #108

Sweden take large amounts of immigrants. They also take African immigrants who are ejected from Israel.

This is from a left leaning publication, but is full of evidence of negative effects of uncontrolled immigration:
http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog...s-election

notable quotes

Quote:Sweden recently topped the list of OECD countries when it comes to asylum seekers per capita, but this is no new development. The country has a long history of generous immigration policies,

Good typing. Two contradicting paragraphs.

Quote:Today, this is causing a divide between those who see growing immigration as a force for both cultural and economic growth, and those who fear it as a source of societal tension and rising economic cost.

For the majority of Swedes, negative opinions towards immigrants are actually consistently dropping, an annual study from the SOM Institute at the University of Gothenburg shows. When asked whether the country ought to take in fewer immigrants, most now disagree.

This is the typical complaint about immigrants. But I've seen varying statistics for the UK, so don't really know which is accurate. The stats for Sweden are bad though.

Quote:Unsurprising then, perhaps, that the difference in unemployment levels between foreign-born and native Swedes has always been above EU average - and the gap has widened even more in recent years.

The article is about 5 months old. So a fair idea of how things are today.

The problems caused by immigration in Sweden are clear to see. Social discord. housing problems. Immigrant ghettos. Sweden is the actual rape capital of Europe(ignored by feminists the world over).

The amount of asylum seekers in Sweden per capita inhabitants is much higher than other Euro nations, and rising quickly:
2013 figures
2014 figures

Asylum seekers arriving in the Eu has increased from approx 200,000 in 2008, to approx 600,000 in 2014

Post: #109

(04-25-2015 03:41 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  Do they get birthright citizenship for their kids?

The funny thing about the U.S. birthright citizenship with regards to Mexican immigration is that according to Article 30 of the Mexican constitution all persons born outside of Mexico who are the sons and daughters of Mexican nationals are Mexican citizens.

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nacionalidad_mexicana

Yet according to the 14th amendment of the U.S. constitution, all persons born on U.S. soil are automatic American citizens.


There is a saying that goes in spanish which refers to Mexican-American anchors "Ni de aqui ni de alla" which translates to "From neither here nor there," as in to say Mexicans don't truly see you as Mexicans and Americans don't truly see you as Americans, you're stuck in the middle.


Its something the supreme court has to figure out. But something tells me there's a lot of back-dealing going on between both countries. Obama probably tells Pena Nieto "alright will take your immigrants to satisfy our need for cheap labor and you get the money these families send back, win win for both of us"

Post: #110

(04-29-2015 03:58 PM)Lizard King Wrote:  

Quote:Today, this is causing a divide between those who see growing immigration as a force for both cultural and economic growth, and those who fear it as a source of societal tension and rising economic cost.

For the majority of Swedes, negative opinions towards immigrants are actually consistently dropping, an annual study from the SOM Institute at the University of Gothenburg shows. When asked whether the country ought to take in fewer immigrants, most now disagree.

This is the typical complaint about immigrants. But I've seen varying statistics for the UK, so don't really know which is accurate. The stats for Sweden are bad though.

I'd actually dispute this. In Sweden it's basically illegal to criticize immigration or say that you don't think more immigrants should come to Sweden, etc.

Nationalist parties are gaining ground in Sweden, IIRC a nationalist party won big at the last election. So in effect, Sweden is cramping down while the inevitable backlash happens.

Is it too little to late? No idea.

IMO, the current Swedish state has absolutely no right to exist and should be deposed. The duty of a state first and foremost is to defend the nation. Sweden has in the highest degree not only failed in that capacity, but actively deviated from it.

Post: #111

(04-29-2015 05:37 PM)Libertas Wrote:  

(04-29-2015 03:58 PM)Lizard King Wrote:  

Quote:Today, this is causing a divide between those who see growing immigration as a force for both cultural and economic growth, and those who fear it as a source of societal tension and rising economic cost.

For the majority of Swedes, negative opinions towards immigrants are actually consistently dropping, an annual study from the SOM Institute at the University of Gothenburg shows. When asked whether the country ought to take in fewer immigrants, most now disagree.

This is the typical complaint about immigrants. But I've seen varying statistics for the UK, so don't really know which is accurate. The stats for Sweden are bad though.

I'd actually dispute this. In Sweden it's basically illegal to criticize immigration or say that you don't think more immigrants should come to Sweden, etc.

Nationalist parties are gaining ground in Sweden, IIRC a nationalist party won big at the last election. So in effect, Sweden is cramping down while the inevitable backlash happens.

Is it too little to late? No idea.

IMO, the current Swedish state has absolutely no right to exist and should be deposed. The duty of a state first and foremost is to defend the nation. Sweden has in the highest degree not only failed in that capacity, but actively deviated from it.

The law that is talked about applies to online defamation(as far as I know).

A bit more info here: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4972/s...ree-speech

It was a parting gift from the government that lost the election. Clearly there is some reaction to the immigration. The article I quoted is ambiguous.

Post: #112

(04-29-2015 02:52 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(04-29-2015 11:43 AM)N°6 Wrote:  A New Stockholm To Be Built Within 6 Years

"Open your hearts Swedes": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7IaCcAJQwY

What do typical Swedes think about this? And given that Sweden has no history of colonialism what exactly is it about Sweden that makes it so enthusiastic about mass immigration?

The video mentioned that this self-destructive international solidarity is a religion in Sweden, yet fewer that 1% of Sweden's political élite lives in 'enriched and vibrant' neighbourhoods. They probably hire cheap nannies and visit exotic restaurants though.

Colonialism/ slavery/ WW2/ Christian expansion are just excuses to push mass-immigration at a rate and level whereby assimilation would be impossible.

Minutes of the Royal Institute of International Affairs mention the mass-immigration plan for white countries exclusively as far back as the 1930s. The CFR comes from this British Empire think thank but has since grown stronger since the decline of the Empire.

Sweden is the female dominated white knight, Captain Save-a-Hoe capital of the world and therefore will be replaced by less passive elements of the world.

Post: #113

(04-30-2015 12:13 AM)N°6 Wrote:  The video mentioned that this self-destructive international solidarity is a religion in Sweden, yet fewer that 1% of Sweden's political élite lives in 'enriched and vibrant' neighbourhoods. They probably hire cheap nannies and visit exotic restaurants though.

Colonialism/ slavery/ WW2/ Christian expansion are just excuses to push mass-immigration at a rate and level whereby assimilation would be impossible.

Minutes of the Royal Institute of International Affairs mention the mass-immigration plan for white countries exclusively as far back as the 1930s. The CFR comes from this British Empire think thank but has since grown stronger since the decline of the Empire.

Sweden is the female dominated white knight, Captain Save-a-Hoe capital of the world and therefore will be replaced by less passive elements of the world.

It is interesting to note that those plans were already written out almost 100 years ago. In the 1930s they mentioned substantial Indian immigrants into the UK.

Jacques Attali (high-level worker of UN, EU as well as numerous NGOs) has mentioned that both the US/Canada as well as the EU countries are set to be flooded with people from the South to a point where the indigenous population in virtually all countries is set to become a minority.

Other goals they have talked about and which are starting to manifest is the Chinese being set to move to Africa and simply take over control of that continent. Looking at how effective Chinese minorities in some countries in SEA have taken over financial and effective power it is very well possible that this will happen in Africa too. In some SEA countries 5% of ethnic Chinese have over 50% of the net wealth accumulated.

http://www.economist.com/news/books-and-...iven-money

I am not kidding when I claim that this will continue to such a degree that the Chinese will be taking over entire countries there similarly to some places in SEA where they are already calling the shots financially.

Sadly the white ones are not set to take over anything in the world. We are way too unruly, "entitled" and rebellious - having gotten used to relatively high standards of wages, freedoms, benefits and living standards.

Post: #114

^ quickly, let's move to china while they're weakened and take over. They'll be stretched thin and unable to defend the Chinese and African fronts.

But seriously, that is fascinating. It makes perfect sense. It is like colonialism 2.0 except china will do it better because they'll pitch it like a business venture that will benefit everyone all around.

Post: #115

(04-19-2015 02:52 PM)VolandoVengoVolandoVoy Wrote:  

(04-19-2015 02:25 PM)Disco_Volante Wrote:  The rules of christianity created a great social fabric.
Family unit, individual property rights, hard work, not fucking over your fellow man.

You had to go back 600 years in christianity to find violence comparable to what modern muslims do virtually every day.
Please, prove me wrong. Buy a plane ticket to mogadishu then do a video blog from there about how christianity is the real problem.

The rules of Christianity had nothing to do with the development of respect of property rights and the family unit. In fact, it was secular humanism and the development of a body of common law that did so.
The Church was a vicious organization that plundered the people at every opportunity. It was a driving force behind pillage, rape, torture, mass murder, confiscation, and extortionate taxes.

I don't think it's as clear-cut as that, although large-scale, long-term societal developments are hard to trace objectively.

Although I am an atheist, I do think that there is an important parallel in the early Christian belief that every person has a soul, and has equal standing in some ways in the eyes of God--to the later modern social contract thinking where we are all born equal and people should not be compelled to do things they didn't agree to.

All born equal in the eye of gods to all born equal and free without gods is just a further step in cosmological understanding of Physics, that the amazing mess that is the universe is unlikely, but unlikelier still is that there is some amazing mind that controls it all.

How corrupt the Catholic church was/is is sort of a moot point if you're an atheist-- they never had anything to do with god because god was never there. They were at some point just a bunch of thugs that hijacked a decent idea for its time and milked it like sociopaths. Just like people did and do with Socialism, by which I mean that we can all do better if we help each other than if we presume ill will in each other.

Post: #116

Interesting report on the whole reasons for the migration - it's in German, but there are subtitles available:





They make a good point that the reason for a lot the immigration is based in the so-called free trade treaties and also in subsequent massive destruction of the local agricultural economies since the EU exports huge quantities of frozen chicken, powdered milk and other subsidized foods. Plus huge fishing factories have literally wiped out hundreds of thousands if not millions of local fishermen.

In many African countries it is cheaper to buy an imported EU chicken and powdered milk than get the product from a local farmer. And even more trade treaties are to come further destroying the local economies. Many Asian countries like Japan or China now don't open their market to the West fully knowing that it would destroy their local market (rice imports among other things are severely restricted in Japan).

Of course those countries cannot compete with the EU. But contrary to the West they won't be getting any social security which helps them survive - they starve, live a wretched live or risk everything in order to improve their lot.

The report follows a nice young guy who actually makes the long voyage and works now as a farm hand in Spain. Those men are not the enemy - the enemy sits in the EU commission or actually even higher. Those are veritable legal mass-murders - not the poor who risk it all.

Post: #117

I see the Swiss have caved, a noble gesture indeed, telling the traffickers to go ahead and keep up the trafficking and giving the thumbs up to many many thousands more drownings of Africans men.
http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/quota-system...-/41428716
And that's not forgetting the cultural demographics, this is a disaster waiting to happen, in the medium to long term.
Keep this up for a number of years, and the Swiss will be facing the same problems we're seeing in Malmö today, and will have only themselves (and their foolish female PM) to blame.

Post: #118

(04-20-2015 02:51 AM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(04-19-2015 06:22 PM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  

(04-19-2015 06:18 PM)Grange Wrote:  

(04-19-2015 05:52 PM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  The advancement in Europe is due to the Marshall plan from the USA rebuilding their countries follow WWII.

This is a myth that won't die in the US. West Germany got far less Marshall Plan $$ than France and the UK and only a little more than Italy but became and remains far more successful economically than all of them.

Quote:And now a few generations the head start has been crushed by multiculturalism and Europe is on the verge of bankruptcy and the hell that follows afterwards.

Germany is also the biggest destination of immigrants in Europe except Russia I think. Bets on which major European country is the last to go bankrupt?

I love Germany, I would love for it to stand strong. But the fact is the "advancement" in the last 60 years is the western world borrowing money it doesn't have to pay for a bunch of failed liberal policies that will never work. There is NO advancement in Europe, just a giant shit storm getting ready to hit the fan.

I know the German people are very smart and very hard working and very organized. If they could shed their liberal policies they would probably be the most powerful country in the world. But even Germany cannot with stand having your country overrun with diseased, illiterate immigrants who come just to suck off the teet of the govt. and give nothing back.

The lion's share of immigrants to Germany came from Turkey and they were invited there legally as there was a labor shortage during a time when the German economy was booming.

This is only partly correct. Yes we have a lot of immigrants from Turkey, (official number: 3million) but we did not want them back in the 60's. Turkey wanted to get rid of them and the US wanted us to take them in order to help Turkey stabilize it's economy.

The politicians at that time were aware of the fact that bringing to many foreign people in our country with different culture and religion would lead to problems. So they made some rules:
Turkish people should only be allowed to work for two years and then they had to go back.
All workers had to be unmarried and from the european party of Turkey.

But of course all these rules were broken.

Last year 300 000 "refugees" also known as illegal immigrants came to Germany, most of them from former Yugoslavia. In 2015 400 000-500 000 new "refugees" are expected. Yes, there are some real refugees from Syria but it's still a miracle to me why they flee from Syria to Germany. (watch the map)

And considering that Afrika will double its population from 10^9 to 2*10^9 until 2050 it is no question that we will see tens of millions of refugees in the next years.

Post: #119

(05-13-2015 01:05 PM)captndonk Wrote:  This is only partly correct. Yes we have a lot of immigrants from Turkey, (official number: 3million) but we did not want them back in the 60's. Turkey wanted to get rid of them and the US wanted us to take them in order to help Turkey stabilize it's economy.

The politicians at that time were aware of the fact that bringing to many foreign people in our country with different culture and religion would lead to problems. So they made some rules:
Turkish people should only be allowed to work for two years and then they had to go back.
All workers had to be unmarried and from the european party of Turkey.

But of course all these rules were broken.

That's interesting. I read somewhere that it was certainly not Germany's choice to pick Turkish immigrants. At high levels politicians have only limited say and we never find out what goes on behind closed doors. We are only given the results and sold it as if a prime minister or president came up with the best idea ever. But in reality he has no clue and was just ordered to do something.

Post: #120

There was a German Christian Democrat on TV saying that it is the Christian thing to do by letting all the boat people into Europe.

Did no-one tell him that one of the boats threw its Christian passengers overboard for not being Muslim?

The gods give warnings for those with an eye to see.

Post: #121

Well our politicians want as many refugees as possible. The left parties admit this in public while the Christian Democrats don't.
But the Christian Democrats are in power since 2005. They have the power to change our policy but they don't.

Post: #122

Immigrants are not a scapegoat when it is proven they undermine the labour force of a country and the areas they tend to congregate.

You go for a cleaning job here in the UK and you will see the majority of them are Eastern European. In order to manage them you are an ideal candidate if you speak their language.

They do not get paid minimum wage either on a lot of jobs but it is still better than back home.

It isn't just a question of nobody wanting to do it, it is a question of payment and getting somewhere. Many young people for the most part want to make something of themselves and they have bought the higher education mantra for years and years.

What this leads to is a sense of worth. Few of these people would consider such a job and then you need to take into account the agencies who rip you off and take a lot of your take home pay.

There are so many service sector jobs and they're utter shit and useless. Tesco, our biggest retail employer is sacking people left, right and centre because of a downturn. Skilled jobs are blocked behind experience, certifications and technical knowledge. Those requirements take years to accumulate.

I have to question a person's logic when they say this mass influx of African and Middle Eastern migrants won't affect anything. They will have an immediate impact due to their numbers and as usually they will breed at least two other generations down the line. This is a culture change for the host country and not necessarily for the better.

Post: #123

Quote:http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/ma...ean-crisis

The EU’s executive body is to unveil radical new proposals on immigration, imposing migrant quotas on the 28 countries of the union under a distribution “key” system set by Brussels. The plan, which is supported by Germany and will be fiercely resisted by the new Conservative government, will be launched by the European commission on Wednesday in response to migrant boat crisis in the Mediterranean.

The bold move by Brussels comes as the EU draws up plans for military attacks in Libya to try to curb the flow of people across the Mediterranean by targeting the trafficking networks. The EU’s top diplomat is to unveil an attempt on Monday to secure a UN mandate for armed action in Libya’s territorial waters.

Britain is drafting the UN security council resolution that would authorise the mission, senior officials in Brussels said. It would come under Italian command, have the participation of about 10 EU countries – including Britain, France, Spain and Italy – and could also drag in Nato, although there are no plans for the initial involvement of the alliance.

While there is broad support within the EU for the military plans, the proposals for sharing the immigration burden are highly controversial and divisive. On Sunday night the Home Office said the plans were unacceptable to the UK, putting Cameron on a collision course with German chancellor Angela Merkel and other EU leaders as he begins attempts to renegotiate Britain’s relationship with Brussels ahead of a promised in/out referendum in 2017.

“The UK has a proud history of offering asylum to those who need it most, but we do not believe that a mandatory system of resettlement is the answer. We will oppose any EU commission proposals to introduce a non-voluntary quota,” a spokesman said.

The policy document, obtained by the Guardian, demands new and binding rules establishing a quota system of sharing refugees among the member states. The migration agenda declares: “The EU needs a permanent system for sharing the responsibility for large numbers of refugees and asylum seekers among member states.” By the end of the year, Brussels is to table new legislation “for a mandatory and automatically triggered relocation system to distribute those in clear need of international protection within the EU when a mass influx emerges”.

The proposals will lay bare deep divisions between national governments over immigration, with the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, backing the scheme and Britain leading the resistance. Germany and Sweden between them take almost half the asylum seekers in the EU, and Berlin is predicting that the numbers this year could almost double to about 400,000 in Germany, two-thirds of the total number in the EU last year.

The commission paper says: “Some member states have already made a major contribution to [refugee] resettlement efforts. But others offer nothing.” It also insists that Europe has to open up legal avenues for migrants to enter the EU safely, a notion that is strongly opposed by Theresa May, the home secretary. “Such vulnerable people cannot be left to resort to the criminal networks of smugglers and traffickers. There must be safe and legal ways for them to reach the EU,” the document says.

Hungary’s prime minister, Viktor Orbán, a leading hardliner on immigration, described the commission proposals as mad and pledged to defy Brussels. He said: “The European concept of ‘someone letting immigrants into their country’ and then ‘distributing’ them among the other member states is a mad and unfair idea.”

Brussels is proposing to invoke emergency mechanisms by the end of the month that will oblige the 28 countries to share the numbers of “persons in clear need of international protection” and “to ensure a fair and balanced participation of all member states to this common effort. This step will be the precursor of a lasting solution”.

The blueprint, to be unveiled by Dimitris Avramopoulos, the EU commissioner for migration, home affairs and citizenship, includes a distribution key system based on various criteria, from national wealth levels to unemployment rates, to determine what proportion of refugees each of the 28 countries should admit.

In New York on Monday, Federica Mogherini, the EU’s foreign and security policy coordinator, is to brief the UN security council on the plans for a chapter VII resolution authorising the use of force in Libya. The British draft is believed to call for the “use of all means to destroy the business model of the traffickers”.

This would entail EU vessels entering Libyan territorial waters, including the Royal Navy’s flagship HMS Bulwark and its three Merlin helicopters currently in Malta, and deploying helicopter gunships to “neutralise” identified traffickers’ ships used to send tens of thousands of migrants from sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East on the short but highly risky voyage from the Libyan coast to the shores of southern Italy.

Libyan militias, jihadi groups and Islamic State (Isis) affiliates, which are believed to be in cahoots with the trafficking networks, are said to have heavy artillery and anti-aircraft batteries deployed near the coast. Attacks on EU vessels and ships could trigger an escalation and force Nato to get involved, policymakers in Brussels said.

Following a visit to Beijing last week, Mogherini believes the Chinese will not block the mission in the security council. Her staff are also confident that Russia can be persuaded against wielding its security council veto despite the intense animosity between Moscow and the west over the Ukraine conflict.

The Italian government, which is leading the drive for military action and would command the mission, to be headquartered in Rome, said at the weekend that the Russians are “ready to cooperate”.

Libya’s ambassador to the UN, Ibrahim Dabbashi, told the Associated Press that he had not been consulted on the plans and opposed them.

Following intensive talks over the past week in Brussels, six EU states have committed to taking part, with several more expected to offer participation. All 28 member states are said in Brussels to support the proposed campaign.

The plans will be discussed by EU foreign ministers next week and put to an EU summit next month.

Sounds crazy.

Post: #124

As a new user I should probably not weigh in, however this is a subject I care a lot about.

The EU is at fault. Especially now that they are ruling out turning back the boat people. Australia's PM has been extremely candid that doing so caused boats to stop coming to Australia, so if saving lives was their priority they would follow his advice (this article goes into detail http://www.returnofkings.com/53399/how-p...0-people).

The Western Leaders are also at fault for needlessly deposing Gaddafi. Libya is now a worse place to live.
However, these are not all Libyans coming over. To say they are is trying to change the conversation from illegal migration to helping refugees. As you can imagine, Europeans care a lot about doing the latter.
But neither the leaders of the EU or Western countries really have to suffer the fallout from this. It's better that they appear to do good than genuinely do good.

The conversation on this and the preceding page is interesting, and made me think of this: I would like to say, it's very telling when someone approaches immigration as just being an economic issue.
What is interesting is it is often left wing parties that do so. Basically becoming Thatcherites in the process with a gross overemphasis on the bottom line.

Immigration is neither inherently good nor bad. It depends on quantity and quality. Proof of this is how non-western countries like China and Japan don't see immigration as a key to their economic success.

But again, in European politics immigration has often been a solution chasing a problem.
First it was guest workers for rebuilding after World War II. Rational.
Then it was a multicultural experiment. Not rational, but hindsight is 20/20.
Now it's because of birthrates. Deeply irrational. Birth rates bounce back if and when land becomes less populated (or when traditional coupling wins out demographically). In fact, there is speculation that empty land triggers a desire to have kids in people. Of course, none of this can happen if the land is not empty.
Think of it as an endangered species. The last thing one wants to do is invite a new competitor.

In reality though, their Thatcherite demeanor and latching onto whatever issue is trendy as ways to justify this policy is simply a demonstration of how disingenuous they are. And if Britain is any example it is costing them elections. Hell, even Sweden is siding more and more with the Swedish Democrats (whose evil racist policy is to curtail Sweden's policy to be more in line with the rest of Scandinavia).

Post: #125

18 February 2015

Quote:ISIS threatens to send 500,000 migrants to Europe as a 'psychological weapon' in chilling echo of Gaddafi's prophecy that the Mediterranean 'will become a sea of chaos'

Italian press today published claims that ISIS has threatened to release the huge wave of migrants to cause chaos in Europe if they are attacked
And letters from jihadists show plans to hide terrorists among refugees
In 2011, Muammar Gaddafi ominously predicted war would come to Libya
He was deposed in a violent coup and killed in October of the same year
Islamic State executed 21 Egyptian Christians on Libyan beach this week
Crisis in Libya has led to surge in number of migrants heading for Europe

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...z3aB7NAtKB
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook