2015-06-27 "Tidal wave of migrants could be the biggest threat to Europe since."

[viisitoista]

Näen tämän esimerkkinä homman valtavirtaistumisesta - pliisun konservatiivinen kirjoittaja Burleigh esittää pliisun konservatiivisessa Daily Mail-lehdessä joitain ihan järkeviä ehdotuksia, ja käyttää osuvia ilmaisuja kuten "human rights industry", ihmisoikeusteollisuus,  jota hommalaisten kannattaisi myös alkaa käyttämään.

Meidän tulisi pyrkiä siihen että myös omien Kepu-Kokkari äänestäjiemme päässä alkaisi syttyä valot tähän tyyliin:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3141005/Tidal-wave-migrants-biggest-threat-Europe-war.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490

Forget the Greek crisis or Britain's referendum, this tidal wave of migrants could be the biggest threat to Europe since the war, writes MICHAEL BURLEIGH

By Michael Burleigh for the Daily Mail

Published: 21:00 GMT, 26 June 2015  | Updated: 07:15 GMT, 27 June 2015 


This was meant to be the week that Britain's relationship with Europe was to start changing. When David Cameron would begin his bid to persuade his 27 fellow EU leaders at a summit in Brussels to accept the reforms he has promised British voters.

On Thursday night, he told fellow national leaders that they had to address 'widespread unease about the UK's membership of the EU'.

He had carefully laid the groundwork with face-to-face meetings with each of them, and is demanding, among other things, an opt-out from the EU's principle of 'ever closer union', protection of the City's financial services and a four-year ban on EU migrants claiming benefits.

Predictably, Europe's leaders gave him the brush-off. Not just because of their antipathy to what some have called the British Prime Minister's 'a la carte' approach to Europe, but because they have other things on their minds.

The crush of current political events — Greece's interminable debt crisis, Russia's serial provocations in and around Ukraine and a migration problem running wildly out of control — meant Cameron's big moment was squeezed into a late-night session after pudding.

Many of the leaders he was trying to persuade were, by this stage, exhausted by the endless chicanery of the Greeks and a bitter and hopelessly unresolved row over whether to disperse 60,000 migrants according to mandatory quotas for member states.

In the end, Downing Street officials were forced to concede that Britain will not be able to secure changes to any EU treaties in time for the referendum in 2017. All the Prime Minister can get is a promissory note instead.

It was a rebuff that serves only to highlight how small-beer and parochial our negotiations seem at a time when nobody — not Cameron nor any other EU leader — is prepared properly to acknowledge that Europe's most urgent problem is the relentless human tide heading our way from several points of the compass.

Any talk of changing our welfare benefits system or dispersing thousands of migrants across Europe is simply fiddling at the edges.

It will do nothing to avert a catastrophe that is not only causing the deaths of thousands of migrants, drowning at sea, but could splinter the Continent, fostering xenophobic nationalism, as immigration swamps individual countries.

The appalling and anarchic scenes in Calais this week, where 350 stowaways were turfed off British-bound lorries in just four hours on one day, as British and French authorities traded insults about whose responsibility they were, will become commonplace unless firm action is taken.

Besieged lorry drivers, forced to confront people armed with knives who clamber aboard their vehicles, say it can only be a matter of time before someone is killed.

Yesterday, the Mail revealed that the Mediterranean boat crisis has now reached Britain, with police figures showing a 200 per cent increase in the number of migrants making it to our shores over the past 12 months.

Bedfordshire Police — who cover Toddington Services on the M1, 125 miles from Dover but where migrants are caught daily as they clamber out of the lorries they board in Calais — say they caught an average of 23 suspected illegal immigrants each month and 67 in May. In just two days last week, they found 36 stowaways.

The statistics are shocking. So far this year, more than 100,000 illegal migrants have successfully crossed the Mediterranean into southern Europe — 48,000 to Greece and 54,000 to Italy. And 500,000 more are said to be waiting in Libya to chance their arms.

And this does not include the increasing numbers entering the Continent overland from Turkey and Serbia into Hungary.

The European border agency Frontex — whose HQ, for political correctness reasons, is thousands of miles from the Mediterranean coast in Warsaw — is completely overwhelmed.

The inability of governments to get a grip on the problem is benefiting parties on the populist Right which exploit immigration.

And it's not just Ukip's huge tally of votes at the last British General Election; recent elections in Denmark, where the Right-wing Danish People's Party won the biggest share of the vote in its 20-year history, and Finland, where the nationalist Finns Party is now part of the coalition government, are also cases in point.

But before we address the question of what can be done about illegal migration, we have to understand how it happens and what is driving it.

Certainly, there are huge numbers fleeing war zones such as Iraq, Syria and Somalia, and many of them have a legitimate case to claim asylum as their lives are truly menaced in their own country.

In the case of Syrian refugees, although many have headed towards Europe, the vast majority have elected to stay in their own neighbourhood — in countries such as Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey and the Kurdistan region, which are coping heroically with millions of refugees who want to return home when it is safe to do so.

This truth should not be forgotten when Europe is being asked to receive migrants who are travelling thousands of miles from countries which are safe and benign in order to better themselves economically.

While there are economic migrants from countries such as Pakistan and Afghanistan, many more are from Africa.

With the help of cynical people-smugglers, some make it through Turkey into the Balkans by land — a route used by about 40,000 people in 2012. This led to tensions between Austria and Hungary, each of whose governments insist the other country should take responsibility.

The bulk take the route across the Mediterranean, travelling from west, central and east sub-Saharan Africa to the coast of Libya, which is the epicentre of the people-smuggling trade.

In the days when Colonel Gaddafi despotically ruled the country, the smugglers were under his control.

Indeed, he earned himself billions — the Italian government under Gaddafi's friend Silvio Berlusconi happily stumped up — just by threatening to allow migrants into Italy, thereby 'turning Europe black'.

Now Gaddafi is gone, it is a smugglers' free-for-all. The migrants pass from the hands of African nomads into those of the Libyan boat-people who send them out to sea with rudimentary navigational instruction and a mobile phone, to which they text a number for the Italian coastguard after ten hours have elapsed.

Local smuggling networks in Africa offer pay-as-you-go and full package options. The former involves a migrant travelling in stages, stopping — often for a year — to earn enough money for the next leg of the journey.

The latter can cost anything up to $40,000 and involves entire families, including members already in Europe, making an investment in a single payment, on the promise that once successful, the migrant will send money back home from the 'El Dorado' of Europe.

Smugglers also offer a credit option — the most perilous — which can lead to a migrant being in perpetual debt and forced to work in prostitution or slave labour in the black economy.

So what can be done about this tide of humanity heading our way? One option mooted by politicians is to disrupt the smugglers' operations in the source countries.

It sounds a good idea, but on a practical level the complicated payment methods for smugglers involving extended families means that deploying special forces and spies to close them all down is fanciful.

There are simply too many people involved, and families conniving in the trade could hardly be considered criminals. Smuggling is also facilitated by the corruption and weakness of many of the states concerned, whose borders are often unpatrolled.

And this is where EU governments can bring influence to bear: they can use their generous foreign aid budgets as a lever to make the migrants' home-states cooperate with our national interests.

Last year, 48,000 refugees sought asylum in Europe from Eritrea in the Horn of Africa. Even 50 members of the national football team have absconded in recent years. They are fleeing a regime which uses indefinite military conscription as a disguised form of slavery.

The EU has recently decided to give Eritrea €312 million to crack down on people-smuggling.

But most African countries are not hell-holes like Eritrea. Burkina Faso, Chad, Gambia, Ghana, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone, not to mention Kenya and Uganda, all nevertheless produce economic migrants, even though there are plenty of places — from Lagos to Nairobi — where they could find work locally.

Burkina Faso has 3,200km (almost 2,000 miles) of land borders with six neighbours. It has just 19 fixed border-posts and 300 frontier police earning $200 a month with no money for fuel or spare parts for their jeeps.

Since a smuggler can earn $5,200 by packing 30 migrants into a bus for a single trip, he can easily afford small bribes that represent a fortune to a policeman.

Europe should get tough with Burkina Faso. It should force the government to act by diverting aid towards a proper, well-equipped border force and threaten to cut off aid altogether unless the government cracks down on smugglers.

It can be done. President Mahamadou Issoufou of Niger, which will have received €600 million of EU aid by 2020, recently introduced 30-year jail sentences for people-smugglers, and under new laws, owners of buses and trucks who collude in smuggling will lose them, too.

Aid money should also be spent on sending European policemen to these countries in Africa to focus the minds of the local police on the problem. There should be a massive public information campaign in the migrants' home countries to help puncture delusions about life in Europe.

This should highlight the deadly risks that illegal migrants take, going so far as to point out that many drown and their bodies end up being picked apart by crabs and fish at the bottom of the Mediterranean.

If Europe was serious about this problem, it would also introduce draconian penalties for domestic employers of illegal migrant labour or those who cram dozens of them into tiny basements or garden extensions and sheds in areas such as suburban London.

Above all, there should be a serious European debate about whether the 1951 UN Refugee Convention (designed to deal with displaced people inside Europe after World War II) should now apply to economic migrants from other continents.

The entire process of repatriating failed asylum-seekers should be accelerated, only allowing them to appeal decisions once outside the EU area.

That would diminish the opportunities for human rights lawyers and humanitarian organisations to prolong matters at public expense. Also, Europe should seriously explore the policy of the Australian government of processing its illegal migrants outside its borders.

It rents detention centres in and off Papua New Guinea to which it immediately deports migrants picked up at sea heading for Australia. From there, the migrants make applications for asylum in a considered way.

Although the global human rights industry, supported by liberal media organisations such as the BBC, euphemistically describe these centres 'concentration camps' because of riots caused by disgruntled migrants there, at least no migrant has drowned trying to reach Australia since they were introduced.

It should be an EU priority to establish similar facilities in one of the North African states, such as Algeria or Morocco, where boat people intercepted by a European-wide naval task force can be deposited, and where their options are realistically explained and economic migrants are weeded out and flown home.

It is time they learned that life in Europe can be tough, too (as it is in many countries), and that its population has had enough of a problem that is now completely out of control.

Uncontrolled migration impacts unfairly on benefits, education, housing and public transport in ways that destroy any notion of the contributory element that lies at the heart of European welfare states.

As we have witnessed in various European countries, the anger this engenders quickly assumes political forms, with the rise of neo-Nazi parties. What on earth do Europe's leaders imagine is driving this angry populism, including that of established legal immigrants? The common fisheries policy?

Sections of the liberal media insist on relentlessly depicting the individual tragic stories of illegal migrants, with the BBC correspondent Clive Myrie, for example, telling one passing migrant 'you've made it' as he disembarked from a rescue ship in the Mediterranean.

In fact, illegal migration is an insidious problem that strips desperately poor countries of precisely the sort of enterprising young people who ought to remain there, while oppressing the poorest sections of our own societies with people who compete for diminishing resources.

It also raises the questions of whether one can simply uproot people from entirely different cultural universes and expect them to thrive in societies that may subscribe to other values, with radically different expectations of their citizens.

And unless David Cameron and the European Union start to take it seriously — as opposed to tinkering around the edges — its effect will shatter the EU in a manner that would make a Greek or British exit look like a mild disagreement at a vicar's tea party.

[viisitoista]

Toinen tuore esimerkki tästä ilmiöstä; amerikkalainen uuskonservatiivi (joka siis on poliittisesti korrekti, "respectable conservative") David Frum katsoo ettei löperö siirtolaisuuspolitiikka enää käy päinsä:

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/07/closing-european-harbors/395321/

Closing Europe's Harbors

The urgent case for stopping the flow of illegal migrants across the Mediterranean

David Frum
July/August 2015 Issue


Illegal migration across the Mediterranean has tripled since the overthrow of Muammar Qaddafi in 2011 opened the ports of Libya to human smuggling on an unprecedented scale. Some 50,000 migrants made the crossing to southern Europe in the first four months of 2015. Another 1,800 died at sea.

Hundreds of thousands more people are estimated to be waiting in Libya for the chance to cross into Europe. Millions more would follow if they could. The migrants come from a vast swath of Africa and the Middle East, spanning not only war-torn Syria (in the first four months of 2015, Syrians accounted for just 30 percent of those crossing the sea) but also Nigeria and the Gambia and Eritrea and Somalia and Mali. They wish to leave behind poor, unstable countries in order to seek opportunity in the wealthy lands of the European Union. It's a dangerous gamble. But the prize is huge.

Of the 170,000 migrants who made landfall in Italy in 2014 (Italy being the most common destination for migrant boats last year), reportedly only about 5,000 have actually been deported. Sixty percent of those who sought asylum in the country last year were granted refugee status or other protections upon their first request. (Still more received such status on appeal.) Many migrants don't wait for a hearing. They spend a few days in an overcrowded reception center, then abscond north to the stronger job markets of France, Germany, and beyond. Italian authorities are sometimes accused of conniving at this escape, so as to lessen the burden these new arrivals pose to Italian taxpayers.

The migrants who embark upon this journey are typically represented as terrorized and impoverished—as people driven (to quote Amnesty International) "to risk their lives in treacherous sea crossings in a desperate attempt to reach safety in Europe." The demographic and economic facts complicate that story. When populations flee war or famine, they generally flee together: the elderly and the infants, women as well as men. The current migrants, however, are overwhelmingly working-age males. All of them have paid a substantial price to make the trip: it can cost upwards of $2,000 to board a smuggler's boat, to say nothing of hundreds or even thousands of dollars to travel from home to the embarkation point in the first place. Very few of the migrants from Libya are actually Libyan nationals.

Doug Saunders, a British Canadian journalist who has spent considerable time reporting from North Africa and the Middle East and who in 2012 published a book that was sympathetic to trans-Mediterranean migrants, rejects as "insidious" the notion that such migrants are fleeing famine and death. To the contrary, he wrote recently:

Every boat person I've met has been ambitious, urban, educated, and, if not middle-class (though a surprising number are ...), then far from subsistence peasantry. They are very poor by European standards, but often comfortable by African and Middle Eastern ones.

What these migrants are doing is what migrants have always done: they're pursuing a better life. But although migration is attractive to the migrants, it is unwanted by European electorates—and the tension between continued migration and public opinion is changing the Continent in dangerous ways.

Across the European Union, 57 percent of residents express negative attitudes about immigration from outside the EU. Naturally, elected politicians take the popular view and promise sharp reductions in immigration. And yet, the reductions never come, because the EU has encoded refugee rights into laws and treaties that cannot easily be changed. As a result, migrants have enormous incentives to present themselves as refugees. In turn, those European elites who favor higher levels of migration pretend to believe them. Altogether, the realities of trans-Mediterranean immigration are thus tightly swaddled in lies.

Leaders throughout the eurozone are already presiding over a precarious situation, thanks to continuing budget austerity and very high unemployment. Voters' inability to affect policy further damages the credibility of democratic politics, and strengthens "anti-party parties" such as France's extremist National Front.

The trip across the Mediterranean is short in kilometers, but quite long in psychic distance. A migrant crossing to Italy today leaves behind a world of informal rules and enters a world governed by written laws, formal credentials, and bureaucracy—a world where his own credentials (if he has any) count for nothing. He will enter a labor market in which both the employment rate and the relative wage of low-skilled workers have been declining for years. He may accept these conditions as an improvement. His children won't.

Completing the journey from the one world to the other takes more than a single generation, even under the best of circumstances. And in Europe's case, the circumstances have left much to be desired. Compared with the United States, European societies have struggled to absorb and assimilate immigrants, and the struggle has only become harder as European economies have slumped. Now Europe is learning that today's refugees are at high risk of becoming tomorrow's high-school dropouts, tomorrow's unemployed, and tomorrow's criminals.

Immigrants from non-EU countries are twice as likely as natives to drop out of secondary school. Those of working age are twice as likely to be unemployed. Immigrants are also hugely overrepresented in the prisons of France, Britain, Belgium, and other European countries. Furthermore, a 2014 study in The Economic Journal found that each year between 1995 and 2011, immigrants from outside the European Economic Area were a net drag on the United Kingdom's budget.

The poorer the country from which migrants come, the higher the social cost of absorbing them. Consider the experience of Sweden, which on a per capita basis has one of Europe's largest immigrant populations. More than 15 percent of Swedes are either foreign-born or were born in Sweden to two foreign-born parents. The country has extended a special welcome to refugees from some of the world's most troubled places, including Somalia, Iraq, and Syria. But as Sweden's intake from poor countries has grown, the economic performance of its immigrant population has lagged. The Economist reports that in 1991, the median income for non-European immigrant households was 21 percent below that of long-settled Swedish households. By 2013, the gap had widened to 36 percent.

Immigrants' economic frustration and ensuing social isolation has in turn fostered political radicalization and violent extremism. Extremist views are held by a minority of immigrants, but that minority poses Europe's severest internal security threat since World War II. In response to this growing threat—which is traceable to migration—European governments have imposed ever-tightening surveillance upon their societies. Thus, as Christopher Caldwell lamented several years ago in Reflections on the Revolution in Europe, his superb book on how migration has transformed Europe, the price of increased diversity has been diminished liberty.

All of this has produced a dismaying confluence: frustration among migrants and their children, resentment on the part of older citizens, rising extremism on one side, authoritarian xenophobia on the other, and an increasingly obtrusive (if ineffective) security state. Many people on both sides of the Atlantic find these facts uncomfortable to acknowledge. But if mainstream leaders won't respond to the uncomfortable, demagogues will.

Even as migration has imposed significant fiscal and social costs on Europe, it has made little impact on the number of actual refugees worldwide. Nor would one expect it to: there are simply too many refugees around the globe for long-distance resettlement to be a panacea. Most refugees either remain within their country of origin as "internally displaced persons" or else settle in the nearest place of safety. From a purely technological and organizational point of view, the global community is becoming quite good at aiding refugees: Syrian refugee camps in Jordan and Turkey, for example, are increasingly equipped with running water, sewage disposal, schools, and electricity.

Much harder is creating economic opportunity within these overnight cities, and preventing extremism from taking hold. Harder still: prompt resolution of the wars that displace people in the first place. These difficulties are not eased by the continued insistence that advanced countries accept the illegal migration of the most mobile, most assertive, and generally least vulnerable people from the poorer parts of the world.

Europe now can follow one of two examples: a cautionary one offered by the United States, or a more hopeful model set forth by Australia.

Beginning in 2012, the United States faced a surge in illegal entries by unaccompanied minors from Mexico and Central America. The number of such migrants apprehended at the U.S.-Mexico border jumped 60 percent from 2012 to 2013, and 75 percent from 2013 to 2014. Throughout the crisis, many news reports insisted that they were refugees fleeing lethal chaos in their home countries. But Central America had not become appreciably more chaotic—in fact, the murder rate in Honduras, the largest sending country last year, dropped by some 20 percent from 2012 to 2014. Most of the unaccompanied minors were males, many of them likely responding to a perceived opportunity: a series of changes in U.S. policy since 2008 seemed to promise that young migrants would not be sent home. The surge in attempted border crossings began to subside only recently, after the U.S. persuaded the Mexican government to help apprehend migrants as they passed through that country.

Contrast this with the recent experience of Australia. After the Labor government of Prime Minister Kevin Rudd announced a newly permissive policy toward asylum-seekers in 2008, their numbers, unsurprisingly, soared. As holding facilities filled, Labor leaders moved to reintroduce stricter controls, but public opinion had already turned against them: the party lost the 2013 federal election to Tony Abbott, a conservative who had, among other campaign promises, vowed to crack down on asylum-seekers arriving by boat. Under Abbott's policy, no unapproved boats would be allowed to land. Period. Boats apprehended at sea would be turned back to their point of origin or towed to uncongenial places like Papua New Guinea for processing of passengers. The government used social media to communicate the new policy throughout Southeast Asia. A YouTube video released in many of the region's languages warned: "If you travel by boat without a visa, you will not make Australia home." Since then, illegal boat migration has virtually disappeared.

The policy has been expensive: the government has reportedly spent about $1 billion Australian a year to detain migrants at facilities in other countries. That is a relatively small sum, however, compared with the high social and economic costs over many years—and multiple generations—of allowing large-scale migration by very low-skilled people.

The ocean around Australia is much wider than the sea between Libya and Europe. Yet Australia's example is promising. Migration follows opportunity. Remove opportunity, and migration will cease. Migrants who attempt to force their way into Europe are, quite understandably, seeking a better life. But the peoples of the countries they wish to enter similarly have a right to do what is best for themselves.

Making a success of the migration that has already occurred will demand tremendous wisdom, generosity, and policy creativity from Europe's leaders. That challenge will become only more daunting if migrant numbers continue to grow unchecked, thanks to an immigration policy that prides itself on being compassionate, but that in practice perpetuates the darkest and most dangerous tendencies of Europeans, old and new alike.

[Svart Lucia]

COULD be 

[Svart Lucia]

Siirsin sopivampaan ketjuun

[Blanc73]

this tidal wave of migrants could be the biggest threat to Europe since the war

Tämä on totta. Kuka kertoisi asian vihervasemmistolle, jotta valot syttyisivät päälle myös siellä?

[Veturinainen]

osuvia ilmaisuja kuten "human rights industry", ihmisoikeusteollisuus,  jota hommalaisten kannattaisi myös alkaa käyttämään.

Jep. Käytössä on.

[Mehud]

"Ihmisoikeusteollisuus"- termiä on käytetty Hommafoorumilla jo vuosien ajan, joten termi on lainattu täältä.

[Dredex]

Aina löytyy joku syy, minkä takia lisää ja enemmän pakolaisia ja muita tulijoita pitäisi ottaa vastaan. Esimerkiksi pakolaisia ja elintasosiirtolaisia tulee Afrikasta Etelä-Euroopan maihin niin paljon, että Etelä-Euroopan maat ovat helisemässä, niin sitten keksitään, että muut eurooppalaiset maat voivat auttaa vapaaehtoisesti. Pakko ei ole, koska asia hoidetaan vapaaehtoisuuden kautta. Sitten yksittäisten maiden hallitukset tekevät vapaaehtoisia kiintiöiden lisäyksiä, jotta näyttää siltä, että mekin autamme, vapaaehtoisesti. Mutta yksi asia on ja pysyy: Pakolaisten ja elintasosiirtolaisten määrät lisääntyvät.