To Shoot, Or Not To Schoot: That Will Be The Question

Duly NotedDuly Noted by George Handlery
To Shoot, Or Not To Shoot: That Will Be the Question.
A lesson of the 20th century is that Europe master ineffectively her self-created crises. Naming the consequences demands that we get brutal to remain honest. Thus, as it involves the continent of the writer’s origins, the subject rates as “embarrassing”.
The purpose here is not to list the calamities –the world wars, and the Cold War- in which Europe required external help. As we reassess predicaments, a factor emerges. It is the tendency to dismiss the rescue by outsiders as irrelevant for the future. Added, we discover a penchant to subscribe to illusions about a to-be-escaped reality. While it is a pity that the European Union is check-mated by mass migration, the vulnerability, worsened by flawed measures, is no surprise.
The moment’s crisis threatens the survival of western civilization. It is expressed by masses that carry in their backpack the views and ways of the Islam-defined world. If that tradition is imposed on Europe, the result will not be a dynamic culture. Much rather, the imported way of life that expresses stagnation, will take the upper hand. The result will not be a vibrant civilization but a retrograde, at best stagnant one, limited by a brutal and reform-resistant ideology.
Some facts need to be stated before proceeding. (1) The Islam-governed regions’ backwardness is not accidental but a consequence of a rigid ideology whose restrains could, for centuries, not be overcome by internal development. (2) Due to that built-in immobility, paired with a militant resistance to change, hinders the integration of the people it produces. The experience with third generation Turks in Germany, and France’ North Africans, prove the generalization. (3) Even a healthy culture’s ability to integrate is limited. Today, millions of hostile, resistant-to-change persons that reject Europe’s system can assert a right to settle in the EU.
Applied to present-day Europe, the implications point to a dismal forecast. The prognosis has a multiplier in the unwillingness to deal with the consequences of “too many with the wrong attitude and at the wrong place”.
Once Europe’s elites (and elites elsewhere that face comparable problems) are forced by the revolt of their masses to take action to defend their way of life, multi-faceted, and hard to overcome dilemmas emerge.
One of these is how new, often illiterate arrivals, that join an already settled un-integrated mass, can fit into a modern economy. Problematic is that, their skills represented by diplomas express a level that is about five years below the host’s standards. Sadly, this deficiency impairs integration through the work process. It is also difficult to overcome, because their value system makes its holders into bad “cultural learners”. When adjustment is viewed as akin to apostasy, “fitting in” is hampered by more than the demonstrative exhibition of symbols –clothing! – to confirm the suspicion that its holder wishes to stand apart.
Incrementally, even the political class admits that many migrants have gained entry by cheating. This involves destroyed documents, the claim of fake national origins, forged papers, and untruths regarding persecution. In a regrettable number of instances, upon admission, this is completed by illegal activities and by the exploitation of lax welfare services.
By now, many of those that had shared Merkel’s multi-cultural enthusiasm for idealized “refugees” are moving away from their “do-good” stance. The pressure of the facts, the untrue claims, and the criminality, impose forced repatriation upon reluctant governors. Economic migrants are not refugees, criminals lose the right to hospitality and deserve to be expelled. Given the “standing room only” conditions created, dubious claimants are to be stopped before crossing borders. That sounds like a self evident response to the inundation provoked by open borders and the practice of “no questions asked”.
The collapse of a policy of illusions imposes the need for such decisions. To the reader not self-evident obstacles arise once their implementation is attempted.
A remedy separates the refugees from migrants. That demands the closing of open borders, rounded out by preventive or punitive sanctions against criminals. Once reestablished, the control over aliens must be asserted. Criminals, and those whose status disqualifies them, need to be located and expelled.
Those that might think that the above is easily done once the will of the government that runs the country is mustered, are wrong. For instance, a minor part of “control” is the correct assessment of the migrant’s age. To achieve privileged treatment, many migrants pretend that they are under age. That brings benefits, one of which is that “juvenile” crimes have reduced consequences. A wizened Denmark resorts now to mandated –and expensive- age-testing. Sweden, still floating on the cloud of illusions, desists because it fears an invasion of privacy.
The real tough stuff will be more stressing. Shutting the borders to achieve controlled entry is simple on paper but trying on the ground. Defiant migrants have, due to cell-phone networks, a successful record. It is to push against barriers and guards to force entry. Even Hungary’s much condemned fence will ultimately need to be defended. That demands that a threat of defensive violence be made which, due to well communicated recent experience, will hardly be persuasive. Thus, a show that “this time we mean it” will need to follow. Even if unwanted, the next stage might be inevitable. With the failing of warnings, firing will become unavoidable. The impact on the local left and remote countries cannot be overstated.
Equally difficult is a completing measure. Due to the deceit of the host, lacking refugee status, also on account of their criminal record, many migrants have lost the right to stay where they find themselves. Here the solution is self evident: “expel them”. However, due to past errors, putting that into operation faces hurdles that might be too high for those that prefer to govern by giving in.
If repatriation orders would move the excluded to pack their bags, then the world would be in order. However, expulsion runs into numerous obstacles.
State-paid attorneys can delay deportation. Appeals make time pass. A family can be created and that will, even if a conviction enters the picture, delay expulsion. Once a child is in school and even if the welfare-financed family is abandoned, only the male head will be ejected. In this case, the highest EU court can invalidate the order. After years in limbo, the man can claim psychological problems and bemoan the suffering if unable to see his abandoned family. The point: Welfare-culture protects culprits from society’s defensive response.
If, hesitantly, ouster is ordered, physical resistance in the plane will cancel the attempt. Also, forced repatriation is hindered by withheld identities –a bonus for those that destroy their papers. Not cooperating with deportation orders –refusing to reveal their nationality, declining to request traveling papers from consulates- pays. Also, governments that send migrants may be reluctant to identify their citizens. Once the host determined where to send the undesirable alien, his reception can be refused if he is returned against his will. The obvious remedy is to withhold aid. However, this is problematic as aid providers resent the use of that tool as “imperialistic” and “colonial”. If the initial attempt to push out fails, time begins to work for the resistant.
While illegally present, support flows and guarantees a living standard above that of the home country. Sanctions for infractions fail as the alien is without means. As the years pass, the illegal residence creates a precedent upon which a request to stay legally can be made. In time, the claim can be made that the illegal has gotten used to his residence, so that expelling him would create a “hardship”. Thereby a misdeed provides access to a privilege that would be denied otherwise.
What the EU winds up with is an inability to select prior to immigration. Once inside a country, the control over comportment is limited: criminality is attributed to “culture”, while it is asserted that all cultures are to be “respected” because they are equally good. Exporting the German-made problem to all EU members does not work: the Visegràd Group resists. Meanwhile, repatriation is hindered by the home countries. This sounds like check-mate.
It need not be. The first measure to stop invasion by migration is logically water-tight but not serious; Let Europe shrink itself to the level of the Near East and Africa. With the end of free lunches, the present’s problem will dissolve in vapor.
The way out might be a measure that can create unwarranted but exploitable associations. Those worthy of deportation that refuse to depart are to be placed in holding points. These need to extend the comfort of the local military’s barracks, provide medical attention, sufficient calories, and pocket money for personal hygiene. Important: No out-of-country money transfers!
The difference to the classical “concentration camps” –the charge will be made- is crucial. This model’s “inmates” are to be free to leave, ergo; these institutions are to have open doors of a special kind. Those using them also exit the country and shut the gate behind them. Thereby, those limited to such an installation are free because they are free to depart with a free-of-charge one-way ticket home. If implemented, this approach would reverse the tide of invasive migration, combat its crimes, and limit hospitality to those deserving individuals that are that truly persecuted and who wish to integrate in the order of the society that extends refuge.

Comments are closed.