A Political Essay
By Frank Keith
Copyright © 2015 by Frank Keith
All rights reserved
The contents of this work may not be reproduced or transmitted in any way or by any means, whether electronic, mechanical, or otherwise, without the prior written consent of the author.
Table of Contents
The number of asylum applications in the EU before 2014 peaked in 1992, with 672,000 people. In 2001, another big year, there were 424,000, and in 2013, the number rose to 431,000 refugees. There were 626,000 refugees in 2014. According to the UNHCR, the EU countries with the biggest numbers of recognized refugees by the end of 2014 were France – 252,264, Germany – 216,973, Sweden – 142,207 and the United Kingdom 117,161 (1).
From 2007 until 2011, Germany took 265,767 refugees. For comparison, France, which is bigger and has a smaller population than Germany, took 206,890, and the US took in a little more; 278,850 (2). This makes Germany the number two nation in the world accepting refugees during this time period.
Frontex head Fabrice Leggeri had already warned the EU in March 2015 of a massive increase of refugees ready to enter Europe. The German newspaper “Welt am Sonntag” quoted Leggeri; “Our sources have informed us that between 500,000 and one million migrants are ready to leave Libya.” Leggeri also told the German parliament in June that same year “that the number of irregular border crossings from Turkey to Greece has increased by 550 percent compared to the previous year.” The newspaper wrote that the German ministry of the interior and the chancellery were informed about the numbers (3).
Frontex, by the way, is portmanteau French, meaning Frontières extérieures, or external borders in English. Established in 2004, this European Union agency manages the cooperation between national border guards securing its external borders.
So, the EU was warned, yet didn’t heed it. The question is; why did they do next to nothing? Did they think that Greece, Spain and Italy—the three nations on the forefront of the EU, where the refugee would first enter Europe—would be able to halt the flood? Or did they simply not care? Did they initiate measures to help stem the coming tide? The EU did try to do something, as shown below, but in essence it too kept on slumbering. EU countries, such as Spain, Italy and Greece, had essentially been left alone.
It’s clear that this situation had been handled erroneously right from the start. The entire EU sleepwalked right into one of Europe’s greatest crisis since WWII.
In 2014, the migrants came almost exclusively from across the Mediterranean Sea. The nations mostly affected were Italy, Spain and to lesser degrees, France and Greece. This changed fundamentally in 2015.
Until June 2015, Greece and Italy shared almost the same amount of refugees, with both nations receiving around 68,000 people each. During the rest of 2015, another route became the focal point for migrants; the Balkans. It’s aptly named the Balkan Route in Germany, but called Eastern Mediterranean Route by others. After Merkel practically invited the world’s refugees into Germany, this route quickly supplanted the central and western Mediterranean routes, as the preferred way into Europe. The number of people urging to get there swelled to unprecedented size.
The Balkan Route was of importance simply due to the fact that now, heading Merkel’s call; many refugees were leaving their safe havens in Turkey and Jordan. Numerous Afghans and even people from Pakistan and Bangladesh mixed in with the deluge.
The trails used by the refugees in the Balkan Route lead through Turkey, cross the Dardanelles Straits and go into Greece. Macedonia and then Serbia are next. Hungary used to be the subsequent stage, before the fence was put up, followed by Austria and then, for the big majority, the final destination—Germany. The country with the second biggest contingent of refugees is Sweden. After Hungary finished putting up its controversial fence, the refugees chose Bosnia, Croatia and Slovenia, before entering Austria and finally Germany.
From the start, the EU’s measures to stop the refugees were fraught with mistakes, were irresolute and were accompanied by bickering amongst member nations.
It was a grave mistake not to send an immediate and clear message to the world that Europe cannot and will not accept every refugee. It was a grave mistake not to help Italy and then Greece to curtail the growing numbers of boat people. And it was a grave mistake not to at least lockdown the borders as the avalanche of refugees reached the European mainland and started to stream north. The EU could’ve also helped the UN to assure better conditions at the refugee camps outside Europe, but here too it failed.
No one in Brussels and in most European capital cities heeded the danger signals. No one in Brussels or in the major EU nations was competent enough and farsighted enough to take immediate and appropriate measures to help stem the tide. The refugees, these people from the third-world, had since then shown the world what an utter circus show the EU really is, in face of a crisis. It failed along the entire line.
In 2013, masses of boat people first arrived on European territory from across the Mediterranean Sea. As time progressed and the stream of boats kept coming, it became apparent that this was an unprecedented situation. The EU was completely hapless.
Although Spain and Greece were also affected by this phenomenon, it was Italy which felt the brunt of the growing influx of migrants. Thus, the Italian government finally initiated Operation Mare Nostrum, on October 18, 2013. This effort was a combined sea-air operation, which saved thousands of lives. It was politically unpopular and expensive. Italy asked for help from the EU, but help was denied.
The following year, 2014, it got worse. About 170,000 refugees arrived in Italy by sea, which was an increase of nearly 300%, compared to 2013. Despite the lives saved, Operation Mare Nostrum was a failure due to the continued refusal of other EU nations to help fund it and its inability to stop the influx.
Almost exactly one year after its start, on 31 October 2014, Operation Mare Nostrum was ended. It was immediately replaced by Frontex’s Operation Triton, on November 1st, 2014. This effort was underfunded even more than the Italian operation it replaced. On April 2015, the EU agreed to triple its budget for the time-period 2015 to 2016.
Things changed again—rapidly—this year in 2015. As predicted by Frontex, the numbers of refugees increased drastically. By spring time, Greece superseded Italy as the focal point in the migrant crisis. And it was soon completely overwhelmed. By June 2015, 124,000 migrants had arrived in Greece via Turkey, which was an increase of 750% from last year.
To help Greece in the Aegean Sea, Frontex started Operation Poseidon. However, this effort was also halfhearted, underfunded and a failure.
Greece never honored the Schengen Agreement, which obligates countries with external EU borders to protect them from illegal crossing and to apply border controls. Greece was already suffering from a financial crisis. It simply didn’t have the means to stem the human tide. The EU once again dragged its feet and let things happen.
The EU’s lack of effective countermeasures, acted like an invitation to the refugees. Even the migrants that still weren’t yet decided if they should come to Europe, saw EU’s incompetence as a clear signal to do so now.
This essay isn’t to give the many details about what could have been done to help prevent this tidal wave. It’s enough to say that the problem solving should have begun not only much sooner, but it should also have been taken to those regions from where the vast majority of refugees stem from. The EU should have at least taken lessons from Australia’s “Stop the boats” policy. The Australian efforts proved very effective, but the EU thought it can do things better. They wanted to be more “humane”. The results showing who was better are crystal clear: Australia.
The quota system was to function on the basis of the gross domestic product of each EU country, the size of its population, the unemployment rate and the number of asylum seekers already in the nation. Thus, taken from this calculation, each EU member nation was to be allotted a certain percentage of a set number of refugees. Initially, this number was 40,000 persons; 20,000 already stranded in Europe, and 20,000 from war-zones, such as in Syria.
Already in January 2015, there were first thoughts about this system. In April 2015, the EU Commission proposed the plan.
But, this plan was ludicrous from the start. Here’s why:
Europe saw an influx of over 600,000 refugees in 2014. All indications pointed towards a yet worse year for 2015. The number of asylum applications alone in Germany by April 2015, when the quota proposal was made, was 100,755. This was an increase of 131.5%, when compared to the same period last year, in 2014, when 43,519 persons entering the country (4). Yet, the EU was discussing over a paltry 40,000 persons. A reason is not given as to why the EU was discussing 40,000 people, when the numbers of refugees is much larger.
Be it as it may, this plan met resistance from various EU nations from the start. And the bickering went on for several months afterwards.
In September, the number of migrants allocated for the mandatory quota system rose by 120,000, for a total of 160,000. However, during the same month, Germany announced that it expected 800,000 refugees to enter the country by year’s end.
Germany soon started to throw around its financial clout at every EU nation that dared to resist the plan. It was mainly the Eastern European nations that were strongly against the mandatory refugee quota. At once, they recognized the futility of the system and that it was an assault against their sovereignty. They also identified and cited the dangers involved by allowing so many refugees to enter the EU, especially Muslims. They took immediate and consequent measures to help stem the tide. Hungary in particular, took drastic measures by building a barbed-wire fence, for which they got verbal bashing from other, more liberal nations. Never mind the fact that Greece already had put up a concertina-wire fence with its border to Turkey in 2012.
Finally, in September, EU interior ministers, embittered by differences, had agreed on a quota system for the relocation of migrants who have made it to Europe. This included the 40,000 migrants from May, and another 120,000 from September. This is what was agreed on:
Germany: 40,206 – 25.1%
France: 30,783 – 19.2%
Spain: 19,219 – 12.0%
Poland: 11,946 – 7.5%
Netherlands: 9,261 – 5.8%
Romania: 6,351 – 4.0%
Belgium: 5,928 – 3.7%
Sweden: 5,838 – 3.6%
Austria: 4,853 – 3.0%
Portugal: 4,775 – 3.0%
Czech Republic: 4,306 – 2.7%
Finland: 3,190 – 2.0%
Slovakia: 2,287 – 1.4%
Bulgaria: 2,172 – 1.4%
Croatia: 1,811 – 1.1%
Lithuania: 1,283 – 0.8%
Slovenia: 1,126 – 0.7%
Estonia: 1,111 – 0.7%
Latvia: 1,043 – 0.7%
Hungary: 827 – 0.5%
Luxembourg: 808 – 0.5%
Cyprus: 447 – 0.3%
Malta 425: – 0.3%
Extracts from the discord that ensued from the EU’s quota system:
Great Britain first opted-out. Both Ireland and Britain are not part of Europe’s passport-free Schengen area, and thus were not required to take part. In September, Home Secretary Theresa May announced to accept 20,000 refugees over the next four years, mainly from Syria and surrounding areas. Twenty thousand; for months, this was the average number of refugees entering Germany within a few days.
France had been receptive to help Germany in the start of the crisis, but its enthusiasm was severely dampened by Berlin’s threats of imposing financial sanctions against EU nations that were opposed to accepting the EU quotas. French change of mind came in May of this year. Prime Minister Manuel Valls said, “I am against the introduction of quotas for migrants. This never corresponded to the French position.” Hollande said, “There is no question of having immigrant quotas because we already have rules governing border checks and immigration controls”. He added, “The right to asylum does not correspond to a quota. That would make no sense. We reject this notion which is contrary to the principles.”
Italy was one of the few EU nations that agreed and demanded a quota system. That’s understandable, seeing that it suffers the most, right after Greece. It was supposed to take 40,000 refugees according to the quota plan. Up until November 2015, Italy had already spent at least one billion Euros on migrants. In October, 90 migrants had been relocated, but this number is far too small. Ideally, 80 should leave Italy every day, in order to redistribute 40,000 migrants in two years, as agreed by the EU.
Italian Home Affairs Minister Angelino Alfano said, “If the reallocation mechanism works, we will open five Italian hotspots.” At the time, just one hotspot was currently working, on Lampedusa.
Italian Foreign Affairs Minister Paolo Genitiloni said, “The refugee crisis will not be solved with rules older than 25 years. Immigration and return policies need to be organized together“.
Poland stood shortly before parliamentary elections during this time. This was an opportunity that the right-wing parties couldn’t ignore. The slogan was, “We won’t solve Germany’s problems!” However, Poland said that it would accept 4500 refugees, in addition to the 2000 they had previously agreed to take, but only Christians. In November, barely two months later, Poland announced that it won’t accept any refugees. “Angela Merkel causes the biggest damage to Europe,” said Leszek Miller, former Polish Prime Minister and chairman of the Left Party SLD. He went on to say that no one in Europe had been asked if they wish to be subjected to this flood of refugees.
The Czech Republic categorically rejected refugee quotas. Two years before he was elected, Czech President Milos Zeman described Islam as the “enemy of euro-Atlantic civilization.” He also said, “Calling someone a moderate Muslim is like calling someone a moderate Nazi.” Concerning the mandatory EU quota, Czech Prime Minister Bohuslav Sobotka said; “Quotas would be an invitation to illegal migrants to come to Europe, which would not be in a position to return them to their home countries.” And the Czech interior minister stated, “These people want to go to Germany. What mechanism will be put in place to keep them here in the Czech Republic?”
Slovakia is a hardliner, like Hungary, concerning EU’s mandatory quota system. Prime Minister Robert Fico spoke of a Europe under threat from an “onslaught” of migrants. He went on to say, “If my country accepted forced distribution of asylum-seekers under an EU quota system, then we will wake up one day and have 100,000 people from the Arab world here, and that is a problem I would not like Slovakia to have.” The nation said it would take only 200 refugees, but only Christians, which caused an outrage in Brussels and other capitols.
Austria was for the quota system. It stood fairly close to what Germany wanted. Describing the current system as “totally absurd”, Austrian Prime Minister Werner Faymann explained that the current system, which requires asylum-seekers to be taken in by the country where they first arrive, meant that Malta, Italy and Greece were unable to shoulder the influx.
“This naturally applies only to refugees fleeing war and seeking political asylum. We do not want and cannot take in economic refugees,” he added. Faymann also reiterated Austria’s call to establish asylum-processing centers outside the European Union (5).
At first Romania’s Prime Minister Ponta reiterated that Romania is opposing the mandatory migrant quotas, opting for the distribution of the refugees in EU, depending on every country’s possibilities. He said, “Romania’s position is one of solidarity and support and to respect obligations. Our capacity is 1,786 persons. Considering that we already have 200 of them, we cannot engage to receive more than we can take. You’d better tell the truth and say what Romania can do, so, no mandatory quotas but voluntary ones. This is Romania’s position and this is what the President will also assert in the Justice and Home Affairs council.”
In September, Romanian President Klaus Iohannis said that Bucharest could now handle the number of refugees the EU is planning to relocate to the country, although he is still against mandatory quotas imposed by the EU Commission. “I still believe the mandatory quotas are not a solution to Europe’s migrant crisis,” he said, “But the number of refugees Romania must receive is not large. It is manageable and I think Romania must show solidarity.”
Under the new plan, 2,475 refugees would be added to Romania’s distribution list. Thus, Romania’s total would be 4,260 migrants. To accept the mandatory number of refugees, the Romanian government demanded its country to be allowed into the Schengen Area, but Germany vetoed.
Even by December, the Romanians have remained reticent, regarding the mandatory quota system. Prime Minister Dacian Cioloș told the joint European affairs committee that that Romania will maintain its reserve to the mandatory migrant quotas, arguing the reasons for migration need to be countered and that the mandatory mechanism would not solve the problem, but only its causes.
At first, all three nations refused the EU quota, but then Lithuania and Estonia, agreed to take in a small number of them. But here too, the Baltic Nations were aghast at Germany’s threat of monetary sanctions. “This is a contemptible blackmail,” said Lithuanian Prime Minister Algirdas Butkevicius. Latvia was the most difficult nation here. It finally agreed to take 526 refugees, instead of 250.
Spain was a yo-yo case. At first, it rejected the quota system. Foreign Minister Jose Manuel Garcia-Margallo said that his country’s unemployment rate of almost 24% meant it could not help. "Pledging to take in migrants to whom you cannot provide work would be, in my opinion, providing a bad service," he said.
But in September, Deputy Prime Minister Soraya Sáenz de Santamaría announced that Spain would accept 14,931 asylum seekers, although it would be difficult to do so.
Only one month later, in October, the Spanish news agency Efe reported that Spain rejected the plan again, along with Hungary, Poland, Slovakia and the Czech Republic. However, one month after THAT, Spanish news provider El Paīs reported: “The first group of refugees to be officially accepted by Spain as part of a European deal to relocate 160,000 asylum seekers across the continent arrived at Madrid airport on Sunday night.
“The 12 individuals – 11 from Eritrea and one from Syria – are the first members of an initial contingent of 50 refugees whom Spain has agreed to take in. “Seven more Eritreans, who had been green-lighted for travel to Spain, refused to board the flight, and demanded to be flown to Germany instead.” (6)
Belgium at first rejected the quota system. Under the proposals, the nation is to take in 2.91% of the refugees. Belgian Asylum Secretary Theo Francken told lawmakers in Brussels that the EC's proposals fail to take sufficient account of the efforts individual countries have made in the past. Indeed, Belgium has a high quota of foreigners in the land already. Its integration of them is far from ideal, as the terrorist attacks in Paris have proven. However, in September, Belgium accepted the quota plan.
The Netherlands was supposed to take in 4.35% of asylum seekers, even though the nation had an increase of 75% of newly arrived refugees by May. Although the Dutch agreed to the quota, it wasn’t without much internal bickering and the measure remains controversial. The Netherlands had taken in many people since the end of WWII, especially from Turkey and Morocco, but it has become less compliant in recent years. The public is increasingly disinclined over Muslim immigration and increasing costs to the welfare system.
From the outset, Hungary had been an anomaly in EU’s refugee crisis. It is the most anti-refugee nation in Europe. Surely, much of this attitude has to do with its Prime Minister Victor Orban. One can say or think whatever about him … that he’s a nationalist or that he’s nearly a dictator, but he must be given credit for protecting his people. He put the Hungarian people’s wellbeing above the EU’s self-destructive behavior. It’s a nearly perverted situation, when you consider that he followed EU agreements to protect its borders from intrusion, which most others have utterly failed to do and had received much criticism for this.
In May, he said, “The European idea that somebody allows refugees into their own country and then distributes them to other member states is mad and unfair.” And, “This is not the time for solidarity but to enforce the law. Illegal immigration is an offence.” He had also accused Merkel of “moral imperialism” and called the refugee crisis a “German problem”.
In September, Hungary’s Foreign Minister Péter Szijjártó said that the EU migrant quota plan to relocate thousands of migrants across the continent is “unfeasible, unrealizable and nonsense”.
Hungary implemented the most drastic measure of all EU nations during the summer of 2015. In June, the Hungarian cabinet approved a border fence and construction began in July. It was very controversial, but the country went through with its efforts nevertheless. By mid-September, the fence along Serbia’s border was completed; up until then, a major route for refugees. After Hungary was dissatisfied with the EU’s feet dragging over the refugee crisis and the refugees choosing new routes to enter the country, the fence was lengthened to close the borders with Croatia and Slovenia.
Merkel and her yea-sayers keep insisting that fences won’t work. But the resultant numbers show the truth. In October, nearly 100,000 persons still crossed through Hungary. In November, after the fences were completed, the number was drastically reduced to a mere 262 asylum seekers.
In November, Hungary’s far-right party Jobbik, again rejected the EU’s mandatory quota plan. It called for a national referendum on the issue. Jobbik president Gabor Vona said at a rally outside the EU representative office in Budapest that Hungary couldn’t afford to wait until German Chancellor Angela Merkel and EU Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker “come to their senses” and recognize that what they have done, regarding the migrant issue, is “horrific.” He added that immigration and terrorism unfortunately go hand in hand.
On November 17th, the Hungarian Justice Minister Laszlo Trocsanyi announced that his country would file a lawsuit against the quota plan by December 15th. Trocsanyi said the EU quota plan went against the will of the majority of Europe’s citizens and violated Hungary’s sovereignty because each state should be permitted to decide who it allows into the country. He also expects other countries that oppose the quotas to join Hungary’s legal action. The governing Fidesz party had launched a petition to gather citizens’ signatures against EU’s initiative.
Orban insisted there would be “huge pressure” on countries like Hungary and others in the region to take part in the scheme. He also said that Europe’s Christian identity was at risk from so many Muslims reaching the continent, and that asylum-seekers were “overrunning Europe,” aided by human smugglers, rights groups and some leading politicians.
As a reminder to the reader; the confusion, muddle and disagreements described above is only a fragment of EU bickering, and only in regards to the quota system … a plan that encompasses only 160,000 refugees. In some cases, the squabbling is over a few hundred persons.
Altogether, it should be clear that the EU has suffered a severe setback in its unity as a result of the refugee crisis. To this day, there is no consensus as to how this situation should be handled. The wrangling goes on.
Until mid-December 2015, only about 200 migrants from the quota system had been distributed in the EU … out of 160,000 and nine months after the plan was proposed!
In the current crisis, Germany has assumed the dubious role of perpetrator, helping to induce a much larger number of migrants to come to Europe than might otherwise have been the case, and thus this nation will be examined closer.
At first, the refugee crisis had annoyed only a few people in Germany. This disposition stayed more or less level through 2013, 2014 and first half of 2015. But then things changed quickly. Meanwhile, the vast majority of the German population is annoyed by Merkel’s refugee policy. Many are downright angry.
Let’s go back a bit. We’ll ignore the huge influx of immigrants during and immediately after WWII. These were almost wholly Germans, driven from their homelands in the lost German territories and eastern European nations.
Post WWII Germany saw an incredible economic rise. The result was a lack of workers during the 1950s. This led to the invitation of so-called Gastarbeiter (literally guest workers) in the early 1960s, and can be considered the first wave of post-WWII immigrants. These people came mainly from Italy, Turkey, Morocco, Yugoslavia, Greece and Tunisia.
Another large wave of immigrants came from East Germany during the 1980s. This culminated in the 1990s with a large surge of people from the Soviet Union, which were called Aussiedler. Aussiedler are ethnic Germans, whose forefathers had emigrated to Russia and other Eastern European nations.
East Germany had a different viewpoint to its immigrants, considering them as socialist friends. The immigrants coming to East Germany were from communist countries, like North Vietnam (later Vietnam), North Korea, Cuba and so forth.
The wars in former Yugoslavia in the 1990s brought another huge wave of foreigners into Germany; the largest post-WWII influx of asylum seekers yet, with nearly a half million people. The peak year for immigrants was 1992, with 1,500.000. But this includes the ethnic Germans from the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe.
In 2005, the German government announced Germany to be officially an immigration country. This was met with skepticism and rejection by certain political parties and most of the country’s citizens. No referendum was ever held over this.
From 1997 to 2008, the country saw a more or less steady decrease of asylum seekers. The total for these twelve years was a little more than 980,000 people. From 2009 to 2014, Germany saw a steady increase of refugees. The total for these six years was 542,477 people.
It was in December 2014, when the German government forecast 200,000 asylum seekers to enter Germany in the following year, for 2015. It was a high number for one year, but only few people complained.
In January, Merkel announced, agreeing with former German President Christain Wulf; “Der Islam gehört zu Deutschland – und das ist so, dieser Meinung bin ich auch.” Translated: “Islam is a part of Germany, that’s that, this is also my opinion.” Again, no one was asked if they want Islam to be a part of Germany.
In May, the number of refugees expected to enter Germany for 2015 was raised to 400,000. This higher number made more Germans grumble, but most still considered it manageable.
August was a fateful time, not only for Germany, but for Europe and Merkel too. The prognosis for the number of refugees for 2015 changed once again; it was raised to 650,000 people. Instead of taking effective measures to curb the steady increase of refugees, Merkel, who had chiefly remained silent over the topic, did something totally unexpected. On the 25th of August, she baffled the nation by disregarding the Dublin Agreements … and concurrently German asylum laws, thereby allowing refugees to enter the country in even greater numbers and this easier than ever before.
During the German government’s annual Sommerpressekonferenz (Summer Press Conference) on August 31st, Merkel, referring to her open border policy and the rapidly rising numbers of illegal aliens, uttered the words; “Wir schaffen das”, which means, we can do it. She meant that Germany, as a strong nation, can manage the high influx of migrants. Thus, this was her plan; no plan … just a short phrase.
Merkel’s move was impetuous and reckless. Her decision was not only obtuse, but illegal to boot. She didn’t honor her oath either; to protect the German people.
On September 11th, during an interview with the German Newspaper Rheinischen Post, Merkel said; „Das Grundrecht auf Asyl für politisch Verfolgte kennt keine Obergrenze.“ Translated, it means: The fundamental right to asylum for politically persecuted persons knows no limit.
Thus, according to her, Germany must accept all refugees, regardless how many there are. Her words opened the floodgates even wider.
A couple of weeks later, in September, the German government once again declared the newest refugee number. As expected, it rose again, to 800,000 people. But, by October, the number of refugees entering Germany was expected to reach 1.5 million. This was first reported by the German tabloid Bild. The German government was reluctant to substantiate this number, understandably, considering the sour mood in the nation.
Within merely a ten month’s time period, the numbers of refugees expected to enter Germany had gone from 200,000 to 1,500,000.
But, the numbers are controversial; many believe they are underestimated. Their doubt is rational, since many tens of thousands of immigrants hadn’t crossed the borders on the main thoroughfares, but scattered in the countryside. Naturally, this makes it impossible to keep track of who is entering; there are no border guards or police present in the landscape. And even at the official border crossings, many more migrants were simply waved through.
If all the other immigrants are added from previous years to those from 2015, Germany has more than two million people in the country, applying for refugee status. However, nobody knows the true number. If so, it’ll never be made public.
The Dublin Agreements establishes a hierarchy of criteria for identifying the Member State responsible for the examination of an asylum claim in Europe. This is predominantly on the basis of family links followed by responsibility assigned on the basis of the State through which the asylum seeker first entered, or the State responsible for their entry into the territory of the EU Member States, Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Switzerland (7).
And here, a brief account of German refugee law associated with Merkel’s breach.
Especially important here is Article 16a Abs. 2 GG, which says: Foreigners, who enter the country via another state of the European Union or any other safe third country, cannot invoke the right of asylum.
Article 16a Abs. 3 GG says, certain countries (so-called safe countries of origin) may be viewed as having no political persecution. This remains valid so long the applicant cannot invalidate this assumption. This means that a person from a “safe nation” cannot apply for refugee status in Germany.
Ultimately, German fundamental right of asylum can be limited or waived, if the asylum seeker entered Germany from another EU country, which is obliged to accept him or her according to EU agreements. Such asylum applicants must be returned to the said country without the asylum application being first examined.
Once again, it’s very clear that Merkel broke German and EU laws. It’s that simple. Furthermore, she did this on her own accord, without German Parliament’s approval, nor the approval of the German people.
Thus, the people streaming into Germany are not refugees or asylum seekers. Despite the German government allowing their entry into the country, according to laws, they are illegal immigrants, or illegal aliens, if you will. But it’s not only Germany that’s breaking laws. Other nations through which the migrants are traveling to reach Germany do so likewise.
Next is a brief description for procedures for applying for refugee status in Germany.
The German refugee law shown above describes who is eligible. Normally, a non-EU person, or a person not from a nation that has agreements with the EU for visa-free travel, must apply for a visa before he or she enters Germany. If a person wants to enter the country as a refugee, he or she must submit an application before travelling. This is accomplished in a branch office of the appropriate German governmental bureau, located in the appropriated capitol city. Minimum papers required are a passport and birth certificate.
However, currently, the absolute vast majority of migrants cross Germany’s borders without such applications. Numerous persons don’t even have any identifying documents. A few months ago, news reports had shown images and videos of landscapes in Hungary, Greece, Slovenia and etc, littered with passports and other ID papers, thrown away by refugees. Indeed, passports, identity cards and UNHCR-issued documents are among the first possessions to be discarded by non-Syrian migrants to hide their identities and countries of origin.
For those people who do get registered, the slow, cumbersome governmental apparatus begins. Currently, it takes around 5.7 months on average to process the papers for a migrant. The German immigration bureau—BAMF (Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge) wants to reduce this average to three months. Many doubt this can be accomplished. In July 2014, the average time for processing a person was about 7.1 months, thus it took the BAMF about a year and a half to improve the processing time by about one and a half months. The numbers of refugees haven’t decreased or stayed the same since then, but exploded. The agency will have to hire lots of people to reach its goal. But newly-hired people are inefficient and it takes time before they can work effectively.
What percentage of applicants is eventually accepted as refugee? It changes from year to year, so that’s not easy to answer. We’ll just take a look at last year.
In 2014, over 202,000 people applied for refugee status in Germany. A total of 128,911 decisions had been made, and 35.2% of those were deemed not under Germany’s jurisdiction. This is the case, for instance, when a person came from another EU country, making that country responsible for the said person. Germany denied refugee status for 33.4% of applicants. One point six percent was granted “status of tolerance”; these are people too ill to be sent back, for instance. 28% were denied refugee status, but still given permission to stay due to Härtefälle—hardship cases, or because they are considered refugees under the UN Refugee Convention.
Thus, for 2014, Germany allotted 2285 people refugee status, which is 1.8% of the sum. Nearly a third of the total—31.4%—were officially allowed to remain in the country (8).
It’s a fact and common knowledge in Germany that the biggest majority of all the people who apply for asylum, including those that were denied and should be sent back, stay in the country. Only a small fraction is actually returned home. There are no reliable numbers available for this.
In 2015, Germany had an additional over one million migrants to deal with. Using the example given above, with only somewhat more than half of 202,000 applicant cases being finished in 2014, it’s easy to see how utterly overwhelmed German immigration is this year.
But, it gets worse. Each person, who is officially accepted as refugee, may bring his or her family into the country, if they hadn’t done so already. This is called Familiennachzug . If we take the 1.8% of applicants accepted for refugee status last year as an example, then, out of one million people this year, 180,000 would be accepted as refugees. Considering the average size of families from North Africa and the Middle East (5 people) and Sub-Sahara Africa (7 people) (9), where the vast majority stem from, potentially, those 180,000 people could swell to nearly one million people eligible for refugee status in Germany.
This scenario is realistic only if the system works. However, past experience has demonstrated that in most cases the system does not work. To make matters worse, those people who are denied refugees status are granted the right to appeal in German courts. What it means when hundreds of thousands of people appeal in court in a short time-period is obvious. The courts, already overburden, will be near collapse. Each person who appeals will remain in the country for as long as his or her case is undecided, and this means years will pass before this happens. And, as the past has revealed, even when the person has lost all instances to remain in Germany, the state does little to send the said person back.
But, what about 2016? Will the flood stop abruptly? No, it won’t. Merkel, after all, invited all. The horror will continue in 2016.
Although these people are called refugees, their status as refugees became void as soon as they left a safe country. As stated above, EU and German refugee laws say so. These people not only left safe countries, but entered another ones, and then again and again. They went through six to eight safe nations before reaching Germany, depending on which route they took. This example applies to the Balkan Route. But, even those who enter Europe by sea have left safe countries.
Although certain European officials say that the refugees are a European problem, Hungary’s Prime Minister Victor Orban is closer to the truth. In September, while he was in Brussels for a meeting with top EU officials, he said, “The problem is not European, it’s German. Nobody would like to stay in Hungary, neither (in) Slovakia, Poland or Estonia.”
Indeed, Germany’s generous support and open-door policies are at fault for increasing the deluge of third-world people and their desire to go where they’ll receive the most money and where it’s easiest to remain in Europe. The refugees didn’t permit themselves be stopped by police, borders, laws or even fences to reach this goal. Regardless where they are, the large majority are forcing their way into Germany.
It’s bad enough to have this high number of people in the nation, regardless what the true number really is. What’s worse is that no one knows who many of them really are. And no one knows from where these unidentified people came from, or where in Germany they went to. Theoretically, there could be thousands of ISIS members in Europe already, or Al-Qaeda, Hamas, PKK, Boko Haram or whatever other radical Islamists there are. And this is an ongoing event to this very moment.
A sore point for Germany’s population, are the high costs incurred by the migrants.
The costs start almost immediately upon their arrival in the country with the bureaucracy. Naturally, each migrant also gets checked by a doctor. Nurses, medication, x-rays, hospital stay and many other medical-based items and procedures add to the expenses. Each individual must be transported to one of thousands of refugee shelters, scattered across the country. Off course, each migrant must be clothed and fed, and power, water and heat must also be provided. Each adult migrant gets a monthly allowance too. There are a number of other items and services which add to the costs, but aren’t really necessary
By far, one of the biggest problems facing the country is housing. And this is also a very sore point for the country’s citizens. Germany has numerous empty casernes—military complexes, which have been abandoned when the majority of US military units left the nation, and when Germany reduced its military forces. These casernes have already been filled to capacity with migrants. Next, thousands of gyms across the nation have been appropriated. Even many school gyms are occupied.
However, these measures are not enough. Many tens of thousands and even hundreds of thousands of persons still need to be housed in permanent structures, especially now, during the winter.
The German government was getting under pressure. Driven by Merkel’s simplistic Wir schaffen das, some began to implement other drastic measures to house the migrants. There have been initial cases in which Germans, living in social housing, have been evicted from their apartments to make room for asylum seekers. These measures seem implausible in a seemingly democratic nation, but it’s a fact (10). Although this is basically illegal, the communities involved used loopholes to get away with bending the law to near the breaking point. For the same purpose, there are measures being considered to confiscate empty private and community buildings and apartments (11).
The measures above are undemocratic, very desperate and dangerous too.
All in all, according to BAMF, each migrant costs around 1000 Euros per month (12). However, things change when the person is no longer a migrant. As soon as they are granted refugee status, they are eligible to receive a form of welfare, equivalent to what’s called Arbeitslosengeld II. They also get a small apartment, paid for with tax money. The heat is paid for and water and electric power are subsidized. Thus, each refugee gets the very same benefits that a German person gets, even though the refugee never paid a cent into the system.
The German press has always been rather careful what stories it publishes concerning foreigners. This has been no different with the new migrants. However, there are those in the media who still think freely and enough information has seeped through from the rest to say that, although most migrants are (still) passive, more than enough are not.
The troubles begin immediately, right at the borders, when many cross without being registered. After entering Germany illegally, they get on trains to reach other destinations in the country. They do so without paying for the train rides. (These are the same people who paid human traffickers a few thousand dollars each, to be brought to Europe) The railway lets it happen—there simply are too many to do anything about it. Many migrants who do get transported officially and are supposed to reach various refugee reception centers, don’t get there; they simply disappear along the way. No one knows where or who or how many. They are gone and the state and the citizens are left clueless.
Once at a prescribed destination, numerous migrants refuse to remain there. This is especially true in rural areas. They demand to be taken to cities instead. Some even demand to be taken to particular cities.
Migrants have also acted violently. Almost no day or week passes without a report or reports over mass fistfights in refugee shelters or camps. Ethnic and religious differences are major causes of discord, but also clan rivalries and limited facilities and other reasons cause violent outbreaks. There are abundant articles on the topic in the internet. Women and even children are being raped in the shelters and camps. Migrants abusing migrants are also a daily occurrence and German citizens are not immune to migrant violence either. Yes, even in Germany, these ugly crimes continue and with virtually no one getting prosecuted (13).
These people even riot against the police. Many law enforcement and security personnel have been injured.
Many German citizens complain of dirt and noise caused by the asylum seekers, and rude behavior. There have been many instances of migrants refusing to eat the food they are provided. They demand food suitable to their tastes or their religion. They have been caught committing larceny and fraud and also shoplifting and urinating in public. Asylum seekers are going around begging too, despite being provided with all daily necessities.
Almost daily, there are reports of damaged or destroyed structures that house migrants. Some of the damages are caused by the migrants themselves, while other are damaged or destroyed through arson, arson committed by angry Germans. On numerous occasions asylum seekers have broken apart furniture and used the table legs as clubs, for instance, or when they go on rampages.
There have been reports of migrants being recruited by radical Islamists (14). This is something many Germans fear the most. The public is already convinced that numerous terrorists have mingled with the masses of migrants and entered the country with them. Seeing the chaotic conditions at the borders, this fear is justified.
The significance of the German government in this crisis is obvious, but the press might seem out of place. However, the reader must understand the important role it plays in this crisis. The general positive attitude many Germans felt towards their government’s actions during the initial phases of the migrant troubles can be largely attributed to the influence of the German press. German government’s constant rhetoric, the general suppression of naysayers and the fear of the German citizen being labeled as ausländerfeindlich (hostile towards foreigners) or a radical rightist or even a neo-Nazi did its share of deadening any dissidents from raising controversies, regardless how valid they are.
However, take note that this condition hasn’t existed only since the start of the migrant crisis. The collusion of state and media has been an ongoing affair for decades. In Germany, it has been a common practice to denounce anyone who dares not to agree with accepted philosophical mindset of the German state in regards to foreigners. This includes topic like immigration, higher crime rates amongst migrants, granting easy citizenship, not punishing migrants properly and allowing ghettos to develop and more. In short, anyone who publicly disapproves of foreigners in any way is duly denounced.
Even prominent people are in danger of being denounced. Indeed, TV, acting, political and journalistic careers had been abruptly ended if the person’s opinion didn’t “go with the flow”. Read the Wiki article concerning Thilo Sarrazin and Eva Herman (15). Mr. Sarrazin, a former politician and more, wrote a book which became very controversial in Germany’s excessively liberal atmosphere. He not only criticized Germany’s immigrant policies, but claims that the nation is abolishing its own self through excessive immigration.
In Mrs. Herman’s case, the Wiki article fails to mention the reason why she disappeared from German television. She dared to consider the National Socialist’s (Nazi) family policies a positive thing. No more and no less. What she said happens to be the truth, but truth isn’t always welcome in this nation, not even in the 21st century.
A rarity in the realm of denouncements is a case in which a Greens party member (in English: Alliance 90 / The Greens) went against party lines, concerning refugees; this party has very pro-asylum and anti-German policies. Boris Palmer, the Green party mayor in the city of Tübingen, dared to criticize Germany’s lenient immigrant policies, saying that there is a limit to what Germany can take. For stepping out of line, he was threatened to be expelled from the party by certain party members (16).
These are just a couple of examples how Germany and the German press treat people who don’t share current obligatory political viewpoints.
So much for Germany’s supposed freedom of speech.
It’s rather easy for people in prominent positions to announce their viewpoints, but this is far different for the average man and woman on the street; no newspaper or TV station will give a hoot. If a movie star, politician or important manager announces his or her opinion, everyone will listen. That’s just the way it is … everywhere. However, in my view, and I beg your pardon for telling you my opinion straight-out, but knowing what the majority of people think about important political topics weighs more than what some “VIP” thinks. It should interest the press too … it’s their job. They should report public opinions, honestly and objectively.
When Merkel opened the borders, it more than simply raised eyebrows across the land. From the start, most citizens were against her decision. With time, the numbers of people who refused to accept Merkel’s refugee policy increased. Yet, for months, it was impossible to learn what the majority of people were feeling. The German press simply ignored them. No newspaper, radio station, TV channel or online news provider mentioned the German people’s views.
As the months went by, it became clear to the press that it would be impossible to continue ignoring the public’s sour mood. But even so, the German press downplayed the immensity of the problem. The supposed percentage of people, who are against Merkel’s migrant policy, did not reflect the truth; the government and the press were consistently too low with their assessments.
Talking with friends, family and work acquaintances about the migrant flood gave the first indicator that there might be a majority of citizens against the government’s policy. No one agreed with Merkel, and this couldn’t be a coincidence. Thus the question was; what about the rest of the nation?
The internet was the first to answer this question. It provided a means to send out feelers to find out how the public is feeling and roughly in which proportion. After reading many hundreds of posts on German forums, it became quite clear that not only is there a majority who are against Merkel’s policy, but a rock solid one.
Yet, to this day, December 2015, you still won’t find the whole truth concerning what percentage of the public feels negative in regard to Merkel’s immigrant policy. There have been poll results published by the press, but they show only a small majority being against it.
Since the start, manipulation of information, downplaying negative happenings and even flat denials describes the methodology of the German press and government in their handling of the migrant crisis. Not everyone in both camps supports this foul behavior, but the largest majority does.
A poll from the German Instituts für Demoskopie Allensbach for the FAZ (Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung) showed that 54% of the people questioned said that they are “very worried” about the migrant developments. Yet, polls consistently show German political parties virtually constant in popularity. This makes no sense. The 54 percent of “very worried” people also doesn’t make sense (see below).
Almost all news providers that still allow letters to the editors regarding the crisis employ self-imposed censure. Letters are dully deleted when they don’t follow left-leaning beliefs. Indeed, the internet site T-Online, a subsidiary of Deutsche Telekom, used to allow posting opinions. That is, until the providers discovered that the people weren’t following the accepted doctrine. The result; T-Online quickly ended its forums. It isn’t the only news provider who had done so.
One of the last T-Online articles, however, with a functioning forum and with reference to refugees, 90% of posts were against Germany’s refugee policy. Not only were the total numbers of posts in disfavor of it, but the thumbs-up too. A sample post showed 4316 thumbs-up (anti-Merkel) and 92 thumbs down (pro-Merkel). Three other sample posts had 3661 to 105, 3701 to 75, 4279 to 79. This makes it 15,957 to 351, or over 90% of people who are against Merkel’s refugee policies.
On an online survey conducted on 11th October by the same website, the readers were asked: “50 percent of Germans are for letting more refugees into the country. Are you one of them?” Out of 81,725 people who answered the survey, 4.1% said “yes”, 95.3% said “no” and 0.6% had no opinion.
A poll conducted by the German online news provider FOCUS, asked its readers; “Are you satisfied with Merkel’s refugee policy?” Out of 298,386 people who answered (latest count Dec. 2015), 5% said “yes, I’m satisfied”, while 95% said “No, I’m not satisfied” (17).
Another FOCUS survey asked its readers; “Does the refugee crisis affect your daily life?” out of 42,465 people who answered (latest count Dec. 2015) 84% said “yes” and 16% said “no” (18).
Although the examples above are no official polls, the results still speak a loud and clear language and show a very strong disparity to claims made by the government and press.
Still largely disregarding what the people are really thinking, the German press keeps publishing articles and polls that are in stark contrast to the general public mood or don’t reflect reality in other ways. Hardly a word is said or written about the people’s fears, anguish and discontent this crisis brought forth. Instead, they’re mostly trying to illuminate the “positive” aspects of the immense numbers of migrants, even going so far to call this immense influx as a great opportunity for Germany.
But there are people outside the press and government who join the bandwagon. David Folkerts-Landau, chief economist of the Deutsche Bank made the hair-raising claim that the million illegal aliens was the best thing that happened to Germany in 2015 (19)! The public rejects his harebrained claim, off course. However, the public does believe the sad truth that a few are benefiting from this crisis by earning lots of money … money wholly from their taxes.
Germany’s premier TV channel ARD, had to admit to manipulation on various occasions. In October 2015, speaking before industry experts in Hamburg, Kai Gniffke, chief editor of the ARD news program ARD Aktuell , confessed: "If (our) cameramen film refugees, they look for families with small children and big eyes." The fact is, though, that 80% of migrants are single young men (20). The program wanted the German people to feel sorry for the migrants and this cannot be accomplished by showing the truth—that the vast majority of them are single young men.
In the same month, ARD once again had to admit to another manipulation charge. The news program Tagesschau showed a video footage of 100,000 people demonstrating their solidarity for the refugees. The video was actually taken from archives, and was footage from a demonstration against the war in Iraq in 2003. In reality, the solidarity for refugee demonstration had drawn only 8000 people (21).
The police in the state of Thüringen were told in October not to announce wrongdoings committed by migrants. Thüringen’s Prime Minister Bodo Ramelow from the Linken (Left Party) and Interior Minister Holger Poppenhäger from the SPD (Social Party of Germany) had previously denied allegations that the state conceals crimes among refugees. The state’s Ministry of Interior responded in supposedly surprised manner: Poppenhäger said that he didn’t know about the letter (e-mail to the police).
The above report was from the news provider Rheinische Post. Below is a translation of an announcement for the website’s readers. It’s placed at the bottom of the above news article:
Your opinion on RP online is important to us. However, other than usual, at this point there is no way to leave comments. During our coverage of the refugee crisis, we have been receiving so many offensive and partly aggressive posts that a constructive discussion is hardly possible. We have therefore disabled the comment function temporarily. Of course, you can still tell us your opinion – via Facebook or email (22).
This is nothing less than a manipulative procedure to keep the people from learning what their peers are thinking. FOCUS Online, Huffington Post Germany, Handelsblatt, Yahoo News Germany and a few others still allow readers to post their opinions. Funny that there are no offensive or aggressive posts there.
In another, similar case, the police in the state of Schleswig-Holstein were told to keep the public from learning about misdeeds committed by migrants. Here is a translated excerpt from the article:
Serious allegations were also raised by the Regional Chief of the “Kieler Nachrichten” (newspaper), Michael Kluth. As the journalist asserts in a Friday’s editorial edition, the editorial staff was asked on Thursday afternoon by the State Police, to refrain from reporting on “refugee issues”. The journal would otherwise “play with fire” with the sensitive text. Kluth commented this process with: “The courage to reality has apparently not yet been adequately enforced in police and politics.”
FDP (Free Democratic Party) leader in the country’s parliament, Wolfgang Kubicki, has expressed shock over the alleged operations on his Facebook profile. If “relevant events” should really have been kept secret, then that would be a scandal. The issue must be made a top priority of the government and resolved immediately. Finally, freedom of speech is enshrined in the Basic Law. And when facts were veiled, this could lead to a massive loss of confidence in the democratic order (23).
Nothing more has been heard from either above cases since these articles appeared; the aftermaths simply vanished below some rug. Undoubtedly, there are many more such cases in Germany—the people realize this. They also realize that there is no true freedom of speech, and the people already have lost confidence in Germany’s democratic order. And, most of Germany’s police force and politicians still haven’t found their courage.
Speaking of politics; German Vice Chancellor Sigmar Gabriel admitted in November that 40% to 50% of immigrants hadn’t been vetted. As if this wasn’t hair-raising enough, on December 21st, Jörg Radek, Vice Chairman of the German police union GdP, said in an interview with the newspaper Welt“We have vetted only ten per cent of the refugees.”
Here’s a translated excerpt: The union representative said that the control deficit at the border poses a high security risk. It had been shown that criminals are taking advantage of the large numbers of refugees, allowing them to enter Germany.” This poses internal security risks. According to Radek, the federal police will not be able to perform its assigned duties to assure security and law enforcement procedures on the German-Austrian border in the manner prescribed by law. The situation was explained in a letter to German Chancellor Angela Merkel (24).
So, the Vice Chancellor told the nation that around half of migrants were not vetted, yet the Vice Chairman of the German police union GdP said it was merely a tenth. No further comment needed.
Also in December, a traffic police woman admitted that the situation with migrants on the streets is worse than official accounts would suggest.
Here, a translated excerpt: The policewoman said: “I can imagine that things were falsified or glossed over in order not to stir up fear in the population.” In everyday life, she experiences refugees who often commit crimes within a few days after arriving in Germany (25).
What happened since Jörg Radek’s report about the police’s utter failure at the border reached Merkel? Why did the police take nearly six months to file this report? Why are such conditions ignored and tolerated by those responsible? No one outside the government knows. There are no reported or visible changes made to address these and other serious failures. Things go as screwy as always.
Manipulation of public opinion and denunciations takes on other forms too. For instance the state of affairs with PEGIDA, which is Patriotische Europäer gegen die Islamisierung des Abendlandes (Patriotic Europeans against the Islamisation of the Occident). This organization is regularly denounced as being a rightist, extreme rightist or even a neo-Nazi organization, depending on who is doing the denouncing. Yet, reading the group’s political position, such claims are entirely invalid. Politicians and the press also label the people who attend the group’s gatherings with such terms. But, a close look at Pegida demonstrations reveals that there are no extremists attending. These are people from all walks of life, people who are simply afraid of what in Germany is called Überfremdung, which is a fear of excessive foreign infiltration, causing a loss of ethnic and cultural identity.
However, Germany’s denouncements are fairly effective. Many people who would take part in a Pegida demonstration refrain from doing so for fear of being viewed as a rightist by society.
It’s no different with the fairly new political party AfD—Alternative für Deutschland (Alternative for Germany). Anyone who votes for this party is also deemed to be a neo-Nazi. But, the AfD is a lawfully accepted, legitimate political party of Germany, which adheres to all democratic ideals. The extreme leftist organization Antifa (anti-fascists) is even attempting to cause the party’s financial ruin, by calling on the people to make ten-cent donations. This, according to their plan, would cause more banking costs than the donations would bring. Naturally, the Antifa’s campaign found plenty of publicity, as the German press was all too happy to see to that. No efforts are made to engage in meaningful dialogue with the AfD. The established political parties and the press rely on false information, rhetoric and even dirty tricks to cripple the party.
A major reason why much of German media is so left-leaning is that a large part of reporters and editors are sympathizers of leftist political parties, like the Bündnis 90/die Grünen (Alliance 90 / The Greens, or aka Greens) and the Linken (Leftist). And a reason why the press, more than less, tags along governmental policies is that public TV and radio stations are financed almost wholly by the government. The money comes from each German household. Such payments, called GEZ Gebühren, are mandatory in Germany. Every household that owns at least one TV or radio must comply. It sounds perverted, but this essentially means that the German people are forced to pay for their propaganda.
Unforeseen effects that Merkel’s impetuous decision had upon the German people was anger, bewilderment and utter helplessness. The images and videos that went around the world, showing Germans waving flags and welcome banners as migrants entered the railway stations, showed a false picture. They were only a few, and even they are no longer waving welcome signs and flags. The mood has shifted.
Historically, the government has enjoyed a higher level of respect in Germany than in most other nations. Currently, however, the public trust in the government is severely dampened. The people were aghast when the announcements were first made, declaring that Germany would open its borders for the refugees. This impetuous action went totally against the general believe that Berlin would do something to stop, or at least to reduce the flood of people entering the country. The German citizens are infuriated by the government’s lack of foresight and planning, its aloofness to the public’s fears, its extreme poor performance in almost every other respect and the ensuing undemocratic measures that affect law-abiding citizens. The people are tired of the constant increases in numbers of migrants entering the nation. They discount the government and media’s propaganda-like rhetoric, proclaiming time and again, the supposed great merits the immigrants have for their nation and economy, and not to mention their mistrust in the government’s official migrant count. Truth be told, no one believes that even Berlin knows how many migrants have arrived, let alone the desire to tell the people the truth.
The public majority see most politicians as utter failures. A deep mistrust in the capabilities of the German government has crept over the land.
Concurrently, this mistrust had been projected towards the media too. There is a term which has blossomed this year, describing the German press with one word: LÜGENPRESSE (lying press). Actually, the word originated in the 19th century, but it gained a never before-seen popularity in 2015. Bearing in mind how the German press “performed”, it’s no wonder.
The common German feels being left alone and holding the short end of the stick. Despite being assailed with manipulated information in every category, they still manage to remain open-minded and to understand that it will be them who will foot the bill for Merkel’s migrant policy. And they already are.
The costs are both monetary and social.
Monetary, the public must shoulder the ensuing higher costs of health care. The first raises have already occurred, starting in 2016. They will pay the taxes too that will eventually be imposed to cover the rest of the horrendous costs, like enlarging the school system, providing additional housing and the alimentation of millions of migrants.
According to BAMF, one million migrants will cost the German taxpayers one billion Euros per month. Some estimates, taking into account a more realistic amount of migrants and other cost factors, put the costs at around 30,000,000,000 Euros a year!
The social costs will also be hard to on the public. Certain neighborhoods will be inundated with foreigners, which pose the danger of forming ghettos. Some public schools will be flooded with alien children, reducing teaching efficiency and discipline. Radical Muslims amongst them will pose their own types of dangers.
The people know that it is the common person’s house or apartment that will be burglarized, and it will be their daughters raped, their sons beaten up and numerous other crimes committed, both petty and major. Of course, these things won’t occur like some raging epidemic, but they will happen and already do occur. Denying these dangers is foolhardy, especially seeing that the largest majority of migrants are young men, who come from nations with completely incompatible social, religious and political ideals.
Seeing the past failures of integration, the people know that these and other troubles will only increase; they have no faith in their government getting things right. Bearing in mind that Germany’s government cannot even properly vet more than 10% of incoming migrants, and a simple thing like getting them to reach prescribed destinations, the people might have viable reasons to feel this way.
Many German citizens see this influx of migrants as a flood of dirt-cheap labor. This line of thinking was reinforced by some industrialists and economists when they suggested discarding Germany’s brand new minimum wage laws to accommodate the migrants (26). It has existed less than 12 months. This could mean; everyone who is employed as an unskilled laborer will be in danger of being ousted by those who will work for even less. This is akin to importing a horde of half-slave laborers … this is capitalism at its worst.
But, if it’s not possible to get rid of the minimum wage, how will Germany ever find jobs for all these people? It’s doubtful that more than a handful will find employment. And if the minimum wage can be discarded, and most migrants get jobs, those workers who will lose their jobs in the process will end up on welfare. Either way, Germany will end up supporting millions more people through its welfare system.
Ultimately, it’s anybody’s guess how many migrants will find jobs. In November, news articles reported that around 4% will find employment. Then, in December, it was said that 20% would do so. This is another example of misinformation that’s being propagated in Germany. Fact is, in the real world, most migrants have low education levels and little skills, especially with high-tech machines and modern production methods, and only a tiny fraction speaks German. Most don’t even speak English.
Germany has an official unemployment rate of 6%. Most do not believe this number; they believe the rate is much higher because Germany’s government has for years been accused of manipulating the nation’s jobless rate. To make matters worse, the German unemployment agency’s [_ Institut für Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung ] (IAB), or _Institute for Job market and Career Research, predicts that 4.4 million jobs will be lost in the near future, due to increased use of robots. Again; how will a nation, even Germany, find employment for all those migrants?
In November, Germany’s Minister of the Interior, Thomas de Maizière, made the more than ludicrous suggestion to temporarily reduce Germany’s educational standards to help accommodate the migrants (27). This is to help them to compete better with the Germans.
Josef Kraus, the president of the German teachers association, wasn’t at all enthusiastic about de Maizière’s idea. He said that Germany’s education system is already not working at optimum capability in some areas. He said that the German school system must increase its efforts to educate migrant children, not decrease educational standards. He estimates that 20,000 language teachers alone will be required for the approximately 300,000 migrant children (28).
But, many German schools are already overburdened with migrant children. Classes with a certain proportion of foreigners cannot be conducted in normal manner. This means that the other children are left behind. Thus, their education levels are automatically lowered.
To fight these problems, Germany must invest a huge amount of money in its education system. It’s perverted how the German government saved money in the past, even at the expense of its education system, and now willingly brought an additional substantial cost factor into the country.
Every German on the street knows the importance of education. Germany has no significant natural resources at all. Its only “resource” is its pool of brainpower. This is what made Germany the industrial, scientific and economical giant that it is. Realizing this, it makes you wonder how a person like Thomas de Maizière ever got to become a minister. It tells you a lot about what sort of people are in charge in Germany (Merkel too), who have neglected the nation’s number one resource.
Germany already has a parallel society. Hundreds of thousands of foreigners live in their own world within the major German cities. This causes major problems.
There are numerous foreign crime syndicates, organized in mafia-type gangs, or criminal family clans and common street gangs. Not to mention the Salafist and Islamist groups who are agitating against Western society. No one knows how many terrorist organizations are operating in and out of Germany.
The crime groups are involved with drug trafficking, prostitution, human trafficking, and arms dealing, and so on. It’s not easy to find accurate numbers or statistics, but it’s clear that foreigners in Germany commit more crimes relative to their numbers (29). In 2014, around 40% of crimes were committed by foreigners nation-wide, although they make up around 10% of the population. Such facts are downplayed by the government. It’s no secret that the rule of law is largely void in such city quarters. It’s the Sharia that rules there.
German politicians like to ignore these painful little details of their multicultural experiment. They can afford to; they live far enough away and are protected, protection that is paid for by taxpayer’s money. As usual, it’s the commoner who must live in these trouble areas and deal with the multitude of problems and this on a daily basis. They know what most don’t know; integration has largely failed. Thus, how should things be any different now, with so many additional young male foreigners flooding the nation in short order?
Germany is about as large as Montana, but with a population of around eighty million. This means, it has nearly as many people as California, Texas and Florida—the three most populous US states. Add to this millions more foreigners in all categories. And, of course, the millions more that came this year and that are expected by next year.
There is an acute lack of housing in the nation; it’s nearly a disaster. It’s said that Germany must build 400,000 housing units per year until 2020 to alleviate the housing shortage, and currently the nation is short 770,000 units (30). No one knows where else the other millions of people should be put that are expected to enter the country in the very near future. Already, there are hundreds of thousands of poor Germans who cannot find adequate lodging. An estimated 300,000+ are homeless. There is no more room available to house the refugees. Many communities have set-up virtual tent and/or container towns. The energy costs required to heat them in the winter are horrendous.
It’s beyond doubt that this crisis is unprecedented. Prior to this, most Germans felt a need to help those who are in need of protection, but Merkel went much too far, and thus the people’s desire to help has diminished greatly. This is another consequence of forcing something upon a population against its wishes. In a short time period, Germany’s citizens have become sick and tired of their nation being a virtual human garbage can and the payee of the world. It’s akin to US citizens being tired of the US acting like the world policeman.
No one knows why the German government and its supporters are willing to harm the nation this way, by bending and breaking laws to accommodate innumerable migrants, and forsaking the own people. Permitting so many third-world people to enter the nation and this illegally cannot end well. Sound family-oriented policies could end the chronic low birth-rate, which is the German government’s favorite argument for immigration. Refurbishing and increasing spending in the ailing education system could also do a world of good.
It’s become clear that the migrant crisis is not only harming Germany, but also the European Union. Merkel’s catastrophic decision and consequent faulty and stubborn behavior is the beginning of the end of her political career at best, or the end of peace in Germany and even Europe at worst. With Germany burning, other European nations will be caught on fire too. Alas, many EU nations are also sensing the grumblings in their population. Riots and arson against refugees and refugee shelters have occurred across the continent. Indeed, some already see the EU starting to unravel (31).
It’s a delusion when certain EU nations think they can force others to take refugees when those nations vehemently reject them. It may be legal for the EU to outvote those member nations, but the EU should ask if it isn’t wiser to assure a peaceful and unified EU by not forcing a mandatory refugee quota system upon them, and running the risk of splitting the union apart. However, currently, there is little hope that the EU will act wisely, considering the other failures it produced.
No refugee will be helped by a Germany that has failed, especially if a civil war results. And even if no conflict should occur, the millions of foreigners in the country will still mean the end of Germany as we know it. It was Thilo Sarrazin who said so in his very controversial book. German historian Jörg Baberowski says the same thing; “The Germany that we know will disappear through mass immigration.” (32) The same can be said with certain other European nations.
Essentially, you cannot help needy people by importing massive poverty into your nation. Otherwise, both the deprived and the nation will sink together into the pits of destitution or even hostilities.
By and large, the German government, with significant help of the media, has managed to reach its goal to keep the PEGIDA movement and the AfD party from gaining the level of popularity they otherwise could have attained. If Germany were a true democracy, the various established parties would engage in comprehensive and meaningful dialogue with these two groups, and more importantly, it would start to acknowledge the people’s fears and wants, and not ignore them and attempt to fool them on an almost daily basis and/or denounce them as being radical right-wing. Responding with such simplistic and repressive measures is only asking for trouble.
If Germany is ever Islamized, the future chancellor will never be a woman, that’s for certain. Freedom, even a limited one, will be dead. And with the Germans replaced by people from around the world, the nation can say goodbye forever to “Made in Germany”: This mark of excellence will then be replaced by one of shoddiness.
If Germany and Europe won’t be willing to put a stop to the onslaught of peoples with other cultures and ethnicity, the viable question is; have the Europeans lost the will for national self-preservation?
Reflecting on the question as to why the German government, especially the leftwing parties, ignores the inherent dangers imposed by massive immigration, perhaps a look at the quotes below will bring light into the darkness.
“It’s not about right or wrong in the immigration debate, it’s primarily to reduce the share of Germans in the country’s population.”
Chairman of the Alliance 90 / The Greens Party in Munich.
“German offspring are now named Mustafa, Giovanni and Ali!”
Cem Özdemir (a Turk), Alliance 90 / The Greens, at a party rally of the Greens in 1998 in Bonn-Bad Godesberg.
“On German National Unity Day (akin to 4th of July in the US) the streets will drown in a sea of red Turkish flags, with only a couple of German flags.”
Claudia Roth, Alliance 90 / The Greens; desired vision for Day of German Unity, from newspaper article “Welt am Sonntag”, on February 6, 2005.
“Germans are non-migrants, nothing more!”
Claudia Roth, Alliance ’90 / The Greens
“Migration is a fact in Frankfurt. If you do not like it, you have to move elsewhere.” (Responding to a complained filed by 50 residents regarding integration problems in a neighborhood)
Nargess Eskandari-Grünberg, Alliance 90 / The Greens, in the “Frankfurter Rundschau” on 13 November, 2007. Eyewitnesses say it was literally “… then you should emigrate!”
Correspondingly, we, the Greens must ensure to bring as many foreigners as possible into Germany. If they are in Germany, we have to fight for their right to vote. When we have achieved that, we will have the share of votes that we need to change this republic.
Daniel Cohn-Bendit, Alliance 90 / The Greens
“Germany must be fenced-in from the outside and be made heterogeneous from the inside by immigration, in other words diluted.”
Reviews for Joschka Fischer’s book “Risiko Deutschland” by Mariam Lau.
The abolition of the oath “For the good of the German people” is to be decided by unanimity in the NRW Landtag.
Arif Ünal (a Turk), Alliance 90 / The Greens, (was the applicant for the measure).
“You only have the chance to live with us. Life without us will no longer be possible for you. The Ibrahim, Stefanos, Marios, Layla and Soraya are German reality. You will not be able to prevent a Turkish judge to fell a verdict on your court case, a Pakistani doctor to heal your diseasw, a Tamil to adopt your laws in Parliament or a Bulgarian to be the new Bill Gates of your Economy. You will not internationalize the company, modernize and humanize, but we will do it – for you. You’re only onlookers, annoying gawkers during this painful process. We will change German society in East and West. “
M. Walid Naqshbandi, (an Afghan) Managing Director of Television production company AVE. Source: ECHOES # 10 (10Wh-nak.htm) direct link below the Link List.
“Mosques will be part of our urban landscape.”
Angela Merkel, “Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung“ from the 18th of September, 2010.
(33 All the above)
Most people have considered leftist liberal mindset to be blind to reality for the sake of its absurd and adored multiculturalism (multiculturalism has been a dead birth from the start). But, it’s more than that; it’s worse. The above quotes clearly show that the leftists want Germany to disappear. Besides the fact that the Greens Party and other leftists have very sick minds, they are dangerous. They are militant in their efforts to reach their repulsive goals.
But, there is something new in the air in the country. It’s something that might, just might, change things on the political landscape. Although by and large still entrenched in many regions, the people are getting fed up with the leftist systems.
This year, 2015, has shown that the established governments have utterly failed to keep Europe in the middle of the political path. Many Germans, for instance, see that Merkel has managed to push her party CDU (Christian Democratic Union) further into the political left, abandoning the party’s traditional middle-right position. Indeed, the public sees hardly a difference anymore between the politics of the CDU and the left-leaning parties like the SPD, Greens and the Leftist/neo-communists. With moderate politicians too weak and incompetent to bring back a balance into the system, it might just be the people who will put a stop to the leftist movement by voting for far-right parties in the future.
Thus, although many in the left-wing parties place their efforts to rid the world of Europe, or at least Germany, they could actually cause the rebirth of the swastika. Both radical options are intolerable. If those changes will fully materialize, when and what they will ultimately bring, is anyone’s guess.
The near future in this part of the world could be gripping and intense.
(1) Asylum statistics”. EUROSTAT. Retrieved 4 September 2015.
(2) Rininsland, Ændrew (2012-04-05). “Asylum-seekers around the world: where did they come from and where are they going?”. The Guardian (London).
(8) http://www.zdf.de/ZDFmediathek/beitrag/video/2501728/Wieviel-Menschen-bekommen-wirklich Asyl%253F#/beitrag/video/2501728/Wieviel-Menschen-bekommen-wirklich-Asyl%253F
A trip to the Crimea with visits to Simferopol, Sevastopol, Alushta, Yalta and Shyroke.
A Ukraine cross-country road trip, beginning in Kyiv, then on to Odessa, Mykolaiv, Kherson, Simferopol, Sevastopol and other minor settlements.
Visiting the Euromaidan. The trip included a mid-winter cross-country road trip to the Crimea. Cities visited: Kyiv, Voznesensk, Simferopol, Sevastopol, Balaklava, Partenit and many other small settlements.
A stay in Kyiv and a road trip. Focal point of this journey was Mariupol. A look around and photo tour in Shyrokyne and the frontlines was the highlight. Also, a visit to the “new” Maidan—cleaned and fixed-up. Cities visited: Kyiv, Boryspil, Kremenchuk, Dneprodzerzhinsk, Dnepropetrovsk, Zaporizhia, Mariupol, Shyrokyne and other, smaller towns and villages.
The life and times of a fictional people in a fictional land during a real age period … and of magic, odd things and mysterious beings.
German soldiers of the 12th Panzer Division fighting on the Eastern Front, 1943.
How persons using metal detectors may employ simple archeological methodology to recover, clean and document artifacts more professionally. (This book not available as e-book)
Translating of Belletristic, Technical Manuals, Documents, Articles, Letters, Essays and more, in English, German, Russian and Ukrainian.
CAD: [email protected]
Technical Designing and Technical 2-D and 3-D Drawings via CAD, Creating Assembly and Instruction Manuals—possible in all languages listed above.
The migrant crisis has a solid grip on Europe. For months it’s been in the forefront of news accounts. As 2015 comes to a close, it’s apparent that the challenges and problems facing the EU are only the beginning. The continent faces ever greater numbers of people fleeing the third-world. The reasons are many, the problems they bring with them too. This political assay focuses on many facets of the migrant crisis from a European perspective, but especially from the German point of view. It encompasses many facts and figures hardly known to even those who are forced to live through the largest waves of human immigration seen since WWII.