- Counter-Currents - https://counter-currents.com -

The Migratory Invasion, Part 3:
Strong Medicine

EUsinking [1]2,242 words

Translated by Greg Johnson, Spanish version here [2]

Part 3 of 3

Among the French Republicans, cacophony; nobody agrees on solutions to this brutal migratory invasion. Some lean towards positions close to the National Front, others toward the “generous” laxity of the Socialist Party. Sarkozy, meanwhile, offers a ludicrous synthesis in an interview with Le Figaro (September 10, 2015), which shows that he is no statesman.

Sarkozy’s Infantile Proposals

  1. Reject the “refugee” quotas imposed by Chancellor Merkel and Mr. Junker on poor little President Hollande, which “constitute a ratcheting up” (exactly). Instead set a “new European migration policy.” This is impossible: Europeans would never agree. Between the Hungarian government that wants to defend its ethnic identity and Germans who want cheap labor and national suicide, no European agreement is possible. It is up to France—and the Netherlands, Great Britain, Denmark, Italy, etc.—to recover their political will and sovereignty, redefine their migration strategy, even create a crisis within the EU, which can only be positive.
  2. Do not change the system of welcoming political refugees “in the name of our humanistic tradition.” Provisionally grant “war refugees” an “interim status” and then send them home once the conflict is over. This is a completely twisted and utopian: First, it is impossible to distinguish genuine political refugees from economic migrants, and these “war refugees,” the majority of asylum seekers, are impostors; and how can we force these real “war refugees” to return home if we are already struggling to find them?
  3. “Create detention centers in countries next to the Schengen zone to process applications from political and war refugees and reject economic migrants.” Complete idiocy: no countries (North Africa, Turkey, etc.) will accept such centers. Moreover, when he was president, why did Sarkozy never do anything against “economic immigration”?
  4. “France should take the initiative for a conference that would bring together the EU and our Mediterranean neighbors to prepare a multilateral agreement on immigration.” Another “conference”! More talk instead of action! Are we to bring European governments that disagree with each other together with, for instance, the non-existent Libyan or Syrian governments? Why not, for that matter, invite Ibrahim Al-Baghdadi, the assassin “Caliph” of ISIS? During his presidency, Sarkozy had already tried to create a sort of “Mediterranean Union” that completely failed. Ridiculous.
  5. Finally, the brilliant idea of renegotiating the Schengen area of ​​free movement “that no longer works.” Restore border controls, pending agreement on a “Schengen II,” that will be a little more restrictive. Besides the impossibility of reaching such an agreement, in particular because of the dogmatism of Merkel’s government, the urgency of the situation simply requires the unilateral termination of the Schengen agreement on free movement and the restoration of protected national borders. Schengen must be buried for good.

None of Sarkozy’s ridiculous proposals will work. They are like bandages without plaster. And yet the little demagogue asserts: “Never in the history of Europe, have we had to deal with such migratory pressure.” All the more reason, then, to propose serious medicine, that is to say, drastic remedies. And not just political slogans and petty political maneuvering among ideological rivals within the madhouse of the Republicans, the former Union for a Popular Movement.

The Only Genuine Effective Measures

This “migrant crisis” is just beginning. What are emergency and longer-term solutions? They are inapplicable on the scale of the European Union, where at the very most only bad agreements are possible and where the common borders of the Schengen area, theoretically defended by the hilarious “Frontex” are sieves. Let us then examine the solutions for France alone.[1]

  1. Unilateral suspension of the Schengen Agreement and return to border controls, even for citizens of EU member countries. This implies the effective discharge at checkpoints (roads, stations, etc.) of any “migrant” without passport and visa. This also requires some muscle at first against invasive crowds.
  2. Destruction of smuggler vessels on the coast of North Africa, especially Libya, by targeted air strikes—as long as they are clearly empty. Without boats, smugglers (who pay taxes to ISIS) could no longer transport their human cattle. Don’t worry about UN authorization: act first, talk later.
  3. Interception at sea by the French Navy of ​​boats carrying people . They will be towed or forced back to their departure point; stowaways will be removed and returned to the African coast.

What must be understood is that these first three steps will quickly dry up the stream through deterrence. And now to a battery of disincentives that would even more efficiently dry up the flow: not a penny more in aid, so no incentive to come.

  1. An immediate stop to all aid to illegal immigrants and asylum seekers: allowances, accommodations, free health care, schooling for children, etc. Nor are they entitled to bank accounts. It is a scandal that illegals live better without working (or while working off the books) than French pensioners or unemployed. Add the total elimination of all subsidies (yet another aberration) to organizations that aid illegals or “refugees.”

The nerve of the war against migration, particularly illegal migration, is ending the incentives that bring them here: cutting off the air, stopping the suction pump, ending the aid allocations, ending the parasitism. Indeed, the physical expulsion of illegal immigrants and rejected asylum faces countless practical difficulties. We must therefore tackle the causes and not the consequences. Ending aid immediately ends asylum requests. We do not need to expel or deport those who no longer come. When those who are here are deprived of help, they prefer to leave. Two advantages: direct savings of over 3 billion per year at a minimum and a reduction of the mass of immigrants.

The cost of refugees and asylum seekers, according to the Court of Auditors, despite government lies, has reached € 13,724 per person per year. The current wave of invaders, added to the 69,000 already identified, results in 100,000 per year! A money pit. Only 1% of rejected applicants leave the territory. 80% of applicants are frauds. Health expenditures on this population alone has reached 600 million euros per year. Untenable.

Continuing the list of necessary measures.

  1. Drastic limitation of asylum. The current situation is untenable and grotesque. The best approach is to first declare that someone who enters illegally and opens an asylum application file (which makes him legally inexpulsable pending trial) has absolutely no right to any allowance or help, as seen above (point No. 4); any person or association that helps or hosts illegals should be sanctioned. The mere announcement of this measure will deter 100% of fraudsters and false claimants, that is to say the vast majority.

Furthermore, the right to asylum would be applicable only to people who are proven victims of persecution (like Eastern Christians) and not “refugees” around the world. Their application must be filed in their country of departure, before the issuance of a visa and entry permit into France. The streams would dry up immediately. There are virtually no asylum seekers in Japan. Have we asked why?

  1. A separate social and economic scheme for legal aliens, that is to say: No access to French social systems, social security, family allowances, unemployment benefits, free education, health insurance, pension contributions, etc. Non-EU foreigners fund their own social protection and insurance, health care, school fees, etc. They only have their wages, as in the Japanese system.
  1. Restriction of residence and work permits and visas, that is to say:
  1. Termination of family reunification. This catastrophic measure, the work Giscard and Chirac that de Gaulle and Pompidou refused absolutely, is an open door to invasion and fraud of all sorts. No alien admitted to French soil for work or anything else can bring loved ones. This measure would contravene European supranational guidelines, certainly. But never mind: we must break the rules to create the crisis and move events forward (see below).
  1. Abolition of birthright citizenship (jus soli). This right, which implies that any child born in France is French by full title is not only a legal absurdity, but an encouragement to the migration of pregnant women, who become legally inexpulsable, their offspring being French. It’s a real trap. Jus soli, or right to automatic citizenship by birthplace, is an absurdity that was resisted by Pericles, the father of Athenian democracy, who established that an Athenian was born to an Athenian father and mother (both parents). Sarkozy said, in one of his patented fallacies, that jus solis is part of the “French identity”! Our identity is to dispossess ourselves. Hence these two measures: First, French citizenship is granted automatically and immediately to a child born of two parents of French nationality; on the other hand, marriage with a person of French nationality no longer confers any automatic right to it. This provision is essential to counter the wave of “white” or “gray” weddings.
  1. The considerable limitation of naturalization. For decades now, whether the Right or the Left has been in power, France has naturalized over 200,000 people per year. But if anyone can be “French,” then it is a meaningless distinction. Being French (or “European” of another nationality) no longer a matter of belonging or of reasoned choice but of simple calculation, material or otherwise. Moreover, the majority of naturalized “paper Frenchmen” do not feel French in the ethno-cultural sense.

Are These Provisions Immoral and illegitimate?

Yes, they are by the standards of the ’68er (Marxist) Vulgate, which no longer applies to the current situation. They are also by the standards of the absolutist Christian humanitarianism defended by current doctrine of the Vatican, which is far from being shared by all Christians. However, the problem raised is important. We should not dismiss moral arguments but adapt them. For these provisions are not “immoral” from a philosophical point of view. Rather, they go back to common sense, to practical morality, which are worth more than the abstract moral hypocrisy.

As Carl Schmitt explained, in “cases of emergency” (and only there), the political act par excellence of a state is to recover its sovereignty and violate the treaties or laws that prevent it from making vital decisions. The first moral obligation is the protection of its own people and not the formal, rigid compliance to “principles.” Schmitt is joined here by Aristotle, who distinguished between private morals and public, political morals, which have different standards. Similarly, in his Politics, Aristotle, who believes in equality but not egalitarianism, distinguished the status of foreigners from that of citizens within the City; the former do not enjoy the same rights and can go home if they are not satisfied.

Hospitality may concern only tiny minorities, on a case by case and often temporary basis. The reception of entire foreign populations only results in unmanageable conflicts. Ethnic and national egoism is moral because it contributes to order and tranquility. For this reason, it is legitimate.

Would These Provisions at Least be Effective?

In fact, if these measures were enacted, they would not even need to be applied 100% to the end. There would be a sharp slowdown in the migration invasion, by cutting off its air. Many settled immigrants would leave (“demigration”). Would France become a “fortress,” “bunkerized”? Yes, but so what? A protected nation works much better than a country open to every wind. Unlike the simplistic Vulgate “humanist” and liberal economists (even Rightists like Nicolas Baverez or Alain Madelin), a country that protects itself from migratory invasions is much better equipped, eventually, in the globalized economy. Homogeneity, not wild heterogeneity, is a strength. The order of the locked door and the protected border is better than the chaos of the open door and the missing border. Moreover, the Internet age, human exchanges can be done without physical presence.

This “crisis of migrants” may lead to a partial collapse of the European Union, with the end of the Schengen Zone of ​​free movement of persons. This, combined with the fragility of a Euro under artificial perfusion, contributes to the top-to-bottom redefinition of a completely misguided and impotent European Union. Simply breaking the rules of the European Union will be the best way to provoke a clash, a saving conflict, and build a new form of Europe. The true one.

Source: http://www.gfaye.com/invasion-migratoire-3-pour-un-remede-de-cheval/ [3]