Has anyone noticed that reporting about the migrant onslaught has fallen silent on the key issue that initially gave it a moral and humanitarian dimension. Europeans of all political stripe were willing to take in a controlled number of refugees fleeing from death and torture that they would most likely suffer were they to stay in their homelands. In those distant days of a couple of months ago, everyone (save the A21 Left) agreed that illegal entrants climbing over border fences only for economic gain should be denied a free pass, for obvious reasons.
Well, now the obvious reasons have quietly sunk from public consciousness, except that some Europeans in each country, who can still peek a bit into the future, are letting their concerns be heard. What concerns, you might ask. Losing their country and way of life is the simple answer.
But what everyone, save the Right, has forgotten is that the overwhelming fraction of the growing inflow today is comprised of economic refugees – these people don’t like their chances of making a sufficient buck to live the good life in their Mideast or African home countries. None of them are escaping from the death squads of ISIS or Assad or whatever other local raghead outfit does the killing. They are escaping corrupt dysfunctional governments, and bring with them the values and traditions that gave rise to and support such governments. When you soil your own sandbox, don’t clean it up, go find a fresh one. (more here and here)
So the news media has now buried the real reason why multi-kulti has not worked. The underpinnings of that failure in northern Europe is Islam itself and how it teaches its adherents to live in the land of the infidels. But that is an ongoing story for another time.
Accepting masses of economic migrants illegally crossing national borders will definitely change the world, and change it for something which none in the ‘have countries’ will look forward. In America we have already succumbed to accepting and succoring economic refugees who sneak across our borders illegally. We welcome them in a manifold of ways, some of them quite disgusting.
On our recent trip to Oklahoma and Colorado we were told of stores across our land that would not serve our GIs in uniform or display the American flag. Why? Because a uniformed American might upset someone from another country, and remind them of all the horrible things that America stands for and has done as they enjoy their newfound life in our midst. A remarkable poster child for such sentiments is Lawton, OK that abuts Ft Sill. The town has been a prosperous ‘Army town’ for almost two centuries, having benefitted from the imported federal cash that the military brought in and spent in civilian commercial establishments.
Not any more. With the new politically correct sentiments communicated to the soldiers stationed there, the town has become an economic derelict. The slack has been quietly taken up by the DoD providing ever more facilities for on-base shopping and entertainment. Meanwhile, dust devils now wander up and down empty streets separated by a chain link fence from a huge bustling military base. And that too gives us a peek into the porous border, multi-kulti futures of every nation not willing to protect their sovereignty and honor their culture.
[29oct15 update] From the 29oct15 Stratfor -
In 2014, the primary route into Europe was across the Mediterranean from the south. Migrants traveled in boats of up to 800 passengers from the North African coast to Italy and Malta, the so-called southern route. In 2014, 170,000 people took this journey, the vast majority from African countries, with 25 percent (around 42,000) coming from Syria. So far in 2015, volumes on this route have remained much the same, with the number of migrants holding relatively steady at around 139,000. The one key difference, however, is that Syrians now make up just 5 percent of the total.
... The massive influx of migrants has undermined so many existing EU immigration agreements that some are unlikely to survive in their current form. The Dublin agreement, which stipulates that the member country of entry must fingerprint and take responsibility for new arrivals, is one such agreement that has been ignored many times. Consequently, tensions have cropped up across the Continent: between Germany and Austria, between Hungary and its neighbors as well as within the Balkans. The last of these is particularly concerning because of the recent history of ethnic conflict.
And politically, German Chancellor Angela Merkel has suffered the most. When migrants began to arrive in large numbers over the summer, she announced publicly that they were to be welcomed rather than turned away. This stance sparked opposition, most problematically from within her own Christian Democratic Union and its sister Christian Social Union in Bavaria, which has been the point of entry for many immigrants arriving from Austria.