How to close the Mediterranean route for mass migration

[Skybird]

Simply enforce the international law of the seas.

LINK

I had a vague, general understanding of what the law of the sea is saying on what is described in this article, and so I wonder since two or threee years already why it is not being implemented.

The answer is clear. There is no real hunger for doing the right and the correct thing, the law-abiding and legally binding thing, there instead is an ideologically driven craving to bring as many foreigners to Europe as possible. Humanitarianism and rescuing have little to do with it. Its moralising, and moral megalomania. And a good dose of emotional hysteria and a chance for socialist dreams of disrupting the established bourgeoise communal and social orders of Western states.

I mean, its clear, isn't it: you poic them up in the 12-mile zone of an african country, so you bring them to the next harbour in the country owning that 12 mile zone. It is obliged by international law to take them off the ship and accept them back! If instead you shuttle them over hundreds of miles to a compelöteel ydifferent sea zone and a differeht, far away country, you turn thes epeople - may they be refugees or may they be migrants - into passengers, into travellers who have not booked a ticket for the trip, have no legal allowances by the nation they want to go to, have no claim at all.

I have a growing, cold, bitter anger for these private rescuers fishing for foreign travellers to Europe. These "rescuers" imo are in no way to be seen different from those criminals and smugglers getting paid for smuggling their human freight onto the open sea. These rescuers are criminals in themselves. The article says it somewhere what I already assumed before: that Italy and Malta with their shutting down of harbours just act within the coverage of internal law and do nothing outrageous at all.

[JU_88]

Your sentiment towards the Humanitarian rescue / Migrant taxi service boats
is one that's growing.
Its looking like slowly and begrudgingly the EU will eventually be forced to shut the migrant routes down.

[Schroeder]

Originally Posted by JU_88

Your sentiment towards the Humanitarian rescue / Migrant taxi service boats
is one that's growing.
Its looking like slowly and begrudgingly the EU will eventually be forced to shut the migrant routes down.

We can not take half of Africa and the middle East. It's not nice but necessary. We should focus on helping those people where they live so that they don't need / want to migrate (wishful thinking I know...).

[Catfish]

^ yes, basically..

But first let us exploit Africa for rare earths (needed for smartphones, computers, batteries etc.) and pay them 20 US cent per hour, if at all.

Or we support certain factions in a country against other factions that criticize us, and get a civil war going, so they are forced to sell their stuff cheap, for cash and weapons.

Or install a dictator in the middle east so the oil supply is guaranteed.. until the dictator's opinion changes, then we invade, kill him and let the country go down the drain, as long as resources keep coming. Or we make him a pariah, and install sanctions.

Or we stand up for human rights in Afghanistan, Nicaragua, Panama and help those countries.. we can see how well they do now.


And when some poor souls decide that they have to leave their country for their bare life, we deny them entry, so they all have to flee to the nearest countries, of the EU.
And then we complain about the EU, leave it, and accuse them of letting too much bloody foreigners in.

Why not send them to those countries who are responsible for the mess?

(wishful thinking I know...)

[Skybird]

Some hundred poor souls per year is one thing. Currently several dozens of millions of poor souls sit on packed baggage. There are countings that even talk of hundreds of millions from africa and the Middle east alone. And it will not get better in the next generations.

You allow emotions to corrupt reason. And you seem to expect hat reality will bow to your compassion and the laws of nature thus will bend.

You also ignore that it takes two to abuse one of them. You ignore that many problems in africa no longer can be attributed to imperialism and colonial abuse, but are deeply rooted in the continent's own cutural fundament - which to change would be a case for the Africans, not for us. It is Africans voting for corrupt governments, and it is Africans obeying in huge numbers old tribal relations and hostilities. You also ignore that there is a new foreign key player reshuffling the chips on the African table and that we have no control over: China.

Stop that dust-covered socialist self-flagellation telling us that it is always and only america's fault, our fault, the West'S fault. Fair trade, yes, I am all for transparent and free trade (fairness then comes all by itself), but still the most of the reasons making Africans wanting to move to Europe are beyond reach of Westerners thinking they just need to pay some billions here and there and then the causes of migration are gone and people will stop coming. They will come in even higher numbers, because they have learned that where the little help is comign from, obviously much more can be gotten from.

Be attractive as a target, and they will keep coming and their numbers will not shrink, but grow. Scare them away, and have live TV coverage across Africa showing on TV how they fail and get stuck and end up in misery, and they will start thinking twice whether its worth it. There is a reason why deterring and restrictive migrant policies are so incredibly much more successful in their net effectiveness than European and Western policies of the present. We also have incredible social wellfare spendings - and get ever more social wellfare receivers. We battle poverty, and get ever more poverty, it seems. We battle bureauracy and by that increase it. We sort garbage and waste, and produce ever more garbage and waste. We spend ever more development aid, and get Muslim extremism and local corruption and so every more migration in return.

Our ways do not work. And your way of thinking about it in simplistic answers does not work as well. Myself I would already be satisfied if we stop selling military equipment as if it were just any trading good, and stop paying corrupt politicians and government in Africa, and withdraw businesses from china and so open the option to crack down on Chinese influence in Eurpean and especially german economy. Our cravign for creating mutual harmony leads us deeper and deeper into lethal dependency that forces us into self-paralysis and inability to react to anything at all anymore. We strangle ourselves with our endless self-flagellation and concerns and worries. That is no good way to survive the global spread of Chinese influence without needing to pay submissive tributes to global Islam, and Bejing.


Thats typically German: to assume one just needs to walk over there and then can save the world, just en passant. "Peanuts!" Hysterical romanticism I often call it. Politicians' logic that is simplified beyond any rest of a meaning.

[Catfish]

Originally Posted by Skybird

[...] You allow emotions to corrupt reason. And you seem to expect hat reality will bow to your compassion and the laws of nature thus will bend. [...]

Guilty as charged. The rest was not so bad, too.

But then i did not say that there is a solution, or that it would be easy.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Simply enforce the international law of the seas.

Similar to enforcing laws governing illegal entry into the US. Simply enforce the laws. Not in this lifetime with out public outcry, fake news and gnashing of teeth.

[Skybird]

There is one reason that hardlky ever get mentioned, becaue it is almost engraved in stone. That is that Europe sits in a privileged climate zone compared to Africa, the tropical regions, South America. Also, little geological activity, comoared to other continents. This has made life and economic and agricultural development much more comfortable, than in the Middle East or Africa.

And this cannot be tackled by "tackling the reaosns for mas smigration". Not without intentionally destroying the basis of our own life qulaity, willingly, so that our life turns miserable and thus equality between theirs and ours gets acieved.

And with the climate change making life more miserable in other parts of the world, this reason why peopel want to move to Europe is doomed to not grow weaker but always stronger and stronger.

"Fluchtursachen bekämpfen" ? Nothing but idiots and clueless morons talking in Berlin. You could as well fight against the coming of the Monsoon, or the earthquake next night.


Learn to pick and and reshuffle the distribution of continents. Now that would be something... But then you would maybe face a much stuffer global compeititon that may crush your own economy. More waste. More production. More consummation of ressources.


We are too many.

[JU_88]

Originally Posted by Catfish

^ yes, basically..

But first let us exploit Africa for rare earths (needed for smartphones, computers, batteries etc.) and pay them 20 US cent per hour, if at all.

Or we support certain factions in a country against other factions that criticize us, and get a civil war going, so they are forced to sell their stuff cheap, for cash and weapons.

Or install a dictator in the middle east so the oil supply is guaranteed.. until the dictator's opinion changes, then we invade, kill him and let the country go down the drain, as long as resources keep coming. Or we make him a pariah, and install sanctions.

Or we stand up for human rights in Afghanistan, Nicaragua, Panama and help those countries.. we can see how well they do now.


And when some poor souls decide that they have to leave their country for their bare life, we deny them entry, so they all have to flee to the nearest countries, of the EU.
And then we complain about the EU, leave it, and accuse them of letting too much bloody foreigners in.

Why not send them to those countries who are responsible for the mess?

(wishful thinking I know...)

You can lay that guilt trip all you want. Africa and Middle Easts problems don't all stem from Western exploitation and meddling. That's simply not true. Both the middle east and Africa have many cultural norms and internal disputes that pre-date western colonization and intervention or have remained unchanged by it. The Suni's and Shia's have been fighting each other for best part of the last two thousand years. How is that 'Americas fault?'

Remember India, Hong Kong and much of south east Asia was also colonized by the west - Japan was even Nuked by the west, yet somehow they are all doing pretty good. At some point you must recognize the agency of those people to collectively choose their own destiny. To do otherwise is to infantlize them as helpless, incapable victims, which is a form of bigotry in itself.

Secondly, Migrants are fine but they need to enter a nation though the proper channels not just climb the fence. That is illegal in just about every nation on earth. Why does the EU have to be the exception? regardless of history. Nobody has a Right/Entitlement go and live in what ever nation they damn well please with complete disregard for the nations borders and laws. I don't care what people did in 1819 or 1918 - that doesn't justify anything in now 2018.

Thirdly, mass migration from the Middle East and Africa is having an inevitable social impact on host nations. You think our children should pay the price for our Parents and Grandparents mistakes?
Multi cultural society's can work great, but only when those joining them are ideologically diverse (Race is irrelevant - unless your a far right/ far left moron) and are able to support/abide by the host nations laws and culture to some degree.

The people making a fuss about migrants are many of the working class people on whose communities the migrants are dumped on by the authorities.
While many of the progressive middle class (living in nice neighborhoods) are very pro Migrant of course, they have no problem with other people paying for their morality.

Its not rocket science, I plan to migrate to Spain in a few years, that means I must learn Catalan language and culture - so that I can integrate and be accepted, Not arrogantly demand everyone else learns to understand British Culture and speak English to make feel included- What kind of sense of entitlement is that?
That applies to not only to me but ANYONE migrating to ANY Country. Its migrant 101.

Understand that if you constantly grovel to a group of people over some historical injustice committed by your group, know that there will be no shortage of psychotic activists in that 'victim' group' who will say its never enough - and they will never be happy until you are subordinate to their every whim. they will simply exploit that guilt to gain power over you. They will interpret that guilt not as empathy, but as a weak and contemptible.

[Skybird]

In the end, integration necessarily means: voluntarily getting assimilated. A feeding back of the migrant on the host, is - and must be - a minor effect over long time. These must be carefully assessed whether they are wantd or not. A " creeping" influence of Jewish intelligence is highly welcomed, creeping influence of Islamic dogmatism is not. The first is constructive for the hosting nation, the second is not. I do not see how Europe benefits form the implementation of medieval and earlier standards still running societies that are more primitive than ours: opprrssive patriarchalic family structures, superstitious belief systems, blood revenge spanning over generations, bribery as a way of administration, women as property with halved rights...

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by JU_88

You can lay that guilt trip all you want. Africa and Middle Easts problems don't all stem from Western exploitation and meddling. That's simply not true. Both the middle east and Africa have many cultural norms and internal disputes that pre-date western colonization and intervention or have remained unchanged by it. The Suni's and Shia's have been fighting each other for best part of the last two thousand years. How is that 'Americas fault?'

Remember India, Hong Kong and much of south east Asia was also colonized by the west - Japan was even Nuked by the west, yet somehow they are all doing pretty good. At some point you must recognize the agency of those people to collectively choose their own destiny. To do otherwise is to infantlize them as helpless, incapable victims, which is a form of bigotry in itself.

Secondly, Migrants are fine but they need to enter a nation though the proper channels not just climb the fence. That is illegal in just about every nation on earth. Why does the EU have to be the exception? regardless of history. Nobody has a Right/Entitlement go and live in what ever nation they damn well please with complete disregard for the nations borders and laws.

Thirdly, mass migration from the Middle East and Africa is having an inevitable social impact on host nations. You think our children should pay the price for our Parents and Grandparents mistakes?
Multi cultural society's can work great, but only when those joining them are ideologically diverse (Race is irrelevant - unless your a far right/ far left moron) and are able to support/abide by the host nations laws and culture to some degree.

The people making a fuss about migrants are many of the working class people on whose communities the migrants are dumped on by the authorities.
While many of the progressive the middle class (living in nice neighborhoods) are very pro Migrant of course, they have no problem with other people paying for their morality.

Its not rocket science, I plan to migrate to Spain in a few years, that means I must learn Catalan language and culture - so that I can integrate and be accepted, Not arrogantly demand everyone else learns to understand British Culture and speak English to make feel included- What hell kind of sense of entitlement is that?

Well put Francis, I'm surprised Merkel hasn't warranted a mention yet.

[Catfish]

Originally Posted by JU_88

You can lay that guilt trip all you want. Africa and Middle Easts problems don't all stem from Western exploitation and meddling. That's total rubbish. [...]

Yes, i wrote in a provoking tone to make some people think.
And yes, not all problems are, or were, caused by "The West".
But partially, 'we' still are responsible.

- The colonial efforts of most "Empires did not go down well with the invaded countries, i think we can accept that?

- That they came out of this situation as colonies is not necessarily the goodwill of their former rulling empire, but of a lot of struggle – even in India. That some behaved in awful ways and killing lots of their own people along the line, yes. Some learned from us how to do this efficiently.

- When the continent of Africa was divided between those empires, namely England, France, Belgium, Germany, there were artificial borders "erected", straight lines parting ethnicities and constructing "nations" now consisting of different tribes, religions, and opinions. In former times an ethnicity just moved and changed the region it lived in, for better food, evading war, or religious quarrels.

The ruling elite of such new artificial "nation" may consist of a tribe that hates another lower-ranked tribe, and wages war against it. So they flee (=immigrant problem of neighbouring "nation" and so forth), or they are being killed. Civil war, as we just saw in Rwanda, but it is going on in a lot of those "nations".

No doubt, Africa has problems, and aggression and warlords have existed before the colonial clash.
However how belgian king Leopold managed his personal colonies by killing appx. 40,000,000 africans in the process, or how Mr. Rhodes ran his "Rhodesia" (lmao) has forever shaped Africa. Not that most people here even know about it. There are still a lot of files of colonial times stored away from the public e.g. in England, to "not upset the population"

Secondly, Migrants are fine but they need to enter a nation though the proper channels not just climb the fence.

No doubt. Some will indeed flee before attackers and jump into boats for their dear life, but the major portion plans it, and moves illegally, by our standards.

That is illegal in just about every nation on earth. Why does the EU have to be the exception? regardless of history. Nobody has a Right/Entitlement go and live in what ever nation they damn well please with complete disregard for the nations borders and laws.

What makes a living person illegal? You are born in Rwanda or Sudan, and have no papers (due to those artificial borders and the ruling elite tribe not giving you an identity card, because you are of another tribe and they do not like you). Then some Saudis decide to arrest, or kill you, or make you a slave, so you choose to run away. But.. no papers. (see artificial borders, rivaling tribes and elites etc.). Read some books written by Eric Ambler, this 'having papers or not' is a red line connecting all his books, explaining how this world works pretty well.

Again, i agree. The EU being an exception is most probably because of felt guilt and the troubled past (at least Germany of course), but also last not least for the EU's values and publicly declared humanity. And despite all the immigration talk, overall this would be something to be proud of.
It does not work with those masses though, so we have to adapt, yes.

Thirdly, mass migration from the Middle East and Africa is having an inevitable social impact on host nations. You think our children should pay the price for our Parents and Grandparents mistakes?

It seems a lot of especially African children are suffering because of our parents' mistakes. But yes, migration has an impact on host nations.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Catfish

Yes, i wrote in a provoking tone to make some people think.
And yes, not all problems are, or were, caused by "The West".
But partially, 'we' still are responsible.

- The colonial efforts of most "Empires did not go down well with the invaded countries, i think we can accept that?

- That they came out of this situation as colonies is not necessarily the goodwill of their former rulling empire, but of a lot of struggle – even in India. That some behaved in awful ways and killing lots of their own people along the line, yes. Some learned from us how to do this efficiently.

- When the continent of Africa was divided between those empires, namely England, France, Belgium, Germany, there were artificial borders "erected", straight lines parting ethnicities and constructing "nations" now consisting of different tribes, religions, and opinions. In former times an ethnicity just moved and changed the region it lived in, for better food, evading war, or religious quarrels.

The ruling elite of such new artificial "nation" may consist of a tribe that hates another lower-ranked tribe, and wages war against it. So they flee (=immigrant problem of neighbouring "nation" and so forth), or they are being killed. Civil war, as we just saw in Rwanda, but it is going on in a lot of those "nations".

No doubt, Africa has problems, and aggression and warlords have existed before the colonial clash.
However how belgian king Leopold managed his personal colonies by killing appx. 40,000,000 africans in the process, or how Mr. Rhodes ran his "Rhodesia" (lmao) has forever shaped Africa. Not that most people here even know about it. There are still a lot of files of colonial times stored away from the public e.g. in England, to "not upset the population"



No doubt. Some will indeed flee before attackers and jump into boats for their dear life, but the major portion plans it, and moves illegally, by our standards.

What makes a living person illegal? You are born in Rwanda or Sudan, and have no papers (due to those artificial borders and the ruling elite tribe not giving you an identity card, because you are of another tribe and they do not like you). Then some Saudis decide to arrest, or kill you, or make you a slave, so you choose to run away. But.. no papers. (see artificial borders, rivaling tribes and elites etc.). Read some books written by Eric Ambler, this 'having papers or not' is a red line connecting all his books, explaining how this world works pretty well.

Again, i agree. The EU being an exception is most probably because of felt guilt and the troubled past (at least Germany of course), but also last not least for the EU's values and publicly declared humanity. And despite all the immigration talk, overall this would be something to be proud of.
It does not work with those masses though, so we have to adapt, yes.

It seems a lot of especially African children are suffering because of our parents' mistakes. But yes, migration has an impact on host nations.

Not wanting to defend colonialism, but quite some of the countries in africa and Asia that were under for example British administration for some time, today would not be where they are - and I mean that positively - without remains of British cultural and administrative and logistical influence to be felt until today. Railway system, legal systems, education systems, basic rules of democracy, rules of parliamentarism, the basis laid for a bourgoise social middle class, a "Bildungsbürgertum"... Iran on my mind, India...


And where is the outcry about Neo-colonialism and abusing other people's resources if we let their clever heads come to us so that they are not available in their homeplaces to help building them up? What is this different to exploiting another country's weakness to get its ores, gas, minerals and other natural resources?


Finally, and I said this before, "illegal humans". No human is illegal per se, that is just not imaginable, the terminology makes no sense and is used for rhetoric overkill only, as a combat phrase. What can be illegal however is the status a person has in an established administrative system, society and state. The stay in or on other people's property must know a difference between legal and illegal, else the whole concept of private property makes no sense anymore and every stranger can storm your residence and demand you to let him live there and be given free access. The native local population of a place is the owner of that place, they turned it into that by investing time, generations of work and fight and suffering and building into it. Foreigners that stay there without the residents' permission, are illegally staying there. To then enforce their removal is both perfectly legal and perfectly moral. End of message.


Just saying.

[Catfish]

^ Oh yes, also in Namibia and Tanzania the former german buildings, railroad system, regular pay, and so forth are still being held in high esteem, by the locals. Germany also developed a written language of Kisuaheli/Kiswahili, making it the language of the lower levels of administration, education and the military. Education, christian missionary activity, including alphabetization, book printing and publishing, and so forth. Lettow-Vorbeck and his Askaris are still legendary, especially since L.-V. came back after the war to pay what was left of his warriors, and personally thank them.
All very positive. I guess the whip is seldomy mentioned. There is also a lot of whitewashing. Also in England. Or in Belgium.

[...] if we let their clever heads come to us so that they are not available in their homeplaces to help building them up? What is this different to exploiting another country's weakness to get its ores, gas, minerals and other natural resources?

But this is exactly the argument of the right wing, that we should accept and let in their best heads, but leave the "scum" of those sh!tholes (Trump) behind. And is that more human than denying them all, democratically? A little bit?

[...] The native local population of a place is the owner of that place, they turned it into that by investing time, generations of work and fight and suffering and building into it. Foreigners that stay there without the residents' permission, are illegally staying there. To then enforce their removal is both perfectly legal and perfectly moral. End of message. Just saying.

Well you described the native tribes of Rwanda perfectly, generations investing time, work and fight... until some immigrants (colonial powers) came and split those tribes' territory into artificial 'nations', drawing a straight cut through all, while disregarding grown structures, tribes/ethniticies, rivers, mountains, resources, cattle. And then helping one of the ethnicities in the new "nation" to rise in rank, and wealth. And giving them weapons, of course. Only logical what those elites did to the hated competing "lesser" tribes, who could not defend themselves, or run away anymore after those artificial borders were erected by the colonial powers. There was no concept of nation in Africa before, also no 'papers'.

You can say that England or whoever did not invade enough, otherwise more countries would have administration, infrastructure and all. But this all still is not the natives' concept of thinking, or organisation, or culture.

[Skybird]

Maybe we should dismantle our Western justice systems and law codes. If one thinks it to the end, they base on a fundament laid down by Roman law. And the Romans attacked and conquered as if there was no tomorrow. Heck, in the end we really should give up all our Wetsenr civilization. You, me, most Europeans and WASP-Americans - we are more Roman than anything else. By culture.

India today would be far worse off without the British occupation which still shows its heritage in India as it is today. The remains of the colonial ruling I saw still present, in remains, in Teheran myself. I met families of a middle class that we would call "Bildungsbürgertum" in Germany, whose education heavily owed to the cultural influence of the Brits that you can feel in parts until today. Even in Teheran. And believe me, Teheran is no beautiful city, its ugly.

I do not mean to excuse the many dark things in colonialism. But it is a fact that it also brought rule and order to places that were dirty dark holes of bloody barbarism and primitivity before, and that would still be that if some of the occupator'S rules and progress that came with them would not have been there. Also, there are differences in imperial tyranny as well. The barbery of a regime like Saddam'S,l and the British rule in India,. do not compare. In the end, beyond all their faults, the British still were the more civbilized ones. And that is the reason why Gandhi even survived the first day when he started to protest. A Saddam in ciontrol of India - and all those protesters at that salt mine would have been mowed down immedately.

Where would China be without the enforced opening by Western egoism? Japan? The opium wars started by the Brits, was a dirty thing. But imagine China would have been left untouched - its an image I see no pleasure in. China once had the most powerful and advanced trading and war fleet of the world - and then one man came to power, became emperor and ruled that China did not need thr world, and saw all ships were burned, all docks were dismantled, and all construciton plans were destroyed. that was before Britain became the ruling sea power. Japan was sealed off by the Shoguns. If the Americans wpuld not have kicked in the doior, which no doubt was neither nice nor legal, the country would have stayed locked in bitter poverty of most of the population, and a stagnatinf, slowly petrifying feudal elite. The shogunat has had its advantages, but what worked against it, was that it sought survival by self-imposed stagnation. India: until today the railway system, as eroded as it may be, laid out by the Brits, is the arteria of the country. British adminstration still is the blueprint by which Indian adminstraiton works: the oublic services, the executive, the jurisdiction. The terirble and ihumane caste system still is there. But that is not the Brit's fault, but the Indian's fault.

No matter where you look: the white man has left both bloody traces AND positive trails behind. The worst chapter in his relation to Africa, the slaves, he did not invent himself, but got talked into a deal for by those who saw enslaving of Africans as their business and source of profit: Muslim slave hunters.

Heck, in Africa there is even a small slowly growing minority of young intellectuals telling their people that colonialism is no excuse anymore to excuse that since the end of it the continent has seen so little progress only. These Africans tell their fellow Africans quite straight that apparently Africa does not have what it takes to compensate the absence of the psitive htings that also was brought by the whites, and that without advsory by them again Africa apparently is too incapable to get itself properly managed. There was a long essay on that in some german newspaper at the beginning of this year. South Africa forgvetting the heritage of Mandela.Zimbabwe. The hate and bloodshed in Rwanda, Congo, the ethnic cleansing across the continent - what have the Whites to do with it? It was there before they came, when they came they supressed it to signficant degrees, and when they left, it broke out again. Thats the grim truth about Africa, and thewir demographic madness will not make it any better (well, climate change will, completely unsentimentally). Its not always the white man. Mstly, the biggest evil haunting Africa is - the Africans themselves. Wowh, that qualifies for the political incorrectness of the day. All death threats to me, thank you.

For ourselves, we should ask what kind of migrants we need: for example qualified migrants with professions that are in much demand in Germany. Then we should search for such migrants, preferrably from cultural backgrounds that do not conflict with our own. I think of Indian IT experts, for example. Doctors from Poland. Engineers from Switzerland or Japan or South Korea or Israel. People we have no need for, that only could make a living at the cost of our social support systems and thus: get fed only, and that have no realistic chance to ever live fully self-sustaining in Germany, we should leave out. What to do with them? We have problems enough, and amyn of them mnean nothign but toruble. We have the right to discriminate between migration we need and shoud welcome, and migration we do not need or that means just troubles. This is our homes, and the foreigners have no claim for it. Period. Do you invite just every stranger from the street to your birthday party? Would you like to get flashmobbed?

The end of your post is an intentional provocation that distorts things beyond recognition, sorry. I think you know damn well what I was about, you just do not want to hear it for it puts your own vision into question and you hgave no realostic reply to that. I'm getting a bit tired of dealing with such exaggerations.

In the end, Australia gets it right. They let in those they need, and leave out those who neither are of use to them, nor have a chance to live without being maintained by the community. They do not try to be attractive, but they try to be very deterring and unwelcoming. The result: illegal migration into Australia is at a record low, has seen a dramatical cut. And they are right to do it like this, it is their right, the foreigners wanting to go there, only have a right to knock at their door and ask. When they get a "No", they have to accept that and move on.

And here is my pragmatic, totally non-ideological recipe to deal with migration quotas into germany:

1. discriminate all German households for this criterion: households that live on social wellfare and at cost of the state/the community, may it be in full or in parts; and households that are living by their own means and income, and have an outlook to not become dependant in the forseeable future.

2. Take the self-supporting households and give each of them the right to volunteer to take over the legally fully binding affidavit of support (Bürgschaft), with all responsibilities of legal and financial dimension, for one migrant of their choice. The rule is: one volunteering independent household - one migrant.

3. Make it clear that all financial costs for that migrant becoming criminal, failing to integrate, failing to become self-supporting, must be taken over by this household. Thats what a bail (Bürgschaft) is about, right: you are to be held fully accountable for the thing or person you guarantee for.

4. Count how many volunteers you get this way.

5. That is the number of migrants you allow into Germany. As many migrants as there are private, financially independent households willing to guarantee for them. And not one more.

This way, no commanding by the govenrment and no enforcement is needed. Its all voluntary. Show me a better method that works realistically and pragmatically and without abuse of power by the state against its people.

You see, many people are all fire and flame for doing what is considered to be "in", and when they stick a mike into your face and film it most people do not want to stand apart and say the wrong thing, and so they "agree". But when it gets to cleaning the kitchen after the party, paying for the costs, you will see the number of enthusiasts shrinks. NIMBY, you see. People need to get an understanding for that there are risks in blindly trusting strangers. Our parents have raised me, and hopefully also you, to be on our guard against strangers, and not to walk all alone in lonely places, and not to follow every man who offers us candy. And suddenly we forget all that? Trust is no right you can make a claim for. It must be deserved, it is an empirically proven quality, basing on past experiences that were satisfactory and justfy in the present this thrust. Many people today just fantasize again about the Noble Savage. And when it shows that he is not that noble at all, and bites, they are stunned and wonder what has happened. Many of the people coming today, are not like the refugees we take in after WW2 - these were people of cour cultural breed, of our belief and relgion, mostly of our language, our moral convicition. They were culturally compatible. The family of my father was one of them, in principle I am half a Sudentendeutscher. The flood of people coming now, are totally different, are foreign people, are alien. Africans, used to tribal social systems, other rites and habits, with different views of life, labour, women, discipline and priorities they set in their lives. Muslims, having a socialisation according to quranic cultural infleunce in their biography. It does not compare to the refugees after WW2, in no way it compares. Not even a tiny little bit.

Your problem is that you do not differ between moral prgamatism and moral absolutes. Your priority is the latter. And this brings you into conflict with reality as it is, a dissonance that you cannot solve and never will be able to solve. Because reality does not bow to ideology.