The central question in German politics right now, is whether our new government has any interest in stopping mass migration (as they claim), or whether they are merely trying to appear as if they are doing something to stop mass migration (as the track record of the Union parties would suggest).
Amazing, isn't it, for those who are unaware of the EU tentacles into everything, that this theatre in Germany regarding migrants shows yet again how politics in the national interest cannot be made when politicians kowtow to the mighty EU and the ECHR. One doesn't even have to be in the EU any longer to see how those politicians and their helpers in the various departments and offices of state who still haven't forgiven us plebs for voting 'Out', are using the same arguments about that Court which sadly ties their hands.
Only the lawyers who specialise in 'human rights and immigration' and the various bands of people traffickers profit from this situation. Politicians are too cowardly to do anything about it. Why?
Universalism—that everyone is the same, acts the same, has the same values and wants the same things etc—is the last foundational value of Western liberalism.
For gentry liberals, esp those in or aspiring to be in the ruling class, contradicting this plank of their sacred dogma is as painful as listening to Beethoven was to Alex at the end of "A Clockwork Orange"—they have been socially and professionally conditioned to worship and defend open borders, open society, the erasure of Western cultures and nations in the name of "inclusivity" and to atone for the crimes of our ancestors, who conquered the planet without asking for consent.
On the one hand they campaigned for jobs that require them to protect and defend their own nation and people, on the other hand they are devout worshippers in the Church of Social Justice, which often demands they do the opposite. This is why they can't think straight or act consistently.
Do you guys have a census taken every 10 years that determines the amount of representatives for each particular voting districts based on the population?
And if so, does that number include immigrants (non-citizens) that are disqualified from voting, yet count towards the census?
That's exactly the liberals long game in the US. It's that straightforward. Everything else is noise.
This is a simplification which assumes mere biomass and vooting is how politics works, which only helps to put oneself in the very cage being lamented about.
Being fooled into accepting this conception of politics is what brought this situation about. Even if the process described was stopped, you'd still be powerless and at the mercy of your enemies due to an allegiance to rules and concepts designed to undermine your influence and increase theirs.
So you're saying that 'biomass and voting' are necessary, but not sufficient to complete the replacement project? Additional 'rules and concepts designed to undermine [our] influence' are also required? Please elaborate, with examples.
The interesting thing is that this process seems to have backfired. The left seems to have forgotten that one of the groups that hates immigrants the most is *drumroll* immigrants themselves. Also, a number of these people do tend more toward the conservative side of social issues in the US. We may have witnessed the suicide of the Democrat party by their failure to realize and correct this sooner.
What seems interesting in Germany (and other European countries) is the influx of *Islamic* peoples (be they refugees from war, or otherwise). Culturally, these people are very opposite to what the Germans are, and are very much incompatible with mainstream western culture. This is primarily the complaint being raised by almost every European country's voters. The EU is barely holding on. All it takes is a well organized "Frexit" or "Germxit" (here's hoping they chose a better name than that though), and the EU is done. To be honest, *THAT* is probably the real reason they're aligned against the AfD. They know the AfD will at least pull Germany out of the Euro (the currency) if not more. To be honest, it never was designed to work the way they're trying to make it. It's not the "United States of Europe" it's more like a trading agreement...
Every time I see your comments, I confuse your handle with nudibranch. (yes I know that “handle” is a ham radio term. I just can’t remember the right term at the moment.😂🙈)
I'll continue the thought I posted the other day. Trump's remarkable victory here has terrified everyone everywhere except for the people in every Western country who agree with his policies. His battle to the death with our judicial system that intends to thwart the lawful actions of the Chief Executive is teaching ordinary people everywhere what a fraudulent beast "the rule of law" can be and perhaps it is not the holy being we've been taught to venerate it as.
If you don't want the ordinary people to start thinking that the old ways of vigilante justice and the pressure-reducing custom of weregild might've been sensible ways of keeping all sorts of beasts at bay, you've got to produce some decent results on the ground, no matter what you say.
> His battle to the death with our judicial system that intends to thwart the lawful actions of the Chief Executive is teaching ordinary people everywhere what a fraudulent beast "the rule of law" can be and perhaps it is not the holy being we've been taught to venerate it as.
Quoted For Truth.
Though it's kind of disturbing how many people are still insistently refusing to learn the lesson.
You know, it's a funny thing. All scriptural religions do this. They create elaborate fictions to attempt to govern reality and human nature. And that's why every scriptural religion splinters into sects and sub-sects and sub-sub-sects creating dissents and alternate legal framings etc. etc. etc.
One of my favorite descriptions of Donald Trump's behavior is "pushing all the buttons to see what lights up". Maybe they're taking a page from his book?
Back before Schengen, German radio traffic reports used to routinely give the waiting times at inter-European borders. Usually (especially to the east) in hours.
No one wants to go back there. The border that needs defending runs from Gibraltar to Istanbul. It should be our new, real iron curtain.
Any attempt to seal Germany's land borders with the surrounding countries is doomed to cosmetic failure. But it will be very tangible to Germans. Excellent messaging.
because of EU dysfunctionality, the only path to force that border closure, is the one that begins with the domino effect of serious border controls in major EU member states.
There are two potential outcomes, one of which is pushbacks in the med until the boats stop. The other outcome is the NGO-migration-complex start walking their clientele around the checkpoints (it's not hard, there are 100s of places you can walk from Austria/Czech to Bavaria unmolested), and we end up with little impact on migration with maximum hi-viz inconvenience to ordinary people. A kind of airport security theatre, applied to selected major road and rail border crossings.
This CDU is going to have to make a lot of effort to persuade me that they actually want the former and aren't just bluffing. Starting with saying it out loud.
The thing with the border checks is, they've been going on for a long time, and they're not just theatre. I won't say they are the most effective thing ever, but the federal police do manage to intercept a serious number of migrants at the borders. What is more, a surprising number have gotten turned away, despite the magic "asylum" word – I guess they don't all know about this trick, or the NGOs aren't helping them with the logistics and the legal advice as much as we imagine. Now that "asylum" no longer works as a magic word, will they change their behaviour? It's possible, and the enforcement aspect of this is a big open question that we won't know about until we get the statistics.
But that is the quandary. Does EU law supersede German law? If Germany’s new position is to pushback at the border, can’t all of the other EU countries do the same? After all, it was primarily Merkel who created the open borders situation, so if Germany folds on that now, what will happen? It’s not surprising the neighboring countries aren’t happy about this turn of events, as they still have to accept the so called asylum seekers.
IT depends what you mean by open borders. The Schengen idea was to control who comes in to Europe, and not really care about where anyone goes in Europe. We ended up with the former part being watered down to the point of nonexistence.
Merkel's most important action was to tell the entire third world they could come here and get free housing, free money, free healthcare, free everything, and actually implement it. The technicalities of what police are supposed to do with someone turning up at a land border with another European country with neither doucmentation nor plausible excuse that they belong in Europe is kind of irrelevant when only a tiny fraction of those coming to claim Merkel's gifts ever get encountered at a border.
What EU law says is mostly irrelevant as there are places that have sticky, technically unlawful border controls ongoing for longer than allowed (Copenhagen-Malmo train for example). It's ignored. It's moot as Germany doesn't have a reserve army of police and customs agents sufficiently large to police the land border. And if they did, you don't even need to walk people in. Just fly them from Milan (or anywhere) to Frankfurt, no checks on flights arriving from Schengen.
I agree that it’s largely pointless to only patrol the physical border at the check points asso many can enter by airplane or train. They certainly will switch quickly if the other forms of transportation are continuing. I guess the real question is will they even be processed as asylum seekers by the government. If they refuse to accept officially any unless they are minors or pregnant women, then it will effectively bring it largely to a halt because they wont get benefits.
The EU legislation is very opaque and definitely only some countries are made to heal and not others. So, I’m not surprised they ignore the malmo copenhagen connection exception, they could logically argue that terrorists use that route (Malmo is not the safest). But if the official mantra is now from Germany to repel the asylum seekers, well, the other countries still being forced to accept them will be irate.
The obligation not to leave people destitute ultimately lies with local authorities. It's deeply ingrained back to the beginnings of European civilization, no matter the legalities. In the past throwing yourself on the mercy of the commune meant some kind of workhouse. Nowadays, at least if you are not local, it means being kept in what, for the third world, amounts to regal luxury.
You could eliminate that pull factor and re-establish tent or portakabin refugee camps with mandatory labour for your daily gruel, and the problem would go away.
I remember traveling in Europe in the 70s. When the train came to the border, uniformed officials with an enormous book would often get on and check passports. They would look up your name in the book. I never saw what happened to people whose names were in the book.
Sometimes the officials didn't show up, but you never knew if they would. A similar approach today would be better than nothing.
My understanding is that if asylum seekers actually make it across the border, they can still claim all of the same benefits that are being afforded now Am I wrong about this?
Because here's how I see this playing out in Switzerland:
1. German police find an immigrant on the train coming from Switzerland.
2. They kick him off the train while still in Switzerland.
3. The Swiss authorities give the immigrant a map showing the hiking trails he can use to stroll into Germany unaccosted.
4. Immigrant walks to Germany, claims asylum at some official center, gets free housing, a monthly stipend, and stays forever.
Yes, the door that has been closed, is a very specific one: Those migrants who are intercepted by the police can no longer claim asylum. Those migrants whom the police don't intercept and who can get beyond 50km of the German border, still get benefits, still get to apply for asylum, everything. Until now, a pretty large portion of migrants were indeed stopped by police, though. It's possible they'll begin evading police more successfully under the new rules, and we won't know anything for sure until we have statistics on asylum applications.
> Before you say “well, that’s obviously because they are lying about their efforts to stop mass migration,” I want to insist that messaging chaos is not actually the hallmark of deception. The last government flatly lied about their plans to increase border security and deportations, and they managed to remain on-message quite easily. Messaging chaos indicates something more than simple deception.
You know, if I think about it, living through the Biden administration it was constantly shocking just how in-lockstep everyone was about every message.
Now you're pointing out messaging chaos in your government, but if you think about it, messaging chaos should be the default, because getting hundreds, thousands, even millions of people unified on a single message is extremely difficult.
If anything, messaging chaos should specifically indicate a lack of deception, if for no other reason than that chaos makes accomplishing stuff harder
> “The Federal Minister of the Interior has issued binding instructions” requiring border officers to “turn away every asylum seeker and person seeking protection – excepting pregnant women, the sick and unaccompanied minors.” His colleague, Heiko Teggatz, confirmed this information, emphasising that pushbacks are “mandatorily prescribed.”
This is such a perfect example of the pathology destroying western society.
"Oh, we're going to ban all immigrants, except the economically useless ones who we will have to pay for for the rest of time" is not a recipe for prosperity, in fact, it's quite the opposite. What you're describing is basically "DEI hiring" but for migrants.
Any healthy society would specifically turn away unaccompanied minors, specifically turn away sick people, and specifically turn away pregnant women, because that healthy society would not voluntarily take on infinite responsibilities for no benefit.
But 80 years of good times have made for the weakest men in history, and now "BUT LOOK AT HOW SAD THEY ARE" takes priority over "hey do you all want to keep living, or starve to death in poverty and squalor?: So, uh, I guess we all have squalor to look forward to.
Maybe if we choose it, it won't be so bad
(WARNING: the first 2 seconds of this might actually be a crime to broadcast in Europe (blackface), so I have timestamped the url to skip that)
When immigrants to the US came to Ellis Island in the 1800s and early 1900s, they were examined for disease or other issues that might make them a problem or dependent on charity. Those who didn't measure up were sent back.
QUOTE: Any healthy society would specifically turn away unaccompanied minors, specifically turn away sick people, and specifically turn away pregnant women, because that healthy society would not voluntarily take on infinite responsibilities for no benefit.
---
Precisely. A society run by sober ADULTS would certainly not allow entrance to anyone in these categories.
When and how did "unaccompanied minors" become a "thing"? Clearly yet another Bernays operation to "weaponize empathy," principally among childless women and the wider "booboisie." (H.L. Mencken)
A moment's reflection shows that almost all "unaccompanied minors" are either (1) actually backed by their families, but packaged as "unaccompanied" by the "NGO's" that get paid for warehousing and feeding them; or (2) simply foot soldiers acquired by drug cartels, taking advantage of lenient criminal laws applicable to minors.
The threshold determination that the youngster is in fact a "MINOR" (having carefully destroyed any ID) is difficult without analysis of wrist X-rays (which of course will be decried as racist). Also, how did the aspiring neurosurgeon get TO the border? Where is his baggage? How did he get new clothes, sneakers and an iPhone?
> I guess it’s so over, and we’re not so back after all – right?
You dropped a like on one of my new blog's posts so I assume you've seen it, but in case you haven't, and for the benefit of your other German readers, enjoy a meme
I would normally say this was all purposeful triangulation, but after reading, Eugy, your previous post on stupidity, I'd say that this particular turn of events more likely than not redounds to a shape that definitely does not resemble a triangle.
Denmark has been successful in repelling asylum seekers through a variety of measures including, taking all of the worldly goods of the new inhabitants (all cash and even jewelry and gold, in order to qualify for aid), they live in a segregated area and they have to work. It’s amazing how few go there now. Why can’t the rest of the EU just copy that formula, as apparently it isn’t contrary to EU law (since no one has fought it in court).
Why should Germany care if Poland or Austria won’t accept pushbacks? What choice to they have? They’re allowing these illegal aliens to transit their countries to access the German border. Screw them - unfortunately, there are no real men in positions of power over there.
I think the two countries should unify and annex the historically German territories of Poland, so that together they can stand up for the sovereignty of Europe proper, as opposed to the Anglo-jewish financial dominance which holds itself over the world to everyone's detriment.
It would be a shame to give up on a winning formula after one setback. We ought to have learned a lot since then, particularly regarding the realities which people were not privy to or refused to believe at the time, especially regarding the lies we are told that have played out exactly as predicted.
Amazing, isn't it, for those who are unaware of the EU tentacles into everything, that this theatre in Germany regarding migrants shows yet again how politics in the national interest cannot be made when politicians kowtow to the mighty EU and the ECHR. One doesn't even have to be in the EU any longer to see how those politicians and their helpers in the various departments and offices of state who still haven't forgiven us plebs for voting 'Out', are using the same arguments about that Court which sadly ties their hands.
Only the lawyers who specialise in 'human rights and immigration' and the various bands of people traffickers profit from this situation. Politicians are too cowardly to do anything about it. Why?
Universalism—that everyone is the same, acts the same, has the same values and wants the same things etc—is the last foundational value of Western liberalism.
For gentry liberals, esp those in or aspiring to be in the ruling class, contradicting this plank of their sacred dogma is as painful as listening to Beethoven was to Alex at the end of "A Clockwork Orange"—they have been socially and professionally conditioned to worship and defend open borders, open society, the erasure of Western cultures and nations in the name of "inclusivity" and to atone for the crimes of our ancestors, who conquered the planet without asking for consent.
On the one hand they campaigned for jobs that require them to protect and defend their own nation and people, on the other hand they are devout worshippers in the Church of Social Justice, which often demands they do the opposite. This is why they can't think straight or act consistently.
Exactly correct. That is why they must be removed completely, not debated. Until people understand this nothing changes.
Do you guys have a census taken every 10 years that determines the amount of representatives for each particular voting districts based on the population?
And if so, does that number include immigrants (non-citizens) that are disqualified from voting, yet count towards the census?
That's exactly the liberals long game in the US. It's that straightforward. Everything else is noise.
This is a simplification which assumes mere biomass and vooting is how politics works, which only helps to put oneself in the very cage being lamented about.
Being fooled into accepting this conception of politics is what brought this situation about. Even if the process described was stopped, you'd still be powerless and at the mercy of your enemies due to an allegiance to rules and concepts designed to undermine your influence and increase theirs.
So you're saying that 'biomass and voting' are necessary, but not sufficient to complete the replacement project? Additional 'rules and concepts designed to undermine [our] influence' are also required? Please elaborate, with examples.
In what world am I talking about "completing the replacement project"?
>Please elaborate
No
Sorry. I thought you had something to say.
The interesting thing is that this process seems to have backfired. The left seems to have forgotten that one of the groups that hates immigrants the most is *drumroll* immigrants themselves. Also, a number of these people do tend more toward the conservative side of social issues in the US. We may have witnessed the suicide of the Democrat party by their failure to realize and correct this sooner.
What seems interesting in Germany (and other European countries) is the influx of *Islamic* peoples (be they refugees from war, or otherwise). Culturally, these people are very opposite to what the Germans are, and are very much incompatible with mainstream western culture. This is primarily the complaint being raised by almost every European country's voters. The EU is barely holding on. All it takes is a well organized "Frexit" or "Germxit" (here's hoping they chose a better name than that though), and the EU is done. To be honest, *THAT* is probably the real reason they're aligned against the AfD. They know the AfD will at least pull Germany out of the Euro (the currency) if not more. To be honest, it never was designed to work the way they're trying to make it. It's not the "United States of Europe" it's more like a trading agreement...
'Today, BILD did the logical thing.'
Such is the level of my cynicism these days that I view that as an unusual circumstance.
Well, that *is* an unusual circumstance and even the most gentle-mannered person can see that.
I was tempted to write "miraculous" but was trying to avoid hyperbole.
Best to leave hyperbole to me because I employ it with such abandon.
I will never abandon hyperbole to you alone! 🤣
I should hope not!
I rather like the word, and it's meaning.
Deal!
Every time I see your comments, I confuse your handle with nudibranch. (yes I know that “handle” is a ham radio term. I just can’t remember the right term at the moment.😂🙈)
Handle is an Internet term also. And I'm flattered. Moss piglets and sea slugs compare favorably with humanity, much of the time.
Sounds like they are cowards, caught in a trap, without a clue?
I'll continue the thought I posted the other day. Trump's remarkable victory here has terrified everyone everywhere except for the people in every Western country who agree with his policies. His battle to the death with our judicial system that intends to thwart the lawful actions of the Chief Executive is teaching ordinary people everywhere what a fraudulent beast "the rule of law" can be and perhaps it is not the holy being we've been taught to venerate it as.
If you don't want the ordinary people to start thinking that the old ways of vigilante justice and the pressure-reducing custom of weregild might've been sensible ways of keeping all sorts of beasts at bay, you've got to produce some decent results on the ground, no matter what you say.
Yessssss.
> His battle to the death with our judicial system that intends to thwart the lawful actions of the Chief Executive is teaching ordinary people everywhere what a fraudulent beast "the rule of law" can be and perhaps it is not the holy being we've been taught to venerate it as.
Quoted For Truth.
Though it's kind of disturbing how many people are still insistently refusing to learn the lesson.
You know, it's a funny thing. All scriptural religions do this. They create elaborate fictions to attempt to govern reality and human nature. And that's why every scriptural religion splinters into sects and sub-sects and sub-sub-sects creating dissents and alternate legal framings etc. etc. etc.
To clarify my meaning here: I'm talking about canon law, the Talmud, Islamic jurisprudence etc.
'terrified everyone everywhere'
They've done an excellent job for many years brainwashing us to be terrified of The Other, only with Trump it was turbocharged.
Also, thanks for teaching me a new word!
I love that word. It has such primal power.
One of my favorite descriptions of Donald Trump's behavior is "pushing all the buttons to see what lights up". Maybe they're taking a page from his book?
More like "blow-up"...lolol.
But that's exactly what we need; a bull in a sacred cow shop.
Could these people be any more duplicitous? How do they sleep at night?
Back before Schengen, German radio traffic reports used to routinely give the waiting times at inter-European borders. Usually (especially to the east) in hours.
No one wants to go back there. The border that needs defending runs from Gibraltar to Istanbul. It should be our new, real iron curtain.
Any attempt to seal Germany's land borders with the surrounding countries is doomed to cosmetic failure. But it will be very tangible to Germans. Excellent messaging.
because of EU dysfunctionality, the only path to force that border closure, is the one that begins with the domino effect of serious border controls in major EU member states.
There are two potential outcomes, one of which is pushbacks in the med until the boats stop. The other outcome is the NGO-migration-complex start walking their clientele around the checkpoints (it's not hard, there are 100s of places you can walk from Austria/Czech to Bavaria unmolested), and we end up with little impact on migration with maximum hi-viz inconvenience to ordinary people. A kind of airport security theatre, applied to selected major road and rail border crossings.
This CDU is going to have to make a lot of effort to persuade me that they actually want the former and aren't just bluffing. Starting with saying it out loud.
The thing with the border checks is, they've been going on for a long time, and they're not just theatre. I won't say they are the most effective thing ever, but the federal police do manage to intercept a serious number of migrants at the borders. What is more, a surprising number have gotten turned away, despite the magic "asylum" word – I guess they don't all know about this trick, or the NGOs aren't helping them with the logistics and the legal advice as much as we imagine. Now that "asylum" no longer works as a magic word, will they change their behaviour? It's possible, and the enforcement aspect of this is a big open question that we won't know about until we get the statistics.
But that is the quandary. Does EU law supersede German law? If Germany’s new position is to pushback at the border, can’t all of the other EU countries do the same? After all, it was primarily Merkel who created the open borders situation, so if Germany folds on that now, what will happen? It’s not surprising the neighboring countries aren’t happy about this turn of events, as they still have to accept the so called asylum seekers.
IT depends what you mean by open borders. The Schengen idea was to control who comes in to Europe, and not really care about where anyone goes in Europe. We ended up with the former part being watered down to the point of nonexistence.
Merkel's most important action was to tell the entire third world they could come here and get free housing, free money, free healthcare, free everything, and actually implement it. The technicalities of what police are supposed to do with someone turning up at a land border with another European country with neither doucmentation nor plausible excuse that they belong in Europe is kind of irrelevant when only a tiny fraction of those coming to claim Merkel's gifts ever get encountered at a border.
What EU law says is mostly irrelevant as there are places that have sticky, technically unlawful border controls ongoing for longer than allowed (Copenhagen-Malmo train for example). It's ignored. It's moot as Germany doesn't have a reserve army of police and customs agents sufficiently large to police the land border. And if they did, you don't even need to walk people in. Just fly them from Milan (or anywhere) to Frankfurt, no checks on flights arriving from Schengen.
I agree that it’s largely pointless to only patrol the physical border at the check points asso many can enter by airplane or train. They certainly will switch quickly if the other forms of transportation are continuing. I guess the real question is will they even be processed as asylum seekers by the government. If they refuse to accept officially any unless they are minors or pregnant women, then it will effectively bring it largely to a halt because they wont get benefits.
The EU legislation is very opaque and definitely only some countries are made to heal and not others. So, I’m not surprised they ignore the malmo copenhagen connection exception, they could logically argue that terrorists use that route (Malmo is not the safest). But if the official mantra is now from Germany to repel the asylum seekers, well, the other countries still being forced to accept them will be irate.
The obligation not to leave people destitute ultimately lies with local authorities. It's deeply ingrained back to the beginnings of European civilization, no matter the legalities. In the past throwing yourself on the mercy of the commune meant some kind of workhouse. Nowadays, at least if you are not local, it means being kept in what, for the third world, amounts to regal luxury.
You could eliminate that pull factor and re-establish tent or portakabin refugee camps with mandatory labour for your daily gruel, and the problem would go away.
I remember traveling in Europe in the 70s. When the train came to the border, uniformed officials with an enormous book would often get on and check passports. They would look up your name in the book. I never saw what happened to people whose names were in the book.
Sometimes the officials didn't show up, but you never knew if they would. A similar approach today would be better than nothing.
My understanding is that if asylum seekers actually make it across the border, they can still claim all of the same benefits that are being afforded now Am I wrong about this?
Because here's how I see this playing out in Switzerland:
1. German police find an immigrant on the train coming from Switzerland.
2. They kick him off the train while still in Switzerland.
3. The Swiss authorities give the immigrant a map showing the hiking trails he can use to stroll into Germany unaccosted.
4. Immigrant walks to Germany, claims asylum at some official center, gets free housing, a monthly stipend, and stays forever.
Please tell me I'm wrong.
Yes, the door that has been closed, is a very specific one: Those migrants who are intercepted by the police can no longer claim asylum. Those migrants whom the police don't intercept and who can get beyond 50km of the German border, still get benefits, still get to apply for asylum, everything. Until now, a pretty large portion of migrants were indeed stopped by police, though. It's possible they'll begin evading police more successfully under the new rules, and we won't know anything for sure until we have statistics on asylum applications.
When the NGOs hear about the changes, I wonder which new routes they will encourage.
Absolutely, the real question is will the German government refuse to process the paperwork for the asylum seekers to receive benefits.
CWR (commenting while reading)
> Before you say “well, that’s obviously because they are lying about their efforts to stop mass migration,” I want to insist that messaging chaos is not actually the hallmark of deception. The last government flatly lied about their plans to increase border security and deportations, and they managed to remain on-message quite easily. Messaging chaos indicates something more than simple deception.
You know, if I think about it, living through the Biden administration it was constantly shocking just how in-lockstep everyone was about every message.
Now you're pointing out messaging chaos in your government, but if you think about it, messaging chaos should be the default, because getting hundreds, thousands, even millions of people unified on a single message is extremely difficult.
If anything, messaging chaos should specifically indicate a lack of deception, if for no other reason than that chaos makes accomplishing stuff harder
I pray it is progress towards secure borders
> “The Federal Minister of the Interior has issued binding instructions” requiring border officers to “turn away every asylum seeker and person seeking protection – excepting pregnant women, the sick and unaccompanied minors.” His colleague, Heiko Teggatz, confirmed this information, emphasising that pushbacks are “mandatorily prescribed.”
This is such a perfect example of the pathology destroying western society.
"Oh, we're going to ban all immigrants, except the economically useless ones who we will have to pay for for the rest of time" is not a recipe for prosperity, in fact, it's quite the opposite. What you're describing is basically "DEI hiring" but for migrants.
Any healthy society would specifically turn away unaccompanied minors, specifically turn away sick people, and specifically turn away pregnant women, because that healthy society would not voluntarily take on infinite responsibilities for no benefit.
But 80 years of good times have made for the weakest men in history, and now "BUT LOOK AT HOW SAD THEY ARE" takes priority over "hey do you all want to keep living, or starve to death in poverty and squalor?: So, uh, I guess we all have squalor to look forward to.
Maybe if we choose it, it won't be so bad
(WARNING: the first 2 seconds of this might actually be a crime to broadcast in Europe (blackface), so I have timestamped the url to skip that)
https://youtu.be/c0f2aFhZ3Uk?t=10
When immigrants to the US came to Ellis Island in the 1800s and early 1900s, they were examined for disease or other issues that might make them a problem or dependent on charity. Those who didn't measure up were sent back.
QUOTE: Any healthy society would specifically turn away unaccompanied minors, specifically turn away sick people, and specifically turn away pregnant women, because that healthy society would not voluntarily take on infinite responsibilities for no benefit.
---
Precisely. A society run by sober ADULTS would certainly not allow entrance to anyone in these categories.
When and how did "unaccompanied minors" become a "thing"? Clearly yet another Bernays operation to "weaponize empathy," principally among childless women and the wider "booboisie." (H.L. Mencken)
A moment's reflection shows that almost all "unaccompanied minors" are either (1) actually backed by their families, but packaged as "unaccompanied" by the "NGO's" that get paid for warehousing and feeding them; or (2) simply foot soldiers acquired by drug cartels, taking advantage of lenient criminal laws applicable to minors.
The threshold determination that the youngster is in fact a "MINOR" (having carefully destroyed any ID) is difficult without analysis of wrist X-rays (which of course will be decried as racist). Also, how did the aspiring neurosurgeon get TO the border? Where is his baggage? How did he get new clothes, sneakers and an iPhone?
> I guess it’s so over, and we’re not so back after all – right?
You dropped a like on one of my new blog's posts so I assume you've seen it, but in case you haven't, and for the benefit of your other German readers, enjoy a meme
https://files.catbox.moe/gggxfl.webp
I would normally say this was all purposeful triangulation, but after reading, Eugy, your previous post on stupidity, I'd say that this particular turn of events more likely than not redounds to a shape that definitely does not resemble a triangle.
Denmark has been successful in repelling asylum seekers through a variety of measures including, taking all of the worldly goods of the new inhabitants (all cash and even jewelry and gold, in order to qualify for aid), they live in a segregated area and they have to work. It’s amazing how few go there now. Why can’t the rest of the EU just copy that formula, as apparently it isn’t contrary to EU law (since no one has fought it in court).
Why should Germany care if Poland or Austria won’t accept pushbacks? What choice to they have? They’re allowing these illegal aliens to transit their countries to access the German border. Screw them - unfortunately, there are no real men in positions of power over there.
That was pretty much my thought.
"Fuck you, were not going to let people from your country invade us. If you don't like it, stop them from invading *your* country first."
Not that I think Merz is capable of even *thinking* in those terms.
I think the two countries should unify and annex the historically German territories of Poland, so that together they can stand up for the sovereignty of Europe proper, as opposed to the Anglo-jewish financial dominance which holds itself over the world to everyone's detriment.
I believe this was attempted by a little fellow with a postage-stamp moustache at the end of the 30s. Remind me, please, how did that turn out?
It would be a shame to give up on a winning formula after one setback. We ought to have learned a lot since then, particularly regarding the realities which people were not privy to or refused to believe at the time, especially regarding the lies we are told that have played out exactly as predicted.