Will Migration be the End of The European Union

The Migrant Invasion of Europe from the Middle East and North Africa could lead to the end of the European Union. Economic Immigrants and welfare tourists calling themselves “migrants” or “refugees” are moving in battalion sized units from Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Africa to Germany, France, Switzerland, and England. The governments of these nations are welcoming armies of people into their countries with open arms and while their citizenry seemed amicable at the start, they are now in full repel mode. Europe has created a Common Asylum program which is tied to the Schengen area (basically an open border area that covers 26 countries.) Much of the documented guidance the EU is using comes from a series of treaties and agreements which date back to World War II. These are being leveraged by the masses to flood the European continent and things are expected to get much worse before they get better.

Many people are asking themselves the question of “why” this is occurring and to the extent the world is witnessing. Looking at world events as a guide, we can see that the current surge of migrants started in 2011 when thousands of Tunisians started to arrive on the Greek island of Lampedusa as a direct result of the “Arab Spring” event. Soon afterwards Sub-Saharan Africans who had previously migrated to Libya packed up and moved towards Europe to escape the unrest in the post-Qaddafi era. Next the Syrian, Afghan, and Eritreans started their migrant journey, all escaping from their home nations. The Syrians are escaping from a civil war already four plus years into the making. The Afghanis leaving due to the Taliban and other military threats and the Eritreans are leaving due to social injustices that include forced, almost slave like labor.

Tunisia's “Jasmine Revolution” was the first successful uprising leading to the change of an established government in the Middle East and North Africa since the Iranian revolution of 1979. It is also widely recognized that it was the spark that ignited Revolutions in the region. It began on December 17, 2011 when Mohamed Bouazizi set himself on fire to protest his wares being seized, harassment, and humiliation by an official and her aides. Demonstrations broke out in support of Mr. Bouazizi and a brutal government crackdown followed. Despite the turmoil the protests grew until they reached Tunis. The government took their brutality to the next level by arresting demonstrators, activists, and shutting down the Internet – the latter due to the word getting out on social media of the injustices. As a feint then President, Zine el-Abedin Ben Ali, shuffled his cabinet and made promises to create 300,000 jobs. Unfortunately the people were in no mood to settle for anything less than the President being stripped of power and real change. Less than a month later, Ben Ali and his family fled the country. It was hailed as a victory for the common people as the oppressive regime came to an end.

This led to a domino effect, which saw the leaders of Egypt, Yemen, and Libya to be usurped. Civil uprisings began in Bahrain and Syria and many other nations in the area had major protest events and sustained periods of high tension. This regional discourse gave hope to some and shattered the dreams of others as governments changed and other groups gained power through violence. The Muslim Brotherhood, ISIS, Al-Qaeda, and Boko Haram are some of the high profile terrorist groups that grew rapidly during the chaos across the region. With estimates of over 100,000 collective members, these extremist Muslim hardliners have been persecuting anyone who does not fall into lockstep with their vision of things. Instead of fighting back, many people just packed up and left for what they hoped would be a better place to settle down. The almost daily executions and gun battles seemingly validate their rationale as the militant groups continue to widen their grip on the regions.

Just recently this human wave has grown as now peoples from Iraq and Iran join in the exodus. Communications from those already in Europe reach their friends and families about how much better it is than anywhere they came from, so more and more people are picking up and “migrating” for economic reasons, yet will claim refugee status at the borders of Europe. There is concern that this second and potentially larger wave of “welfare migrants” is coming and it’s causing strife amongst the different members of the European Union, with many nations now flatly refusing to take additional refugees. The indigenous people of those nations are already suffering from poor economic conditions and high unemployment while their leaders keep letting more people in with no real means of support them. It seems as if the European Union, already in a tenuous state with currency problems and member countries defaulting, is hanging on by a thread. When the collective doctrine is being shunned and nationalism in the member countries again taking the lead, it seems only a matter of time before some sort of break up occurs.

Since the European Union now has open borders and freedom of movement, countries share the same rules known as the Common European Asylum System. They state that anyone seeking asylum has the right to food, first aid and shelter in a reception center. Those people may be granted asylum by the authorities at "first instance" or immediately, but if unsuccessful, the migrants can appeal against the decision in court, and may win. The flaw of this first portion is evident, with foreigners being allowed almost immediate access to the court system. Asylum seekers are supposed to be granted the right to work within nine months of arrival. Again, a serious flaw of the plan that guarantees something to a foreigner that even the citizens are not guaranteed. Asylum is granted to people fleeing persecution or serious harm in their own country and therefore in need of international protection. Asylum is considered a fundamental right under this system and granting it an obligation dating back to the 1951 Geneva Convention on the protection of refugees.

This document is far outdated in this Writers opinion and is being abused to the point it needs to be discarded and new legislation that is modern replace it. A more in-depth look at this document will most certainly demonstrate that if it is continued to be followed will certainly be the end of the European Union as we know it.

The Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, also known as the 1951 Refugee Convention was built on Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights from 1948. The Article reads:

Article 14

(1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.

(2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

The 1951 treaty was approved at a special session of the United Nations on July 28th, 1951 with approvals in the following year mainly to protect European refugees of World War II. In 1967 the document was updated with a single change, which removed existing time limits and expanded the coverage to refugees from any place, not just post-war Europe.

Concerning the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, there are two specific articles of the document which matter more than the rest. And in case of the current crisis, will probably answer many questions that outside observers could have, these are Article 1 and Article 33.

Article 1 - Definition of the term "refugee"

A. For the purposes of the present Convention, the term "refugee" shall apply to any person who:

(1) Has been considered a refugee under the Arrangements of 12 May 1926 and 30 June 1928 or under the Conventions of 28 October 1933 and 10 February 1938, the Protocol of 14 September 1939 or the Constitution of the International Refugee Organization;

Decisions of non-eligibility taken by the International Refugee Organization during the period of its activities shall not prevent the status of refugee being accorded to persons who fulfil the conditions of paragraph 2 of this section;

(2) As a result of events occurring before 1 January 1951 and owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.

In the case of a person who has more than one nationality, the term "the country of his nationality" shall mean each of the countries of which he is a national, and a person shall not be deemed to be lacking the protection of the country of his nationality if, without any valid reason based on well-founded fear, he has not availed himself of the protection of one of the countries of which he is a national.

B. (1) For the purposes of this Convention, the words "events occurring before 1 January 1951" in article 1, section A, shall be understood to mean either (a) "events occurring in Europe before 1 January 1951"; or (b) "events occurring in Europe or elsewhere before 1 January 1951"; and each Contracting State shall make a declaration at the time of signature, ratification or accession, specifying which of these meanings it applies for the purpose of its obligations under this Convention.

(2) Any Contracting State which has adopted alternative (a) may at any time extend its obligations by adopting alternative (b) by means of a notification addressed to the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

C. This Convention shall cease to apply to any person falling under the terms of section A if:

(1) He has voluntarily re-availed himself of the protection of the country of his nationality; or

(2) Having lost his nationality, he has voluntarily reacquired it; or

(3) He has acquired a new nationality, and enjoys the protection of the country of his new nationality; or

(4) He has voluntarily re-established himself in the country which he left or outside which he remained owing to fear of persecution; or

(5) He can no longer, because the circumstances in connection with which he has been recognized as a refugee have ceased to exist, continue to refuse to avail himself of the protection of the country of his nationality;

Provided that this paragraph shall not apply to a refugee falling under section A (1) of this article who is able to invoke compelling reasons arising out of previous persecution for refusing to avail himself of the protection of the country of nationality;

(6) Being a person who has no nationality he is, because the circumstances in connection with which he has been recognized as a refugee have ceased to exist, able to return to the country of his former habitual residence;

Provided that this paragraph shall not apply to a refugee falling under section A (1) of this article who is able to invoke compelling reasons arising out of previous persecution for refusing to return to the country of his former habitual residence.

D. This Convention shall not apply to persons who are at present receiving from organs or agencies of the United Nations other than the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees protection or assistance.

When such protection or assistance has ceased for any reason, without the position of such persons being definitively settled in accordance with the relevant resolutions adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations, these persons shall ipso facto be entitled to the benefits of this Convention.

E. This Convention shall not apply to a person who is recognized by the competent authorities of the country in which he has taken residence as having the rights and obligations which are attached to the possession of the nationality of that country.

F. The provisions of this Convention shall not apply to any person with respect to whom there are serious reasons for considering that:

(a) He has committed a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity, as defined in the international instruments drawn up to make provision in respect of such crimes;

(b) He has committed a serious non-political crime outside the country of refuge prior to his admission to that country as a refugee;

(c) He has been guilty of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 33 - Prohibition of expulsion or return ("refoulement")

1. No Contracting State shall expel or return (" refouler ") a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.

2. The benefit of the present provision may not, however, be claimed by a refugee whom there are reasonable grounds for regarding as a danger to the security of the country in which he is, or who, having been convicted by a final judgement of a particularly serious crime, constitutes a danger to the community of that country.

What these two Articles together say are that nearly anyone can claim refuges status unless they are a criminal, a war criminal, or guilty of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations. I’m not exactly sure what the final section of this interprets to, but it would seem that it was written in for the United Nations to exert some sort of supreme decision-making authority in special cases. Also, Article 33 says that no one can be sent back to where they came from after the host country has agreed to take them in. Without any record keeping available, how would a border check point know the criminal history on a person asking for asylum? The provisions are flawed and subject to abuse.

Overall, the document has many sections which are grouped together. Section One of the document ensures the rights of the refuges are kept intact, Section Two, that they are treated equally under the law of the host nation and have free access to the courts. Section Three concerns itself with employment and states that refugees should be accorded the MOST FAVORABLE treatment when compared to similar foreign nationals when it comes to employment opportunities. Section Four covers Welfare and makes provisions that refugees are awarded a status similar to nationals of the host nation for housing, education, public assistance, and other services – basically they are considered citizens and can enjoy benefits from the host nation without ever contributing to them. The remainder of the document continues to heap benefits on the refugee class, all at the expense of the nationals who inhabit the host nations.

The world was a different place in the aftermath of World War II. Massive destruction from combat operations, the murder of millions of people due to their ethnic heritage, and a high degree of paranoia about anyone who was from a foreign land all contributed to artificial barriers being erected on the movements of people across Europe. It was intended to protect refugees from retaliation after the war both in their own countries and in other nations. It was not meant to be a guideline for groups of people to move from one area to another. Unfortunately, once these host nations agree to take them, under the guidance of this plan, they cannot exile them back to their home countries or any other country.

What is now being called “collective suicide” in the mainstream press, continuous footage of waves of people moving across the continent and leaving a waste filled path in their wake is finally starting to wake people up. People are afraid for their families, their properties, and their lifestyle, especially with the high percentage of Muslims moving into their lands. The open arms policies are suddenly being challenged by members of the European Union and the people themselves.

European leaders are currently working on a multi-billion Euro deal with African nations in Malta this week, offering them billions of euros in aid in exchange for taking back their refugees. African countries are currently unwilling to take them back and several have been outspoken claiming Europe is willing to take migrants from the Middle East but not Africa, calling it a double standard. Eritreans make up the bulk of nearly 140,000 migrants who arrived in 2015, along with 18,000 Nigerians and 8,000 Sudanese.

The European Union has pledged 3 billion Euros to Turkey to keep the Syrians and other Middle Eastern migrants in Turkey. Yet, the leaders of Europe already know that Turkey has a unique asylum law that prohibits Syrians, Iraqis, Afghans and other large migrant populations from even applying for asylum in Turkey. Turkey has been extremely generous throughout the entire migrant crisis and is sheltering more refugees than any other nation.

Germany and Sweden offer so many benefits or “freebies” that they can get act as magnets to the invaders. Many ask why these countries are so freely opening up their countries to hundreds of thousands of people. Ask the bureaucrat and they will tell you that Germany has a long history of outsiders representing a net positive for the country’s economy. German officials are hopeful that, in the long run, this summer’s new flood of refugees will result in a long-term economic gain. Additional rationale lies solely in demographics. Since Germany has one of the world’s most rapidly aging and shrinking populations and one of the world’s lowest birthrates they need immigration to fill their workforce. It’s a big risk and the Germans are hedging their bets that the influx of migrants are higher skilled workers who will quickly move from a position of receiving assistance to paying taxes and adding a positive to the economy. Sweden is faced with similar problems and has similar expectations.

Eastern Germany which still lags behind Western Germany in jobs and opportunities, is firmly anti-migrant has been experiencing violence for several months. A proposed migrant shelter was burned in Nauen in August, violent protests outside of other shelters have been reported over the following months, and the number of hate-crimes against migrants continues to rise. Muslims are helping to fuel the violence by demanding timely asylum and immediate housing, much to the dismay of the German Nationals.

Nationalist political parties are gaining influence at a rapid pace, mostly supported by the fear by the people of terrorism and the spread of Islam by the citizenry. The National Front party in France, The Freedom Party in Austria, and the Party for Freedom in the Netherlands have all surged to a majority and show no signs of losing support.

Over 50% of native Britons want to withdraw from the European Union based on a recent poll. Hungary has erected a border fence and is moving border police to the Greek border to stop the invaders. Slovenia began erecting a razor wire fence along parts of its border with Croatia on Wednesday, and Sweden ostensibly closed its borders on Thursday, November 13th.

Angela Merkel is being criticized by Germans and other leaders in Europe as her “open arms” policy is like a message all across the Middle East and North Africa for people to make their way toward Europe. The rest of the European Union is toughening their stance and may leave Germany holding the bag, so to speak and the responsibility for all the refugees they are drawing. Her opinion polls in Germany are falling rapidly and there is open warfare within the country leadership, and as more people turn their support away from her, the problems will only worsen.

Native European Jews and Christians are living in terror with the amount of Muslims coming in. Migrants are very hostile to those religious groups and violence is occurring. Soon what we now know as the French, German, and other cultural groups will cease to exist.

European hospitals are being overwhelmed with people from abroad, many of which are bringing in exotic and dangerous diseases. Many of these migrants have AIDS, syphilis, open TB as well as diseases European doctors do not know how to treat. Many Europeans are avoiding their own clinics for fear of contracting one of the parasites or infectious diseases that the migrants carry. The battles that European doctors understood as being over are now staring them right in the face. Cholera, not seen in Europe for years has been reported. Childhood diseases that most Europeans are vaccinated for are being observed in migrant children. Malaria, Leprosy, Polio, and Whooping Cough are all suddenly on the rise and sexually transmitted diseases are rampant among the migrants.

A secondary problem is that Middle Eastern refugees are causing instability and chaos in hospitals primarily due to the fact that they discriminate against female medical workers. Many Muslim men outright refuse care by a woman. Muslims are refusing to pay for services and some reports have surfaced that they abandoned their children in hospitals due to lack of funds to pay for medicine.

Sanitation issues are also a concern as the migrant leave a trail of garbage behind, use peoples yards as toilets, and no matter how much effort is applied these problems keep getting worse. Most of those on the migrant trail have poor personal hygiene to begin with and moving daily without access to bathing facilities or care items only makes it worse.

Even if they can get access to health care, most cannot even communicate with workers without an interpreter and even in those cases cannot get their message across. Many need quarantined and there simply are not enough facilities to support that. Native health care workers are abandoning their post for fear of contracting these diseases themselves.

Asylum seekers are driving a surge in violent crime in cities and towns across Germany. German authorities, however, are downplaying the lawlessness, apparently to avoid fueling anti-immigration sentiment. In Berlin or in the north of Duisburg there are neighborhoods where people hardly dare to stop a car — because they know that they'll be surrounded by 40 or 50 men. These threatening incidents amount to a deliberate challenge to German authority. A confidential police report leaked to a German newspaper reveals that a record-breaking 38,000 asylum seekers were accused of committing crimes in the country in 2014. Analysts believe this figure — which works out to more than 100 a day — is only the tip of the iceberg, as many crimes are either not resolved or not reported.

The majority of stranger rapes in Germany (as compared to rape where the victim knew the perpetrator) are carried out by Muslim immigrant or migrant men. With over 80% of the illegal migrants being young and male in large places like Munich and Berlin and the fact that they come from nations where women are completely covered, the shock of seeing European women and their naked skin brings out their savagery and lust and many young European girls and women are paying the price. Sweden now has the highest incidence of reported rape outside of a few African countries, and nearly ten times the rate of its European peers. It’s no surprise that Germany and Sweden, the top two destination countries for Muslim immigrants are seeing news headlines such as these:

Germany: Mob of Muslim Immigrants Pull a Young German Woman and Her Child from Their Car and Beat Them Both (September 19th)

Germany: Muslim Immigrants Brutally Gang-Rape a 19-Year-old Girl in Germany’s 4th Immigrant Gang-Rape This Month. Early in October a 24 year-old woman was brutally gang-raped in a Magdeburg cemetery. Two weeks ago two 19 year-old girls were gang-raped by “refugees.”

Sweden: Group of Muslim Male Immigrants Gang-Rape Young Swedish Woman Sentenced to 6 Months Detention

Munich, Germany: Physician and Two Nurses Stabbed by Muslim Immigrants in Hospital

Berlin, Deutschland: Two Turkish Muslim Men Stab a Pregnant German girl, Pour Petrol on Her then Set Her on Fire

Sweden's political leaders not only refuse to take action, but have made it a criminal offense to talk about it.

The “American Dream” is recognized worldwide as the opportunity of a lifetime. Yet, America is already facing problems of its own with illegal immigrants pouring across the Southern border, draining our economy and weakening our ability to support our own citizens. The masses of European migrants are already looking to at our charity as the golden goose, perhaps larger than the European prizes. Once they have drained all life from Europe, they will look to move across the sea like a hoard of locusts, consuming everything in their path and leaving a trail of waste behind them. They won’t be coming here to assimilate, or to learn English and become Americans, or to be part of the great melting pot of this nation. They will be coming here to take, by force if necessary, our land, our resources, and our culture. The evidence of this model already exists in Europe, yet people continue to choose to ignore it. While elitists in governments pat themselves on the back for how humanitarian they are for opening their arms to help those who are less fortunate, the underbelly of the world slides in to anchor themselves and start recruiting jihadists and criminals to join their ranks.

The people will ultimately be the ones who suffer but the question is for how long? What will be the straw that breaks the back of the camel and causes upheaval to a level the breaks the European Union or even leads to all-out war? How long will the Christians and Jews remain silent while Muslims cause them harm? What message is being received by the long-term unemployed citizens of those nations who are being pushed further down the list for work? When it comes down to cultural and physical survival, people react in a defensive mode that opens them up to any behavior one could conjure. Those of us watching from abroad think it will be soon….very soon.

I've put many hours into this piece and it gives my best interpretation of the causality and potential outcomes of the vast population movements happening in Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East. I hope you can learn something from it as I have educated myself in writing it. Do you agree with it? Well I'm sure some will and other's won't.

Your comments are welcome and I'll approve them as long as they are civil. Please remember that this isn't a Disqus forum - don't just drop a one line bomb or try to hijack the narrative to what you want it to say. I'm fair, but I'm also the one who did the work and the writing so I'm entitled to moderate comments as I see fit.

Thanks for taking time to read this and share your thoughts.