The European Union (EU) on Tuesday (14.05.20124) yet approved a migration pact to manage the influx of migrants into associate States. However, this decision creates quite a few controversy and challenges its effectiveness and long-term consequences.
EU citizens will support migrants
One of the main arguments against this pact is that EU citizens will support migrants. The adoption of the migration pact is an incentive for migrants to enter and keep EU countries. It is to support fornication and to populate Europe with unskilled workers who will be a parasite in a social strategy funded by all European who works hard and inactive fewer of them can afford a decent life.
This is simply a peculiarly delicate issue, as aid should be directed primarily to nationals of associate States alternatively than to migrants. This is an crucial point for discussion, due to the fact that many people in the European Union are wondering what the influx of migrants should truly look like. Many people believe that it should not be a situation where EU citizens are liable for maintaining them. This is simply a natural feeling, especially in the context of concerns about financial stableness and the burden on the social system, which is already inefficient and does not have the means to care for older people, who are sick and the population of Europe is getting older.
Another issue is allowing legal migration. On the 1 hand, migration can be an chance to bring fresh talent and enrich cultural diversity, on the another hand, there is simply a fear that we will not necessarily accept those who could truly benefit the EU. Therefore, if we are already choosing migrants, it should be those who bring added value to the European Union. This means that they are educated, have skills and experience that can contribute to the EU's competitiveness against another economies, including Hindu and Asian.
Specialist, not parasite feeding on its host, which creates enclaves and ghettos
They should be specialists in their fields, not a parasite that preys on its host - that is the key point. If we want migration to be beneficial to all parties, we must guarantee that migrants bring with them the value and skills that will service the full community. However, this requires careful selection and assurance that incoming people have real opportunities to integrate and contribute to the economical and social improvement of the European Union.
Cultural differences will pose challenges and problems, especially if there are no adequate integration mechanisms. Examples from countries specified as France, Germany and the Nordic countries actually show that migrants frequently make enclaves, or areas mostly inhabited by people from the same regions or cultures. This raises the question of social integration and how to prevent the formation of ghettos. The example of these countries shows that this problem cannot be solved.
In addition, there is simply a legitimate concern that the influx of migrants can be exploited by criminal smuggling groups. This activity fosters the improvement of crime and besides leads to the formation of the above-mentioned enclaves, which become separate, uncontrolled areas. In specified places, even police are frequently incapable to act effectively, which poses a serious threat to social security.
Who is behind the influx of migrants and what business is it?
In this situation, the legitimate question arises who truly is behind this influx of migrants, and what is their real goal? Are these, by any chance, measures aimed at achieving objectives another than those declared? 1 wonders whether there is simply a hidden interest behind the influx of migrants, aimed at weakening European societies, European belongings, past and culture, and bringing chaos into state structures?
Analysis of the situation in France, Germany and the Nordic countries shows that the process of assimilation of migrants can be very hard and sometimes impossible. As a result, isolated ghettos are created in any migrant communities, which are the origin of social and criminal problems, and the concerns of EU citizens about safety and stableness in the context of migration are so serious and justified.
So it is worth asking whether European decision-makers truly are aware of the full scope of threats posed by the massive influx of migrants? Or are there external forces that deliberately manipulate this situation for their own benefit? Is EU migration policy truly based on a real analysis of risks and consequences, or is it more subject to external pressures aimed at weakening Europe as a whole?
Why does the EU not seal the border with Spain and Italy? They can afford it.
The European Union has the resources to effectively seal borders, peculiarly where the problem of migration is most visible, namely Italy and Spain. The question of why they don't do it is legitimate and provokes reflection. 1 can hypothesize that the influx of migrants may have another hidden targets, apart from only the humanitarian aspect...
There is simply a very advanced hazard that the influx of migrants can service the intent of destroying European culture, tradition and historical identity. This process can lead to social chaos and destabilisation, which would consequently weaken the unity and strength of Europe.
The question of who truly cares about this influx of migrants is surely right. It is worth looking at the broad geopolitical context and the interests of different groups or countries that can benefit from this situation. It is possible that there are external forces that would want to weaken Europe, utilizing the influx of migrants as a tool to destabilise and undermine unity.
This is an issue that needs serious analysis and discussion at European Union level, but it will not happen due to the fact that the migration pact has already been voted on. The main precedence should be to guarantee the safety and social stableness of EU citizens, and the influx of migrants, mainly men who are culturally separate from Europeans, will origin a disaster in the area of safety and crime for us and our children.
Summary
The EU migration pact raises many controversy and divisions. For some, it is simply a step in the right direction in managing the influx of migrants, and for others it may be a decision that is besides risky and with many uncertainties including safety concerns.
That is why we should remember this in the context of the forthcoming elections to the European Parliament and choose people who care about cultural cleanliness and preservation of European heritage, which gives future safety to all of us.
Stop migrants, parasites preying on their host!
