Andrew Anglin
Daily Stormer
August 26, 2015
Why are the Jews letting her do this?
No one knows. But presumably, it is because they are now completely out of control.
As Europe struggles with its worst migration crisis in more than half a century, all eyes are once again on Angela Merkel. The German Chancellor took a huge political gamble this week by tearing up the EU’s rulebook, while also demanding a new deal that would force Britain to accept hundreds of thousands of refugees.
Faced with a human flood, Mrs Merkel has abandoned the Dublin Convention that requires asylum-seekers to be processed in their country of arrival. Berlin’s new policy will allow Syrian refugees to apply for asylum in Germany, rather than in their first port of call.
“Human flood”? Sounds pretty racism to me, Telegraph.
Deciding to do such a thing without the approval of Brussels will surely encourage other EU countries to pursue their own migration policies, too. But this is the last thing Mrs Merkel wants. She and President Hollande of France have just called for a new, binding European agreement to share the asylum burden.
They already called for that. And everyone said no. Now they are going to have to pass a decree, and then there will be a rebellion, and the whole thing will come crashing down.
How is this obvious to me and not to teams of professional analysts?
Her proposals, however, were greeted with incredulity by other member states, their inherent flaw being that they would give millions more migrants an added incentive to come to Europe. Mr Cameron, along with other leaders, is resisting Mrs Merkel’s move, despite moral blackmail from EU and UN officials.
Cameron saying he doesn’t want more immigrants is like that “no means yes” thing women do.
“Hehehe, no, don’t send me more immigrants, hehehe, my mom’s texting me I have to go, hehehe, seriously, my country can’t take more immigrants, Merkel, hehehe.”
Mrs Merkel may not like it but many Germans, who are expecting a record 800,000 asylum-seekers this year, feel that they have already taken more than their fair share.
She not only “doesn’t like it,” she openly refers to anyone who says anything about it as a “neo-Nazi.”
They blame their coalition government for being a soft touch and street protests are reaching a crescendo. On Thursday, Mrs Merkel was greeted by angry protests and shouts of “traitor” as she visited an embattled refugee hostel near Dresden. Solving this crisis is proving to be the greatest challenge of her career.
“Solving this crisis” – i.e. “destroying Germany” – seems to be the only purpose of her existence.
The consensus in Berlin is that Europe’s combination of open borders and different national immigration policies is unsustainable. The present uncontrolled influx is not how the system is designed to work – but the scale of the exodus from the Muslim world means that rules are being flouted as each country protects its own interest.
Meanwhile, the lack of border controls within Europe is allowing migrants to make for countries with generous rules on asylum and welfare, especially Germany and the UK. Britain, with a strong economy, is a powerful draw for migrants but we are outside the borderless Schengen area and Theresa May is determined to keep asylum seekers out of the UK. Unsurprisingly, the German media is portraying the Tory government as selfish.
…
Right now, she faces a stark choice between nation states acting independently or the creation of Fortress Europe. Either the EU permits the restoration of national control over immigration – which means the end of free movement within Europe – or the EU turns itself into a fortress, excluding genuine refugees as well as economic migrants, while preserving its internal freedom of movement. It will not be lost on older readers that “Fortress Europe” – Festung Europa – was Hitler’s name for Nazi-occupied Europe. Such a reactionary idea would be impractical as well as deeply unpopular.
Unpopular with who?
Immigrants?
Jews?
Who, exactly, would the idea of closing the borders be unpopular with, Mr. Telegraph?
Anyway. End to free movement and allowing countries to decide their own invasion quotas, which you are correct, is the only possibly other option, is definitely a big step in the right direction.