Quote: (03-25-2019 04:52 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:
Quote: (03-25-2019 03:12 AM)Pride male Wrote:
Without the wars in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan and Libya would there be as many Muslims in Europe?
Yes, there would. We can debate the disaster of military interventions until the sun burns out, but until we stop using them as an excuse for being invaded by savages, nothing will change.
The truth is simple: any super-cucked country just begging everyone to come collect free money and live above the law will get filled by hateful losers, no matter where the said losers are from. If Japan adopted the same policies as EU today, you can bet that by 2022 there would be millions of refugees from Indonesia pouring into the country to pillage it, together with the humanitarian crisis involving tens of thousands of poor migrants drowning in the Pacific.
For fuck's sake, here in Europe we have tons of "refugees" from Bangladesh, Uzbekistan, Sri Lanka, Central African Republic, Gabon and wherever else! What do all those places have to do with Iraq, let alone with Europe?
The entire "migrant crisis" thingy can be summed up with this simple sentence:
If you build it give welfare, they will come.
The UN Refugee Convention of 1951 defined a refugee as someone who:
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.
This is already wide open to abuse, but at least when restricted to Europe, the numbers attempting to exploit us would be relatively small, considering the high trust ethic present in much of Europe but with the passage of time, and the incursions of tens of millions of economic migrants into Europe from high corruption, low trust countries, over the decades, the scope for abuse increases.
The wording in the UN Refugee Convention of 1951 only extended to Europeans up until 1969, however it's scope was expanded in the 1969 Convention on Human Rights which opened this up to the entire world, and the nail in the coffin was the UNHCR's reimagining of the term 'refugee' as to include those people
'whose state is unwilling or unable to protect them from persecution'
I'm not sure exactly when the UNHCR made this suicidal change as to what constitutes a refugee, but I've found this document from 2002 on their website, so it may have been around then. Certainly the widespread global abuse of the asylum system by third world (and indeed second world) parasites has really ramped up in the last two decades, so that would make sense, in terms of timeline.
https://www.unhcr.org/publications/broch...swers.html
Are persons fleeing war or war-related conditions such as famine and ethnic violence refugees?
The 1951 Geneva Convention, the main international instrument of refugee law, does not specifically address the issue of civilians fleeing conflict, though in recent years major refugee movements have resulted from civil wars, ethnic, tribal and religious violence.
However, UNHCR considers that persons fleeing such conditions, and whose state is unwilling or unable to protect them, should be considered refugees. Regional instruments such as Africa’s OAU Convention and the Cartagena Declaration in Latin America support this view.
I find myself coming back to this excellent video from Way of the World, which is if anything, too kind to these exploitative hordes invading our lands, but provides a good introduction as to how this situation developed: