Majorityrights News > Category: Immigration and Politics

Breitbart, “Anti-Mass Migration Central European Nations Volunteer €35 Million To Reinforce EU Borders”, 15 Dec 2017:

The four central nations that comprise the Visegrad group (V4) have set aside 35 million euros to help European Union (EU) member states protect the political bloc’s external borders against illegal mass migration.

The four countries that make up the Visegrad group, Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic and Slovakia, have all agreed to donate the money to protect the EU external border in an announcement this week. All four countries are attending a EU conference to discuss migration issues beginning Thursday AP reports.

Slovakian Prime Minister Robert Fico commented on the move saying, “if we will see good projects in the future, first of all, projects that are effective, we are ready to spend even more money because we really want to show solidarity.”

Mayor Laszlow discusses overwhelming success of Hungary’s border fence - “instituted because we’re ‘normal” - the fence cut migration to Hungary by 99%

Some of the countries in the V4 group have been accused of a lack of solidarity by some in EU leadership. The Hungarian government has been particularly critical of those in Brussels who have argued about solidarity.

Breitbart London @BreitbartLondon

EU Dismisses Hungarian Request for ‘Solidarity’ over Border Controls, ‘We Won’t Support Fences’http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/09/04/eu-dismisses-request-border-securitty/ 10:00 PM - Sep 4, 2017

EU Dismisses Hungarian Request for ‘Solidarity’ over Border Controls, ‘We Won’t Support Fences.’

Hungarian government spokesman Zoltan Kovacs replied to the EU elites in September writing, “The distorted narrative that is spun from Brussels attempts to convince European citizens that somehow European solidarity should be connected to accepting migrants, many of whom have crossed illegally into the territory of the EU.”

Kovacs also argued that Hungary had funded EUR 883.2 million from its own budget in order to protect the EU external borders.

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, who has consistently argued against mass migration, said Thursday that the new injection of cash will also go toward helping control illegal migration from Libya.

The EU, along with Italy have funnelled money into Libya to help train coastguard recruits and some allege that the Italians have even paid local warlords to stop the influx of migrants.

All four Visegrad group countries continue to refuse to participate in the EU’s migrant redistribution scheme with Prime Minister Fico noting, “Quotas do not work, they are ineffective, the decision on quotas really divided the European Union.”

Mateusz Morawiecki. third from left, at the Warsaw Zoo holding a document honoring rescuers of Jews, Sept., 2017. (Courtesy of From the Depths)

JTA, “New Polish prime minister refers to rescue of ‘Jewish brothers’ in his inaugural address”, 12 Dec 2017:

(JTA) — In his first speech as Poland’s prime minister, Mateusz Morawiecki said that non-Jewish Poles who saved their “Jewish brothers” during the Holocaust represent the “essence of what it means to be Polish.”

Morawiecki, a former banker who in September spoke about his Jewish roots – two of his aunts are Jewish — in a speech about rescuers of Jews in Warsaw, presented his inaugural address Tuesday to the parliament.

The remark about Jews was unusual because of the reference as brethren and the de facto head of state including the subject in an inaugural address.

Morawiecki, who was the finance minister before his promotion in a surprising reshuffle in the government of the right-wing ruling Law and Justice Party, spoke mostly about the economy and foreign relations.

But in speaking about the national identity, he said: “The deep community dimension is inscribed in our tradition: Assistance to people in flight, Żegota saving our Jewish brothers and Solidarity. This is real proof of what Polishness is and what the community is.”

Żegota is the name of a Polish resistance group that helped Jews during the Holocaust. Solidarity was an anti-communist movement, in which Morawiecki’s father was active during Poland’s subjugation to the Soviet Union.

Morawiecki, 49, succeeds Beata Szydło, also of the right-wing party, who has served in the post since 2015.

Morawiecki, who was not even a member of Law and Justice two years ago, joined the government as minister for economic development in 2015 before adding the post of finance minister last year.

His Jewish roots were known in Poland. Morawiecki spoke about it in some detail earlier this year at a ceremony at the Warsaw Zoo honoring a former zoo director and his wife, Jan and Antonina Żabiński, who saved hundreds of Jews there, and other rescuers.

Polish non-Jews killed at least 1,500 Jews in a series of pogroms during and directly after the Holocaust, according to the Polish chief rabbi, Michael Schudrich

READ MORE...

National Vanguard, “EU-Funded Report Tells Journalists not to Write Negative Articles on Migrant Crisis” - Christopher Rossetti 10 Dec 2017:

A new journalistic code of practice, funded by the EU, calls on journalists to avoid reporting on the migrant crisis in a negative way, refrain from linking Islam to terror and avoid mentioning whether or not a criminal migrant was in the country illegally.

The guideline even calls on journalists to report colleagues to the authorities for “hate speech” if they do so.

The code, financed by the European Union’s Rights, Equality and Citizenship program, defines hate speech as expressions which ‘promote or justify xenophobia’ including ‘intolerance expressed by aggressive nationalism’.

The report says that although journalism cannot ‘solve the problem of hate speech on its own…the European Union must reinforce existing mechanisms and support new tools designed to combat hate speech’.

To do this, the report calls on journalists to shop their colleagues to police, as well as people who comment on their articles, on the grounds that they’ve committed a hate speech offence.

The new guidelines ask hacks to not to report ‘migrants as exclusively having a negative impact on society’ and singles out ‘reports that present migration as constituting a net cost to the social safety net’ and to only mention a migrant’s ethnic origin or religion ‘when necessary for the audience to understand the news’.

The code urges reporters not to focus on ‘issues such as whether asylum seekers’ claims are genuine’, which is odd because the EU’s own statistics show that most of those who come are economic migrants who don’t qualify for protected refugee status.

It also calls on journalists to refrain from reporting on crimes committed by migrants unless they include ‘statistics that disprove assumptions that migration leads to rising crime levels’ — a worrying ask for those on the right who frequently write about no-go zones which are directly linked to mass migration.

“Don’t fall into the trap of focusing solely on possible negative aspects of large-scale migration. It is also important to highlight positive contributions of migration and individual migrants,” they say.

The report’s author states: “When problems inside the asylum system occur — e.g, migrants riot, or an increase in small-time criminality is noted — look critically for the root cause” — which on the previous page, the authors say includes “poverty and climate change”. Climate change?!

The report recommends that journalists should not use the adjective “illegal” when referring to migrants.

When reporting on Islam, journalists are asked not to refer to Islamic culture as ‘barbaric, irrational, primitive, aggressive, threatening or prone to terrorism’ and when reporting negative or ‘hateful comments’ towards Muslims, reporters should ‘challenge any false premises on which such comments rely’.

Additionally, the group say that reporters shouldn’t quote politicians or other public figures on migration ‘without challenging their statements’ and recommends approaching migrant advocacy groups for lines that can be used against anti-migration narratives — effectively asking supposedly neutral reporters to become pro-migrant advocates within the media.

* * *

Source: Locust Blog

Jonathan Porritt, author of The World We Made, feels the Green Party must still discuss population.

The Ecologist, “Jonathon Porritt calls for progressive case for taking control of EU immigration”, 7 Dec 2017:

JONATHON PORRITT, author of The World We Made, joined the Green Party four decades ago. At that time the party keenly debated population growth, and the impact this would have on the environment. Today, Porritt argues, the referendum and anxiety around immigration means progressives still need to discuss this hotly contested issue.

These increasingly significant deficits are not caused by high levels of immigration: they’re caused by wretchedly inadequate economic and fiscal policy.

When I joined the Green party in the mid-1970s population was a big issue, regularly debated with enthusiasm and intellectual rigour. People joining the Green party today would have to wait a long time before even hearing the word mentioned – and then might easily find themselves ‘warned off’ from this no-go territory.

I just don’t get this. In a world where overall population growth projections are rising, and where global migration is still on the rise, it’s a complete dereliction of all environmentalists’ duty to protect the planet (particularly members of the Green party) to continue to ignore population growth and not to campaign for its reduction. Without such a reduction, all solutions to other aspects of ecological and social concern are made far more difficult to deal with.

A couple of weeks ago, myself and Colin Hines published a paper entitled The Progressive Case for Taking Control of EU Immigration – and Avoiding Brexit in the Process. This case is simple: Brexit could still be reversed; hard Brexit can certainly be avoided.

Population growth

But this won’t happen unless Labour, the Lib Dems and the Green Party stop dickering around and come up with some serious ideas about more effectively managing immigration into and between EU countries. Without that, many of those who voted Brexit will cry out in rage at the referendum result being seen to be ‘set aside’, given that concern about immigration was paramount in their minds at that time.

Uncomfortable though this might be for contemporary greens – and indeed for all progressives – high levels of population growth and immigration go hand-in-hand. If net migration continues at around recent levels, then the UK’s population is expected to rise by nearly 8 million people in 15 years, almost the equivalent of the population of Greater London (8.7 million).

At least 75 percent of this increase would be from future migration and the children of those migrants. As already indicated, future population growth would not stop there. Unless something is done about this growth, it is projected to increase towards 80 million in 25 years and keep going upwards.

It’s important to be completely logical about this. For instance, the UK is already struggling to maintain critical infrastructure, to meet housing demand, and to invest sufficiently in education, healthcare and social services.

As Colin and I unhesitatingly pointed out in our paper, these increasingly significant deficits are not caused by high levels of immigration: they’re caused by wretchedly inadequate economic and fiscal policy, going back at least a couple of decades. But continuing population growth clearly exacerbates those deficits.

Resolutely defended

The UK’s Total Fertility Rate has not been above 2.1 children per mother since 1972, but ‘population momentum’ (increase in numbers of births when babies born at peak of population growth reach reproductive age), plus net immigration, has led to a population increase of nearly 10 million people since 1972.

And these challenges can only get worse. We know, as a matter of increasingly painful inevitability, that the lives of tens/hundreds of millions of people (particularly in Africa and the Middle East) will be devastated by the effects of climate change.

We know that many of those people will have no choice but to leave their homes and communities if they are to have any prospect of survival, let alone a better life. And we know that many of them will seek to come to Europe, as the place that offers the best possible refuge in an all-encompassing storm not of their own making.

How can anyone suppose that an ‘open borders’ positioning is an appropriate response to that kind of backdrop? How can most progressives stick to the line that the EU’s principle of ‘freedom of movement’ should be resolutely defended, especially after resurgent right-wing populism has had such a negative impact on elections this year in France, the Netherlands, Germany, the Czech Republic and Austria?

All I can do, therefore, is to urge all environmentalists to open up their minds again and re-think the whole population/immigration nexus – from a radical, genuinely progressive perspective. 

This Author

Jonathon Porritt is an environmentalist and author.

...of the increases. If you own a private jet, any attendant costs will be tax exempt. Good deal.

Trump’s tax plan -

Time, 28 Nov 2017:

“I’m a Multi-Millionaire So Trump’s Tax Plan Is Great for Me. It’s a Disaster for Everyone Else”

Discussion from minute 8:25 - 9:02

On Sunday, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office released its report on the effects of the Senate GOP tax plan, and the results aren’t pretty. According to the CBO, if this bill passes there will be a huge transfer of wealth in our country from the middle class to the rich. Nearly every American making under $75,000 a year will have less money in the long run, while millionaires like me will have more money from all our tax cuts.

The plan would also add an astounding $1.4 trillion to the national debt. That’s 1.4 trillion reasons Republicans are going to use in the future to justify cutting Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

Senate Republicans claim their bill is intended to help the middle class, and that tax cuts for millionaires and wealthy corporations are necessary to boost economic growth and raise wages. People who invest in job-creating businesses know that the most important factor for economic growth is customers who have the means and desire to buy their products.

Discussion from minute 8:25 - 9:02

The idea that this tax plan is going to help anyone beside the ultra-rich is ludicrous. Even a brief examination of their bill shows how blatantly untrue their claims are.

Yes, some middle-class Americans are going to get a tax cut, but it will be temporary and will leave millions worse off in the long run. If you make less than $75,000 a year, your taxes are going up so mine can go down.

What about those huge tax cuts for millionaires and wealthy corporations? Those are permanent. That disparity tells you everything you need to know about the bill.

To make matters worse, the Senate bill’s elimination of the Obamacare individual mandate would absolutely wreck the healthcare market. Without the mandate, health care premiums would rise across the board by about 10%, increasing costs for consumers and forcing those who can’t afford the increase to go without.

Discussion from minute 8:25 - 9:02

The CBO estimates that without the mandate an extra 4 million Americans would be without insurance by 2019, a number which rises all the way to 13 million by 2027. Some of those people will end up going bankrupt, and that won’t help them, the businesses where they shop or any other part of the economy besides the debt collection industry.

After years of talk about the danger of deficits and the importance of helping small businesses, this bill puts Senate Republicans’ priorities in the spotlight, and the American people (rightly) don’t like what they’re seeing. Any tax bill will naturally have winners and losers as rates are changed and loopholes are closed, but it’s striking how clearly the lines in this bill have been drawn. If you’re rich, you’re a winner. If you’re not, you’re a loser. That’s not tax reform, it’s a handout to the wealthy.

Discussion from minute 8:25 - 9:02

The zealous support for this bill by many Senators baffles me. Some of the bill’s loudest advocates, like Mitch McConnell of Kentucky or Tim Scott of South Carolina, represent states full of people that stand to lose if this passes. They are pushing a bill that will hurt the vast majority of their constituents, all to please a few wealthy donors. That decision isn’t just morally reprehensible, it’s political suicide.

The effects of this tax bill are clear — I’ll get a tax cut, and the middle class gets screwed. That’s apparently an acceptable tradeoff for many members of the Senate, but it’s not ok with me, and it shouldn’t be ok with the American people.

This bill is an outrage, and it must be stopped.

        Related Story: Americans do not pay into Social Security beyond yearly earnings of $127,500

Red Ice, “Free Sweden: An Association to Ensure a Future for Swedish People”, 1 Dec 2017:

Dan Eriksson lives in Berlin, Germany and is Nationalistic writer, public speaker, podcaster and online video producer for Motgift (antidote). Ingrid Carlqvist worked in mainstream media for many years, before starting Dispatch International with Lars Hedegaard in 2012. She has been a writer for Gatestone Institute and co-hosts the popular Swedish podcast, Ingrid & Conrad. Daniel Frändelöv, who goes by the name Conrad, has been running the popular Swedish podcast Ingrid & Conrad since 2015. For the past five six years, he’s been preoccupied with the thought of the destruction of Sweden and was previously the co-host of Radio Länsman.

An audio version of this show is available here.

Our guests join us to discuss a new exciting nationalist initiative called Free Sweden. First, we discuss how Free Sweden came to be. We learn that the organization, which was created to serve the interests of Swedes, has gathered gained an impressive membership and substantial funding since its recent launch. We then discuss Sweden’s demographic woes. Our guests explain that the Swedish state has become hostile to the interests of ethnic Swedes, which is why Free Sweden is so necessary. Later, we discuss how Free Sweden is not a separatist organization – quite the contrary, The show also covers the need to reconnect with nature, the Swedish government’s response to Free Sweden, and the meaning behind the organization’s symbol.

Ann Marie Waters:

How it feels to me is that the walls are closing-in, and the walls are closing-in more every day. You see it all the time: There was a girl, a woman in Sweden, recently, and she was raped by Syrian migrants in her own flat. Now, the evidence was all there, her body was black and blue, there was DNA, there was semen, there was all the rest of it. And the prosecution, the police told her that there wasn’t enough evidence for a prosecution, and she killed herself.

Now, we have seen this happen up in Sunderland, with Justice for Chelsea, again, a massive load of evidence, but no prosecutions brought. So, they are closing in, they are closing-in and we are being told that black is white. We have all this evidence and we’re being told there’s no evidence. We have all these migrant rapes and we’re being told there’s no migrant rapes. We have what happened in Cologne; and the next day we were told that it has nothing to do with migrants, even though migrants had committed it.

We are essentially living in Orwell’s 1984, where we are seeing something with our own eyes and we’re told it’s not happening. And if we identify it and we dare to speak it, then we are shunned. We have people who are threatened with loss of their livelihood. A friend of mine, Annie the Greek, who some of you who follow me on Twitter might know, has lost her job. She lost her job in the NHS because she refused to apologize for her political opinion. 

Now we’re in a situation, now take this in, take this in. In the last… I remember twenty years ago, it wasn’t like this, it wasn’t like this; ten years ago, it wasn’t like this; but take it in - we are now at risk of losing our jobs if we say the wrong thing. We are at risk of having our venues closed if we say the wrong thing. We are at risk of going to prison, quite frankly, if we say the wrong thing. That’s the situation we’re in. It is deathly serious. it really is. And no amount of calling me a far-right fascist is going to change the reality.

                                                - Anne Marie Waters