French PM Manuel Valls says refugee crisis is 'destabilising' Europe

cancel2 2022

Canceled
Wow, even the Guardian and France are waking up to the dangers of untrammelled immigration

The French prime minister, Manuel Valls, has said Europe cannot take in all the refugees fleeing wars in Iraq and Syria and that the crisis was putting the concept of Europe itself in grave danger. Speaking to the BBC at the economic forum in Davos, Valls said Europe needed to take urgent action to control its external borders. “Otherwise,” he said, “our societies will be totally destabilised.” Asked about border controls inside Europe, which many fear put the passport-free Schengen zone at risk, Valls said the concept of Europe was in jeopardy. “If Europe is not capable of protecting its own borders, it’s the very idea of Europe that will be questioned,” he said. He said a message to refugees that says “Come, you will be welcome”, provoked major shifts in population. “Today, when we speak in Europe, a few seconds later it is mainly on the smartphones in the refugee camps,” Valls said.

On Thursday in Davos the Dutch prime minister, Mark Rutte , said Europe was close to breaking point and needed to come up with a common response or run the risk that one of the European Union’s founding principles would start to unravel. “We need to get a grip on this issue in the next six to eight weeks”, Rutte said.

He said in the first three weeks of this year 35,000 people had crossed the EU’s borders and this would quadruple once the spring arrives. “We can’t cope with the numbers any longer. We need to get a grip on this.” Rutte said that before the Schengen agreement was killed off, the EU had to try to make the Dublin regulation – under which refugees should seek asylum in the first country they reach – work. “No one wants to kill Schengen, but if it is only a fair weather system then it cannot survive.”

Sweden’s prime minister, Stefan Löfven, expressed doubts about whether the tight timetable set by Rutte could be met. “I’m not naive,” he said. “My argument to the countries that are not willing to accept refugees is that if we can’t handle this the European Union is at risk. If we cannot do it there is a risk to Schengen.”

Austria had announced on Wednesday that it planned to limit the number of people allowed to apply for asylum to 1.5% of its population over the next four years. For this year, the government said in a statement, the number would be capped at 37,500.

Germany’s finance minister, Wolfgang Schäuble, said he did not even want to contemplate whether Germany, which accepted more than 1 million refugees in 2015, could cope with a similar number this year. He said Europe had to be prepared to spend billions on a crisis that would cost a lot more than envisaged.
Jim Yong Kim, the president of the World Bank, said the refugee problem had intensified and he had been asked by the UN chief, Ban Ki-moon, to rethink the humanitarian response to the crisis so that emergency assistance formed part of a long-term development plan.

Speaking to the Guardian in Davos, Kim said the bill for refugees was soaring and a new approach was needed. “People are attached to staying where they are but there has to be hope of finding work. “We have to build up the productive capacity of countries with large numbers of refugees. We have to make it attractive to stay in these countries.”\

Gordon Brown called for governments, business and charitable foundations to provide the money to put every Syrian refugee child in school, as he warned that the greatest humanitarian disaster since the second world war risked creating a lost generation. The former British prime minister, now the UN special envoy for education, told the Davos economic summit that the current market turmoil should not be used as an excuse for inaction. He said: “Whatever the difficulties in financial markets and whatever difficulties countries have with their individual aid budgets, we have to come together in the face of this great humanitarian crisis.”

Brown, said there were now 60 million displaced people around the world, 20 million of them refugees. “Syria is at the epicentre with the fastest growing problem – 12 million displaced persons, 4 million of them refugees, 2 million of them children.” Justine Greening, the UK’s international development secretary, strongly backed the idea of spending more on schools as part of a comprehensive approach designed to build up economies in the Middle East. She said: “Billions of euros can be spent on failure or they can be put it into a constructive, positive response which meets what the refugees really want – education and a job.”

http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...s-says-refugee-crisis-is-destabilising-europe
 
Last edited:
Europe is a pretty liberal place and even they are forced to contemplate the results of liberal border policy. As I've said before, Europe needs to get a handle on this or Europe as we know it will cease to exist.

And the 'new Europe' won't be someplace our uber non-racist liberal's will want to go to.
 
The French prime minister, Manuel Valls, has said Europe cannot take in all the refugees fleeing wars in Iraq and Syria

No one has ever asked for that. The vast majority are being taken in by Turkey, Lebanon, Iraq, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia.
 
Germany took in a million refugees? All the sources I can find say 200k. Merkel announced plans to accept up to a million refugees, but that shouldn't be taken as the number that have actually arrived.
 
Germany took in a million refugees? All the sources I can find say 200k. Merkel announced plans to accept up to a million refugees, but that shouldn't be taken as the number that have actually arrived.

Well, I would suggest stopping at 200k lol.
 
The same Europeans saying this are the same Europeans who supported austerity and we've all seen how that worked out.

Those who oppose emigration from Syria/Iraq are not thinking this through. So put you're dumb assed xenophobia and bigotry aside and think about this.

Whether anyone likes it or not there is a mass movement of radicalized Muslims in the war torn regions of Syria and Iraq (duh). This movement does not reflect the best interest neither the west or arab/Islamic people.

One of the best ways there is to defuse a mass movement of this nature is emigration. It denies ISIS/Daesh and other radicalized group a source of frustrated people ripe for radicalization.

In fact preventing emigration is not in our national security interest or that of Europe. By facilitating emigration by those from those regions attempting to escape these war torn radicalized regions we deny them a sure supply of soldiers, fighters, fanatics and radicals and the resources these people can bring to bear. Facilitating emigration precipitately weakens ISIS/Daesh, Asad and other radicalized groups in that region. This is in our best interest.

Then there is the humanitarian aspect of this. If these people are sent back a very large number of them will die in the process and an even greater number of those returned would simply be killed and it would cause greater destabilization and increased radicalization in that region.

So opposing the emigration of these war refugees from the ME is beyond stupid! It is not in our national security interest to do so.

Besides, we could use the new blood here in the U.S. in the South, Appalachia and much of rural America to help remediate the damage done in those regions by over a century or more of inbreeding.
 
Last edited:
It's 'immigration' lol.

So, Europe should basically commit cultural suicide because another part of the world is jacked-up by Muslim crazies? Wouldn't it make better sense to eradicate them?
 
It's 'immigration' lol.

So, Europe should basically commit cultural suicide because another part of the world is jacked-up by Muslim crazies? Wouldn't it make better sense to eradicate them?

My argument to the countries that are not willing to accept refugees is that if we can’t handle this the European Union is at risk. If we cannot do it there is a risk to Schengen.”

This is from the article, there is no risk if everyone does their part.
 
Germany took in a million refugees? All the sources I can find say 200k. Merkel announced plans to accept up to a million refugees, but that shouldn't be taken as the number that have actually arrived.

Yes they have taken in a million migrants and Sweden has taken in over 150,000, which considering that their population is only 8 million is a fuckton of people.
 
My argument to the countries that are not willing to accept refugees is that if we can’t handle this the European Union is at risk. If we cannot do it there is a risk to Schengen.”

This is from the article, there is no risk if everyone does their part.

Why? It was that stupid cow Merkel that gave the green light for them to come to Germany. Now that has backfired in spectacular fashion she is trying to strong arm other countries to clear up her mess.
 
The same Europeans saying this are the same Europeans who supported austerity and we've all seen how that worked out.

Those who oppose emigration from Syria/Iraq are not thinking this through. So put you're dumb assed xenophobia and bigotry aside and think about this.

Whether anyone likes it or not there is a mass movement of radicalized Muslims in the war torn regions of Syria and Iraq (duh). This movement does not reflect the best interest neither the west or arab/Islamic people.

One of the best ways there is to defuse a mass movement of this nature is emigration. It denies ISIS/Daesh and other radicalized group a source of frustrated people ripe for radicalization.

In fact preventing emigration is not in our national security interest or that of Europe. By facilitating emigration by those from those regions attempting to escape these war torn radicalized regions we deny them a sure supply of soldiers, fighters, fanatics and radicals and the resources these people can bring to bear. Facilitating emigration precipitately weakens ISIS/Daesh, Asad and other radicalized groups in that region. This is in our best interest.

Then there is the humanitarian aspect of this. If these people are sent back a very large number of them will die in the process and an even greater number of those returned would simply be killed and it would cause greater destabilization and increased radicalization in that region.

So opposing the emigration of these war refugees from the ME is beyond stupid! It is not in our national security interest to do so.

Besides, we could use the new blood here in the U.S. in the South, Appalachia and much of rural America to help remediate the damage done in those regions by over a century or more of inbreeding.

I am sorry but that is just bullshit on steroids!! If you want them then take them, we in the UK have had millions emigrate here since 2004 when that arsehole Blair opened the floodgates and let in eight Eastern European countries, Romania and Bulgaria were allowed unfettered access in 2014. Nobody else in the EU did that except for Sweden and Ireland. It has imposed massive strains on housing, the NHS, schools and public infrastructure. Germany caused the problem with their gross stupidity sending out the signal that they would take everybody, so fuck them! We have nothing to be ashamed of as the UK pays over a billion pounds on refugee camps in Syria and Lebanon, more than just about all the other EU countries put together. The vast majority of those migrants are not even Syrian but from the North, Maghreb and Sahel regions of Africa. They are economic migrants taking advantage of the situation and have no legal right of entry to anywhere in Europe.
 
Last edited:
The same Europeans saying this are the same Europeans who supported austerity and we've all seen how that worked out.

Those who oppose emigration from Syria/Iraq are not thinking this through. So put you're dumb assed xenophobia and bigotry aside and think about this.

Whether anyone likes it or not there is a mass movement of radicalized Muslims in the war torn regions of Syria and Iraq (duh). This movement does not reflect the best interest neither the west or arab/Islamic people.

One of the best ways there is to defuse a mass movement of this nature is emigration. It denies ISIS/Daesh and other radicalized group a source of frustrated people ripe for radicalization.

In fact preventing emigration is not in our national security interest or that of Europe. By facilitating emigration by those from those regions attempting to escape these war torn radicalized regions we deny them a sure supply of soldiers, fighters, fanatics and radicals and the resources these people can bring to bear. Facilitating emigration precipitately weakens ISIS/Daesh, Asad and other radicalized groups in that region. This is in our best interest.

Then there is the humanitarian aspect of this. If these people are sent back a very large number of them will die in the process and an even greater number of those returned would simply be killed and it would cause greater destabilization and increased radicalization in that region.

So opposing the emigration of these war refugees from the ME is beyond stupid! It is not in our national security interest to do so.

Besides, we could use the new blood here in the U.S. in the South, Appalachia and much of rural America to help remediate the damage done in those regions by over a century or more of inbreeding.

Dude, these people aren't assimilating into the culture. That's the problem and it's not new. I'm not saying Europe should have no immigration but this idea that the numbers don't matter is flat out wrong.
 
I am sorry but that is just bullshit on steroids!! If you want them then take them, we in the UK have had millions emigrate here since 2004 when that arsehole Blair opened the floodgates and let in eight Eastern European countries, Romania and Bulgaria were allowed unfettered access in 2014. Nobody else in the EU did that except for Sweden and Ireland. It has imposed massive strains on housing, the NHS, schools and public infrastructure. Germany caused the problem with their gross stupidity sending out the signal that they would take everybody, so fuck them! We have nothing to be ashamed of as the UK pays over a billion pounds on refugee camps in Syria and Lebanon, more than just about all the other EU countries put together.

Pffft, America has more immigrants than you.

The vast majority of those migrants are not even Syrian but from the North, Maghreb and Sahel regions of Africa. They are economic migrants taking advantage of the situation and have no legal right of entry to anywhere in Europe.

Yes, Syrians just happen to be coming to Europe just as their country is being torn apart by war, the war is in fact a brilliant ploy by the evil Syrians to get into Europe.
 
Dude, these people aren't assimilating into the culture. That's the problem and it's not new. I'm not saying Europe should have no immigration but this idea that the numbers don't matter is flat out wrong.

That's a ridiculous and untestable assertion used by racists.
 
It's 'immigration' lol.

So, Europe should basically commit cultural suicide because another part of the world is jacked-up by Muslim crazies? Wouldn't it make better sense to eradicate them?
Since when is doing your Christian duty and extending a Christian hand of love and benevolence to those less fortunate than us who are trying to escape war and terror committing cultural suicide?

Your comment is not only un-Christian, given Christian principles, and un-American, given American history and values, it's simply based on bigotry and fear or those whom are different than you. Besides, you're region of West Virginia is one of the inbred regions most desperately in need of the new genome these immigrants would provide.

Just think of the social, cultural, educational, not to mention genetic benefit of marrying your sons and daughters to these children of Mohammed? :)
 
My argument to the countries that are not willing to accept refugees is that if we can’t handle this the European Union is at risk. If we cannot do it there is a risk to Schengen.”

This is from the article, there is no risk if everyone does their part.
My argument is that we need to support these immigrants and refugees as it is an important method of undermining the Asad regime and radicalized groups like Daesh and ISIS. Mass emigration is one of the absolute best methods to undermine terrorist movements.

We need to use common sense security measures in doing so but we need to welcome these people with open arms and assist them in getting back to a normal life an to assimilating into the societies in which the immigrate too. I'm not about to listen to a bunch of rednecks on this issue with limited critical thinking skills making decisions based on hate and racial bigotry who do not understand what our best national security interest are. I say let the rednecks and xenophobes bitch and whine all they want but at the end of the day, fuck them. They don't know what they are doing and should be ignored.
 
Yes they have taken in a million migrants and Sweden has taken in over 150,000, which considering that their population is only 8 million is a fuckton of people.
It is and they should be commended for it and the U.S. should do far, far more to help in this humanitarian crisis than what we have.
 
I am sorry but that is just bullshit on steroids!! If you want them then take them, we in the UK have had millions emigrate here since 2004 when that arsehole Blair opened the floodgates and let in eight Eastern European countries, Romania and Bulgaria were allowed unfettered access in 2014. Nobody else in the EU did that except for Sweden and Ireland. It has imposed massive strains on housing, the NHS, schools and public infrastructure. Germany caused the problem with their gross stupidity sending out the signal that they would take everybody, so fuck them! We have nothing to be ashamed of as the UK pays over a billion pounds on refugee camps in Syria and Lebanon, more than just about all the other EU countries put together. The vast majority of those migrants are not even Syrian but from the North, Maghreb and Sahel regions of Africa. They are economic migrants taking advantage of the situation and have no legal right of entry to anywhere in Europe.

It's not bullshit. This power vacuum in the middle east needs to be fixed and we can't just send these people back there and to argue that the well proven fact that emigration is a time tested and proven method of undermining radicalized mass movements is simply denying reality.

Can and should the U.S. do more to help? Hell yea....we could take up to a million of these refugees, distribute them throughout the country and hardly even notice it.
 
Back
Top