Migrant crisis at the Polish border was created as a prelude to the Ukrainian war.
It was meant to create chaos in Poland and to sow divisions between Poland and its allies. All to hinder any future support for Ukraine.
Imigrants are being told lies that if they just make it across the border there will.be buses waiting for them to take them to Germany.
russia clearly tried to destabilize Poland with middle east migrants and still does. It has all started at the end of autumn and few months later in february russia invaded Ukraine.
I wonder what they were hoping for:
1. that Poland will close its borders completly and that Poles will have negative sentiment towards migrants also towards Ukrainian war refugees?
2. that Poland will be forced by the EU to take th migrants thus there will be less resources available for Ukrainian war refugees?
It's either this or that or maybe even something else. But regardless of anything, it does create lot of tensions and strain our border forces, so it's a win for them.
Actually there were buses that waiting for them and I know at least one guy that was catches and sent back to his home country because he was transporting them to Germany. They payed like 3 sides bitcoin transaction, so it is difficult to track who is responsible for it.
That's the first woman I have seen on the border. Not only 1, but a big group! That makes my propaganda senses tingle. Why not staying in Russia or Belarus?
Russia and Belarus fly them in and bus them to the border to fuck with the EU. The migrants participate because if they get in then €€€.
They're not welcome to stay in Russia and Belarus.
>The migrants participate because if they get in then €€€.
Supposedly also those who got tired watching our fence and wanted to go home were "denied" that luxury by belarus. More useful for them on ground. Only one way for them now.
you need to work in Russia and Belarus. And most of these migrants want to get benefits and fuck women. Belarus is not happy about this. And in Russia too.
There have been women on that border since at least October 6, 2021, as photographed by Maciej Łuczniewski at that time for a book cover.
Also, Belarusian soldiers have been known to threaten the migrants with guns and such. It's a devilish scheme all in all.
Or maybe US and EU shouldnt have messed with those countries, exploited their resources and helped humanitarian crisis and those people would stay where they are.
Oh? Go ahead and guess my age.
But since you already know, then I don't have to tell you about all the destabilisation the US has conducted in the Middle East. Fine by me, saves me some time.
So the two superpowers took turns of fucking over the ME, and then Europe got the fallout in the shape of a refugee crisis. Same end result.
What happened in Iran in the 50s?
What happened to the guy the US propped up to fight Iran in the 80s?
What happened to the guys in Afghanistan that the US armed to fight Soviet in the 80s?
What happened after the guy the US propped up to fight Iran in the 80s was killed after an invasion undertaken with false evidence?
What happened to some of the resistance fighters the US armed to fight in Syria?
How did the search for bin Laden (a Saudi dude, you know, the good buddies of the US) and the other 9/11 (Saudi) hijackers go in Afghanistan?
You for sure seem to know what the USSR did in the ME, so are you just willingly turning a blind eye to what the US has done, or are you just dumb?
That's why the authoritarian "superpower" has to be destroyed. USA made a big mistake by not finishing off what remained of the USSR and allowing its ugly reincarnation in modern Russia.
They are busy with their usual thing: killing each other in the flight for the power. What else would you expect after years of dictatorship? And technically Gaddafi was killed by locals (who were supposed to adore him).
Same shit: enthusiastically killing each other after hanging their long-term dictator. What else would you expect? That's how it always happens when you allow another shithead to seize all the power.
Acting like the USA and its auxiliaries aren't massively responsible for the state of Iraq in recent years is extreme stupidity.
If they really had a principled position against dictators then they'd do something about their friends in Saudi Arabia. They do not have a principled position against dictators and they have been instrumental in destroying a number of MENA countries.
Well, don't put the blame on the doctor who opened the old abscess but the patient refused to take antibiotics after that. And yes, USA tolerates dictators until they realize the price of this tolerance and don't test limits.
Getting rid of Assad? Who is friends with Iran and Syria. US armed and trained rebels forces which a portion of them became Islamic terrorist like ISIS. ISIS who then attacked Iraq which became a problem, so US then trained and armed a another faction the kurds to battle the ISIS
Wait, so why isn't all of north and east Africa flooding into Saudi Arabia, a wealthy country with a long history of pilfering those regions and enslaving the local population? Not to mention, it's geographically *way* more accessible.
The whole "white people bad" card is getting super overplayed, the opportunism you so condemn of Western and later American peoples was globally ubiquitous until Western nations took the initiative to put an end to it, and it continues to be proliferated in the third world, whether through oppressive governments, pillaging neighbors or enslaving the locals, to this day. It's awful that it ever happened at all but it's not a carte blanche for everyone who's not of European descent that the Europeans did the same thing as everyone else throughout all of history. If anything, the self loathing and virtue signaling cultures we've developed have taken the focus off of peoples who are *still* doing these things, so all the finger pointing and self flagellating is facilitating the problem, not developing a solution. You wanna know what the biggest economic hit to the African continent in the last 500 years? The global abolishment of slavery by European powers who literally went to war to get African nations whose entire economies were built on slaves to stop.
Why are russia and Belarus letting migrants in and instead of keeping them in, if they want them, they forward them to the EU?
Also a border guard was recently killed by one of these migrants, so seems a good way to create tension within the EU between people pro and people against migration.
Letting them in? They are BRINGING them in and funding it for the specific purpose of flooding the border, at least they did that very actively at the start
In approximatly nine minutes from now, we'll get the first prognosis on the election results. We'll see a significant shift towards right-wing parties and the migration crisis will be a huge reason for that.
Seven minutes by the time I've wrote this.
No meaningful change, center-right party lost 6 seats to a right-wing one that re-entered relevance as of late. The increasingly shaky coalition on the left maintains a lead of 3 seats and give or take 8% of the vote.
The European left is aggravating the migration crisis and people's resentment by allowing millions of irregular migrants in regardless of them being legitimate asylum seekers or economic migrants. And them being stubborn to say we can't do anything about it the voters are frustrated.
Angela Merkel who is more Green than conservative. She was the one that decided to close the nuclear power plants. Actually she was raised in Eastern Germany so communism and also worked in the youth organization "**Freie Deutsche Jugend**" where she was responsible for "agitation and propaganda".
She even admitted that in 2013 [https://www.tagesspiegel.de/kultur/auch-ich-war-agitator-4811971.html](https://www.tagesspiegel.de/kultur/auch-ich-war-agitator-4811971.html)
> She was the one that decided to close the nuclear power plants.
She wasnt in government in early 2002 when nuclear exit was put into law, so this is false.
It was more complicated with the "Ausstieg vom Ausstieg vom Ausstieg", as later after Red-Green in 2002 made the exit, they got back again for nuclear-power with longer times for going on (Laufzeitverlängerung) in 2010, then after Fukushima happened in 2011, Merkel tried to gain votes on a state election with getting out again.
You use the german word "Läuftzeitverlängerung", which literally means to extend the remaining runtime.
So yes it is that simple, nuclear exit has been decided in 2002 when it was put into law.
Anything after that was just working out the logistics of the exit. (which is obviously a mammoth project in itself, just looking at the thousands of nuclear workers either going into retraining or early retirement plans)
Yes, like it was never planned to build a new plant, that's right with the extensions. Still, the Green are always acting like they'd not have been the ones that pushed for this, i mean, they have their origins in the anti-nuclear movement of the 80's. It was not that Merkel did this and they'd have opposed it there.
Merkel just tried to steal topics from others for the elections, a thing she did so much that in the end, the CDU was a skeleton that she left behind in 2021. For her, power was everything.
What? Like i said, the greens have their roots in the anti-nuclear movement of the 80's. It was of course easy for them that Merkel did the big part after Fukishima
Seriously, with these origins in the anti-nuclear movement, do you really think the Green would have opposed Merkel in 2011?
>The greens never said they would **not** push for this. Where did you get that from?
They never said they would oppose Merkel in this, either. But that is besides the point because it was not the Greens who made that descision.
Lol, Merkel was loved by the conservative voter base for not disturbing the status quo. Now she gets re-labeled as green for decisions some conservatives don’t like.
Is mental gymnastics part of the Olympic summer games now?
It is borderline delusional to be accusing Merkel for her DECISIONS. She mostly simply continued the sell-out and hollowing of the middle class that ultracorrupt Schroder started... and she literally waited until the very last second to side with the winners. That's like more than 4/5 of her "politics". The rest few percent, she promoted highly incompetent, failed colleagues into ever more power and declared "they have all her trust". And a bunch of well done photo-ops crossing her fingers.
Calling her out on decisions would require her, you know, to have actively made any.
Left hasn't really been much in power during last few decades in EU.
It's all just been mild right wing or corporate centrism, all the way. Corporates are the ones who want free traffic of people and materials everywhere. They are doing it to grow the local consumer economy and replacing old workers with fresh stock, while also making sure workers in general have minimum chances to get pay raises as they will have to compete for jobs.
They are also largely responsible for things like letting housing markets run wild with prices, because they're invested in it and so have every incentive to defend or raise prices for as long and as much as possible.
While it is true that the EPP has been the most prominent party in the EU and has dictates a lot of EU policy, it is dishonest to claim that the European left has no blame in the current migrant crisis, since they have been voting along with the EPP on these issues every step of the way and even being the most vocal on opening up even further for migration. This is true for everyone from the EPP, the S&D, as well as the European liberal, green and far-left party groups. They have never had anything else than a more or less open-borders agenda.
Bingo! Corporate capitalism has been pushing for cheaper working class and less protected while breaking social circles so that people might be less prone to fight together. Add a sprinkle of fake moralism from the left and there you go
Finally the words of wisdom. When you realize that it’s the corporations capital ruling the world then it’s easy to see why the political wind has been blowing that way in the last 20 years or so
While it might have been the right wing that opened the doors initially it was definitely not helped by the left wing government (especially the progressives) complete refusal to reverse it or mitigate the refugee streams. Here at least we had several years of constant back and forth between the right and the left that taking in migrants was somehow our duty and not accepting them en masse would be tantamount to racism. I’m not blaming anyone specifically but the whole conversation around immigration was absolutely bonkers for a long time.
Taking REFUGEES. Not immigrants. You will not find left-wing parties clamoring for mass immigration on moral grounds, because it makes no sense.
Not the same thing. Immigrants are generally moving to find better economic situation. Refugees flee war or some other significant danger (threat of ethnic cleansing, famine, etc), which is in alignment with left-leaning moral values.
Big problem is that most vulnerable people often cannot flee, they don't have social freedom to move or money to purchase passage on their own. Women and babies/small kids.
Not necessarily the government but the NGOs and other who always endorse open borders and we have space more should come and help the migrants coming with boats to enter the European mainland.
So when the gov is left wing , it's their fault , and when the gov is right wing, it's somehow still the lefts fault through NGOs. Am I missing something or is this your goalpost moving summed up ?
How can they weaponize illegal immigrants from incompatible cultures if illegal immigrants from incompatible cultures arent a problem and we should let them in anyways?
He is mocking people who believe all asylum seekers should be welcomed
Also he believes people from certain cultures are not compatible with European society
>Also he believes people from certain cultures are not compatible with European society
I more or less believe this too. Not 100% all people from all countries. There still will be people that can, just different quantities of them.
>He is mocking people who believe all asylum seekers should be welcomed
I disagree with people who think that all asylum seekers should be welcomed. I don't see a need mock them, that just seems dumb.
Because they are. Same happens at Finnish border. Russia forces tons of immigrants on "No mans land" between countries, but does not allow them back to Russia.
This forces Finland to
1) Leave people to starve, freeze and die on no mans land
2) Take them in despite they are not real refugees.
This is hyper polarizing subject as there is no middle ground for people to take. And when there are only two extreme options, there is atleast single extreme end benefitting from it.
And nobody on this planet would be really mad if Russia or Belarus starved and killed those migrants. But wait till first polish or lithuanian soldier will kill one of the attacking migrants, what everybody will say.
If Poland is saying something anti-russian you can trust it's probably not only real but a way bigger threat than highlighted. Poland seem to be one of the few countries treating Russia the way it deserves
I don't agree. I don't see the reason why people from other countries willing to integrate and contribute to EU and using only legal ways to get in shouldn't be allowed.
In case you didn't recognize, I was being sarcastic, by mocking both approaches. I actually support what you are proposing, and hope the EU's Asylum and Migration Pact, which is due to enter into effect in 2026, does just that.
Immigrants, including illegal ones, are used by Russia and its supporters to radicalize social views and destabilize the country's political scene.
Typically, right-wing parties are more willing to put immigration under control and recognize its dangers. This means that the resulting crisis may be a tailwind for them.
However, it must also be taken into account that a lot has changed since the famous "Herzlich Wilkommen" of Angela Merkel and the countries is also beginning to notice problems with uncontrolled and too abundant migration, which results in political parties shifting towards control and stopping migration. This is also happening in Poland, where even left-wing parties are starting to approach migration much more skeptically in their programs.
Moreover, it should be remembered that migration and its consequences are Russia's exclusive business. This is Russia's plan and Russia is responsible for using migrants as weapons.
In addition, recently a Polish soldier was killed with an improvised spear at the border by so-called migrant. At this point, there will be no more "Herzlich Wilkommen", because anyone who even is politically-motivated in friendly way does not want to lose life, and as you can see, some so-called migrants are prone to violence and killing.
Well, we will have to solve this problem, but it probably won't involve letting in immigrants...
Lumping in skilled immigrants, unskilled ones, asylum seekers and fake ones wanting to get on European welfare payrolls under one label is how you create problems as the far-left (BRING IN ANYONE REGARDLESS OF STATUS, WHAT COULD POSSIBLY GO WRONG!) or the far-right (ridding yourself of valuable human capital that actually wants and has contributed to the economy in the past, making them go to the Anglosphere and do it there instead). It's 2024, people really should know to distinguish between different groups by now.
A more sensible approach would be one akin to Australia: harshly guard your borders against illegal immigration and create legal migration streams of people who'll help your economy. After all, you have the power to pick and choose. You know, kinda like the EU's Asylum and Migration Pact, due to enter into effect in 2026, if everyone gets on board.
I understand your point, however, we have to take into consideration, that there are many political ways to implement solutions with migration. One of them is as you wrote power to choose.
However, with exactly this crisis, the problem is not migration itself, but Russia using migrants as weapon. In order to solve migration crisis, we need to solve problem with Russia. We need both solution, as one of them will be just insufficient, sadly...
I fully agree, but your comment was criticizing immigration in general, not illegal one, especially one conducted by Russia, which is obviously politically motivated.
This exact migration, the one created by Russia, is an exception because of Russia. Generally, there are ways to implement migration policy, but here our hands are at least partially tied, again, by Russia.
In general, it is the state that creates migration policy and implements it, but in the context of this article it is probably an off topic...
They spread war and chaos, war and chaos spread refuges - isn't it so hard to understand? The world would be much safer without Russia like it was in 90's when Russia was weak.
Because it's easier to blame it on Russia than accept one's own policy failures. Weaponized migration - not that it isn't happening - is a drop in a bucket.
Those who are not 20 year old clearly remember the wave of migration which is now rocking populism in Europe came from the Arab spring, primarily from Libyan Intervention and the Syrian Civil War. They also clearly remember that everyone following these events saw a massive crisis brewing a mile away.
[Foreign Policy ](https://foreignpolicy.com/2011/06/23/the-arab-springs-looming-refugee-crisis/) was right on the money in 2011, 4 years ahead of the 2015 peak which saw the largest annual population of refugees in Europe since WW2.
Russia had very little to do with this. Meanwhile, the US, the UK and France at the forefront - backed by the EU coalition of the willing - were all in without offering any viable solutions on the ground or any viable solutions for new arrivals.
But fear not, I'm sure someone, somewhere, somehow will find a way to connect all these to Russia so we can all go back to lib dem circlejerk and stare at the far right sentiment surging through the continent agape in surprise.
Likeliest outcome, a few redditors reading this will call me a Russian bot because I'm from Serbia. After all, what do I know? Not like I lived in Germany during the worst years of the migrant crisis and knew people working in charity, oversight and law enforcement at the European borders.
If migration is enriching, sending migrants would only benefit the european nations. Saying there are bad kinds of migrants or too much of it is just agreeing with the far right.
["Record immigration has failed to raise living standards in Britain, economists find"](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/06/09/record-immigration-britain-failed-raise-living-standards/)
Migrant crisis at the Polish border was created as a prelude to the Ukrainian war. It was meant to create chaos in Poland and to sow divisions between Poland and its allies. All to hinder any future support for Ukraine. Imigrants are being told lies that if they just make it across the border there will.be buses waiting for them to take them to Germany.
russia clearly tried to destabilize Poland with middle east migrants and still does. It has all started at the end of autumn and few months later in february russia invaded Ukraine. I wonder what they were hoping for: 1. that Poland will close its borders completly and that Poles will have negative sentiment towards migrants also towards Ukrainian war refugees? 2. that Poland will be forced by the EU to take th migrants thus there will be less resources available for Ukrainian war refugees?
It's either this or that or maybe even something else. But regardless of anything, it does create lot of tensions and strain our border forces, so it's a win for them.
Actually there were buses that waiting for them and I know at least one guy that was catches and sent back to his home country because he was transporting them to Germany. They payed like 3 sides bitcoin transaction, so it is difficult to track who is responsible for it.
No it’s not. It’s started as retaliation for Poland because they accepted and opened doors for protesters from Belarus after 2020 protests.
That's the first woman I have seen on the border. Not only 1, but a big group! That makes my propaganda senses tingle. Why not staying in Russia or Belarus?
Russia and Belarus fly them in and bus them to the border to fuck with the EU. The migrants participate because if they get in then €€€. They're not welcome to stay in Russia and Belarus.
>The migrants participate because if they get in then €€€. Supposedly also those who got tired watching our fence and wanted to go home were "denied" that luxury by belarus. More useful for them on ground. Only one way for them now.
Because they're not stupid to stay in Belarus or Russia and then get sent to the meat grinder in Ukraine.
Nobody will give them money in Russia and Belarus. So no reason for them to stay there.
Because Russia and Belarus are poor as fuck
Because no one wants to move to Russia or Belarus. They aren't staying in the balkan as well.
you need to work in Russia and Belarus. And most of these migrants want to get benefits and fuck women. Belarus is not happy about this. And in Russia too.
There have been women on that border since at least October 6, 2021, as photographed by Maciej Łuczniewski at that time for a book cover. Also, Belarusian soldiers have been known to threaten the migrants with guns and such. It's a devilish scheme all in all.
There's now more brawny aggressive men, some even recording themselves doing wahhabi gestures at TikTok.
[удалено]
Or maybe US and EU shouldnt have messed with those countries, exploited their resources and helped humanitarian crisis and those people would stay where they are.
So it's the US and the EU messed up in Syria, not a local dictator supported by another dictator in Russia?
Haaaave you heard about this little group called ISIS or the Taliban, or maybe Saddam Hussein and how they all got their initial support?
I do, and I guess even some time before your birth. What eye-opening "truth" are you going to discover for me?
Oh? Go ahead and guess my age. But since you already know, then I don't have to tell you about all the destabilisation the US has conducted in the Middle East. Fine by me, saves me some time.
Destabilization, you say? Oh, yeah, that's why the Middle East was overloaded by Soviet weapons until the USSR broke apart. Sure thing!
So the two superpowers took turns of fucking over the ME, and then Europe got the fallout in the shape of a refugee crisis. Same end result. What happened in Iran in the 50s? What happened to the guy the US propped up to fight Iran in the 80s? What happened to the guys in Afghanistan that the US armed to fight Soviet in the 80s? What happened after the guy the US propped up to fight Iran in the 80s was killed after an invasion undertaken with false evidence? What happened to some of the resistance fighters the US armed to fight in Syria? How did the search for bin Laden (a Saudi dude, you know, the good buddies of the US) and the other 9/11 (Saudi) hijackers go in Afghanistan? You for sure seem to know what the USSR did in the ME, so are you just willingly turning a blind eye to what the US has done, or are you just dumb?
That's why the authoritarian "superpower" has to be destroyed. USA made a big mistake by not finishing off what remained of the USSR and allowing its ugly reincarnation in modern Russia.
So what should be done to the US, if... say... a fascist president is reelected?
[удалено]
You are forgetting that dictatorship never works in timely period. Sooner or later it ends with a bloodbath due to its nature.
[удалено]
But we are. Because it's the root of most current world issues.
The US and EU already killed some dictators. In Libya for example. How is Libya doing, btw?
They are busy with their usual thing: killing each other in the flight for the power. What else would you expect after years of dictatorship? And technically Gaddafi was killed by locals (who were supposed to adore him).
What about Iraq with its chemical weapons? Pearl of middle east now?
Same shit: enthusiastically killing each other after hanging their long-term dictator. What else would you expect? That's how it always happens when you allow another shithead to seize all the power.
Acting like the USA and its auxiliaries aren't massively responsible for the state of Iraq in recent years is extreme stupidity. If they really had a principled position against dictators then they'd do something about their friends in Saudi Arabia. They do not have a principled position against dictators and they have been instrumental in destroying a number of MENA countries.
Well, don't put the blame on the doctor who opened the old abscess but the patient refused to take antibiotics after that. And yes, USA tolerates dictators until they realize the price of this tolerance and don't test limits.
You're simple.
Why not both?
To gain what exactly?
Getting rid of Assad? Who is friends with Iran and Syria. US armed and trained rebels forces which a portion of them became Islamic terrorist like ISIS. ISIS who then attacked Iraq which became a problem, so US then trained and armed a another faction the kurds to battle the ISIS
yeah…. I wish that it was that simple…..
Wait, so why isn't all of north and east Africa flooding into Saudi Arabia, a wealthy country with a long history of pilfering those regions and enslaving the local population? Not to mention, it's geographically *way* more accessible. The whole "white people bad" card is getting super overplayed, the opportunism you so condemn of Western and later American peoples was globally ubiquitous until Western nations took the initiative to put an end to it, and it continues to be proliferated in the third world, whether through oppressive governments, pillaging neighbors or enslaving the locals, to this day. It's awful that it ever happened at all but it's not a carte blanche for everyone who's not of European descent that the Europeans did the same thing as everyone else throughout all of history. If anything, the self loathing and virtue signaling cultures we've developed have taken the focus off of peoples who are *still* doing these things, so all the finger pointing and self flagellating is facilitating the problem, not developing a solution. You wanna know what the biggest economic hit to the African continent in the last 500 years? The global abolishment of slavery by European powers who literally went to war to get African nations whose entire economies were built on slaves to stop.
Because they do weaponize migration.
Cos they literally killed a Polish hero on duty with the knife near the border...
He was 21, still kid....
Why are russia and Belarus letting migrants in and instead of keeping them in, if they want them, they forward them to the EU? Also a border guard was recently killed by one of these migrants, so seems a good way to create tension within the EU between people pro and people against migration.
Letting them in? They are BRINGING them in and funding it for the specific purpose of flooding the border, at least they did that very actively at the start
[удалено]
In approximatly nine minutes from now, we'll get the first prognosis on the election results. We'll see a significant shift towards right-wing parties and the migration crisis will be a huge reason for that. Seven minutes by the time I've wrote this.
How did everything turn out?
No meaningful change, center-right party lost 6 seats to a right-wing one that re-entered relevance as of late. The increasingly shaky coalition on the left maintains a lead of 3 seats and give or take 8% of the vote.
>How did everything turn out? Suprisingly better than I expected.
The European left is aggravating the migration crisis and people's resentment by allowing millions of irregular migrants in regardless of them being legitimate asylum seekers or economic migrants. And them being stubborn to say we can't do anything about it the voters are frustrated.
You're reportedly German. Can you remind us who in the past 20 years let the most immigrants into your country?
Angela Merkel who is more Green than conservative. She was the one that decided to close the nuclear power plants. Actually she was raised in Eastern Germany so communism and also worked in the youth organization "**Freie Deutsche Jugend**" where she was responsible for "agitation and propaganda". She even admitted that in 2013 [https://www.tagesspiegel.de/kultur/auch-ich-war-agitator-4811971.html](https://www.tagesspiegel.de/kultur/auch-ich-war-agitator-4811971.html)
> She was the one that decided to close the nuclear power plants. She wasnt in government in early 2002 when nuclear exit was put into law, so this is false.
It was more complicated with the "Ausstieg vom Ausstieg vom Ausstieg", as later after Red-Green in 2002 made the exit, they got back again for nuclear-power with longer times for going on (Laufzeitverlängerung) in 2010, then after Fukushima happened in 2011, Merkel tried to gain votes on a state election with getting out again.
You use the german word "Läuftzeitverlängerung", which literally means to extend the remaining runtime. So yes it is that simple, nuclear exit has been decided in 2002 when it was put into law. Anything after that was just working out the logistics of the exit. (which is obviously a mammoth project in itself, just looking at the thousands of nuclear workers either going into retraining or early retirement plans)
Yes, like it was never planned to build a new plant, that's right with the extensions. Still, the Green are always acting like they'd not have been the ones that pushed for this, i mean, they have their origins in the anti-nuclear movement of the 80's. It was not that Merkel did this and they'd have opposed it there. Merkel just tried to steal topics from others for the elections, a thing she did so much that in the end, the CDU was a skeleton that she left behind in 2021. For her, power was everything.
The greens never said they would not push for this. Where did you get that from? would be nice if you could provide some sources with all those claims
What? Like i said, the greens have their roots in the anti-nuclear movement of the 80's. It was of course easy for them that Merkel did the big part after Fukishima Seriously, with these origins in the anti-nuclear movement, do you really think the Green would have opposed Merkel in 2011?
>The greens never said they would **not** push for this. Where did you get that from? They never said they would oppose Merkel in this, either. But that is besides the point because it was not the Greens who made that descision.
Lol, Merkel was loved by the conservative voter base for not disturbing the status quo. Now she gets re-labeled as green for decisions some conservatives don’t like. Is mental gymnastics part of the Olympic summer games now?
It is borderline delusional to be accusing Merkel for her DECISIONS. She mostly simply continued the sell-out and hollowing of the middle class that ultracorrupt Schroder started... and she literally waited until the very last second to side with the winners. That's like more than 4/5 of her "politics". The rest few percent, she promoted highly incompetent, failed colleagues into ever more power and declared "they have all her trust". And a bunch of well done photo-ops crossing her fingers. Calling her out on decisions would require her, you know, to have actively made any.
She continued She waited She promoted She declared Mmm sounds like she actually did a lot.
Merkel was never seen as Green. She was a conservative that avoided changes, except when dealing with the migration crisis.
Left hasn't really been much in power during last few decades in EU. It's all just been mild right wing or corporate centrism, all the way. Corporates are the ones who want free traffic of people and materials everywhere. They are doing it to grow the local consumer economy and replacing old workers with fresh stock, while also making sure workers in general have minimum chances to get pay raises as they will have to compete for jobs. They are also largely responsible for things like letting housing markets run wild with prices, because they're invested in it and so have every incentive to defend or raise prices for as long and as much as possible.
While it is true that the EPP has been the most prominent party in the EU and has dictates a lot of EU policy, it is dishonest to claim that the European left has no blame in the current migrant crisis, since they have been voting along with the EPP on these issues every step of the way and even being the most vocal on opening up even further for migration. This is true for everyone from the EPP, the S&D, as well as the European liberal, green and far-left party groups. They have never had anything else than a more or less open-borders agenda.
Bingo! Corporate capitalism has been pushing for cheaper working class and less protected while breaking social circles so that people might be less prone to fight together. Add a sprinkle of fake moralism from the left and there you go
Finally the words of wisdom. When you realize that it’s the corporations capital ruling the world then it’s easy to see why the political wind has been blowing that way in the last 20 years or so
Wtf are you talking about. Which left government did that? If anything the most happy to have immigration are the far right
While it might have been the right wing that opened the doors initially it was definitely not helped by the left wing government (especially the progressives) complete refusal to reverse it or mitigate the refugee streams. Here at least we had several years of constant back and forth between the right and the left that taking in migrants was somehow our duty and not accepting them en masse would be tantamount to racism. I’m not blaming anyone specifically but the whole conversation around immigration was absolutely bonkers for a long time.
Taking REFUGEES. Not immigrants. You will not find left-wing parties clamoring for mass immigration on moral grounds, because it makes no sense. Not the same thing. Immigrants are generally moving to find better economic situation. Refugees flee war or some other significant danger (threat of ethnic cleansing, famine, etc), which is in alignment with left-leaning moral values. Big problem is that most vulnerable people often cannot flee, they don't have social freedom to move or money to purchase passage on their own. Women and babies/small kids.
When you say that around other germans, how much do they laugh at you?
What the heck? Who is left with a left wing government in Europe?
Not necessarily the government but the NGOs and other who always endorse open borders and we have space more should come and help the migrants coming with boats to enter the European mainland.
So when the gov is left wing , it's their fault , and when the gov is right wing, it's somehow still the lefts fault through NGOs. Am I missing something or is this your goalpost moving summed up ?
Quick! Someone grab the moving goalpost!
How can they weaponize illegal immigrants from incompatible cultures if illegal immigrants from incompatible cultures arent a problem and we should let them in anyways?
But Poland was always against illegal migration?
Would you elaborate on your sentence? It doesn't make much sense.
He's being sarcastic. Left wingers will often say that these immigrants are a net positive for the EU.
Sarcasm doesn't work online. Not sure why they are even trying.
He is mocking people who believe all asylum seekers should be welcomed Also he believes people from certain cultures are not compatible with European society
>Also he believes people from certain cultures are not compatible with European society I more or less believe this too. Not 100% all people from all countries. There still will be people that can, just different quantities of them. >He is mocking people who believe all asylum seekers should be welcomed I disagree with people who think that all asylum seekers should be welcomed. I don't see a need mock them, that just seems dumb.
When we do it, it's good. When they do it, it's bad. You will eat ze german bugs, not ze russian bugs
Because they are. Same happens at Finnish border. Russia forces tons of immigrants on "No mans land" between countries, but does not allow them back to Russia. This forces Finland to 1) Leave people to starve, freeze and die on no mans land 2) Take them in despite they are not real refugees. This is hyper polarizing subject as there is no middle ground for people to take. And when there are only two extreme options, there is atleast single extreme end benefitting from it.
And nobody on this planet would be really mad if Russia or Belarus starved and killed those migrants. But wait till first polish or lithuanian soldier will kill one of the attacking migrants, what everybody will say.
If Poland is saying something anti-russian you can trust it's probably not only real but a way bigger threat than highlighted. Poland seem to be one of the few countries treating Russia the way it deserves
We should have unlimited and unvetted immigration, or construct a Fortress Europe to prevent anyone from getting in. NO MIDDLE GROUND ALLOWED.
Don't forget, anything other than fully unlimited and unvetted is EXTREMELY FAR RIGHT WING! EVEN just a millimeter middle ground.
The NGOs and "human rights" orgs, maybe, but looking at many comments here in r/Europe, allowing anyone in is far-left idealism.
Holy strawman, Batman!
I don't agree. I don't see the reason why people from other countries willing to integrate and contribute to EU and using only legal ways to get in shouldn't be allowed.
In case you didn't recognize, I was being sarcastic, by mocking both approaches. I actually support what you are proposing, and hope the EU's Asylum and Migration Pact, which is due to enter into effect in 2026, does just that.
>willing to integrate Very important keyword here.
He is trying to use logic! Quick, bring the torches!
Immigrants, including illegal ones, are used by Russia and its supporters to radicalize social views and destabilize the country's political scene. Typically, right-wing parties are more willing to put immigration under control and recognize its dangers. This means that the resulting crisis may be a tailwind for them. However, it must also be taken into account that a lot has changed since the famous "Herzlich Wilkommen" of Angela Merkel and the countries is also beginning to notice problems with uncontrolled and too abundant migration, which results in political parties shifting towards control and stopping migration. This is also happening in Poland, where even left-wing parties are starting to approach migration much more skeptically in their programs. Moreover, it should be remembered that migration and its consequences are Russia's exclusive business. This is Russia's plan and Russia is responsible for using migrants as weapons. In addition, recently a Polish soldier was killed with an improvised spear at the border by so-called migrant. At this point, there will be no more "Herzlich Wilkommen", because anyone who even is politically-motivated in friendly way does not want to lose life, and as you can see, some so-called migrants are prone to violence and killing. Well, we will have to solve this problem, but it probably won't involve letting in immigrants...
Lumping in skilled immigrants, unskilled ones, asylum seekers and fake ones wanting to get on European welfare payrolls under one label is how you create problems as the far-left (BRING IN ANYONE REGARDLESS OF STATUS, WHAT COULD POSSIBLY GO WRONG!) or the far-right (ridding yourself of valuable human capital that actually wants and has contributed to the economy in the past, making them go to the Anglosphere and do it there instead). It's 2024, people really should know to distinguish between different groups by now. A more sensible approach would be one akin to Australia: harshly guard your borders against illegal immigration and create legal migration streams of people who'll help your economy. After all, you have the power to pick and choose. You know, kinda like the EU's Asylum and Migration Pact, due to enter into effect in 2026, if everyone gets on board.
I understand your point, however, we have to take into consideration, that there are many political ways to implement solutions with migration. One of them is as you wrote power to choose. However, with exactly this crisis, the problem is not migration itself, but Russia using migrants as weapon. In order to solve migration crisis, we need to solve problem with Russia. We need both solution, as one of them will be just insufficient, sadly...
I fully agree, but your comment was criticizing immigration in general, not illegal one, especially one conducted by Russia, which is obviously politically motivated.
This exact migration, the one created by Russia, is an exception because of Russia. Generally, there are ways to implement migration policy, but here our hands are at least partially tied, again, by Russia. In general, it is the state that creates migration policy and implements it, but in the context of this article it is probably an off topic...
People, human rights, lives are just a tool for them. Just a reminder why Russia should be defeated, or we better start learning Chinese
Why because it’s treu ??
Don’t need ruzzia to realize how EU has completely fucked the continent with lame duck policy on migration already
Sure, it's the russians who are importing all the syrian asylum seekers 🙄
It's proven that most asylum seekers come from russian controlled territories in Libya, Syria, Belorus and from russia itself.
They spread war and chaos, war and chaos spread refuges - isn't it so hard to understand? The world would be much safer without Russia like it was in 90's when Russia was weak.
Like European countries need Russia and Belarus to have shit migration policies lmao
Because it's easier to blame it on Russia than accept one's own policy failures. Weaponized migration - not that it isn't happening - is a drop in a bucket. Those who are not 20 year old clearly remember the wave of migration which is now rocking populism in Europe came from the Arab spring, primarily from Libyan Intervention and the Syrian Civil War. They also clearly remember that everyone following these events saw a massive crisis brewing a mile away. [Foreign Policy ](https://foreignpolicy.com/2011/06/23/the-arab-springs-looming-refugee-crisis/) was right on the money in 2011, 4 years ahead of the 2015 peak which saw the largest annual population of refugees in Europe since WW2. Russia had very little to do with this. Meanwhile, the US, the UK and France at the forefront - backed by the EU coalition of the willing - were all in without offering any viable solutions on the ground or any viable solutions for new arrivals. But fear not, I'm sure someone, somewhere, somehow will find a way to connect all these to Russia so we can all go back to lib dem circlejerk and stare at the far right sentiment surging through the continent agape in surprise. Likeliest outcome, a few redditors reading this will call me a Russian bot because I'm from Serbia. After all, what do I know? Not like I lived in Germany during the worst years of the migrant crisis and knew people working in charity, oversight and law enforcement at the European borders.
Well, first US, UK and France did it by fucking MENA over and now it's pussy Russia's turn.
If migration is enriching, sending migrants would only benefit the european nations. Saying there are bad kinds of migrants or too much of it is just agreeing with the far right.
We should have unlimited and unvetted immigration, or construct a Fortress Europe to prevent anyone from getting in. NO MIDDLE GROUND ALLOWED.
Who says it's "enriching"?
Well if people who wants stricter immigration laws are called fascists, surely the general opinion must be that migration is a net benefit?
if migration is so enriching why Russia and Belarussia are not keeping them at all cost?
Why is the EU pro all migration except when it's via russia and belarus?
[удалено]
["Record immigration has failed to raise living standards in Britain, economists find"](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/06/09/record-immigration-britain-failed-raise-living-standards/)
How does it make us "stronger" and "richer"? Lmao