Hungary Was, And Is, Right About Immigration

[Ganondagan]

Member countries of the European Union are gradually recognizing that massive numbers of illegal migrants who don't want to assimilate represents a real danger to Western Civilization. Hungary as early as 2015 implemented a very restrictive policy on immigration, for which it was brutally criticized. My, how the screw turns.

Berlin and Paris are ‘on the ropes’ as von der Leyen meets with Orbán, other leaders critical of migration​

Berlin and Paris are 'on the ropes' as von der Leyen meets with Orbán, other leaders critical of migration

The EU is “dropping several taboos that seemed sacrosanct until recently,” reports the Neue Zürcher Zeitung, after an EU summit ended last Friday. The new approach is surprising given the constant demonizing of Hungary for continuously pushing for measures now being considered — not to mention...

rmx.news

The EU is “dropping several taboos that seemed sacrosanct until recently,” reports the Neue Zürcher Zeitung, after an EU summit ended last Friday. The new approach is surprising given the constant demonizing of Hungary for continuously pushing for measures now being considered — not to mention being fined hundreds of millions of euros for implementing such measures on its own external border.

Aside from now considering outsourcing asylum procedures to safe third countries, the temporary suspension of the right to asylum could soon become common practice. Before the summit, von der Leyen sent out a 10-point plan covering migration agreements with third countries, speeding up returns, and outsourcing asylum centers.

With the Netherlands and Hungary wanting to withdraw from the common migration policy, and Finland and Poland wanting to close the borders with Russia and Belarus completely, Brussels has seemingly been forced to change tack.

 

[Ishm]

Poorly managed immigration is a blight upon every country that lets it get out of hand. It is usually done out of humanitarian concerns, and that is a good thing, but what people fail to recognize is that just letting people cross your border is not enough to meet everyones needs. Either immigration is carefully managed to match the rate of assimilation, and the support available, or the migrants fail while the resident population come to resent them for failing, and all the social issues that brings. The bottom line is that 'economic migration' from failed countries can not carry on like it has. Reduce the migrant numbers to just those who are genuine refugees whose lives are in danger in their home countries (war zones etc), and maybe the wealthy countries accepting those refugees can do a better job of supporting their integration into society. Having millions of people migrating to improve their lifestyle as has been happening will only lead to the borders being completely shut as the people in the destination countries say that they won't accept any more migrants, and vote for the sort of hard right wing govts that run on that platform of hate.

 

[Sweden]

Poorly managed immigration is a blight upon every country that lets it get out of hand. It is usually done out of humanitarian concerns, and that is a good thing, but what people fail to recognize is that just letting people cross your border is not enough to meet everyones needs. Either immigration is carefully managed to match the rate of assimilation, and the support available, or the migrants fail while the resident population come to resent them for failing, and all the social issues that brings. The bottom line is that 'economic migration' from failed countries can not carry on like it has. Reduce the migrant numbers to just those who are genuine refugees whose lives are in danger in their home countries (war zones etc), and maybe the wealthy countries accepting those refugees can do a better job of supporting their integration into society. Having millions of people migrating to improve their lifestyle as has been happening will only lead to the borders being completely shut as the people in the destination countries say that they won't accept any more migrants, and vote for the sort of hard right wing govts that run on that platform of hate.

Fine - until you suggest that European parties who have wished to end uncontrolled mass migration have "run on a platform of hate".

 

[PeteEU]

Member countries of the European Union are gradually recognizing that massive numbers of illegal migrants who don't want to assimilate represents a real danger to Western Civilization. Hungary as early as 2015 implemented a very restrictive policy on immigration, for which it was brutally criticized. My, how the screw turns.

Berlin and Paris are ‘on the ropes’ as von der Leyen meets with Orbán, other leaders critical of migration​

Berlin and Paris are 'on the ropes' as von der Leyen meets with Orbán, other leaders critical of migration

The EU is “dropping several taboos that seemed sacrosanct until recently,” reports the Neue Zürcher Zeitung, after an EU summit ended last Friday. The new approach is surprising given the constant demonizing of Hungary for continuously pushing for measures now being considered — not to mention...

rmx.news

The EU is “dropping several taboos that seemed sacrosanct until recently,” reports the Neue Zürcher Zeitung, after an EU summit ended last Friday. The new approach is surprising given the constant demonizing of Hungary for continuously pushing for measures now being considered — not to mention being fined hundreds of millions of euros for implementing such measures on its own external border.

Aside from now considering outsourcing asylum procedures to safe third countries, the temporary suspension of the right to asylum could soon become common practice. Before the summit, von der Leyen sent out a 10-point plan covering migration agreements with third countries, speeding up returns, and outsourcing asylum centers.

With the Netherlands and Hungary wanting to withdraw from the common migration policy, and Finland and Poland wanting to close the borders with Russia and Belarus completely, Brussels has seemingly been forced to change tack.

So a SWISS.. non EU member newspaper... a very very old right wing newspaper... suddenly has the scoop?

Orbans policies focus on one thing.. enriching himself and his friends. He has blocked any reforms of EU migration policy for a decade. Why? Because he has no financial benefit for it to be solved. His border wall was paid by Hungarians in a targeted tax hike, that took in far far far more than the wall cost.. and yet the country is still in financial ruin.. odd no? His mother has one of the biggest houses/mansions in Europe.. odd no?

Solving "migration" in Europe is pretty simple, but the willingness of countries with right wing or even far right wing parties is the problem. Many of these countries governments rely on refugees/brown people/Muslims "problem" to stay in power. So solving the problem would mean no one would have a reason to vote for them.. so it is survival for them. Now is it mean to call them neo nazi or similar things? No not really, because they use the same tactics to stir up strife and present no real solutions other than hinting of the "final solution". Of course sometimes these parties go off script and show their true intentions.. like the AfD leader who called for migrants to be gunned down by machine guns at the border, or Orban wanting old Hungarian lands back...

Fun fact.. Hungary is a country of illegal immigrants. Hungarians fled from central Asia and illegally took over the area they now occupy.

So the solution.

1) Unified refugee and migration rules/agreements. Right now, each country has its own rules and agreements. This causes problems because small countries like Denmark have no real political or financial power against say Algeria or Nigeria. So sending back citizens of these countries can be problematic to say the least. Now if it was the EU who stood for it, then very few nations on the planet would refuse to take back their own citizens.

2) Even distribution of refugees across the EU. The biggest problem is that Italy, Spain, Greece get the brunt of the refugee/illegal migrant traffic and relatively no help from other EU countries. So either the rest of Europe pay up, or take in more actual refugees. Also solution nr 1 would make it easier for these 3 countries to kick out economic migrants.

3) Setting up intake camps in North Africa for actual refugees. Now this is a solution that looks good on paper and in theory, but since we screwed up North Africa so much.. not sure it is practical any more.

4) Better information from member countries on how many refugees there are in each country, vs economic migrants and legal migrants. The media are complicit in failing to distinguish between legal refugees, legal non-EU migrants and economic migrants.

5) Stop causing chaos in the Middle East and Africa and do something about the chaos there is. Yea, aint gonna happen, but one can hope!

 

[Slartibartfast]

Unfortunately, with climate change like it is. Many first world nations are likely to have to become pretty stingy when it comes to immigration and should expect extensive climate refugee camps at their national borders.

It's going to be ugly and very inhumane.

 

[Ginger Ale]

Can you convince me that the cons outweigh the pros? Especially given the downward trajectory Americas population is on at the moment with the end of the baby boomers and the slowing of the 2.5 American family? The fact is, refugees, in the long term, are beneficial. Can you tell me how this is wrong?

Since the passage of the Refugee Act of 1980, which established the refugee resettlement process, more than 3.1 million people have found safety and a sense of home in the United States. Welcoming and supporting refugees in any country will come with initial costs to cover vitally important social services in order to position them for successful integration. While some studies show that resettling refugees in the U.S. can cost up to $15,000 per person, they also indicate that the long-term economic benefits of admitting refugees far outweigh these initial costs.

While there are compelling moral reasons for welcoming refugees, this article will explore how these newcomers are also an investment in the economic well-being of the nations that embrace them.

What are the Economic Benefits of Refugees? | Global Refuge

Welcoming and supporting refugees in any country will come with initial costs to cover vitally important social services in order to position them for successful integration.

www.globalrefuge.org

Pros​

1. Refugees bring productivity to their host countries, where they are integrated across various communities.
2. They help enrich their local communities, creating a cultural diversity within the local population and helping nurture understanding and appreciation for social diversity.
3. Years after their settlement, refugees continue to stimulate the economy, often boosting economic activity and increasing wages.
4. They also complement the job market in the cities and states where they settle, boasting high rates of entrepreneurship and creating jobs.

Cons​

1. There is an initial cost incurred by the host country, which in the U.S. context is usually financed through public-private partnership.
2. While no fault of those displaced from their homes, the idea of accepting refugees is often a politicized topic, which may lead to resentment among certain subsections of the local population.

 

[Ishm]

Fine - until you suggest that European parties who have wished to end uncontrolled mass migration have "run on a platform of hate".

Agree, that is too much of a broad claim, however, the anti immigration movements in many countries are not lead by the moderate conservatives, and barely concealed racism gets a lot more support for the more extreme right wing politicians in far too many cases. You can discuss the process of better controlling immigration without needing to demonize migrants. The demonizing though gets cheap support. A bit like the way we see Trump operates in the US. Lot's of simple, but very divisive, messaging that gathers easy votes from the more radical sectors without having much to do at all with actually fixing the real problems.

 

[joluoto]

One thing that people seldom talk about. Actual refugees arrive the same way with the same methods as illegal immigrants. The difference is that they instead of just melting into the population goes to a border official when they arrive and say the magic words: "I seek asylum". That starts the asylum process, and the asylum seeker is legally in the host country as the process is ongoing. Then the process will end with either a positive asylum decision (most decisions are positive, as most people who bother to seek asylum actually needs it), or deportation if the decision is negative. The asylum seekers arrive on the same boats as the illegal immigrants, but a asylum seeker is LEGAL. You always have the right to seek asylum, the host country does of course not have an obligation to grant it.

 

[brianpatrick]

One thing that people seldom talk about. Actual refugees arrive the same way with the same methods as illegal immigrants. The difference is that they instead of just melting into the population goes to a border official when they arrive and say the magic words: "I seek asylum". That starts the asylum process, and the asylum seeker is legally in the host country as the process is ongoing. Then the process will end with either a positive asylum decision (most decisions are positive, as most people who bother to seek asylum actually needs it), or deportation if the decision is negative. The asylum seekers arrive on the same boats as the illegal immigrants, but an asylum seeker is LEGAL. You always have the right to seek asylum, the host country does of course not have an obligation to grant it.

Yeah but they’re essentially the same people.
If conditions were livable where they were from they wouldn’t come. Maybe the documentation of their particular situations is lacking, making asylum more difficult, but all of them coming here are fleeing something. There will always be a tiny portion of any population fleeing criminal prosecution in their own countries, but this isn’t statistically a big number.

 

[multivita-man]

5) Stop causing chaos in the Middle East and Africa and do something about the chaos there is. Yea, aint gonna happen, but one can hope!

^ This.

The same could be said of mass migration into North America as well. Between political corruption, militia violence, and climate instability, all of which have US fingerprints on them, much of Latin America has become too harsh to live in.

 

[ataraxia]

Unfortunately, with climate change like it is. Many first world nations are likely to have to become pretty stingy when it comes to immigration and should expect extensive climate refugee camps at their national borders.

It's going to be ugly and very inhumane.

Conservatives everywhere are not going to have enough ammo fir their assault rifles to mow down all the people escaping their countries going underwater and catching on fire.

 

[holbritter]

Can you convince me that the cons outweigh the pros? Especially given the downward trajectory Americas population is on at the moment with the end of the baby boomers and the slowing of the 2.5 American family? The fact is, refugees, in the long term, are beneficial. Can you tell me how this is wrong?

Since the passage of the Refugee Act of 1980, which established the refugee resettlement process, more than 3.1 million people have found safety and a sense of home in the United States. Welcoming and supporting refugees in any country will come with initial costs to cover vitally important social services in order to position them for successful integration. While some studies show that resettling refugees in the U.S. can cost up to $15,000 per person, they also indicate that the long-term economic benefits of admitting refugees far outweigh these initial costs.

While there are compelling moral reasons for welcoming refugees, this article will explore how these newcomers are also an investment in the economic well-being of the nations that embrace them.

What are the Economic Benefits of Refugees? | Global Refuge

Welcoming and supporting refugees in any country will come with initial costs to cover vitally important social services in order to position them for successful integration.

www.globalrefuge.org

Pros​

1. Refugees bring productivity to their host countries, where they are integrated across various communities.
2. They help enrich their local communities, creating a cultural diversity within the local population and helping nurture understanding and appreciation for social diversity.
3. Years after their settlement, refugees continue to stimulate the economy, often boosting economic activity and increasing wages.
4. They also complement the job market in the cities and states where they settle, boasting high rates of entrepreneurship and creating jobs.

Cons​

1. There is an initial cost incurred by the host country, which in the U.S. context is usually financed through public-private partnership.
2. While no fault of those displaced from their homes, the idea of accepting refugees is often a politicized topic, which may lead to resentment among certain subsections of the local population.

you mean taxpayer. Quite the spin on that. I'm sorry to say but I think this interpretation is seen through the proverbial rose colored glasses.

 

[j brown's body]

Oddly, it appears our country is right about immigration, but we're loathe to admit it.

New Data Analysis: Immigrants Driving Opportunity, Prosperity in the U.S., Including in Swing States - American Immigration Council

A new analysis of 2022 U.S. census data highlights how, amidst the Biden administration's recent actions to limit asylum access along the U.S.-Mexico border, and in the context of ramped-up anti-immigrant rhetoric during this year’s presidential campaign, immigrants are helping make the United...

www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org

 

[Chagos]

Can you convince me that the cons outweigh the pros? Especially given the downward trajectory Americas population is on at the moment with the end of the baby boomers and the slowing of the 2.5 American family? The fact is, refugees, in the long term, are beneficial. Can you tell me how this is wrong?

Since the passage of the Refugee Act of 1980, which established the refugee resettlement process, more than 3.1 million people have found safety and a sense of home in the United States. Welcoming and supporting refugees in any country will come with initial costs to cover vitally important social services in order to position them for successful integration. While some studies show that resettling refugees in the U.S. can cost up to $15,000 per person, they also indicate that the long-term economic benefits of admitting refugees far outweigh these initial costs.

While there are compelling moral reasons for welcoming refugees, this article will explore how these newcomers are also an investment in the economic well-being of the nations that embrace them.

What are the Economic Benefits of Refugees? | Global Refuge

Welcoming and supporting refugees in any country will come with initial costs to cover vitally important social services in order to position them for successful integration.

www.globalrefuge.org

Pros​

1. Refugees bring productivity to their host countries, where they are integrated across various communities.
2. They help enrich their local communities, creating a cultural diversity within the local population and helping nurture understanding and appreciation for social diversity.
3. Years after their settlement, refugees continue to stimulate the economy, often boosting economic activity and increasing wages.
4. They also complement the job market in the cities and states where they settle, boasting high rates of entrepreneurship and creating jobs.

Cons​

1. There is an initial cost incurred by the host country, which in the U.S. context is usually financed through public-private partnership.
2. While no fault of those displaced from their homes, the idea of accepting refugees is often a politicized topic, which may lead to resentment among certain subsections of the local population.

In the spirit of which-------------------> "English speakers get the hell out of the US first"

Firstly

for your forebears and now you not having stayed where you came from, and

secondly,

for having done to the English language what you have done.



Meanwhile rumors that everyone will be forcibly returned to the African Rift Valley remain, as yet, unfounded.

 

[Chagos]

So a SWISS.. non EU member newspaper... a very very old right wing newspaper... suddenly has the scoop?

Orbans policies focus on one thing.. enriching himself and his friends. He has blocked any reforms of EU migration policy for a decade. Why? Because he has no financial benefit for it to be solved. His border wall was paid by Hungarians in a targeted tax hike, that took in far far far more than the wall cost.. and yet the country is still in financial ruin.. odd no? His mother has one of the biggest houses/mansions in Europe.. odd no?

Solving "migration" in Europe is pretty simple, but the willingness of countries with right wing or even far right wing parties is the problem. Many of these countries governments rely on refugees/brown people/Muslims "problem" to stay in power. So solving the problem would mean no one would have a reason to vote for them.. so it is survival for them. Now is it mean to call them neo nazi or similar things? No not really, because they use the same tactics to stir up strife and present no real solutions other than hinting of the "final solution". Of course sometimes these parties go off script and show their true intentions.. like the AfD leader who called for migrants to be gunned down by machine guns at the border, or Orban wanting old Hungarian lands back...

Fun fact.. Hungary is a country of illegal immigrants. Hungarians fled from central Asia and illegally took over the area they now occupy.

So the solution.

1) Unified refugee and migration rules/agreements. Right now, each country has its own rules and agreements. This causes problems because small countries like Denmark have no real political or financial power against say Algeria or Nigeria. So sending back citizens of these countries can be problematic to say the least. Now if it was the EU who stood for it, then very few nations on the planet would refuse to take back their own citizens.

2) Even distribution of refugees across the EU. The biggest problem is that Italy, Spain, Greece get the brunt of the refugee/illegal migrant traffic and relatively no help from other EU countries. So either the rest of Europe pay up, or take in more actual refugees. Also solution nr 1 would make it easier for these 3 countries to kick out economic migrants.

3) Setting up intake camps in North Africa for actual refugees. Now this is a solution that looks good on paper and in theory, but since we screwed up North Africa so much.. not sure it is practical any more.

4) Better information from member countries on how many refugees there are in each country, vs economic migrants and legal migrants. The media are complicit in failing to distinguish between legal refugees, legal non-EU migrants and economic migrants.

5) Stop causing chaos in the Middle East and Africa and do something about the chaos there is. Yea, aint gonna happen, but one can hope!

Just to add that it was the same Orban who in 2015 not only refused to register refugees in his country, but also didn't do a thing to turn them back.

Instead he had them transported on into the remaining EU, causing Austria to be stumped and Merkel to open that particular pressure valve.

One can criticize the chaotic allowance of entry into Germany and beyond (and I do) but if Orban had stuck to the law that he signed onto at the time, "the flow" might have been managed in a more orderly manner.

Orban's idea of EU membership is to take everything he can get and give nothing in return.

 

[Sweden]

Just to add that it was the same Orban who in 2015 not only refused to register refugees in his country, but also didn't do a thing to turn them back.

Instead he had them transported on into the remaining EU, causing Austria to be stumped and Merkel to open that particular pressure valve.

One can criticize the chaotic allowance of entry into Germany and beyond (and I do) but if Orban had stuck to the law that he signed onto at the time, "the flow" might have been managed in a more orderly manner.

Orban's idea of EU membership is to take everything he can get and give nothing in return.

Taking everything they can get and paying in as little as possible is the goal of every EU member state. For quite a while Ireland was the best player of this game and Britain the sucker who coughed up the cash.

 

[Metanoia]

In many ways we are comparing apples to oranges in comparing the USA to Europe…..we get a huge number from Latino countries which are largely Christian and IMO easier to assimilate…..Europe gets huge numbers from Islamic countries that present a different problem. Many of the Asians that we do receive are the highly educated that fill vital needs here. These are very different situations…..

 

[Chagos]

Taking everything they can get and paying in as little as possible is the goal of every EU member state. For quite a while Ireland was the best player of this game and Britain the sucker who coughed up the cash.

Yeah, trouble being that if one goes by who is net-payer and net-payee (contributor and receiver), one leaves out the overall benefit of gain and loss of the individual member.

A such Ireland is by now a net payer (just) and clearly benefited from the push that its EU membership gave it (to turn away from being payee).

It wasn't only Britain coughing up for that development and one could even argue that Germany coughed up the most (gauged by it being the biggest net payer of the whole EU).

But there's no such thing as sheer altruism in any of it, the economic gain in trade, commerce and industry is the focus of ANY country and Germany (to stay with that example) sure as hell gained more than anyone else in those fields, making whatever contribution it had to cough up near negligible by comparison.

Hungary has been holding pariah status in that respect for decades, pocketing more and more while spiraling its economy into near bankruptcy.

 

[Ganondagan]

Just to add that it was the same Orban who in 2015 not only refused to register refugees in his country, but also didn't do a thing to turn them back.

Instead he had them transported on into the remaining EU, causing Austria to be stumped and Merkel to open that particular pressure valve.

One can criticize the chaotic allowance of entry into Germany and beyond (and I do) but if Orban had stuck to the law that he signed onto at the time, "the flow" might have been managed in a more orderly manner.

Orban's idea of EU membership is to take everything he can get and give nothing in return.

Orban has been proven right on immigration. National Conservatism is the only thing that will save Western Civilization... Defend Hungary's borders and Christian heritage.

 

[Chagos]

Orban has been proven right on immigration. National Conservatism is the only thing that will save Western Civilization... Defend Hungary's borders and Christian heritage.

In view of having absolutely nothing to do with the post you quote, what an absolutely stupid response.

 

[Ganondagan]

In view of having absolutely nothing to do with the post you quote, what an absolutely stupid response.

This is the thread,

Hungary Was, And Is, Right About Immigration.​

 

[Chagos]

This is the thread,

Hungary Was, And Is, Right About Immigration.​

In view of having absolutely nothing to do with the post you quoted, what an absolutely stupid response.

 

[german hick]

Orban has been proven right on immigration. National Conservatism is the only thing that will save Western Civilization... Defend Hungary's borders and Christian heritage.

who proved him right? Any substance? Otherwise these sentences sound like cheap propaganda

 

[Ganondagan]

who proved him right? Any substance? Otherwise these sentences sound like cheap propaganda

Time has proven Orban right.

EU leaders set course for tougher policy to send back irregular migrants​

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/eu-leaders-focus-migration-poland-point-its-weaponisation-2024-10-17/

BRUSSELS, Oct 17 (Reuters) - European Union leaders agreed on Thursday to use all their leverage, including trade, development aid and visa policy, to speed up returns of migrants illegally entering the bloc and asked the European Commission to urgently draft a law.

Immigration is a highly sensitive topic in most of the bloc's 27 member states, even though irregular migrants arriving in Europe last year were a third of the 1 million seen during the crisis in 2015, and numbers fell further this year.

Leaky external EU borders are destroying the EU's Schengen passport-free travel area, fuelling the rise of far-right parties and affecting election results across Europe, making migration a key political problem.

"The European Council calls for determined action at all levels to facilitate, increase and speed up returns from the European Union using all relevant EU policies instruments and tools, including diplomacy, development, trade and visas," the leaders said in written conclusions of their meeting.

• Summary

• EU leaders want new, strong law to expel illegal migrants
• EU backs Poland's efforts to keep out migrants sent by Russia, Belarus

 

[Chagos]

who proved him right? Any substance? Otherwise these sentences sound like cheap propaganda

All you'll get is a boring repetition of the opening post which has nothing to do with Orban's behavior and thus arguing with this particular poster appears to be a total waste of time.

It's the "standing in the schoolyard with a finger in each ear and shouting did too" technique and, seeing how most of us have long since matured well beyond that intellectual paucity, not worth acknowledging any further.