Posted on March 9, 2020

Saying No to the Invasion of Europe

Janet Levy, American Thinker, March 8, 2020

The inundation of Europe with Muslim migrants intent on permanent settlement is unprecedented in world history.  Europe, which has accepted vast numbers of the migrants, has become an epicenter of Islamic terrorism replete with alarming levels of migrant crime, including Muslim sex slave gangs and sharia-controlled “no-go” zones.  Faced with this reality, four Central European countries — Hungary, Poland, Czechia, and Slovakia — have adamantly refused to accept Muslim refugees, earning criticism from the European community and prosecution by the European Court of Justice.

But now, with Turkey threatening to open its border and inundate Greece with thousands more Muslim refugees, the European community appears to have paused in its ongoing acceptance of migrants and pledged to protect Greece’s border.  It illustrates the threat that has existed from the beginning from the mass movement of Muslims from the Middle East and North Africa.

Some view the migration as a “humanitarian crisis” and call critics “xenophobes” or “racists” who lack compassion.  Others question the motivation for the sudden refugee onslaught and ask why Europe must shoulder responsibility and absorb the mass exodus when proximate, affluent Muslim countries have not offered assistance.  They see, instead, a planned invasion or hijra, a 1,400-year-old Islamic doctrine modeled after Mohammed’s migration from Mecca to Medina.  It is designed to subvert and subdue non-Muslim societies and pave the way for total Islamization, in this case, of all Europe.

It began in 1990, when the U.N. high commissioner for refugees (UNHCR) established a liaison with the European Union (E.U.) and its executive branch, the European Commission (E.C.), to monitor the asylum and migration process.  This led to resolutions and recommendations on refugee policies by the European Council, heads of state of E.U. member-nations that determine overall E.U. political priorities.

In 2015, E.C. president Jean-Claude Juncker unveiled a proposal to redistribute Muslim refugees flooding Europe to all E.U. member-states.  The European Council followed with a plan that gave refugees the right to settle in E.U. member-states based on each country’s economic and demographic circumstances.  All were required to participate, with substantial fines to be imposed against countries that rejected refugees.

The E.C. edict was particularly problematic for the Visegrád (V4) countries — Hungary, Poland, Czechia and Slovakia, four Central European countries with a combined population of 64 million, constituting the fifth largest economy in Europe.  Unlike the rest of Europe, they had only recently recovered their sovereignty after suffering under the Iron Curtain and resisted delegating power to a central authority.  They balked at the E.U. refugee resettlement policy, unwilling to jeopardize national security and their cultural and religious traditions.  The V4 countries clearly identified the stark reality facing the continent.  They recognized that the asylum-seekers were infiltrated by ISIS and other terrorist groups, included refugees resistant to assimilation, and represented a drain on national resources.  The countries preferred to provide aid to migrants in or near their countries of origin.

Polish leader Dominik Tarczynski affirmatively stated that Poland would not accept a single Muslim illegal migrant.  He proudly points to his country’s record of safety — not one Islamic terrorist attack.  Tarczynski has compared Muslim immigrants to Polish immigrants, pointing out that “zero Poles” have blown themselves up in any country in the world for their religion or out of hatred.  Deflecting charges of “racism” and “nationalism,” he defends his policy that has protected his countrymen.  For this, he has been vilified by E.U. leadership.

Tarczynski acknowledges that Poland has taken in two million Christian Ukrainians, but he defends himself against charges of “Islamophobia” by plainly stating that Poland chooses to be a Christian country free of the problems facing the rest of Europe struggling with Muslim migration.  His country is not responsible for conflicts in Syria or Iraq, he has said, and has pointed out that wealthy Arab countries like Saudi Arabia and Qatar, well equipped to accept Muslim refugees, do nothing to help their co-religionists.

Government officials from Hungary, Czechia, and Slovakia have all adopted similar restrictions.

Current V4 leader and Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orbán has maintained that the “refugee crisis” is a well funded, well organized invasion and that NGOs are serving as human-smuggling groups. According to Orbán, Hungarian intelligence discovered that 95% of the migrants were military-age men in military-style group movements.  Few are innocent women and children who suddenly appear when the media are present.  Orbán has financed a “Hungary Helps Project,” which provides aid directly to churches and charities to assist migrants to remain in their own countries.  The funds are earmarked for persecuted Christians, a population typically ignored by other governments and the media.

For the past five years, the V4 have remained at the forefront of an effort to stem massive Muslim migration into Europe.  They have collectively refused to accept any compulsory long-term refugee resettlement quotas set by the E.U. and notably remain virtually unaffected in a continent rife with Islamic terrorist attacks and sharia-compliant no-go zones.

In 2017, the European Commission took Hungary, Poland, and the Czech Republic to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) and charged them with breaking E.U. law by refusing to accept asylum-seekers under the E.U.’s mandatory migration quotas.  The three countries were criticized for reaping the benefits of the union while failing to meet their humanitarian and political responsibilities.  The ECJ denied that legitimate security concerns existed and cited legal obligations to follow E.U. policies.

Leaders in Hungary, Poland, and Czechia responded that their security and cultural cohesion were threatened by the E.U.’s refugee plan and denied that legal grounds existed to impose such quotas.  The ECJ will rule on the matter later this year.

So it stood until just recently, when Turkey opened its border to Greece and threatened Europe with the arrival of several million refugees.  Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, Turkey’s president, threatened the invasion following the E.U.’s lack of support for Turkey’s military incursion into northern Syria.  Thousands of so-called asylum-seekers from Afghanistan, Syria, Iran, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Morocco, and several East African countries have traveled to the Turkish border in recent days.  President Erdoğan has gone so far as to make a formal announcement about the open border and supply buses and maps to facilitate the latest crossings, despite a 2016 agreement with the E.U. to prevent refugees from illegally entering Europe.  Greek authorities claim that Turkish soldiers have used wire-cutters to open the borders and that Turkish police have provided the “refugees” with tear gas canisters to be used against Greek police blocking their passage.  Reports from Greece also allege that freed prisoners have been escorted to the E.U. border in Turkish police cars and that Turkey has deployed 1,000 policemen to halt any pushback of migrants.

All this has sorely tested the E.U.’s tolerance for the migrant problem, and government officials are condemning the onslaught.  They have agreed to help Greece and mobilize a Frontex force to protect the border.  Suddenly, the Greek border is a European border, and the E.U. is expressing solidarity with the rest of the continent and a willingness to mobilize the necessary operational support to fortify the defensive actions of the Greek authorities.

It remains to be seen if this new development represents a volte face of the E.U.’s 2015 policy on refugee resettlement or is a temporary moratorium to slow the tide of migrants into Europe.  It certainly lends credence to the Visegrád Group’s characterization of Muslim migration as an invasion and a serious threat to Europe’s way of life.