Under new rules, the EU border agency will be allowed to transfer migrants between third countries, expanding its operations beyond Europe and facilitating deportations from return hubs.
One-way ticket into a concentration camp in an undisclosed third country in the global south. Brought to you by the liberal, rules-based world order of the EU, I remember reading about the legislature surrounding this (possibly earlier this year, but weeks are like decades sometimes). The US is on the back-foot, throwing its various vassals under the proverbial bus to save its own ass, and in the wake the EU is receding to fascism to protect the capital and bourgeois rule. The situation in Europe seems increasingly unstable, as rioting swells in multiple countries with leaders in France at least unwilling to make really any concessions to the people, whose problems are consequences of the bourgeoisie’s actions. The bourgeoisie here has been calling for increased military spending to make the continent ready for war by 2030, though they call it “preparing for invasion” to manufacture consent for increased military spending as a way out. In reality that spending will be used to further surveil and control you to prevent the people from organizing against the state, and to empower and arm the police to be used against the people in future riots. The bourgeoisie will never consider the working class’s well-being over their own class’s well-being.
That is a bit rich. Are you from the US, or which other country? How many asylum seekers has your country accepted from “the global south”? I doubt it is even a fraction of what EU member states have. People with such an asylum status won’t be deported. This is only about people who fail to qualify for that status.
Btw, it is not the “bourgeoisie” where anti immigration parties are the strongest but their stronghold is among the working class, interestingly not limited to those without immigration background.
I replied too fast, got thrown off by you putting the global south into quotation marks. Why did you do that, what did you mean by that? I’m struggling to understand your points.
For what it’s worth, my home country (in the EU) has some 550 000 immigrants living here, about 10% of the population. I suspect those are mostly people doing “shit jobs” (ie. cleaning, thrash management, other manual labor) that the locals refuse to do (because the work is hard and the pay is shit), preferring the status of labor aristocracy (ie. white collar jobs, tech sector etc.) and petit bourgeoisie (ie. small business ownership or other such) over those they see inherently lesser than them (as a consequence of the culture of white supremacy they grew up in). This would be aligned with European post-WWII culture of unequal exchange with the countries of the global south. I understand that these camps wouldn’t be used (at least immediately) against already established labor force, but against “illegal immigration”. My question would be who is responsible for determining which immigration is illegal and what is stopping them from narrowing the scope of legality (say, deporting LGTBQ+ people fleeing repression in Russia to some third country, thereby placing them in even more danger because immigration from Russia can be deemed illegal at will). Even more disturbing is the (imo) very real possibility of the EU sinking ever deeper into the same kind of fascism as contemporary US, and eventually using these same processes of deportation to silence and remove internal dissidence (eg. anti-war, pro-socialism).
Btw, it is not the “bourgeoisie” where anti immigration parties are the strongest but their stronghold is among the working class, interestingly not limited to those without immigration background.
Again with the quotation marks. But indeed, it is thanks again to the white-supremacist culture in which these anti-immigration working class people have grown. There is an important sentence in the communist manifesto: “The ideology of all hitherto existing societies is the ideology of the ruling class”. This ruling class in capitalist societies is the bourgeoisie. This page and that part especially explains the concept of ideologies in Marxism and its contradictions within the working class.
My comment wasn’t based on the current existence of European deportation camps, or even their stated use. But when capital goes into a crisis and the contradictions within capitalist societies heighten, what I wrote could as well eventually come to be. Who do you think were the first ones into Nazi concentration camps, or what kind of a society was the one from which Nazism awoke, or whose colonial practices those camps were based on? History doesn’t always repeat, but it sure does rhyme.
deleted by creator
Under the new rules, the Warsaw-based agency will also be able to support authorities in third countries, such as North African governments, in returning Central African citizens to their countries of origin before they even attempt to reach European shores
This will help the North African countries so they’ll be happy about that. Hopefully it results in less deaths from people trying to cross the Mediterranean.
Dont have much sympathy for people illegally migrating. Go through the proper channels.
Because that’s easy, and information on that definitely available. There would never be people in central africa making bank on smuggling people to europe promising that it’s their easy ticket to a better life…
/s if that wasn’t obvious
In theory sending the immigrants back before they get here should be better for everyone, but I’m always a bit doubtful about the execution. Ideally, I don’t think immigration should ever be illegal, but since that’s not gonna happen any time soon, this seems like a good thing at least at surface level. But I’m always sceptical with these things.
Good. This will undermine the appeal of far-right groups which are anti-immigrant.
The idea that adopting right-wing policies will weaken the far right is a wild theory. It just legitimizes their positions.
No, it undermines their position on immigration, their top issue. On other issues, people might not agree with them.
Sure, mine away until your position is indistinguishable from theirs. That’ll show them.
No, on immigration the AfD is more extreme.
They’re tossing the dog a bone to make it shut up.
It will work, but not for long. The facists dogs will come back to get more from the hand that feeds.
I’m afraid they’re turning into dogs as well…
Illegal migration has been the wedge used by fascist Russia to split Western unity. Quite successfully. Outdated migration policies helped conflate good migration with bad, and the unwillingness to distinguish the two let the issue fester and drive the whole world toward fascism. Russia knew what they are doing, and they are winning.
I think you’re giving Russia too much credit here. The EU is making its own choices and expanding Frontex’s powers to facilitate deportations through third countries is another step towards fortifying Fortress Europe. People fleeing war or poverty shouldn’t have to prove they’re the right kind of migrants to deserve humane treatment.
This planet cannot sustain 8billion+ people. Poverty and war cannot be fixed by moving everybody into Western countries. Unfortunately, fewer people are needed. The fascists have long recognized this, and they want to keep people on a racial basis. They are having their way because Liberal Democracies failed to keep people on a behavioral basis. It is wrong to discriminate by birth. It is also wrong to not discriminate by behavior.
It can already. It’s not because it’s not always profitable and we live in capitalism. There are countless studies to support this. Degrowth is kind of a cringe theory as well.
What are you talking about regarding behavior? Do you think frontex will do a test at the border?
Sustainability, decent QOL, high population. Pick two. I pick the first two. Studies usually pick the first and the last. Arguable what “decent” is, but definitely more than “you’re not starving to death and you have some kind of roof above your head”. Or they pick the last 2, and pretend that we can science our way into prosperity. Current agricultural methods are not long term sustainable, regardless if profit motivated or not. Before fertilizers, yields were much lower. But sustainable. But fertilizers and industrial agriculture screw up the soil long term. Also fertilizers need to be produced, often from non-renewing sources. Etc.
I have no comment on Frontex. They are probably a too late attempt to fix something that should have been fixed 50+ years ago.
Their populism works becaus none of the non right wing parties is dealing with the issues.
It works because people are told lies about what the issues actually are. People notice there’s a problem but can’t diagnose it and right wingers lie just like antivaxxers and other conspiracy theorists. Because this doesn’t solve the problem it also can not work - people will notice the problems remains and because it remains they’ll assume it must be somebody else who has the answers. And the extreme right’s lies are amplified while the left / progressive policies are ignored.
You have to break through the media bias and reach people with real solutions instead
Not when the far-left position is rejected by vast majority of people. About 90% of Spaniards disapproved with how the government handled the crisis in Ceuta. The far-left Sumar party was from the beginning against deportations but even left-wing PSEO could see that this positions is impossible to defend and ended up expelling all the migrants.
Some of the left-wing policies go so far left that most people reject them and the only way to weaken far right is to take a step back. Interesting read.
I don’t think a crisis at the border justifies further fortifying Fortress Europe. And just because people are unhappy with how a crisis is handled doesn’t mean they reject a more humane migration policy.
As for the article, of course Islamist homophobia is a problem. But voting AfD over it seems pretty short-sighted to me. The AfD is happy to use gay rights as a tool against migrants but that doesn’t mean they actually care about protecting queer people. There’s a very real possibility that once migrants are no longer the main target, queer people will be back in the firing line.
I’m not arguing for or against any of those positions here. I’m showing how some of the left-wing positions are so unpopular that yes, adapting more centrist (close to the right) position is actually beneficial for the left. Basically, most of the time left-wing politicians are trying to adopt right wing positions hoping that they will steal some votes from the right (which never works) but sometimes, common sense policy is actually closer to the center because the far-left lost touch with reality on some issues.
Spanish government tends to run to the left to mobilize voters (exception in Europe). They granted amnesty to all the migrants in Spain very recently which puts them to the left of pretty much all the other countries in Europe but even they will not go as far left as Sumar would like because they know it’s not what vast majority of voters (both on the right and left) want. EU sees the same thing.
P.S. As another example, the far-left would say that saying “Islamist homophobia is a problem” is racist and Islamophobic so even you adapted more centrist position here.
