1 year ago9 points(+0/-0/+9Score on mirror)1 child
No one can explain why all these Arab Muslims "fleeing war" don't go to one of the many Arab Muslim states not at war (and also very wealthy). Islam even calls non-Muslim lands "Dar al-Harb", or "the house of war". So the idea that these people are fleeing war and are destitute is a myth.
1 year ago6 points(+0/-0/+6Score on mirror)2 children
Conveniently, the (((UN))) says refugees aren't required to take refuge in the first safe country they reach - explaining why we see browns passing through 10+ totally safe European countries in order to reach Germany, France, the UK, or wherever has the most gibs.
However, some countries can reject invaders that shopped around, sending them back to a previous safe country they passed through.
[Why don't refugees stay in the first country they reach?](https://www.rescue.org/uk/article/why-dont-refugees-stay-first-country-they-reach)
1 year ago4 points(+0/-0/+4Score on mirror)1 child
The UN would say or do anything, embrace any logic, no matter how bizarre, to legitimize the dispossession of Europeans. The UN has failed to explain why Arabs can't seek refuge in one of the many, rich Arab states. It has further failed to understand why, if it is OK for the Arabs to reject other Arab refugees, it is even more legitimate for non-Arabs (Europeans, for example) to do so.
It doesn't care why. Having the migrants stop in Arab states fails to accomplish the UN's goal of destroying White countries, so of course they won't admit that it's legitimate for those countries to refuse to be flooded.
Geneva convention says they must stay in the first safe country. So technically they're all illegals and deportation should be an easy task once you smash the table with your hand so hard that it breaks and throw the jew who says you can't deport illegals into the fireplace.