I don't understand why European authorities have difficulty effectively addressing this issue. They could permit the use of lethal force if necessary to halt illegal immigration or prioritize mass arrests and deportations although these steps may be controversial. In recent years, many European countries have faced increasing pressure from public opinion regarding immigration, leading to a contentious debate about how to manage these flows. Some argue that allowing for stricter measures could deter illegal entry, while others advocate for more humane approaches. Alternatively, they might consider employing illegal migrants as cheap labor in regulated sectors where they can be monitored. This approach mirrors practices in Gulf states, where cheap laborers are kept separate from the main population in a highly controlled environment. Such a system allows these nations to meet labor demands without the complexities of integration. But, its extremely controversial. In Europe, acknowledging that human rights do not apply uniformly is controversial but brings to light the differing priorities of nations when it comes to immigration policies. Some argue that the rights of citizens should take precedence over those of illegal migrants, especially in contexts where public safety and social cohesion are perceived to be at risk. A more effective approach but extremely controversial for European states would be to distinguish between cheap laborers and unassimilated immigrants, separating them from the core population. This could involve placing these individuals in specific sectors, perhaps in industries that rely heavily on labor but are closely monitored, without granting the possibility of citizenship, as those in these categories may be less likely to assimilate. The focus should instead be on integrating educated and affluent immigrants, who are generally more likely to adapt to and embrace the culture of their new country. For instance, an immigrant engaged in academic or business pursuits often has the skills and background that align well with Western values and societal norms, making it easier for them to assimilate. This contrasts sharply with individuals performing manual labor, who may face barriers to integration due to language, education, or cultural differences.

We hold no animosity toward the people of Gaza; rather, we feel a deep compassion for them, as our shared humanity connects us. Our criticism is directed solely at Hamas and its extremist ideology, which has influenced many Gazans to sacrifice their children's lives for a futile cause. Why can’t they simply recognize Israel's existence and work toward peaceful coexistence? Israel has never launched an unprovoked attack on Gaza; it has always been Hamas that initiated aggression. Is a singular, unified Palestinian state truly essential? Couldn’t there be a self-governing Palestinian entity under Israeli oversight? Israel might even offer various benefits and support to Palestinians if they acknowledge the rightful place of Jews in the region. Unfortunately, groups like the Muslim Brotherhood and pan-Islamic extremists have led Palestinians to see Jews as eternal enemies. At this juncture, the people of Gaza should recognize Israel as a permanent presence, dismantle Hamas, and adopt liberal democracy alongside Western principles and secularism—these alternatives are far superior to the destructive, death-focused ideology promoted by Hamas.

We were told that mass migration would save Europe’s economy; the data proves it is actively bleeding it dry. As an Iranian who left the Middle East to live in a functional, high-trust society, it is surreal to watch the West voluntarily import the very dysfunction I escaped. Official reports from the Netherlands and Denmark confirm what many of us from the region already know but Western politicians are too afraid to say: migrants from the Middle East and North Africa are, statistically, a massive net fiscal burden. The numbers are precise and unforgiving. The Danish Ministry of Finance released data showing that this specific demographic costs the state approximately 24 billion DKK every year. This is not a temporary dip in the ledger. It is a structural deficit caused by a group that consistently consumes far more in social services than they contribute in taxes. In the Netherlands, the findings are equally stark. Government analysis indicates that the net lifetime impact of an average asylum migrant from these regions is deeply negative. While immigrants from advanced Western nations act as economic engines, filling state coffers, the inflow from Islamic countries operates as a financial drain. This is the cold reality of the modern welfare state. You cannot maintain a high-trust, high-benefit society while importing millions of people who are statistically destined to be dependent on it.

A convention with my wife last night . 500 years ago Christians slaughterd south American peoples. Today we can choose to be religious or not. Islam gives you no choice submit or die. A harsh brief statmen but ultimately true .it is the cancer of the western world , that needs painfully cutting out. No debating or procrastinating CUT IT OUT !!!!!!!

How come european leaders allow the muslim invasion to Europe?