In a story that has barely made international news, a newspaper in the Gambia is asking why their nation recently met with Germany in what seems to have been a discussion about receiving back deportees from the European nation:
Members of The Gambia Refugees Association – Europe Branch are calling on The Gambia Government to explain the outcome of their meeting with the German delegation from Baden Württemberg Region to the Gambia from 13th – 15th June, 2019.
The German delegation which comprised the secretary general of the CDU party in Baden-Württemberg, Manuel Hagel, and the Interior politician in the state of Baden-Württemberg, Siegfried Lorek, have held political discussions with Gambian vice president Dr. Isatou Touray and other government officials on migration and about Gambian refugees in Germany.
The delegation had meetings with the Vice-President Dr. Touray; the minister of Foreign Affairs, Dr. Momodou Tangara; the Interior minister, Ebrima Mballow; and members of the National Assembly of the Gambia.
They discussed possibilities of finding solutions to irregular migration and possible deportation of Gambian migrants from Germany, details of which are kept unknown to the general public. Almost 16,000 Gambian refugees are living in Baden Württemberg region and the German delegation had said in a newspaper interview during their visit that 95% of Gambians in Germany will be deported.
In this regard, as an association fighting for the welfare of Gambian refugees, we are appealing to The Gambia government to issue a public statement and tell the Gambian people the reason for the visit of the German delegation; and we also want to know what they discussed; and what agreement does The Gambia and Germany have regarding the plight of Gambian refugees in Germany?
It would be recalled that sometime in March this year, shortly after our peaceful demonstration in The Gambia, the government of The Gambia claimed to have issued a moratorium on the deportation of its citizens and promised to get back to us regarding the said issue but until now we did not receive or hear any information. (source, source)
The Gambia is an African nation just smaller than the US state of Connecticut that is almost entirely encompassed by Senegal, a well-known source of and transport point for migrants heading from points in Africa to Europe along the Atlantic coast, the other one being across the Sahel region over the Sahara Desert to Libya before crossing to Sicily, Malta, mainland Italy, and points further north.
Migrants from Gambia have been repatriated before, either being captured in Libya or other nations, or being send back from European nations:
Gambia’s history begins with the Portuguese in the 15th century, and later became a British trade colony as opposed to the French-controlled Senegal that surrounds her.
It is interesting to note that part of the discussion was a “moratorium” on accepting deportees back to her nation especially in the light of eugenics.
It is an obvious fact that many of the “migrants” are coming to Europe because their travel is enabled by foreign governments, and upon arriving in Europe they are given generous amounts of welfare, much to the anger of the people. Since welfare and unemployment breed crime regardless of the culture or race, crime among “migrants” has greatly increased, and this has been used to justify nationalism and militarism.
There is much talk about “deporting” migrants back to their own nations. However, why would it be suggested that the Gambia, to use that one nation, is refusing to take back her own citizens? Another question to ask is if such discussions are taking place between Germany and other African nations, and likewise to ask if Germany is actually encouraging said nations to refuse to take back their own citizens while at the same time saying that she will deport migrants when she does not actually intend to seriously act on it.
A person who arrives illegally from one nation to another, as most of the “migrants” have done in Europe, is in a very vulnerable situation, as they cannot find employment with ease and are subject to the social and political climate of their host nation. This becomes even more difficult if they “cannot” be deported because their “native” country will not take them back, as it effectively leaves them stateless, unable to return home and unable to establish a new home. This is bad enough for one person, but if it was multiplied by thousands or even millions of people, it can be a socially dangerous situation.
Now consider the words of Jason Jorjani, an “alt-right” nationalist who was exposed talking in praise of the mass murder of the “migrants” to revive a new European order:
Likewise, consider the statement of Bernard Connolly from 2009, where he said that Europe was planning to use and exploit global crises to further her own interests:
From the presentation by Bernard Connelly
This clip and slide information gives a whole new perspective on this meeting, and a dangerous one.
African nations ship their “excess” or “useless” humans to Europe. Europe helps facilitate the transmission of said peoples to their nation, and does things that encourage criminal activity among them. Crime begins to happen. European nations say “look at these evil migrants hurting us doing crime, they are destroying our French/German/Belgian/Dutch/etc. way of life”. Nationalism rises. More crime happens. Nationalism starts to lead to militarism. People start calling for deportations of migrants before violence.
But, oops, the “migrants” can’t be deported because “those ungrateful African nations won’t take them back,” when the reality is that the European nations cut agreements with said African nations NOT to repatriate migrants.
Anger rises, people start asking “what do we do with this group of people that does not appear to want to assimilate, is associated with destructive ideas and tendencies, and makes a lot of people angry? If deportation or assimilation is not considered to be possible, then the only answer is to “cleanse” them from society by violence:
It is a justification for the death camps of World War II and the Soviet Union in the guise of “protecting” their nations. Likewise, it could also be used to justify further European incursions into Africa that would lead to a revival of the old colonial empires in the name of “fighting back” against those “African nations who sent migrants to invade and destroy Europe.”
It will be interesting to watch if Germany, France, or other European nations are confirmed to make similar agreements with other African countries with large migrant populations.