Whether it is for marriage, business, job offers, travel, study, or countless other reasons people have been leaving their home countries and moving to other countries for centuries. Done correctly, legally, and in manageable numbers, this type of migration can benefit both migrants and the country accepting them.
Ideally, migrants of these kind will choose to integrate into their host countries and the host countries in turn will welcome them into their respective societies. What level of individual-based migration a given country desires or can cope with should be left up the host country to decide. So, at this level, migration is indeed inevitable and can even be necessary or desirable if the host country can accommodate migrants without destabilizing or radically altering its existing society
Yet this is not the kind of migration the UN Global Compact for Migration refers to as inevitable, necessary, and desirable. For the UN, it is mass migration that is inevitable, necessary, desirable. Those in Europe who think the mass migration event of 2015 was a one-off because of the Syrian refugee crisis are in for a rather rude awakening. Through the incorporation of the UN Global Compact for Migration, the EU has no intention of ever taking its foot from the gas pedal of mass migration. On the contrary, it intends to keep the pedal to the metal and rev the migration engine into the red zone for perpetuity.
Recent developments reveal the EU is drafting legislation to make the non-binding UN Global Compact for Migration binding for all EU states, even for countries that withdrew from the compact altogether. Several EU leaders have candidly observed that they could not conceive of any EU country not participating in some kind of migrant-sharing program, and they brand as xenophobic and racist any EU country that refuses to participate .
In a nutshell - there is a Program. That Program is mass migration to Europe. As stated above, it is being sold as inevitable, necessary, and desirable. This immediately begs a few questions.
For one, why is it inevitable? As far as I could tell, the vast majority of the migrants who successfully entered Europe only managed to do so because they were actively being transported onto the continent through one means or another. When those means were stopped, migration was reduced to a trickle. Imagine what might happen if borders were actually enforced?
Secondly, why is it necessary and desirable? Or perhaps the better question would be - for whom or what is it necessary and desirable? What necessities and desires do mass migration into Europe fulfill? The answer lies with the same people pushing the mantra of the inherent goodness of mass migration. They know exactly why it is needed and what makes it so desirable.
One thing is certain, the EU cares not one ounce for Christianity or the native European populations it pretends to represent, and it treats Europeans who express a love for their nation, culture, or Christianity with contempt and scorn.
Hungary has been at the epicenter of the EU's contempt for nearly four years because it refuses to get with the mass migration Program as demonstrated in a recent parliamentary address where the Hungarian foreign minister frankly declared the country would never allow itself to be pressured into accepting mass migration.
To some extent, Hungary already is, and always has been, an immigrant country. For example, my ancestors were of German stock. Most of the people in my village are of Croatian descent. Two or three Austrian families also make the village home and I am originally from New York City. A popular television talk show host moved to Hungary from India. Two half-Chinese brothers have been winning gold at speed-skating competitions. Walk down any street in Budapest and you are bound to encounter a few non-Hungarians who have made their home in Hungary. In most cases, these individuals have chosen to settle here and have, more or less, adapted to the culture of the country. The number who have not adapted to Hungarian culture are too few to pressure the social cohesion and traditions of the country.
Hungary's current immigration policies are designed for migration at the individual level. It accepts people through marriage to a citizen, naturalizes some citizenship applications, accepts "golden visa" applications for wealthier individuals (something I don't agree with), recently granted refugee asylum for 300 Venezuelans of Hungarian descent and, yes, even grants refuge for some who claim asylum at its borders. So in this sense, Hungary is not an anti-immigration country. What Hungary is vehemently against is the mass migration it witnessed in 2015 when over 400,000 people illegally poured over its borders as they made their way toward Germany and other EU nations.
Hungary's anti-mass migration stance is in complete opposition the UN and the EU. Unlike these two international bureaucracies, Hungary sees nothing inevitable, necessary, or desirable in mass migration. Much to the chagrin of the UN and EU, Hungary does not view mass migration as an opportunity, but as an existential threat. A small landlocked nation of fewer than ten million, Hungary's current government understands that admitting several hundred thousand or more migrants from foreign countries within a relatively short period of time would pose serious risks for the country's social stability and cohesion and, in the long term, would pose a challenge to Hungary's unique culture, traditions, and Christianity.
Hungary does not oppose mass migration because it hates people from other lands, but rather because it loves its own land and the people who live on it. A half-century ago, this sentiment would have been understood as commonsense and logical. Sadly, today it is viewed only as an admission of hatred and intolerance. The Establishment has successful inverted all values associated with patriotism. Loving your country and its people is bigoted and hateful. True love lies in sacrificing your country to the other and loving the other instead of your own. Unfortunately, many Christians have come to believe this is also the Christian thing to do.
This is value delusion of the highest kind and it has infected a great deal of people in the West. The mere thought of preferring one's countryman or woman to the outsider is enough to cast a sheen of guilt upon the hearts of many. Nevertheless, it is hardly surprising considering the half-century of indoctrination to which the nations of the West have submitted. As a consequence, many in the West see nothing wrong with the Program and are incapable of viewing mass migration as anything but inevitable, necessary, and desirable. They are also incapable of regarding anyone who objects to mass migration as anything but ignorant, racist, or simply evil as demonstrated in the short video below between CNN reporter Christiane Amanpour and Hungary's Foreign Minister, Péter Szijártó.
When Szijártó explains Hungary's wish to retain its sovereignty, homogeneity, and Christianity, Amanpour winces and snaps that she understands that, but what she really wants is to get to the bottom of that sentiment.
Translation: Your claim that you wish to preserve your country, culture, and religion is just a ruse for racism, xenophobia, and intolerance. In a word - white supremacy.
And this is the trick that keeps everyone cowering in fear of saying something deemed unacceptable. The grand value delusion of mass migration has made cowards of most of us, which is why I rather admire the upfront, blunt, honest, and unapologetic manner in which the Hungarians address the issue.
Hungary refuses to get with the Program, no matter how inevitable, necessary, and desirable it is deemed to be.