Americans, Europeans Agree: Trump Is Right on Immigration
A poll by the Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA, also known as Chatham House), the British sister organization to our Council of Foreign Relations (CFR), taken a month before President Donald Trump issued his temporary suspension on refugees, showed widespread and increasing support among Europeans for his actions. Across all 10 of the European countries polled, 55 percent of those polled agreed that all further immigration from “mainly Muslim” countries should be stopped while only 20 percent disagreed. In no country did those disagreeing exceed 32 percent.
The results were “striking and sobering,” according to Matthew Goodwin, writing for the RIIA. Trump’s ban “has been interpreted widely as an attempt to curtail the inward migration of Muslims, which Trump and his supporters argue pose a threat to national security.” Those supporters include “leaders of Europe’s populist right-wing parties, including Geert Wilders, Nigel Farage and Matteo Salvini [who] have heaped praise on Trump.” The results of the poll “suggest that public opposition to any further migration from predominantly Muslim states is by no means confined to Trump’s electorate in the US but is fairly widespread [across Europe].”
The news was even worse for those worshipping at the altar of internationalist “solutions” to the refugee “problem.” Wrote Goodwin: “There was also a widespread perception in many countries that the arrival of refugees would increase the likelihood of terrorism, with a median of 59 percent across [those] ten European countries holding this view.”
A Reuters/Ipsos poll taken just a week earlier should have given the globalists fair warning: That poll found that half of American adults polled said they either “strongly” or “somewhat” agreed with Trump’s executive order, with a third of those polled feeling more safe because of the temporary ban, and 38 percent saying they thought Trump was setting “a good example” of how best to confront terrorism.
The internationalists thought they had “fixed” things back in September when the United Nations hosted the Summit for Refugees and Migrants, which resulted in the “New York Declaration.” According to the UN, the refugee issue was an opportunity to push for more globalist intervention, “with the aim of bringing countries together behind a more humane and coordinated approach.” It was “a historic opportunity to come up with a blueprint for a better international response. The Summit was a watershed moment to strengthen governance of international migration and a unique opportunity for creating a more responsible, predictable system for responding to large movements of refuges and migrants.”
The New York Declaration had lofty goals, to be implemented by force. They included:
• Support[ing] those countries rescuing, receiving and hosting large numbers of refugees and migrants;
• Ending the practice of detaining children for the purposes of determining their migration status;
• Strongly condemn[ing] xenophobia against refugees and migrants and support a global campaign to counter it;
• Find[ing] new homes for all refugees identified by [the UN High Commissioner for Refugees] as needing resettlement, and expand the opportunities for refugees to relocate to other countries; and
• Strengthen[ing] the global governance of migration by bringing the International Organization for Migration into the UN system.
The New York Declaration constituted a “minor miracle” claimed the UN High Commissioner, representing “a revival of multilateralism as an antidote to isolationism” and “a truly remarkable achievement in today’s complex and retrogressive climate.”
The polls are showing a much different attitude toward the international planners’ proposed mandates. Dr. Jeff Crisp, writing for Chatham House, commented on the unhappy change reflected by the polls: “It therefore seems inconceivable that an expansion in global resettlement numbers — a key objective of the New York Declaration — will be attained.”
In addition, President Trump has already targeted U.S. contributions to the UN for some serious budget-cutting. Decried Crisp: “The UN High Commissioner for Refugees, which currently receives around 40 percent of its resources from Washington, DC, is likely to be on the sharp end of this process. In such circumstances it will be extremely difficult to [accomplish the objectives] as envisaged by the Declaration.”
The ripple effects of the president’s executive order and its complimentary support from Europeans who are even closer to the refugee “problem” and its terrorist implications are already being felt. Trump’s order has effectively negated implementation of the New York Agreement and is threatening the very existence of the UN agency seeking to implement it. Not bad for an executive order that hasn’t even been fully carried out.
An Ivy League graduate and former investment advisor, Bob is a regular contributor to The New American magazine and blogs frequently at LightFromTheRight.com, primarily on economics and politics. He can be reached at email@example.com.
2 OUT OF 3 GERMANS WANT MERKEL GONE
Majority support end to chancellor’s open borders policies
Feb 15, 2017 by RT
Almost 64 percent of Germans don’t wish to see Angela Merkel reelected as Chancellor, a poll conducted by YouGov has found. Meanwhile, the Social Democrats (SPD) are shooting ahead in the polls, despite predictions that their popularity was on the wane.
The poll published on Monday shows that, of the two-thirds of Germans dissatisfied with Merkel, 42 percent strongly want her out, while 22 percent said it was “probably” a good idea to elect a new leader.
Conversely, 19 percent said it was “probably best” to stick with her to avoid a change in leadership in the foreseeable future, while only 8 percent strongly wanted to see her reelected as Chancellor.
Merkel has been in power for 12 years.
The survey cast doubt on whether the CDU can win with Merkel at the helm – 35 percent of Germans don’t think so, and only 19 percent do.
At the same time, political analysts were surprised to learn that the Social Democrats (SPD) have apparently reversed their popularity slump.
In December, the party led by Martin Schultz had registered historically low poll numbers showing only 20 percent support, with little hope of change. Schultz’s poll numbers have since been rising, however, and he is expected to make further gains through his foreign and security policies, according to another poll published by YouGov on January 30.
ARD Deutschland reported that Schultz’s nomination had quickly led to an eight-point bounce for the party – the first such gain since the Bundestag elections of 2013.
Schultz took the reins of his party from Sigmar Gabriel, who stepped down in late January. In an interview with Die Zeit at that time, Gabriel said he favored Schultz as his successor because of his “decade-long opposition to right-wing populism and his commitment to social justice, democracy and social cohesion in Europe.”
Gabriel blamed Merkel’s economic policies for “division of the EU,” saying “no German Chancellor before [Merkel] has risked such a great economic, social, and political division [in the EU].”
Besides expressing discontent over Merkel’s “relentless insistence on austerity,” Germans are increasingly complaining about her open-door policy toward refugees. In mid-January, the CDU’s human rights speaker, Erika Steinbach, even quit the party over the issue, telling Die Welt in an interview that she would not vote for the CDU at present.