Migration Crisis 10 Years On: WEF Sock Puppet Admits: 'Open-Border Policy a Mistake'

Thus the dialectic progresses: create a problem (open borders), watch Rome burn (the past decade), and come back like Greeks bearing gifts (advocate for a EU superstate)

Yesterday, we looked at some ‘old news’ from a decade ago re the West’s migration woes:

‘In ten years, people will be grateful to Chancellor Merkel’

Today, as promised yesterday, we’ll look at what then-foreign minister and twice chancellor of Austria Sebastian Kurz now admits: open borders were a mistake, and the solution™ offered is—render the national state obsolete.

Translation, emphases, and [snark] mine. As is the anger.

---

Wir schaffen das? [Can we do it?] No, the Open-Border Policy Was a Mistake

Autumn 2015 was a turning point for Europe. The strain on social systems, parallel societies, and acts of violence are consequences of the loss of control and will accompany us for decades, writes Sebastian Kurz in a guest contribution. But he sees a positive development.

By Sebastian Kurz, Die Welt, 24 Aug. 2025 [source; archived]

With the opening of the borders in 2015, the European Union abandoned one of its most fundamental collective responsibilities: controlling who enters its territory. Millions of people were waved through, accommodated, and included in integration programs. Countries like Germany, Sweden, and Austria invested billions in housing, school places, labour market programs, language courses, and social measures.

But despite all efforts, success remains limited, as the figures show: even after five years of residence, the employment rate of refugees in many countries is only around 60 per cent [question is: are we talking full-time equivalents? I doubt it—a few weeks ago (can’t find the link anymore) I read that one counts as ‘employed’ (orig. einer Arbeit nachgehen) if you work for at least 1 hour/week]. The strains on social systems, growing parallel societies [orig. Parallelgesellschaften: think the banlieux of Paris], and a noticeable increase in acts of violence are direct consequences of a loss of control that was politically accepted during these years [here, a former head of gov’t tells us that this was done based on hope and delusions, at best; I consider what Ms. Merkel pushed through: treason]

In numerous EU countries, the share of immigrants involved in serious violent crimes is disproportionately high. In Sweden, for example, gun violence has increased particularly sharply, France reported a massive increase in knife attacks in migrant communities, and in Austria, one in two people convicted of rape is not an Austrian citizen. According to the 2024 police crime statistics, Germany also records a disproportionately high proportion of foreign suspects, at over 40 per cent [in particular, rape exploded all over Western Europe, with Sweden firmly leading].

These figures do not prove blanket prejudgment, but they do highlight structural problems in control and integration [they also call for putting those who were politically responsible on trial so future leaders won’t do it again].

Polarisation and Parallel Societies

It is also undisputed that the migration crisis of the last decade has left deep scars on Europe’s social fabric [coming now to a suburb near you, dear US-based readers; from what I gather, Japan and South Korea aren’t that far behind]. In the suburbs of Paris, Brussels, and Malmö, isolated communities with a high proportion of migrants now [sic] dominate [so far, this has always been denied by politicos™, experts™, and journos™ alike; if you do talk to police officers, all of this was well-known]. The problem of the formation of parallel societies is also clearly evident in Austria: in Vienna, Islam is now by far the largest religious group in public compulsory schools, with over 40 per cent. The share of Christian children is now only 34.5 per cent [I wrote about this ad length: see here for further particulars].

In addition, more than half of Viennese students do not speak German in everyday life—in some wards, this share is as high as over 80 per cent [an opposition politico™ described this situation as follows (via Heute.at, 25 Aug. 2025):

German deficits among Vienna’s first-graders are a problem. Of 22,000 children last school year, almost half didn’t speak enough German to understand their teachers. ‘For one thing, we hardly have any German support staff: there are roughly 300 full-time equivalents for every 20,000 children with German difficulties—that is, more than 80 children per German support staff member. No wonder this isn’t working.’ Furthermore, the city [i.e., state gov’t] isn’t adequately monitoring how language support is provided in kindergartens…

‘80 per cent of students with German language difficulties have been in kindergarten for more than two years. This means that this second mandatory year of kindergarten will not solve the problem. We need mandatory attendance for children who don’t speak German.’

This points towards yet another problem: many migrants either don’t bring their children or pick them up after 2-3 hours or the like. Now, I’m the last one to favour more state-run institutions in everyday life (and mandatory kindergarten falls into that category), but it is clear that being nice doesn’t work]. The situation is similar in Berlin, where, according to recent reports, some schools in neighbourhoods like Neukölln have up to 90 per cent of students whose native language is not German.

For ten years, the EU unsuccessfully debated a unified migration mechanism. The asylum compromise adopted in 2024 introduces new procedures at the external borders, but much remains legally fragile. Italy, Greece, and Spain (the traditional arrival countries) continue to feel abandoned, and countries less affected by immigration understandably do not want to be forced to accept admission quotas [also, all that makes a mockery of the much-vaunted free™ movement of people once inside the Schengen area].

While many countries have long been overwhelmed with the intake of immigrants already arriving, hundreds of thousands continue to stream illegally across Europe’s external borders every year. In fact, it’s not just border protection itself, but especially the issue of return [orig. Rückführung, or re-migration], which represents a major weakness in the system: EU-wide, only about one-fifth of all negative asylum decisions actually led to deportation in 2023 [sadly, no numbers or data are provided, hence we could take Mr. Kurz at his word; I personally consider this an exaggeration and think the numbers cited are too high].

Why is the EU so helpless? [part of this is because the EU isn’t a state (which does not ipso facto mean it would do things differently)]. The answer lies in the legal framework: the scope of action is limited, among other things, by the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the Geneva Refugee Convention. These regulations date from a different era in which they were undoubtedly justified. However, they are not designed for today’s global migration flows [so, there’s two options, then: rewrite or abandon them, isn’t it? Also, do note the double-standards: WW2-era refugees and Cold War-era political migrants are covered by this; now, Mr. Kurz somehow discovers™ that these instruments are ill-suited to planned, UN-enabled, and GN/NGO-facilitated mass migration of, say, people from sub-Saharan Africa to the US-Mexico border? I mean: among other things, who pays their airfare?].

A current example shows how little leeway Europe now has in managing migration: Italy, with the so-called ‘Albania model’, wanted to outsource asylum procedures—that is, not accommodate asylum seekers in Italy itself, but instead transfer them to neighbouring Albania while their applications were being examined. A system that makes sense, since the majority of people coming to Europe are not looking for protection, but for a better life [so, why not direct them to existing legal ways of migration, such as, apply for a job and a visa while in their country of origin before moving? I mean, I’ve been doing this since 2010 in three countries…just sayin’] But the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has now effectively stopped this model [this one links to more reporting™ in Die Welt, not to the court (sic) ruling; we note, in passing, that Die Welt piece offers a link—to the ECJ’s press release, which I consider perfectly fitting to relate the decrepit state of legacy media; find the ruling and related documents here] on the grounds that there are too many obstacles under European law and human rights law [here are a few choice excerpts of the Welt’s piece by one Andreas Rosenfelder:

‘A Member State may not include a state in the list of safe countries of origin’, the ECJ ruled, ‘if that state does not offer adequate protection to its entire population’…

The right of EU citizens to security, a functioning welfare state, an intact education system, and future prospects for their own children are not taken into account in the judges’ calculations…

If this disastrous view becomes entrenched, [EU] citizens will eventually choose a different Europe. Presumably, one with a different legal system.

I’ve added some more excerpts in this footnote¹; and now back to Mr. Kurz’ op-ed]

In plain language, this means: even a country like Albania, where tourism is booming and over ten million people vacation each year, is not considered suitable for conducting asylum procedures. This raises the question of which countries, apart from Germany, Austria, or Sweden, would even be considered acceptable.

Some countries have long since demonstrated what a functioning migration policy can look like. Australia, for example, struggled with uncontrolled migration for years. Today, the country is known for its strict approach to illegal immigration: anyone attempting to enter Australia illegally is consistently prevented from doing so [now, I understand that Australia is basically a big island, which indicates that other island nations—such as the UK and Ireland—could also do these things: why, then, do both the UK and Ireland look like they do?].

Anyone who wants to see how migration can be used as a driver of economic development should look to Singapore or the United Arab Emirates. There, immigration is based on clear criteria: Only those who are needed are allowed to enter. Migrants must prove they have work and contribute to productivity [ah, beacons of individual liberty and protectors of human rights these are, isn’t it? I mean, how incredibly absurd could one be making that kind of comment?].

In the European Union, the following still applies: it is not the EU that decides who is allowed to immigrate, but the smugglers. It is not high-performing and highly qualified individuals who are arriving in large numbers; rather, immigrants primarily enter the welfare rolls [this is what, e.g., all data from more transparent jurisdictions points to for years]

The positive news is: there is now broad political consensus that the open-border policy was a mistake [why, I reiterate, aren’t those who did this to ‘us’ facing trial for what surely constitutes the single-largest policy blunder since WW2, if not treason (multiple options apply)]. Even those who once defended it now admit that uncontrolled migration has created massive problems [haven’t heard from Ms. Merkel on that one…] From overburdening the education sector to straining social systems to security challenges that transform entire neighbourhoods [to say nothing about the polarisation of society].

But the consequences of these decisions cannot simply be reversed and will remain with us for decades to come. And one thing is also clear: as long as the legal framework is not adapted so that what is announced politically can also be implemented legally, Europe’s migration woes will continue to worsen year after year.

---

Sebastian Kurz (ÖVP) served twice as Chancellor of the Republic of Austria.

---

Bottom Lines

This is how WEF Young Global Leader (sic) Sebastian Kurz spins this: mistakes were made, sees the world:

Yeah, sure, mistakes were made (pointing out the obvious), and the problem now isn’t, say, the demographic reality of Western countries having committed suicide by mass immigration; no, the issue at-hand for Mr. Kurz and his ilk—let’s call them the globalists’ water-carriers, or camp-followers—is the following:

it is not the EU that decides who is allowed to immigrate

You see, this is both a classic ‘limited hangout’ in dialectical terms:

1. ACTION: Ms. Merkel (aided by Sebastian Kurz, by the way) have created the mass migration problem in the first place by unilaterally wrecking whatever EU-managed system™ (Dublin III; Wikipedia write-up) has been in place before.

2. Ten years on, now there being a ‘broad political consensus that the open-border policy was a mistake’, and it also created massive backlash: rising anti-EU sentiment is about to take off, which is the REACTION to (1).

3. And now, how wonderfully, one of the chief handmaidens of said failed-suicidal policy is also offering™ the one and only permissible SOLUTION: as ‘the consequences of these decisions cannot simply be reversed’—remember There Is No Alternative™—hence the EU in its present configuration must be overcome and supersede the remaining sovereignty of the its member-states and offer whatever solutions™ deemed fit by Brussels.

See how easy this is? It just comes with a lot of bells and whistles added, esp. in terms of ‘collateral damage’.

Mind you, I’m not advocating for the nonsense masquerading as ‘scientific socialism’ or the like; I’m merely pointing out the warped thinking™ (sic) of these politicos™ to further our understanding of how the globalists are implementing their shitty Agenda 2030.

Also, note that Mr. Kurz employs the classic motte-and-bailey stratagem to further their agenda: the EU is ‘helpless’, Mr. Kurz claims, because its legal systems hail from a now-bygone era ‘in which were undoubtedly justified’ but ‘they are not designed for today’s global [issues]’.

And while politicos™, experts™, and journos™ don’t tire of the age-old trope of ze Right™ being both inherently wicked and bent on restoring a fascistic dictatorship by asserting the primacy of politics of the rule of law*, we now have a former head of gov’t—long out of favour with the voters—who is actively advocating for nothing short but a revolution in the true sense of the term:

as long as the legal framework is not adapted so that what is announced politically can also be implemented legally, Europe’s migration woes will continue to worsen year after year.

Essentially, Mr. Kurz’ argument™ boils down to a toddler who angrily claims that he or she won’t clean up the room unless the parents accommodate whatever his or her claim might be.

But it is ze Right™, desiring to change the course (for which it may or may not be too late already) who are the baddies seeking to destroy Our Democracy™.

If you’d ever needed more proof-positive for the delusional state of the West’s juste milieu, look no further than, perhaps, the below-linked episode from the strange, seemingly ancient, year 1 B.C. (before Covid):

Law, Politics, and Virtue Signalling

1. This is from Andreas Rosenbaum’s piece entitled, ‘The Judges Are Obviously Blind to Realities’, which appeared in Die Welt on 1 Aug. 2025 (archived):

We are experiencing a dangerous disconnect between jurisprudence and reality in this crisis. Courts are increasingly restricting the scope of political action in a way that ultimately even prevents the enforcement of fundamental principles of the rule of law.

One example of this is the limitation of illegal mass immigration. Just now, when Europe’s democracies are, for the first time, resolutely [sic] seeking a solution to the migration crisis, the European Court of Justice is erecting almost insurmountable hurdles: ‘A Member State may not include a state in the list of safe countries of origin’, the ECJ ruled, ‘if that state does not offer adequate protection to its entire population.’ [remember the ‘no-one is safe until everybody is safe’ trope from the Covid shitshow? That’s the apparent standard™ now—and we’ll also note that it is repeated verbatim by, among others, the UNHCR, WHO, and GAVI].

The explicit objective is to ‘ensure effective judicial protection that enables the applicant to effectively assert their rights’. In cases of doubt, EU Member States must therefore prove that all citizens of a country they have declared a ‘safe third country’ enjoy safety—which is practically, but above all legally, impossible…

By making maximum use of the legal scope, the rights [sic] of all non-EU citizens who do not feel safe in their countries of origin and therefore wish to enter Europe are defended—whereas the right of EU citizens to security, a functioning welfare state, an intact education system and future prospects for their own children are not taken into account in the judges' calculations.

Needless to say these rights™ of all non-EU citizens in their [sic] countries of origin don’t exist in the first place.