Πέμπτη 3 Δεκεμβρίου 2020

THE FUTURE OF EUROPE DEPENDS ON A CORRECT IMMIGRATION POLICY!

 

AN OPEN LETTER TO the E.U. LEADERS, the EU PARLIAMENT and the EUROPEAN CITIZENS

THE FUTURE OF EUROPE DEPENDS ON A CORRECT IMMIGRATION POLICY!

By Professor Peter P. Groumpos,


Emeritus Professor, University of Patras, Greece

December 2020

Dear ALL,

The European Union (E.U) today is looking for a new comprehensive European immigration policy intended to establish a balanced approach in dealing with both regular and irregular immigration based on solidarity, which must be a key objective for the E.U. Consultations on this are taking place these days all over Europe. The EU wants to develop a new approach to better managing all aspects of migration. Its aim is to combat illegal immigration and smuggling of migrants, save lives and secure the EU's external borders, while attracting talent and skills.

The problem under consideration is very complex and difficult. It has also become a direct threat to the future of the EU because, for the last 10 years, immigration of people to the EU has turned the whole process into a fuzzy and uncertain illegal movement of people.

Therefore, this becomes a very challenging task.

HERE IS A CLEAR AND PRACTICAL PROPOSAL

The world,in 1994, with the International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD), arrived at an agreement for the international migration of people within and between less developed and more developed regions. In an increasingly interconnected and interdependent world, with improved means of transportation and communication, international migration has been growing in not only magnitude but also scope, complexity and impact. The UN has subsequently addressed this problem and came up with a number of declarations (1995, 2000, 2011, 2013, 2015……).    

However, it is clear that a comprehensive EU immigration policy must be adopted. The EUParliament and the EU leaders must consider seriously this proposal.

EU member states need human expertise-resources (“workers”) for various reasons. On the other hand, people from all over the planet wish to immigrate to a new country and away from their own, seeking a better life.

THEREFORE:

The EU countries in need of labor should announce the number of immigrants and the type of expertise they wish these immigrants to have. They should send an announcement with job descriptions to the relevant foreign consulates around the world. In this way the EU countries will attract the best and most qualified people to bring into their country. As well, potential immigrants can apply to the relevant foreign Consulate and, if selected by the corresponding country, they can get their families and go to their selected country as legal immigrants with all the rights they deserve.  The procedures are known –it must be examined if any improvements are needed. Certainly, with the advanced IT available this information could be reached by anyone interested to immigrate to an EU country. Applications could be even lodged electronically. There would be no need for potential immigrants to move to Turkey or any country in North Africa in order to try to enter the EU illegally, pretending to be refugees. 

In the interim: regarding refugees in Turkey, they could all receive a temporary asylum for up to 1-2 years, while those wishing to immigrate to the EU or other countries around the world (e.g. USA, Canada, England, Russia, Australia, South America, Middle East, New Zeeland, Norway, etc.) could follow a similar procedure: they apply to the relevant foreign Consulates in Turkey. (Note: due to the large number of refugees in Turkey the EU countries should consider increasing the number of their consular offices in the various cities in Turkey). The EU would assist refugees in Turkey for two years by managing and overseeing this process. A similar procedure should be followed for all illegal refugees in Greece, Italy and other countries. Finally, this new EU immigration policy should stop, immediately, any illegal immigration. As well, no funding by the EU should be provided to any NGOs.

Therefore, EU leaders, you only need to create a CLEAR legal framework for an immigration policy. CLEAR means, primarily, a safe distinction between a refugee, an immigrant, an illegal immigrant and an intruder-invader. After identifying and categorizing them, with clear definitions and fast procedures, a decision should be taken how to proceed with each case. An international legal framework does exist however, it does not seem that the basics of the Geneva Convention are understood. It must also be examined whether any improvements are necessary, especially following known circumventions. Regarding the Marrakesh Agreement: it does not have the consent of many EU Member States (Hungary, Poland, Italy, Austria, Slovenia, the Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Slovakia, Croatia) nor was it voted in the UN by many countries such as: USA, Russia, England, Israel, Switzerland, Serbia, Australia, Brazil and others.  It should be noted that this is a text NOT binding on anyone. It just proclaims some general principles of international behavior towards the "flows" of illegal immigrants. The Marrakesh Pact clearly encourages illegal immigration.  Greece and many other countries have the right not to abide by the Marrakesh Agreement and to protect their own borders at any cost.

Therefore, the EU could have a clear legislation and policy towards refugees and immigrants. In addition,there is something fundamental: both refugees and immigrants should come as friends - and they have to behave as friends.

Illegal immigrants and invaders, on the other hand, have the opposite characteristics: they do NOT come as friends, nor do they behave like friends. As well, Turkey should not be allowed to use illegal immigration for its own political and military plans. It is clear that this is the result of the confusion you have condemned Europe to: that you have not distinguished friends (refugees, immigrants) from non-friends (illegal immigrants, intruders-invaders).

Any country that does not comply with the new EU immigration policy will have to face heavy penalties and sanctions.

This will apply to all countries and mainly to Turkey which cannot continue to play games with refugees or threaten and bully Europe. And let us make clear to Turkey that there cannot be any dialogue based on this type of behavior.

If these procedures are not adopted soon by the EU and applied to immigration, then the EU should forget about realizing the European vision and achieving European integration. Let me remind you of what Jean Monnet said: "The co-operation of nations, however important, does not solve anything. What needs to be achieved is to merge the interests of the European peoples and not just to maintain a balance of those interests." This remains relevant to this day and reflects the course of European integration. If the EU does not comprehend this, it will soon disintegrate.

Τρίτη 17 Νοεμβρίου 2020

Message to US President Donald J. Trump

 



Mr. President,


I am interested in your re-election, by legal means, of course.

I am interested because, quite simply, your opponent's election would establish definitively -on a global scale- illegal and anti-democratic means of electoral domination. I bother you because I raise the issue on a different basis, concerning what is known from your Twitter and your few friendly media.


So far, so good, you're essentially trying to cancel your opponent's ballots. They have voted dead, others on behalf of others, many times themselves etc. There are possible mistakes in the counts, using counters without observers or "fake counts" from the DOMINION software.

The crucial question is this: how many ballots can you cancel with this effort? Can you reverse the result? In other words, can you catch all the irregularities that have taken place?

I'm terrified not. And here is what I suggest.

First of all, there is a preliminary question: it is not so sure that every one disapproves of pool irregularities if, of course, pool  irregularities were done. Sounds funny, but the famous cry "Count all votes!" this argues. They do not even understand that "Count all legal votes" makes a difference.

Therefore I argue that it is essential -and a priority!- to put aside those who consider pool irregularities magic. And the clumsy "Count all votes!" has been publicly uttered by your opponent -another matter that he did not dare to repeat it.

I wonder: is there even a judge who does not stand up anxiously at the hearing of the vulgar "Count all votes!"?

Therefore, I propose to change the strategic aim of your objections: instead of seeking ballot rejection, seek the rejection of your opponent's candidacy.

In terms of pool irregularities, I estimate that you probably need to prove three consecutive categories:

Firstly, that there has been such a significant number of pool  irregularities incidents that it is clear that this is a coordinated effort for fake votes.

It is only necessary, that is, to prove the apparent intention of organized pool irregularities.


Secondly, a premeditated intention was to cheat, as the mail-in ballot was ostensibly abused, despite your timely public objections.


And thirdly, that in all this, there is the moral instigation of your opponent. I think this particular one is the easiest to prove.

There is, however, a much broader and more critical blow to your opponent, which may well be condemned in court.

You have cauterized it to a great extent, but -as far as I  know- you have not put it as a reason for the invalidity of your opponent's candidacy. Namely, the moral instigation in the unacceptably anti-democratic and  unconstitutional function of the mainstream media.

I explain.

The problem is not that most newspapers and most channels are against you. It is their absolute right.That's clear.

The unconstitutionality problem lies in ruthless censorship and vulgarlies, with the concealment of facts and the deliberate distortion of meanings.


Besides, there is the apparent orchestration of all this, in the form of monopoly perceptions.The same orchestration ensured publicity and immunity in the successive polls that showed you ruthlessly up to 20% "behind".

The premeditated "omerta" gave your opponent the comfort of being indifferent to your serious complaints at a time when you were mercilessly targeted for sins.

The highlight was the rude interruption of the broadcast of your statements. Unheard of the case of censorship by the President of the USA himself.

Your opponent's involvement in all these miseries is evident. But I suggest something crucial: all this is not freedom of the press but it's blatant impunity. It is not very good to consider some thing that the First Amendment baptizes freedom and thus protects, such impunity.

I, therefore, prove that the "crooked media" acted manifestly unconstitutionally.

Mr.President,

I feel that I do not need to write anything more than the above central idea for the judicial pursuit of annulling your opponent's candidacy. You have top lawyers who may well have already thought about it.

And I am sure that they can extract not just the assent of the majority of the Supreme Court, but an unanimous decision.

November 17, 2020

Sincerely yours,

 

Kostas Tzanavaras

Δευτέρα 16 Νοεμβρίου 2020

Μήνυμα στον Πρόεδρο των ΗΠΑ Donald J.Trump


Mr. President,

Ενδιαφέρομαι για την επανεκλογή σας, με νόμιμα βεβαίως μέσα.

Ενδιαφέρομαι διότι, απλούστατα, η εκλογή του αντιπάλου σας θα καθιέρωνε οριστικά -σε παγκόσμια κλίμακα- άνομα και αντιδημοκρατικά μέσα εκλογικής επικράτησης. Σας απασχολώ, γιατί θέτω το ζήτημα σε άλλη βάση, σε σχέση με όσα είναι γνωστά από το Twitter σας και τα λίγα φιλικά σας μέσα.

 

Μέχρι τώρα, λοιπόν, προσπαθείτε κατ' ουσίαν να ακυρώσετε ψηφοδέλτια του αντιπάλου σας. Έχουν σίγουρα ψηφίσει πεθαμένοι, άλλοι αντί άλλων, πολλές φορές οι ίδιοι κ.τ.τ. Έχουν πιθανότατα γίνει παρατράγουδα στις καταμετρήσεις, είτε με καταμετρητές χωρίς παρατηρητές, είτε με "φάλτσα" από το πρόγραμμα DOMINION.

Το κρίσιμο ερώτημα είναι ακριβώς αυτό: πόσα ψηφοδέλτια μπορείτε να ακυρώσετε με αυτή την προσπάθεια; Μπορείτε να ανατρέψετε το αποτέλεσμα; Μπορείτε, δηλαδή, να πιάσετε όλες τις ατασθαλίες που έγιναν;

Πολύ φοβάμαι πως όχι. Και να τί αντιπροτείνω.

 

Κατ' αρχήν, υπάρχει ένα προκαταρκτικό ζήτημα: δεν είναι και τόσο βέβαιο ότι αποδοκιμάζουν όλοι την καλπονοθεία, ΑΝ φυσικά έγινε καλπονοθεία. Φαίνεται αστείο, αλλά η γνωστή κραυγή "Count all votes!" αυτό υποστηρίζει. Δεν καταλαβαίνουν καν ότι έχει διαφορά το "Count all legal votes".

Υποστηρίζω, λοιπόν, ότι έχει σημασία -και προτεραιότητα!- να βάλουμε στην άκρη αυτούς που θεωρούν μαγκιά την καλπονοθεία. Και το αδέξιο "Count all votes!" το έχει προφέρει δημοσίως ο αντίπαλός σας -άλλο θέμα ότι δεν τόλμησε να το ξαναπεί.

Αναρωτιέμαι: υπάρχει έστω ένας δικαστής που να μην ανασηκώνεται ανήσυχος, στο άκουσμα του χυδαίου "Count all votes!";

 

Αντιπροτείνω, επομένως, να αλλάξετε το στρατηγικό στόχο των ενδίκων αιτιάσεών σας: αντί να επιδιώξετε την ακύρωση ψηφοδελτίων, να επιδιώξετε την ακύρωση της υποψηφιότητας του αντιπάλου σας,

 

Ως προς τις ενέργειες καλπονοθείας, εκτιμώ ότι θα χρειασθεί να αποδείξετε τρείς διαδοχικές κατηγορίες:

Πρώτον, ότι έγινε ένας τόσο σημαντικός αριθμός περιστατικών καλπονοθείας, ώστε είναι σαφές ότι πρόκειται για συντονισμένη προσπάθεια, για καλπονοθευτικό μηχανισμό. Χρειάζεται μόνον, δηλαδή, να αποδειχθεί η πρόδηλη πρόθεση οργανωμένης καλπονοθείας.

Δεύτερον, ότι υπήρξε εκ προοιμίου πρόθεση καλπονοθείας, καθώς έγινε προσχηματική κατάχρηση της επιστολικής ψήφου, παρά τις έγκαιρες δημόσιες αιτιάσεις σας.

Και, τρίτον, ότι σε όλα αυτά υπάρχει η ηθική αυτουργία του αντιπάλου σας. Αυτό ειδικά, εκτιμώ ότι είναι το ευκολότερο να αποδειχθεί.

 

Υπάρχει, όμως, ένα πολύ ευρύτερο και σημαντικότερο ατόπημα του αντιπάλου σας, που μπορεί κάλλιστα να αποδοκιμασθεί δικαστικώς. Το έχετε καυτηριάσει κατά κόρον, αλλά -εξ όσων γνωρίζω- δεν το έχετε θέσει ως λόγο ακυρότητας της υποψηφιότητας του αντιπάλου σας: η ηθική αυτουργία στην απαράδεκτα αντιδημοκρατική και αντισυνταγματική λειτουργία του -κατ' ευφημισμόν- τύπου.

Εξηγούμαι.

Το πρόβλημα, δ-ε-ν είναι που οι περισσότερες εφημερίδες και τα περισσότερα κανάλια είναι εναντίον σας. Είναι απόλυτο δικαίωμά τους. Είναι ξεκάθαρο αυτό.

Το πρόβλημα αντισυνταγματικότητας έγκειται στην αδίστακτη λογοκρισία και τα χυδαία ψεύδη. Με την απόκρυψη γεγονότων και την επιτηδευμένη διαστρέβλωση νοημάτων.

Επί πλέον, υπάρχει και η εξόφθαλμη ενορχήστρωση όλων αυτών, υπό μορφήν μονοπωλιακών αντιλήψεων. Η ίδια ενορχήστρωση, εξασφάλιζε δημοσιότητα και ασυλία στις αλλεπάλληλες δημοσκοπήσεις που σας εμφάνιζαν αδίστακτα μέχρι και 20% "πίσω". Η προσυνεννοημένη "ομερτά" έδινε στον αντίπαλό σας την άνεση να αδιαφορεί για σοβαρές καταγγελίες σας, την ώρα που εσείς στοχοποιηθήκατε ανελέητα για πταίσματα.

Αποκορύφωμα, ήταν η χυδαία διακοπή της τηλεοπτικής μετάδοσης δηλώσεών σας. Ανήκουστο κρούσμα λογοκρισίας του ίδιου του Προέδρου των ΗΠΑ.

Η συμμετοχή του αντιπάλου σας, σε όλες αυτές τις αθλιότητες, είναι εμφανής. Εισηγούμαι, όμως, κάτι καίριο: όλα αυτά δεν συνιστούν ελευθερία του τύπου αλλά κραυγαλέα ασυδοσία του. Κι αλίμονο αν θεωρηθεί πιά κεκτημένο ότι η Πρώτη Τροποποίηση βαφτίζει ελευθερία, και έτσι προστατεύει, μία τέτοια ασυδοσία.

Στοιχειοθετώ, λοιπόν, ότι τα "crooked media" έδρασαν προδήλως αντισυνταγματικά.

 

Mr.President,

Αισθάνομαι ότι δεν χρειάζεται να γράψω κάτι περισσότερο, πέρα από την ως άνω κεντρική ιδέα για την δικαστική επιδίωξη ακύρωσης της υποψηφιότητας του αντιπάλου σας. Έχετε κορυφαίους νομικούς, που μπορεί κάλλιστα να το έχουν ήδη σκεφθεί.

Και είμαι βέβαιος ότι είναι σε θέση να αποσπάσουν όχι απλώς τη σύμφωνη γνώμη της πλειοψηφίας του Ανωτάτου Δικαστηρίου, αλλά απόφαση ομόφωνη.

 

Sincerely yours,

 

16 Νοεμβρίου 2020

 

Κώστας Τζαναβάρας