Recently, National Front head Marine LePen stated, on the Lampadousa isle, to the exiles who are caged there, “Europe does not have the means to welcome you.” A strange statement, when those people are kidnapped, placed and kept in hundreds of jails, and finally, deported, all this by a bürokratik system of border control paid god knows how many billions of Euros by European taxpayers. More grotesque still, if that’s possible, the migrants who escape bürokratik slavery have no right to work, to earn a living and a little bit of liberty, and maybe contribute to the society where they live. (If anyone can wish to do such a thing for so overtly oppressive and criminal a society.)
Lepen also stated, several days before this arrival in Lampadousa, that she was not a racist, but that she thought immigration was an economical problem.
There is an economical problem in France and Europe indeed, it’s called the capitalist state. The consequence of this system is firstly an insidious slavery for the workers, and secondly a depressing unemployment for some 2 million people, so that you’re either dependent on the employing class when you work, or you’re dependent on the state when you’re on benefits. In the end, very few people are truly free and masters of their own lives.
But, instead of attacking the root of evil, LePen prefers to mutilate the branches of some innocent tree, certainly standing on the same land, but no more at the origin of the problem than the others. The migrants have no part in our poverty and dependence, since they come from faraway countries. How could they cause the economical wrong we suffer?
LePen simply assumes that we have the best economical system there ever was, and moves on to a position of disaster-managing, even though the system itself is the disaster.
Consider the question of benefits. It is a usual complaint of the far right that migrants get benefits, when French people are outside with nothing. The fact is, anyone, refugees and homeless people, can claim benefits, and at first sight, there are no grounds for refusing it to either of them. And it is not refused to either. The issue is: can the system of benefits hold. Can the state do it? And there, the i’m-not-racist pretence crashes down.
If financial help from the state is such a real economical problem that we should have the people needing it kidnapped, detained, and deported out of the country, then LePen should also suggest that we deport all French people under a certain poverty threshold, including the author of this article. Or more exactly, if Mme LePen was consistent, and not-racist, such is what she would demand. But this isn’t the case, and in this resides the proof that her racist preference is at the root of her policies.
The question of Europe’s capacity to welcome anyone also completely ignores the illegality of the policy of national/european border control or closure.
As it was explained in the first issue, the borders of our states, and our states themselves, are not the result of the natural and legitimate growth of populations, nor the states their collective tool. They are solely the movement boundaries of armed forces obeying middle-age monarchs, warlords, and other despots, seeking to enslave entire populations living on “their” territory. Such are the lunatic criminals idolized by modern day nationalist movements.
Some of those states became more “democratic” in the last few centuries, but territorial usurpation is just as deprived of legitimacy. Land theft cannot be legitimized, even if all the populations of the earth unanimously proclaimed the contrary.
We are in France, but is France our home? Clearly not. France is bigger than the whole of the French people taken together. “You’re not at home here,” what a nationalist could say, should urge a “Neither are you” on the part of the migrant. And with stronger a conviction, for the first reveres violence and domination, hateful and criminal things, whilst the second makes use of liberty across borders, a peaceful and respectable thing. That the first uses barges of public money to oppress the innocent, whilst the second comes from faraway at his or her own expense and risk to carve a life for him or herself, shows how far ideology can go in erasing the truth, and how big a dose of reality we have to inject in today’s conversations about migration.