THE UNCIVILIZED ISLAMIC CULTURE IS DESTROYING EUROPE AND WILL DESTROY THE US IF WE ALLOW IT

The EU has had many problems, most of them have been caused by the Globalist immigration policy promoted by George Soros and strongly supported by the tyrannical EU parliament.  We are witnessing a strong push back on these immigration policies, most recently in Italy.  The result of these immigration policies has been a break down in law and order within the different countries including rapes, assaults, murders, attacks on the public in general, ignoring local laws, and the establishment of no go zones where Sharia Law has replaced the law of the specific nation.
 
The results of these immigration practices in the EU have not been broadly reported in the United States due to political correctness and support for and encouragement of these same polices for the United States under the Obama regime.  Political correctness has also been the reason for the outrageous crimes and proliferation of these crimes going unpublicized and unpunished in European Countries.  The person bringing these crimes to the publics attention has been ostracized or jailed because of the manufactured crime of Islamophobia while the rapist, assaulter, bomber, or murderer is excused with at worst a slap on the wrist.
 
Those who have turned their backs on these assaults on their national heritage are no longer turning their backs and we are hearing more and more cries against the enabler of these horrific crimes against humanity, the EU.  The policies of the EU have been instituted for the purpose of Globalization as demanded by the world-wide collectivist movement.  The Trump administration is fighting this destructive movement in the United States.  We Freedom Loving Americans must support the Trump administration in this worthwhile battle.  Here is a short history of how this immigration policy has brought about so much unrest and evil against humanity in the EU.
 
The EU Common European Asylum System (CEAS) is a set of EU laws, completed in 2005. They are intended to ensure that all EU member states protect the rights of asylum seekers and refugees. The CEAS sets out minimum standards and procedures for processing and deciding asylum applications, and for the treatment of both asylum seekers and those who are recognized as refugees. Implementation of CEAS varies throughout the European Union. A number of EU states still do not operate fair, effective systems of asylum decision-making and support, leading to a patchwork of 28 asylum systems producing uneven results.
 
Asylum seekers have no legal duty to claim asylum in the first EU state they reach, and many move on, seeking to join relatives or friends for support, or to reach a country with a functioning asylum system. However, the “Dublin” regulation stipulates that EU member states can choose to return asylum seekers to their country of first entry to process their asylum claim, so long as that country has an effective asylum system.
 
EU countries in the north, the desired destination of many refugees, have sought to use this Dublin system to their advantage, at the expense of the south, where most refugees first arrive. Yet these efforts have been obstructed by failures of asylum systems in the south. Domestic and European courts have ruled against asylum seekers being returned to Greece, notably in a landmark case in 2011 that found Belgium in violation of the European Convention on Human Rights for exposing an Afghan national to detention, harsh living conditions, and risks arising from shortcomings in Greece’s asylum system after a return.
 
To address the uneven application of CEAS and the problems of the Dublin system, a reform of the CEAS was proposed in 2016. Among the proposed reforms is one that risks endangering the right to asylum in the EU, with an obligation to verify first if asylum seekers could find protection outside the EU. Some EU countries have already voiced opposition to some of the reforms, notably the obligation to take refugees from other EU countries.
How has the European Union responded to refugee movements?
 
In 2015, high numbers of migrants, many of them Syrians fleeing conflict, continued to move. Some European states, led by Germany, recognized that their strategy of seeking to block refugees moving across borders was unrealistic and harmful. Countries worked together to allow migrants to move onwards to the places they wished to reach. This allowed reception countries to focus their resources on supporting asylum seekers and considering claims.
 
By early 2016, support for this policy began to wane, with increased hostility towards migrants entering the political discourse. Certain countries along the migrant route began to close their borders. The situation further deteriorated when the EU’s decision to transfer 160,000 asylum seekers from Greece and Italy to other European member states was met with widespread resistance. In the end, a small percentage of the needed transfers actually took place.
 
In response to the failure to adequately process asylum claims, the EU set up “hotspots” in Greece and Italy. Hotspots identify, register, and fingerprint incoming migrants, and redirect them either towards asylum or return procedures. In practice, many hotspots are turning into overcrowded and understaffed detention and expulsion centers, with little external oversight.
 
In March 2016, the EU announced a deal in which Turkey would try to stop people from moving onward into Europe; in return, Turkey was promised financial assistance, visa-free travel to the EU for Turkish citizens, and faster negotiations for EU accession. But the EU-Turkey deal failed to close the border, and thousands of migrants continued to travel irregularly using smugglers. Since the deal, only 750 asylum seekers have been sent back from Greece to Turkey, because Greek officials and courts consider Turkey to be an unsafe country.
 
This deal is one example of a controversial practice, in which the EU links development aid or economic incentives to commitments by states to stem and manage the movements of people from their territory. Similar deals are being approved with a number of third countries including Libya, Egypt, Sudan, and Nigeria. In June 2016, the European Commission proposed a new “Partnership Framework” with third countries in the Middle East and Africa, leading to criticism by a broad range of actors for deal making with countries with poor human rights records, and for conflicting with international protection frameworks, including the right to leave one’s own country.
 
The EU also continues to support refugees in host countries like Turkey, Lebanon, and Jordan—where the majority of Syrian refugees are hosted—including through funding for UN agencies working in the field such as the UNHCR or the WFP.