Salvini vs. Rocket

[Tender Branson]

Italy's far-right interior minister, Matteo Salvini, has accused the captain of a ship carrying rescued migrants of trying to sink a police boat. Carola Rackete was arrested at the Italian port of Lampedusa after a two-week stand-off with police at sea.

Her vessel, Sea-Watch 3, was banned from docking, but it eventually entered the port on Friday night. On Saturday, Mr Salvini called Ms Rackete a "rich, white, German woman" who had committed "an act of war".

"She tried to sink a police boat with officers on board at night," he said. "They say 'we're saving lives', but they risked killing these human beings who were doing their job, it's clear from the videos."

https://twitter.com/SPIEGELONLINE/status/1145286631974264832

Who is Carola Rackete?

The "rich, white, German woman" who riled Mr Salvini has a nautical degree and studied environmental sciences in the UK. The 31-year-old has taken part in expeditions, both for research organisations and for the environmental group Greenpeace. Ms Rackete later joined Sea Watch, a non-governmental association that carries out rescue missions in the Mediterranean.

Now a left-wing hero, she has very little social media presence, except for posting video updates of the rescue mission on Twitter in recent weeks. In the latest one, she said: "I have decided to enter the harbour, which is free at night, on my own." Sea Watch chairman Johannes Bayer expressed support for Ms Rackete's actions and tweeted that he was "proud of our captain".

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-48809134

[Tender Branson]

I fear that she will become the next Amanda Knox ...

On the one hand, I find it disturbing that she's bringing illegals to Europe and decides to give a sh*t about laws, on the other hand I like how a determined woman like her stands up to such bufoons as Salvini.

[Middle-aged Europe]

On the one hand, I find it disturbing that she's bringing illegals to Europe and decides to give a sh*t about laws, on the other hand I like how a determined woman like her stands up to such bufoons as Salvini.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=q6cyDsuNx_U

Hope your apparent inner conflict doesn't entirely stem from the fact a bangable chick is involved here.

Anyway, what's the Five Stars rection to this, or are they hiding somewhere with their heads up their asses like usual?

[President Johnson]

The situation causes a dilemma, because I actually want to the external border of the EU closed for illegal immigration. The refugees should stay in camps with human conditions (we should give more money on this). However, the current conditions in Libyian camps are a disaster and it's legitimate to rescue people from drowning. I think Rackete should be released from prison. But private rescue ships be confiscated.

[Velasco]

It's remarkable the way Tender refers the events. The issue for him is "bringing illegals to Europe and giving a s**t about the laws". The German captain, on the other hand, stated that her aim was "to bring desperate and exhausted people to shore" and her act of disobedience was necessary to avert a tragedy. While Tender dehumanizes persons rescued at sea by calling them "illegals", the captain takes a personal risk in saving their lives and bringing them to safe harbour.

Disobedience is justified when injust laws conflict with humanitarian reasons and are contrary to the Law of the Sea

[Tender Branson]

On the one hand, I find it disturbing that she's bringing illegals to Europe and decides to give a sh*t about laws, on the other hand I like how a determined woman like her stands up to such bufoons as Salvini.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=q6cyDsuNx_U

Hope your apparent inner conflict doesn't entirely stem from the fact a bangable chick is involved here.

Anyway, what's the Five Stars rection to this, or are they hiding somewhere with their heads up their asses like usual?

Roberto Fico, President of the Chamber, and one of the Few in M5S who arent pushovers for Salvini, said that Italy has a moral duty to save the migrants on the ship.

And yeah, there seems to be a interesting coincidence that Tender tends to support "evil ultra-leftists", when said ultra-leftists are young, attractive women.  

Anyway, this whole immigration issue in Europe is a horrible mess, almost a type of cynical Hunger Games, where only the toughest survive to get to the shores of the west. As much as i sympathise with her moral belief in saving lives, us taking these people in is not the solution that helps Africa long-term. We need to end our exploitation of these countries, climate change, and support good governance there, instead of corrupt dictators who kowtow to western imperialist interests. Easier said than done, obviously.

Didn’t you know that I’m a feminist ?!?

Besides, my „support“ for her is not all too strong because she’s still virtually a people smuggler and I agree with what POTUS Johnson said.

[Former President tack50]

The situation is complicated. On one hand, these are people who might otherwise drown, and rescuing people at sea is a must (imagine if while the Titanic was sinking there was a boat nearby and didn't pick them up!)

On the other hand, illegal immigration should be cut. Even if I believe that people come illegally only because they can't come in legally, Europe can't take everyone who wants to come in either. (although I still believe we should adopt a softer legal immigration policy but with a hard line against illegal immigration). These so-called rescue service NGOs should be heavily restricted.

I am not sure if she should go to jail or not to be honest. Maybe she deserves just a fine but her sailing license revoked so she can't do it again?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Whatever you think about the issue of refugees/migrants, it's a clear case of rescue on high seas, and if the government would rather let those people die at sea, then we need NGO rescuers. It's a simple moral question.

Anybody who would rather see them drown or die of hunger or thirst is a deplorable piece of s**t, whatever their public rationalization would be. You can figure out what to do with them after they're rescued, because rescuing people should be a no-brainer.

[Velasco]

[

The situation is complicated. On one hand, these are people who might otherwise drown, and rescuing people at sea is a must (imagine if while the Titanic was sinking there was a boat nearby and didn't pick them up!)

On the other hand, illegal immigration should be cut. Even if I believe that people come illegally only because they can't come in legally, Europe can't take everyone who wants to come in either. (although I still believe we should adopt a softer legal immigration policy but with a hard line against illegal immigration). These so-called rescue service NGOs should be heavily restricted.

I am not sure if she should go to jail or not to be honest. Maybe she deserves just a fine but her sailing license revoked so she can't do it again?

My feeling is that many of you are posing false dilemmas.

On the one hand, there should be no doubt on the moral duty to rescue people at sea. However, we live in times of moral degradation (or relativism if you like). Salvini and like-minded people don't care at all, as they don't consider these people human fellows but "illegals". There is a short distance from "illegal" to "no human". The insults of the Salvini crowd to Pope Francis at Piazza del Duomo in Milan are telling. Dehumanizing the Other is one of the main characteristics of fascism.

On the other hand, there is no way to "cut illegal immigration". Pretending that it can be controlled with walls, fences and internment camps is delusional and inhumane. Only massive and comprehensive efforts in origin countries may help to keep the problem at bay. Also, European countries need immigrants to maintain their prosperity. You may argue it's preferable that immigrants come in an orderly and controlled way, but we need them.

[Beezer]

The ship spent more than 2 weeks with their rescued migrants at sea. Plenty of time to go to France, for example. Oh wait, Macron doesn't actually want any refugees either but he's perfectly content with Salvini doing his dirty work for him and then moaning about dignity and European values afterwards.

Fact of the matter is that the NGOs can only continue this shuttle service from Libyan beaches to the EU if Italian ports are open. That's why this Mrs. Rocket refused to head to any place but Italy.

And nobody has a problem with rescuing people at sea. But I do have a problem with NGOs that have been proven to coordinate their "rescue missions" with Libyan traffickers. If the NGOs returned the rescued people to North Africa, these missions would come to a halt within a few weeks anyway (see Australia).

[Velasco]

On the other hand, there is no way to "cut illegal immigration". Pretending that it can be controlled with walls, fences and internment camps is delusional and inhumane.

Of course it can be done, as Australia or Singapore show. You (and me) might think that it is morally wrong, but it is perfectly possible.

Australia is geographically isolated and Singapore is a tiny city-state. European borders are much more difficult to control, particularly the Mediterranean Sea. Of course European countries make efforts and put resources. The point is, sooner or later there will be crises that will entail massive population displacements. The flood of refugees caused by the war in Syria won't be an event isolated in time. Which policies are the best to handle these situations? Do you think border patrols are enough?

[Velasco]

Internment on Islands like Lampedusa or in North Africa (who are resisting this) after picking them up, without possibility to pass on to Mainland Europe. Verdict on the Asylum request there, rejected Asylum requests are deported or indefinitely detained, accepted Asylum requests are settled in "safe" African countries, who are desperate for financial assistance from Europe. This is almost exactly the policy that Australia has, and it is the policy that many mainstream European politicians have (in part) been proposing.

Fortress Europe is not just a possibility, but indeed looking increasingly likely when, as you have said, the numbers increase. Hardline policies, do actually work in bringing the amount of people who try to come down, when they know that there is no way that they will be accepted. Australia is a perfect example.

If one just wants to fight the consequence, i.e. the Number of People coming (and lets face it-thats what European politicians are interested in), then yes this is a viable approach in my opinion. But it is necessary to fight the root cause.

All the things you have mentioned are temporary solutions, except the last sentence. As far as I know, Australia has never faced a situation comparable to the one created by the war in Syria. Despite Angela Merkel decided to host a large number of frefugees, assuming a high political cost, many thousands of asylum seekers are still trapped in internment camps located in the Greek islands. The living conditions in those camps are deplorable and they are a shame for Europe. Remember that Syrians are not criminals, but people trying to escape from death and destruction in their country. Regarding Northern Africa, the situation in Lybya is so horrible that people coming from the south prefer to die drowning at sea to suffer the abuses of the Lybyan warlords. On the other hand, Salvini wants to lock Lampedusa and the Italian ports forever. Regardless the numbers Europe is willing to host, our countries have the moral duty to treat asylum seekers with dignity.

Of course it's necessary to address the root causes in the origin countries. This entails fight against poverty and climate change and commitment for peace.

[DavidB.]

Our moral duty is to keep our own countries and our people safe and prosperous, not to bring about the end of our nations, our prosperity, our way of life and our civilization.

Rackete should serve a long prison sentence (her aim is not actually to save people but to bring about the end of Europe), Sea Watch should be confiscated, and those on her boat should swiftly be returned to Africa.

Anybody who would rather see them drown or die of hunger or thirst is a deplorable piece of s**t, whatever their public rationalization would be. You can figure out what to do with them after they're rescued, because rescuing people should be a no-brainer.

Ships like these incentivize people to try their luck. If you ban NGOs from engaging in these human trafficking schemes and also do not allow any of them to set foot on European land, they will simply stop coming and many fewer will drown. And everyone realizes this. Rackete and her thugs don't give a damn about African people's lives, they only care about destroying our continent and our nations because our Northwestern European education systems have brainwashed them into thinking our world has to be destroyed. And they know a sustained stream of mass immigration from Africa will do the trick.

[afleitch]

Our moral duty is to keep our own countries and our people safe and prosperous, not to bring about the end of our nations, our prosperity, our way of life and our civilization.

Rackete should serve a long prison sentence (her aim is not actually to save people but to bring about the end of Europe), Sea Watch should be confiscated, and those on her boat should swiftly be returned to Africa.

Anybody who would rather see them drown or die of hunger or thirst is a deplorable piece of s**t, whatever their public rationalization would be. You can figure out what to do with them after they're rescued, because rescuing people should be a no-brainer.

Ships like these incentivize people to try their luck. If you ban NGOs from engaging in these human trafficking schemes and also do not allow any of them to set foot on European land, they will simply stop coming and many fewer will drown. And everyone realizes this. Rackete and her thugs don't give a damn about African people's lives, they only care about destroying our continent and our nations because our Northwestern European education systems have brainwashed them into thinking our world has to be destroyed. And they know a sustained stream of mass immigration from Africa will do the trick.

Fash.

[DavidB.]

Fash.

Namecalling, always a great argument.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

If she indeed was about to bring down "our" world of national and ethnic purity and walling itself off in paranoia, then I'm all for this, such abomination should be brought down.

Having strong feelings about limiting the influx of the outside population is one thing. That, however, are pretty much the same arguments, sometimes word by word, used by generations of antisemites brainwashing the people about how Jews are destroying European civilization, or by defenders of the Apartheid and Jim Crow. Sure, you can point out differences between modern refugee crisis and those developments, but the rhetoric remains the same and it never ended well.

Also, the argument about people stopping to try to get over if there would be no NGO rescuers does not hold. We're not talking about the people sitting comfortably on their asses who just thought "hey, I think it may be cooler in Europe!". We're talking about thousands fleeing wars, hunger and unimaginable poverty and that's enough to determine them to risk their lives by crossing over.

[DavidB.]

If she indeed was about to bring down "our" world of national and ethnic purity and walling itself off in paranoia, then I'm all for this, such abomination should be brought down.

Strawman.

Having strong feelings about limiting the influx of the outside population is one thing. That, however, are pretty much the same arguments, sometimes word by word, used by generations of antisemites brainwashing the people about how Jews are destroying European civilization, or by defenders of the Apartheid and Jim Crow. Sure, you can point out differences between modern refugee crisis and those developments, but the rhetoric remains the same and it never ended well.

If you think ethnic tensions will decrease rather than increase if mass immigration continues, I don't know what to tell you. Natives will increasingly start doing what minorities had been doing all along: think about their own group's interests when voting, and act accordingly outside the voting booth. Tensions will increase and everyone, natives and minorities alike, will be worse off.

Also, the argument about people stopping to try to get over if there would be no NGO rescuers does not hold. We're not talking about the people sitting comfortably on their asses who just thought "hey, I think it may be cooler in Europe!". We're talking about thousands fleeing wars, hunger and unimaginable poverty and that's enough to determine them to risk their lives by crossing over.

I am not trivializing the bad conditions in Africa and the Middle East at all, and I don't blame them for trying to come here. It's just not in our interest to allow them to, and we should act according to our interests.

But do you honestly think the same number of people would embark on an arduous and dangerous boat trip to Europe if a) they knew there were no NGOs just outside North African countries' territorial waters to pick them up, b) they would never receive asylum in Europe and  c) they would actually be deported back immediately rather than being able to successfully stay under the radar illegally and stick around indefinitely? I definitely don't think so. And I definitely think it would save lives. Lots of them, cumulatively, because the earlier we stop it, the earlier we end the massacre on the Mediterranean. But yes, my first concern is to safeguard our countries and if we don't end illegal immigration from Africa, 2015 will be peanuts compared to the influx we can expect this century and we will all be worse off.

[Wisconsin SC Race 2019]

It's remarkable the way Tender refers the events. The issue for him is "bringing illegals to Europe and giving a s**t about the laws". The German captain, on the other hand, stated that her aim was "to bring desperate and exhausted people to shore" and her act of disobedience was necessary to avert a tragedy. While Tender dehumanizes persons rescued at sea by calling them "illegals", the captain takes a personal risk in saving their lives and bringing them to safe harbour.

Disobedience is justified when injust laws conflict with humanitarian reasons and are contrary to the Law of the Sea

If it was really about humanitarian reasons, they can go to a 3rd World Country that would treat them better than their homeland.

[Tender Branson]

Rackete has been released and will be „deported“ to Germany.

That’s an OK decision IMO, but she should definitely not try again. If she’s caught again smuggling people to Italy via Libya, then LOCK HER UP !

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Rackete has been released and will be „deported“ to Germany.

That’s an OK decision IMO, but she should definitely not try again. If she’s caught again smuggling people to Italy via Libya, then LOCK HER UP !

OK, I'm a little confused. Was she going to Libya to load people on to bring them to Italy, or was it about those rescued at seas. Because if it's the latter than "smuggling people" is a bit hyperbolic.

[Tender Branson]

Rackete has been released and will be „deported“ to Germany.

That’s an OK decision IMO, but she should definitely not try again. If she’s caught again smuggling people to Italy via Libya, then LOCK HER UP !

OK, I'm a little confused. Was she going to Libya to load people on to bring them to Italy, or was it about those rescued at seas. Because if it's the latter than "smuggling people" is a bit hyperbolic.

They pick them up 3 kilometers away from the Libya coast and transport them 500 kilometers all the way to Europe, when they could also drop them off in Libya again or in nearby Tunisia or Egypt. That’s a form of smuggling.

[Tender Branson]

Rackete has been released and will be „deported“ to Germany.

That’s an OK decision IMO, but she should definitely not try again. If she’s caught again smuggling people to Italy via Libya, then LOCK HER UP !

OK, I'm a little confused. Was she going to Libya to load people on to bring them to Italy, or was it about those rescued at seas. Because if it's the latter than "smuggling people" is a bit hyperbolic.

They pick them up 3 kilometers away from the Libya coast and transport them 500 kilometers all the way to Europe, when they could also drop them off in Libya again or in nearby Tunisia or Egypt. That’s a form of smuggling.

By that logic the Bundeswehr and Frontex are Human Smugglers too, since nobody drops off people in Libya (where there is a civil war ongoing and literal slavery) or Tunisia. Should we arrest them too?

These people need to be immediately returned to Egypt, Tunisia, Algeria or Morocco.

Those are all safe countries.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

If she indeed was about to bring down "our" world of national and ethnic purity and walling itself off in paranoia, then I'm all for this, such abomination should be brought down.

Strawman.

Merely responding in kind to your rather outlandish talk about some great conspiracy to bring down the European civilization.

Anyway, we seem to have a fundamental ideological difference regarding coming of the outside population. Peoples of diffrent (sometimes very diffrent) cultures have coexisted and interacted throughout the history and said interaction played a great role in forming what we now know as the "European civilization". I for one can't imagine the Polish history and culture without contributions of the generations of Jews that came to live here (many fleeing other European countries due to prevailing intolerance and persecution). While I'm not trying to make a direct comparison with what we see now (there are always many factor that makes such direct comparisons sketchy), I'm bringing this up because Jews were long seen by many as fundamentally alien to what people then considered as "European culture", and there still are people in Europe who believes that. So it produced a lot of tensions too. I'd be careful with using that particular argument to limit the access, since it's essentially giving up to the xenophobes.

I don't see a problem with having a African/Middle Eastern population in Europe. It adds a healthy dose of diversity and, as Velasco pointed out, Europe needs the additional workforce for strictly economical reasons. The real problem is with the scale. Though I'm convinced it would take dozens of millions to actually alter the European "civilization", I can contend an uncontrolled influx is a big problem. It should be reasonably controlled.

Unfortunately, the problem can't be solved with simply walling Europe off. I'm reminded of a saying from the 1930s: "a bomber will always get throught", just on a bigger scale here. I think you're seriously underestimating the sheer determination of these people to escape what they're facing. Even with the NGO rescuers, a journey through the sea is extremely risky already and yet they're willing to take said risk nonetheless. I just can't buy your argument it would dissuade most of them. You can limit it to some degree, but border control won't solve the issue, it's just ineffectual dealing with symptoms. We need a consistent international effort to either make their native lands safe from war, illness and poverty, or at the very least to provide them with safe refugee facilities in neighbouring countries. Unfortunately there is no such meaningful effort, even though it's in Europe's interest. Pretending it would go away with half-measures won't do much good.

[Absolution9]

If she indeed was about to bring down "our" world of national and ethnic purity and walling itself off in paranoia, then I'm all for this, such abomination should be brought down.

Strawman.

Merely responding in kind to your rather outlandish talk about some great conspiracy to bring down the European civilization.

Anyway, we seem to have a fundamental ideological difference regarding coming of the outside population. Peoples of diffrent (sometimes very diffrent) cultures have coexisted and interacted throughout the history and said interaction played a great role in forming what we now know as the "European civilization". I for one can't imagine the Polish history and culture without contributions of the generations of Jews that came to live here (many fleeing other European countries due to prevailing intolerance and persecution). While I'm not trying to make a direct comparison with what we see now (there are always many factor that makes such direct comparisons sketchy), I'm bringing this up because Jews were long seen by many as fundamentally alien to what people then considered as "European culture", and there still are people in Europe who believes that. So it produced a lot of tensions too. I'd be careful with using that particular argument to limit the access, since it's essentially giving up to the xenophobes.

I don't see a problem with having a African/Middle Eastern population in Europe. It adds a healthy dose of diversity and, as Velasco pointed out, Europe needs the additional workforce for strictly economical reasons. The real problem is with the scale. Though I'm convinced it would take dozens of millions to actually alter the European "civilization", I can contend an uncontrolled influx is a big problem. It should be reasonably controlled.

Unfortunately, the problem can't be solved with simply walling Europe off. I'm reminded of a saying from the 1930s: "a bomber will always get throught", just on a bigger scale here. I think you're seriously underestimating the sheer determination of these people to escape what they're facing. Even with the NGO rescuers, a journey through the sea is extremely risky already and yet they're willing to take said risk nonetheless. I just can't buy your argument it would dissuade most of them. You can limit it to some degree, but border control won't solve the issue, it's just ineffectual dealing with symptoms. We need a consistent international effort to either make their native lands safe from war, illness and poverty, or at the very least to provide them with safe refugee facilities in neighbouring countries. Unfortunately there is no such meaningful effort, even though it's in Europe's interest. Pretending it would go away with half-measures won't do much good.

Demographics matter.  Jews were always a small persecuted minority throughout Europe and in Poland after 400 years their population share peaked at just under 10% on the eve of World War 2.  They are most akin to Christians or Yazidis or Druze within the context of the modern Middle East. 

The source population for the current migration wave on the other hand encompasses the majority population from the areas around and including Pakistan to North Africa to Sub-Sharan Africa.  Well over 1.5 billion people and expanding rapidly.  A continuous large scale flow from that huge catchment area will make Italians, for instance, a small minority in Italy by the end of the century.  Especially given the low fertility of Italians and other Europeans.

If you want a Muslim and African Italy (geographic expression only) that cares nothing for the Italian culture and history as it’s evolved for the past 1000 years than I suppose the pre-Salvini course was optimal for you (of course I’m not saying Salvini will succeed in changing that course long term).

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

If she indeed was about to bring down "our" world of national and ethnic purity and walling itself off in paranoia, then I'm all for this, such abomination should be brought down.

Strawman.

Merely responding in kind to your rather outlandish talk about some great conspiracy to bring down the European civilization.

Anyway, we seem to have a fundamental ideological difference regarding coming of the outside population. Peoples of diffrent (sometimes very diffrent) cultures have coexisted and interacted throughout the history and said interaction played a great role in forming what we now know as the "European civilization". I for one can't imagine the Polish history and culture without contributions of the generations of Jews that came to live here (many fleeing other European countries due to prevailing intolerance and persecution). While I'm not trying to make a direct comparison with what we see now (there are always many factor that makes such direct comparisons sketchy), I'm bringing this up because Jews were long seen by many as fundamentally alien to what people then considered as "European culture", and there still are people in Europe who believes that. So it produced a lot of tensions too. I'd be careful with using that particular argument to limit the access, since it's essentially giving up to the xenophobes.

I don't see a problem with having a African/Middle Eastern population in Europe. It adds a healthy dose of diversity and, as Velasco pointed out, Europe needs the additional workforce for strictly economical reasons. The real problem is with the scale. Though I'm convinced it would take dozens of millions to actually alter the European "civilization", I can contend an uncontrolled influx is a big problem. It should be reasonably controlled.

Unfortunately, the problem can't be solved with simply walling Europe off. I'm reminded of a saying from the 1930s: "a bomber will always get throught", just on a bigger scale here. I think you're seriously underestimating the sheer determination of these people to escape what they're facing. Even with the NGO rescuers, a journey through the sea is extremely risky already and yet they're willing to take said risk nonetheless. I just can't buy your argument it would dissuade most of them. You can limit it to some degree, but border control won't solve the issue, it's just ineffectual dealing with symptoms. We need a consistent international effort to either make their native lands safe from war, illness and poverty, or at the very least to provide them with safe refugee facilities in neighbouring countries. Unfortunately there is no such meaningful effort, even though it's in Europe's interest. Pretending it would go away with half-measures won't do much good.

Demographics matter.  Jews were always a small persecuted minority throughout Europe and in Poland after 400 years their population share peaked at just under 10% on the eve of World War 2.  They are most akin to Christians or Yazidis or Druze within the context of the modern Middle East. 

The source population for the current migration wave on the other hand encompasses the majority population from the areas around and including Pakistan to North Africa to Sub-Sharan Africa.  Well over 1.5 billion people and expanding rapidly.  A continuous large scale flow from that huge catchment area will make Italians, for instance, a small minority in Italy by the end of the century.  Especially given the low fertility of Italians and other Europeans.

If you want a Muslim and African Italy (geographic expression only) that cares nothing for the Italian culture and history as it’s evolved for the past 1000 years than I suppose the pre-Salvini course was optimal for you (of course I’m not saying Salvini will succeed in changing that course long term).

I've said I'm not in favor of an uncontrollable flow, because there's a certain number Europe wouldn't be able to take and sustain. As of the former I've also said I'm not seeking to make a straight comparision between the history of European Jews and the present refugee crisis, in part due to the sheer scale, just pointed out similar arguments used back then regarding Jews status as the alien element, incompatible with the European culture (though claiming that Muslims are automatically and inherently incapable of assimilation is hyperbolic too). And those 10% percent of Jews in the Second Polish Republic were enough for the nationalist to cry about the Jewish dominance coming.

You're also operating under the assumption that Africans/Middle Easterns in Europe would always breed at the same rate as back home. That is something that can't be proven.