You’d think the island of Cyprus, some 60 miles off the coast of war-torn Syria, would be an attractive destination for the so-called Mediterranean migrants and refugees. The northern half of the island is governed and peopled by Turkish Muslims, while the south is Greek and Christian, but more importantly, a member of the European Union (EU). Afro-Islamic colonizers instead prefer to make the further and more dangerous journey to the de jure Greek islands, where over three hundred thousand have landed this year en route to more cucked pastures. A recent article in Reuters sheds some insight on why Cyprus has avoided the fate of the Greek island of Kos, Malta, the Hungarian border, and other EU fringes:
...[A]ccording to a dozen refugees and migrants interviewed this summer, Cyprus’ asylum policies are the main reason they shun that country in favor of southern Europe. In Cyprus last year, only 3 percent of asylum-seekers were granted refugee status, which allows them to live and work legally. Fifty-six percent were granted subsidiary protection, a kind of second-tier international protection with fewer rights than refugee status... Most European countries make little distinction between the two. But in 2014, Cyprus amended its laws so that those who are granted subsidiary protection are not able to bring family members to Cyprus from their home countries or other nations to which they’d escaped — known as the right to family reunification — or to travel freely outside Cyprus. Subsidiary protection also comes with very limited work opportunities — which means those who get it can’t support themselves — and does not protect people from expulsion.
The radical idea that people respond to incentives—such as the enforcement of immigration and refugee laws—and that countries should control who they allow into their borders—like selecting a roommate—are common-sense observations that I have touched on before. By making itself less attractive to the Afro-Islamic Völkerwanderung, Cyprus has more or less completely avoided the human biomass of “Syrian refugees” that are invading Central Europe, despite being the closest EU country to Syria. Hmmmm. Must have something to do with enforcing those strict laws. Apparently the wave of migration can be stopped; it doesn’t *have to be succumbed to. The deterministic cucking of Germany and Sweden is rooted in fallacious thinking at best. Incentives, goyim. Incentives.
Even though Cyprus ultimately voted in favor of Brussels’s Afro-Islamic resettlement program, the island nation managed to counter-signal the anti-White/European zeitgeist:
On September 22, Cyprus voted in favor of an EU plan to relocate 120,000 refugees across Europe. But discussions leading up to the Brussels meeting highlighted a xenophobic sentiment seen in other Eastern European nations such as Hungary: Cypriot Interior Minister Socratis Hasikos said the country could take up to 300, but “we would seek for them to be Orthodox Christians.”
How xenophobic of them! Why would a country want to control entry to its territory? Why would a Christian-majority state prefer Christian refugees over Muslims? Maybe countries are better able and more willing to resettle refugees when the incomer and the host are of a shared background.
The heart of Europe refuses to defend Europe, and the burden has fallen to the peripheries. Countries like Hungary and Cyprus, and their unapologetic, pro-European leaders, seem to be the only ones with any sense of what Europe is and the only ones who understand the existential threat Islam currently and historically poses to Europe. It’s worth remembering that the last Islamic migrations took centuries to roll back. The Moors occupied Iberia from the 8th century to 1492. In the case of the Ottomans, reconquest was only a partial success, with Islam surviving in Bosnia, Albania and Thrace. Oh, and Cyprus. That explains a lot.