Austria: FPÖ Rejects “Placebo” Asylum Law

The New Observer
April 28, 2016

The Freedom Party of Austria (FPÖ) today voted against a new so-called “anti-asylum” law in parliament, because it “ties existing laws into knots,” still allows “asylum” claims—and can be challenged in court.

Rather, the FPÖ said, what was needed was a “reboot” of the entire law governing asylum and immigration, and not a tinkering with existing legislation.



Nonwhite invaders in Austria pretending to be “asylum seekers” protest at living conditions in their free accommodation.

The law was nonetheless passed by the ruling coalition in Vienna, which is made up of an alliance between the conservative Austrian Peoples’ Party (ÖVP) and the Socialist Party of Austria (SPÖ).

The vote was 98 to 67, with the FPÖ, the Green Party, and the smaller New Austria and Liberal Forum (NEOS), along with four rebel SPÖ members all voting against the law.

The latter groups opposed the law because it is allegedly detrimental to the invaders, a view shared by many on the far left.

The law is an obvious attempt to “appear tough” following the FPÖ victory in the first round of the presidential elections, and to try and slow the growth of that party. A new poll released after the presidential election put the FPÖ’s support at an unprecedented 44 percent, more than enough to form a government on its own should a new election be held today.



According to the new law, the government will be able to declare a “state of emergency for six months at a time if the number of migrants coming into the country increased suddenly or if the numbers threatened national security.”

READ  Knife Attack Mistaken for Art

The new law also envisages a “limited asylum” clause which reduces to three the number of years which a “refugee” can live in Austria.

In addition, the law also supposedly makes it more difficult for families of “asylum seekers” to come to Austria, and also gives immigration officials the authority to reject “asylum seekers” directly at the border after processing their applications.

This fast-track admissibility procedure for “asylum seekers” at Austrian land borders will allow police officers to examine applications solely for the purposes of determining whether individuals can be returned to the neighboring country from which they came.

Only people who argue “successfully” that their lives would be in danger or that they face a real risk of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment in a neighboring country, or who have a nuclear family member already in Austria, will be allowed to formally apply for asylum.

As “strict” as these rules supposedly sound—and are being presented by the controlled media—they are in fact as bogus as the asylum seekers themselves.

Firstly, the ability to declare a “state of emergency if national security is threatened” is already contained in law; secondly, the time restriction clause does not apply to “asylum seekers” granted permanent residence; thirdly the right to family reunification could easily be contested legally through the European Union’s own Human Rights Act; and finally, all “asylum seekers” who make it into Austria by any means still have the right to apply for asylum.

This latter point means that all the invaders have to do is avoid the manned crossing points into Austria—of which there are hundreds, if not thousands.

FPÖ Member of Parliament Gernot Darmann described the law as making a “mascherl” (literally, a “bow tie”) of the law.

“It is nothing but a placebo law. What is needed is not to make up a patchwork of laws, but rather a general reboot” of the entire legislation governing asylum.

Darmann pointed out that Austria was surrounded by “safe” neighboring countries—in terms of existing treaties on asylum—and that therefore under the EU’s own rules, “should have no asylum applications at all.”