Mass Migration: Compassion, Crisis, and Calculated Change

Step away from the noise. ~Ghost

(Opinion)

On January 2, 2026—the very day this article draws from—a user named @From_The_Grey (that would be me) posted a blunt question on social media: "When exactly did the United States get designated as the kiddy day care center for every third-world person in the world who does not have the guts to stand up to their government and fix their own country? Their problems are self-inflicted due to that inaction, so how did that get transferred over to being OUR problem?" The post, signed "~Ghost," vented frustration at America's role in absorbing global woes, questioning why we "put up with it." So, I decided to do more than just vent.

It's a sentiment shared by many, I found, but let's be clear from the outset: This isn't about denying that millions are in desperate need of assistance. Wars, poverty, and instability—often driven by corrupt leaders—displace individuals who deserve compassion and support. I just think there is a far better way to help them, so hear me out.

Global statistics confirm this: By mid-2024, there were a record 304 million international migrants, representing about 3.7% of the global population, with the UNHCR estimating 122 million forcibly displaced by early 2025. I feel for them; aiding the vulnerable is a matter of human decency. This is one of those situations where we must recognize that multiple truths can and usually do coexist. The crisis is real, and someone is also exploiting that crisis, often the very people who caused it initially.

What I challenge isn't the need—it's the how. The methods seem engineered, following a three-step process: Create or amplify a crisis, control the reaction, and offer a "solution" that benefits those orchestrating it. This isn't to say all aid workers or policymakers are scheming; many genuinely believe they're doing right. But patterns suggest something more: Migration as a tool to reshape demographics, cultures, and power structures, much like a game where people are pieces moved for strategic gain. We'll explore the connections between global flows and U.S. domestic shifts, leaving you to decide if it's a coincidence or calculation. Oh yeah, and it's nothing new!

The Setup:

Policies That Opened the Doors

Mass migration didn't happen by accident. In the U.S., specific leaders made choices that shifted the landscape. President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the 1965 Immigration Act, ending national origins quotas and prioritizing family reunification—leading to over 60 million immigrants since, mostly from developing regions. Jimmy Carter's 1980 Refugee Act aligned with UN standards, formalizing refugee intakes. More recently, Joe Biden's policies enabled nearly 5 million entries via asylum and parole by 2025, straining resources.

We can't get tied up on intent because no matter the intent, the results are the same, and the results are what matter.

Abroad, crises aren't always organic either. U.S. interventions by named presidents, intentional or not, amplified instability:

George W. Bush's post-9/11 wars displaced millions from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Barack Obama's 2011 Libya strikes turned a stable (if dictatorial) nation into a failed state, sparking migration routes.

Donald Trump's ramped-up Venezuela sanctions, continued under Biden, exacerbated economic collapse there, driving outflows. Meanwhile, origin-country leaders like Venezuela's Hugo Chávez and Nicolás Maduro clung to socialist policies, crashing GDP by 75% and forcing 8 million to flee—not the fault of all Venezuelans, but specific rulers' choices.

Core question: Why not address these issues at their origin? Fix the problems that are causing people to flee in the first place? To me, it appears to be the only logical option.

Aid frequently supports NGOs and governments without insisting on reform, while remittances, which exceed $500 billion annually, offer crucial support but conceal dependency. Relocating people is simpler than revamping systems—particularly if relocation aligns with other objectives. As I repeat over and over again, multiple truths can and usually do exist at the same time. Moreover, it is highly profitable, which makes it resemble human trafficking more than rescuing refugees in my mind. Helping people should be driven by compassion and altruism, not financial gain. Just my opinion.

Manufactured Crises:

The Three-Step Playbook

Crises follow a pattern: Problem, reaction, solution—often called the Hegelian dialectic.

Domestically, we see this in U.S. blue strongholds, progressive leaders push collectivist policies (high taxes, regulations, soft crime approaches), tanking the quality of life. Chicago under Mayor Brandon Johnson: Socialist policies drove corporations like Citadel out by 2025, leaving downtown towers empty and slashing available property tax revenue. Solution? Shift burdens to middle-class residents with hikes exceeding 100% in some areas, prompting more flight to red states like Texas or Florida. New York's incoming Mayor Zohran Mamdani (a democratic socialist) promises similar: Millionaire taxes and social programs that will inevitably accelerate the exodus. How many times does it have to happen before people start paying attention?

Globally, it's scaled up. Corrupt or ideological leaders create unlivable conditions—poverty in Venezuela, conflict in Syria—then export people. Western elites import them under humanitarian guises, but patterns suggest intent: OECD's 2025 Migration Outlook notes 6.2 million permanent immigrants, a post-COVID high, with family migration dominant. As progressives say, "never let a good crisis go to waste." Crises justify more control: Expanded welfare, censorship of dissent, and supranational pacts like the UN's migration framework.

Fleeing isn't always the only option, either; it is a chosen one. Nations like Poland post-1989 or South Korea post-war reformed internally through market shifts and anti-corruption, achieving prosperity without mass exodus. Rwanda slashed poverty from 70% to under 40% after the genocide. Many displaced stay as internally displaced persons (IDPs outnumber refugees globally, resisting or rebuilding. But when leaders block change, migration relieves pressure—exporting problems while remittances flow back. In plain English, it sure sounds like a racket, does it not?

I want to clarify again that this has nothing to do with helping or not helping the people in crisis. It is about exposing the ones using these people's crises to help themselves to our money.

Weaponized Migration:

Demographic Shifts as Strategy

Here's where compassion meets calculation: Migration changes areas without warfare.

Domestically, blue-state refugees (often "liberal" voters) flee to red states for low taxes and safety, then vote in similar policies—flipping Colorado blue after California influxes or turning Georgia swing in 2020. By 2025-2026, blue states like California and New York lost millions net to red ones (Idaho, South Carolina, and North Carolina topping gains), with political tilts following. It's predictable: Humans seek better, but cling to ideologies—ripe for manipulation.

Globally, the phenomenon often referred to as "weaponized migration" has become increasingly prominent, with over 50 documented cases since the year 1951. This strategic manipulation of human movement has been employed by various state and non-state actors to achieve political objectives, exert pressure on rival nations, or distract from domestic issues. A notable example of this occurred in 2021 when Belarus, under the leadership of President Alexander Lukashenko, orchestrated a deliberate push of migrants towards the borders of Poland. This maneuver was widely interpreted as a form of retaliation against the European Union for imposing sanctions on Belarus following a contested presidential election and subsequent allegations of human rights abuses. The situation escalated into a humanitarian crisis, highlighting the complexities of migration as a tool of geopolitical strategy.

Another historical instance can be traced back to 2011, when Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi made ominous threats to Europe, suggesting that he could unleash a wave of African migrants into the continent. This statement was not merely a rhetorical flourish; it was a calculated attempt to leverage the migration issue as a means of bargaining with European nations, particularly in the context of military intervention in Libya and the broader implications for regional stability. Gaddafi's threats underscored the potential for migration to be used as a weapon in international relations, where the movement of people becomes intertwined with power dynamics and political negotiations.

Looking ahead to 2026, the strategic use of migration is expected to evolve further, particularly in the context of Russia's hybrid tactics in Eastern Europe. The Kremlin has been known to exploit various forms of influence, including the manipulation of migration flows, to destabilize neighboring countries and assert its dominance in the region. This approach raises significant concerns about the future of European security and the potential for increased tensions as states grapple with the implications of migration used as a tool of warfare.

In the European context, the influx of migrants and asylum seekers, particularly following the 2015 refugee crisis, has resulted in profound social and political shifts. More than 2.5 million individuals sought asylum in Europe during this period, leading to significant demographic changes and challenges in integration. This surge has been correlated with various societal issues, including a notable rise in reported incidents of sexual violence, particularly in Sweden, where statistics indicate that rape cases surged to over 10,000 in 2024. Alarmingly, around 60% of these convictions have been linked to immigrant backgrounds, raising contentious debates surrounding immigration policies, societal integration, and public safety. No racism involved, just facts. Cause and effect.

Additionally, the emergence of "no-go zones" in countries like France has further complicated the narrative surrounding migration. These areas, often characterized by high levels of crime and social unrest, have become symbolic of the challenges faced by European nations in managing the integration of large migrant populations. Such zones have sparked heated discussions about the effectiveness of current policies, the responsibilities of host nations, and the societal implications of failing to adequately address the needs and concerns of both migrants and native populations.

The concept of Hijrah, which refers to migration as a form of conquest, resonates deeply within this discourse. It suggests a strategic dimension to migration that goes beyond mere movement for safety or economic opportunity. Figures such as Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan have alluded to the notion of altering Europe's "destiny" through migration, implying that the demographic shifts resulting from migration could lead to significant changes in the cultural and political landscape of Europe. This perspective raises critical questions about identity, sovereignty, and the future of European integration in an increasingly interconnected world.

In summary, the interplay between migration and geopolitical strategy is complex and multifaceted. The historical and contemporary examples of weaponized migration illustrate the potential for human movement to be utilized as a tool for political leverage. As Europe continues to grapple with the ramifications of these dynamics, the discourse surrounding migration will undoubtedly remain a focal point in discussions about national security, social cohesion, and the very essence of European identity.

Multiculturalism:

New Name, Same Old Game

The Evolution of Multiculturalism in Canada and Sweden

Multiculturalism, a concept that emphasizes the coexistence of diverse cultural groups within a society, was formally institutionalized in Canada by Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau in 1971. This marked a significant shift in Canada’s approach to diversity, as the government began to recognize and celebrate the various cultural backgrounds of its citizens. Similarly, Sweden's Prime Minister Olof Palme embraced this ideology in 1975, promoting a vision of a society enriched by its multicultural fabric. Both leaders believed that multicultural policies would foster inclusivity and social cohesion; however, the practical implications of these policies have sparked considerable debate and controversy.

The Philosophy of Retention Over Assimilation

At the heart of the multiculturalism debate lies the principle of retention over assimilation. This philosophy posits that rather than requiring minority groups to conform to the dominant culture, societies should encourage individuals to maintain their unique cultural identities. While this approach aims to validate and celebrate diversity, it also raises questions about the integration of these groups into the broader societal framework. Critics argue that promoting retention can lead to the formation of parallel societies, where different cultural communities exist in isolation from one another, potentially leading to misunderstandings and conflicts.

The Challenges of Unvetted Immigration

One of the more contentious aspects of multiculturalism is the practice of introducing unvetted groups into established communities. This influx can lead to significant cultural clashes, as differing values, traditions, and social norms collide. In many cases, the rapid arrival of diverse groups can strain local resources and provoke tensions among residents. The resulting friction often manifests in various forms, from social discord to outright violence, challenging the very foundations of multicultural policies that aim to promote harmony.

The Role of State Power in Minority Protection

In response to the challenges that arise from these multicultural policies, governments often find themselves in a position where they feel compelled to intervene. The narrative typically follows a predictable pattern: as clashes erupt, authorities increase their efforts to "protect minorities," often leading to an expansion of state power. This can involve heightened police presence, stricter laws, and the implementation of various social programs aimed at fostering integration. However, this approach can also lead to accusations of overreach and suppression of free speech, particularly when dissenting opinions on multiculturalism are labeled as "bigoted" or discriminatory.

Media's Role in Shaping Public Perception

The media plays a crucial role in shaping public perception of multiculturalism and its associated challenges. Instances of violence or unrest often receive varying levels of coverage, which can influence the public's understanding of these issues. For example, in Sweden, there were notable incidents during festivals in 2014 and 2015 where police reportedly downplayed assaults, contributing to a narrative that obscured the underlying tensions within multicultural communities. Similarly, in Germany, the media faced criticism for delaying reports on the Cologne assaults in 2015 and 2016, which many perceived as an attempt to avoid stirring up anti-immigrant sentiment. Such actions have led to accusations of bias and a lack of transparency, further complicating the public discourse surrounding multiculturalism.

Create or amplify the problem- Force incompatible cultures together, knowing conflict will be the result. Control the reaction by protecting the minority and demonizing the majority. Offer a solution to the problem, more power and control, and more dependency for the state.

The Undeniable Connections:

Domestic to Global

Are U.S. internal shifts and global migration linked? The tactics match: Create failure, export people, infiltrate stable areas, alter makeup. Domestically, it's flipping red states; globally, reshaping the West. The goal is the same: total dominance.

Odds this is all unrelated? Extremely low—the patterns align too perfectly, rooted in collectivist ideologies (Marxist or Islamist) that use division for control. Social media discussions highlight this: Hungarian PM Viktor Orbán warned in December 2025 of Europe's "civilizational erasure" via migration; others note "demographic change as progress." A State Department insider allegedly admitted in 2024: "They want to change the demographics."

Let's not forget that migrants are victims too—used as pawns in a game benefiting elites: NGOs profiting from flows, politicians gaining votes/labor, globalists eroding borders. Indigenous populations suffer strain, but the orchestrators solidify power.

Your Call:

Coincidence or Calculation?

The evidence is here as I see it: A genuine crises exist, and help is needed. But the scale, methods, and outcomes raise a lot of questions for me. Is migration truly humanitarian, or a manufactured tool for change? You decide. I mean, which is truly more humane and decent? Fixing the cause of the problems so these people can stay in their own countries with their own cultures, or scooping them up like so much human flotsam, shipping them halfway around the world to a place they don't understand, don't speak the language, and are, for the most part, unwelcome. Not because of who they are necessarily, but because of the circumstances that brought them there. Just imagine if the government came and said from now on, these completely incompatible people (imagine being them as well) are going to be living in your home, and not only are you responsible for them, but there is nothing you can do about it.

You would have a cow, so why are you ok with it happening on a national level? It is really easy to ignore something when it is happening to someone else, isn't it?

Something to think about, until next time. ~Ghost

---

Author of a new book series that delves deeper into the subjects I cover in my expose'. You can find them on Amazon. The next book is due out this month. Amazon.com: A Common Sense Look At: Conflict, slavery, and Racism eBook : Coutts, Charles: Kindle Store