The migration crisis in Europe stems from corruption and the radical policy of recognizing illegal migrants, criminals and supporters of Islamic terrorism as refugees.

This con has been simple enough. The corrupt media and politicians replaced the word “migrant” with “refugee”, an excellent form of slippery semantics that proved highly effective.

About a million of those migrants are illegals who paid thousands of euros to be smuggled into Europe. They are not fleeing war zones either. Many pass through Turkey and many other safe-haven countries on their journey to richer lands.

Once in Europe, most do not want to stop in Italy, Spain or any the poorer Central European countries. They want the benefits offered in Germany and Scandinavia, and that is because they are economic migrants, not so-called refugees.

About 90 percent of these migrants are Islamic men of fighting age who buy documents from 15-year-olds from EU clerks or corrupt criminal networks in their own country, which they then use to ask for asylum.

This and many other examples of corruption show that the current crisis cannot be solved in the manner Amnesty International is proposing.

First, it is necessary to create a new program to help real refugees, which which would focus on prepubescent children and their mothers. As long as there are women and children located in camps on European borders, help for men should be halted.

Fathers should be let in only if paternity tests confirm they are the parent. First, the mother and the children are permitted, while the man should remain at the border for test results.

Second, resources and logistics for helping refugees should be offered. Around a million illegals use support meant for real refugee women and children, yet politicians do nothing.

These fighting-age men should be deported and women with children should replace them. Then, Europe will show the world that it helps refugees, because today the image we have is of a Europe which only helps rich Islamists and rejects those who need aid the most.

Third, the definition of a “refugee” needs changing. Right now, opportunistic pro-migrant politicians and journalists use many definitions, usually what suits them best at the time.

Morality must be restored to these definitions and a “refugee” should differ from a “deserter”. These “deserters” constitute every man able to bear a weapon in a war zone. If a mother with children is fleeing a war, the husband should bring them to the border and then be turned back; maybe given a weapon to continue the fight.

The same goes for “asylum” pleas. If we are considering a male migrant from a country without war, we can only accept the citizens of countries with criminal regimes. If a state is friendly to Europe, then why should Europe fear sending him back?

When it comes to women, we should accept those persecuted for fighting for women’s rights.

European governments should unofficially support feminist networks working to change the attitude of many countries in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East and their oppressive policies towards women.

Often, these women are escaping real danger, so while Middle Eastern countries claim they are “searching” for the “runaway” mother who left her husband and took the children, in reality, Europe should be doing what it can to make sure these Islamists never find them.

rmx.news/article/commentary/europe-needs-a-new-migration-policy-and-fast-opinion