Plans for a wall on Greece's border with Turkey embarrass Brussels -- but they offer no alternative
Barrier is latest attempt to stem flow of illegal migrants attempting to enter the EU through Greece
The Greek government's plans to build a wall three metres high along part of its border with Turkey have prompted confusion in Brussels. The project, unveiled by the minister of civil defence, Christos Papoutsis, aims to restrict illegal immigration in an area with no natural barriers. The strip of land has become a major thoroughfare for migrants attempting to enter the European Union, with 90% of illegal migrants now passing through Greece.
The wall is to be built on a 12km stretch of frontier in Thrace. The area south of the river Evros, which takes a turn through Turkey, is highly permeable. About 128,000 illegals entered Greece at this location last year, according to Papoutsis.
The European commission expressed reservations about the project. "Walls or fences are short-term measures that are not meant to deal with the question of illegal immigration in a structural way," said the spokesman on security. [Pathetic waffle] Talks with Athens are likely to be difficult. The government has rejected "hypocritical" criticism, emphasising the need to "protect the rights of Greek citizens". Past complaints by European partners have focused on Greece's failure to guard its borders, the pitiful state of its detention centres and the treatment inflicted on asylum seekers.
The French and Germans are concerned about the future of the Schengen area due to the influx of illegal immigrants through Greece. The British, Dutch and Swedish authorities have stopped sending undocumented migrants back to Greece, even when there is proof they came by that route. Some governments even suspect that the Greeks floated the idea of a wall to put pressure on their partners and have the Frontex mission extended. The EU agency deployed 200 border guards south of the Evros river in October but they are due to be withdrawn at the end of February.
The Turkish government seems reluctant to get involved in the controversy. Located at the crossroads of migratory flows from the Middle East, Asia, the Caucasus and increasingly Africa, it has problems of its own.
SOURCE
Where are the UK's 60,000 lost asylum seekers?
Thousands of asylum seekers have been lost to immigration officials, according to a group of MPs looking in to border controls. They say more than 60,000 people will have vanished in a "rush" to clear backlogs.
Where have these people gone?
You might remember the uproar four years ago when it came out up to 450,000 asylum claims hadn't been processed. There were claims that the Home Office was not "fit for purpose" under the old Labour government.
Ever since, this MPs' group - the Home Affairs committee - has been keeping an eye on efforts to get things back on track. What's come out today is their latest report.
So - these aren't new asylum seekers?
No. All this could go back years.
The accusation is that in the rush to catch up since that backlog about one in seven applications have simply been shelved. They say too much time has passed, and it's now likely to be impossible to find the people that filled out the forms in in the first place.
It adds up to about 60,000 people living in the UK who initially arrived as asylum seekers and there's no knowing whether they should be allowed to stay or not.
But they won't be here legally if they don't have their paperwork sorted?
That's right. It leaves them in limbo neither legally settled and able to get a proper job, nor under threat of being removed.
Answering all this for the government, the Immigration Minister Damian Green says the system is "recovering".
SOURCE
Background
Postings from Brisbane, Australia by John Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.) -- former member of the Australia-Soviet Friendship Society, former anarcho-capitalist and former member of the British Conservative party.
Why is "La Raza" the one Spanish term that is NEVER translated in the American mass media? Because translating it would make it a lot less respectable. It means "THE RACE" -- The mixed Hispanic "race" of Mexico. Racism is fine South of the Rio Grande only, apparently.
The "line" of this blog is that immigration should be SELECTIVE. That means that:
1). A national government should be in control of it. The U.S. and U.K. governments are not but the Australian government has shown that the government of a prosperous Western country can be. Up until its loss of office in 2007, the conservative Howard government had all but eliminated illegal immigration. The present Leftist government has however restarted the flow of illegals by repealing many of the Howard government regulations.
2). Selectivity should be based on "the content of a man's character, not on the color of his skin", as MLK said. To expand that a little: Immigrants should only be accepted if they as individuals seem likely to make a positive net contribution to the country. Many "refugees" would fail that test: Muslims and Africans particularly. Educational level should usually be a pretty fair proxy for the individual's likely value to the receiving country. There will, of course, be exceptions but it is nonetheless unlikely that a person who has not successfully completed High School will make a net positive contribution to a modern Western society.
3). Immigrants should be neither barred NOR ACCEPTED solely because they are of some particular ethnic origin. Blacks are vastly more likely to be criminal than are whites or Chinese, for instance, but some whites and some Chinese are criminal. It is the criminality that should matter, not the race.
4). The above ideas are not particularly blue-sky. They roughly describe the policies of the country where I live -- Australia. I am critical of Australian policy only insofar as the "refugee" category for admission is concerned. All governments have tended to admit as refugees many undesirables. It seems to me that more should be required of them before refugees are admitted -- for instance a higher level of education or a business background.
5). Perhaps the most amusing assertion in the immigration debate is that high-income countries like the USA and Britain NEED illegal immigrants to do low-paid menial work. "Who will pick our crops?" (etc.) is the cry. How odd it is then that Australians get all the normal services of a modern economy WITHOUT illegal immigrants! Yes: Before the pandemic, you usually COULD buy a lettuce in Australia for a dollar or thereabouts. And Australia IS a major exporter of primary products.
6). I am a libertarian conservative so I reject the "open door" policy favoured by many libertarians and many Leftists. Both those groups tend to have a love of simplistic generalizations that fail to deal with the complexity of the real world. It seems to me that if a person has the right to say whom he/she will have living with him/her in his/her own house, so a nation has the right to admit to living among them only those individuals whom they choose.
I can be reached on jonjayray@hotmail.com -- or leave a comment on any post. Abusive comments will be deleted.
No comments:
Post a Comment