For Europe, Cutting the Flow of Migrants Challenges Basic Ideals

What about the "basic ideals" of the rule of law? The freedom of movement of people within the EU agreement was agreed upon to apply to citizens of European member nations! It certainly does not logically extend to the legitimatization of the current forced invasion of Europe by potentially billions from the rest of the world! European leaders by allowing mass invasion of European southern (often hype corrupt and mafia controlled) nations and then these weak willed and incompetent nations conspiring to shove these invaders upon nations further north are acts of treason against the democratic majorities of citizens who live in all European countries. The only "basic ideal" that is being upheld by the empty headed and dishonest wailing support for these obvious invasions of the sovereignty of European common citizens is the entitlement that the rich and powerful in European societies still have to a never ending supply of submissive immigrant slave-wage labor.

One point to remember here - many of those thousands who marched into Europe were not Syrian. Most do not qualify for refugee status in any case. These arrivals are in Europe today because they paid a smuggler to bring them. The stark reality is the fact that no one knows exactly how many came (and are coming) and who they really are. Identity papers are easily purchased throughout Middle East. It is an undisputed fact that thousands traveled to Syria and Iraq to join ISIS. It is a probability that some of those individuals are now in Europe. This is not a good thing. It is quite ironic that there is much handwringing about the increase of right wing populists on the one hand but little is said publicly at least - about the cumulative impact of millions who view the entire concept of human rights so differently than Western Europeans.

Open borders as part of a liberal culture makes sense when immigrants are similar, of similar values and cultures they share with the host country. That was the liberal ideal which had been promulgated. I remember those conversations about the EU way back when it was just a vision being developed into reality. It was not meant to apply to those who can't assimilate.

Happily, most European counties are not populist and want to remain in the E.U. The populists, Hungary, Italy, Austria, part of Poland and part of Germany, make for an interesting mix. Formerly Communist countries, predominantly white and Catholic, have the most trouble accepting strangers and are the poorest in the E.U. Excepting Germany and Austria, they're quite happy to borrow money from the E.U. and not pay it back, which might be a principal reason for their staying. Germany, Austria, Poland and Italy have strong trade ties to the E.U., and only parts of Germany and Poland are populist. These countries realize the economic value of remaining part of the E.U. My clients are largely French, from the government and private sectors, but also from Africa and Madagascar. Some French think we pay too much for immigrants' care, but budget analysis doesn't bear this out. No one mentions losing their culture. Europe is quite culturally diverse and it would take a very long time to change European country's centuries-long cultures. This notion is a non-issue except among populists. But cities can get crowded. I like France's idea of creating commercial centers and industries, all green, in Africa to give Africans a source of real income, and relieve their desire to leave. Despite what you might read in the States, Europeans strongly support the E.U. We are richer than the U.S. and stronger together, facing threats from Trump and Russia.

There are 1.2 billion people in Africa. And the population of Africa is projected to double by 2050. The vast majority of Africans live in countries with corrupt governments and could make credible claims that they deserve asylum. But providing asylum in Europe is like trying to empty the ocean with a teaspoon. Perhaps a few Europeans are beginning to realize this, that it is hopeless to set up policies that provide for huge numbers of refugees, because those refugees will ultimately destroy the quality of life in Europe. Just as illegal immigrants are destroying the US gradually over time by increasing congestion and destroying the natural environment. US population increased from 240 million in 1986 when we passed the last immigration reform bill to about 327 million now. California is running out of water. We have found a euphemism for that. California is suffering from a drought. In spite of the drought condos pop up like mushrooms in the desert to make room for ever higher densities of people. Many of the poor are struggling to make it with two or three jobs. Many die early of cancer because they cannot afford cancer screenings. Why can't we afford universal health care? The reason is we encourage illegal immigrants to come into our country and have children who become automatic US citizens. Funds get shifted from universities to K12 education and corrections. The US has the highest incarceration rate in the world except for the Seychelles.

The world's population has doubled from roughly 3.2 billion to 7.6 billion since the 1960s. Those excess humans come from and have overwhelmed the 3rd world. This is due to a religious-based refusal to use birth control by young and old males, as well as those same religious patriarchies making birth control unavailable for young females. Most of the population increases in the coming decades - several more billions, will come from Africa and SE Asia. Europe, the UK and the U.S. are divided and struggling to absorb what's already migrated over past decades, and certainly can not soak up tens of millions - even hundreds of millions - more.

How does this challenge basic ideals? Basic ideals in Europe include equal rights for women, equal rights for homosexuals, respect for secular government, opposition to anti-semitism, sexual freedom, and more. The majority of migrants are opposed to these things. Cutting the flow is not "challenging" basic ideals, it's enforcing them. Why should liberal societies have to tolerate these intolerant migrants? And why is it always old, rich, white people with no children who are loudly insisting that liberal societies let them in?

"In addition, Germany will pass an immigration law by the end of the year that gives would-be immigrants the chance to apply for a work visa." Bad idea. This will only encourage more illegal immigration and will mark the beginning of a new phase of a continuing immigration disaster in Germany. This is reminiscent of the modifications that were made to the Gastarbeiter program in the 60's. Rather than sticking to the original plan of rotating the guest workers out after 2 years, to accommodate complaints from businesses about retraining costs, the Germans eliminated the very important "time bound" element of the program. The results of this idiocy are evident today throughout Germany. All so some businesses could save a few Deutschmarks.

If you don't want to see right wing leaders assuming power, encourage left wing leaders to assume a more moderate view of immigration, eg, that stronger enforcement of who comes in, how they arrive, and where/whether they stay, does not necessarily mean "abandoning cherished ideals." When everyone who opposes mass immigration is automatically derided as a racist, xenophobic populist, it doesn't turn out well. If you doubt me, look who our president is.

If an individual had a right under international law to enter another State because his own country was "in chaos" or "dangerous", hundreds of millions of people would be lining up to exercise their legal right to enter the US as well as the EU. In that position I would probably rather aim for Switzerland. There is, however, no such right, however loudly and frequently it may be proclaimed. A central problem with the post-war international Asylum Convention, that still applies in theory, is that it was designed to deal with a large, but limited, number of displaced people following a horrendous European cataclysm. It was not designed to regulate what in fact is mass migration of whole populations, driven by the understandable wish to move to safer, more prosperous and better governed lands. All this is explained lucidly by Professor Collier in his recent book on the present new phenomenon. Collier is a well known,very liberal, development economist with decades of experience in this field. He shows that the present asylum system is not fit for purpose, but he does NOT advocate loose, unregulated external borders as the answer. It is clear from his exposition of the current problems, and his criticism of the response, that he believes that Merkel's decision to embrace open borders was sheer madness, although he is too polite to use that expression. His proposed solutions are very different, and anyone interested in these issues has to read his book.

The West, as in the USA and Europe, have destabilized the Middle East since the discovery of oil there. Most recently, the Iraq War, unhinged a domino which knocked Syria out of balance along with the various Arab Spring uprisings. Libya is still a failed state after the collapse of Qadafi, through EU & US intervention. So, Merkel is an ogre for taking in refugees? EU & and US have got nothing to do with these conflicts???

Europe has survived major migrations and invasions in the past. The Persians were turned back at Salamis and Platea. The Huns were turned back too, and then the Ottomans. That's three times. But as someone who thinks that white societies are inherently racist and privileged, I'm thinking and hoping that this latest wave might just succeed. During those prior acts of exclusion, the rest of the world wasn't watching. But now, the entire human community is watching, and we have the interests of the migrants in mind. Just like the United States, we will be watching to see who wind up in cages, and the campaign of shame will be relentless! The future of Europe is brown. Europe's days of white privilege are drawing to a close!

When all the chancellors and leaders shaming the population for being anti-immigrant open their neighborhoods and children's schools to migrants, let me know. Same issue in the US: it's easy to support mass flows of poorly educated people when you know that you won't see them or be affected by them.

It is sad that any discussion on how to deal with migration fails to separate the issues of asylum, flight from warzones and migration for economic reasons. Migration generally means moving from one country to another country seeking a better life. Seeking a better life is a very understandable motive per se but whether the improvement sought is absence from persecution for political reasons (the "classic" ground for granting asylum), absence from constant fear for your life (warzones) or the hope for a higher standard of living (economical motivation) makes all the difference. If we fail to offer help to those in need of protection we go against what defines western societies ("love thy neighbour" if you are religious, humanism if you are not). On the other hand, limiting the number of those seeking a higher standard of living is not only ethical, it is vital for the cohesion of our societies. We therefore need to find ways to effectively and quickly determine whether a person is in need of protection. We need to discuss how we can best help those in need of protection and how we can send back those that aren't in a humane way. And we have to find ways to improve the standard of living in the countries of origin as otherwise any system we may come up with will occasionally be overloaded. Discussions help as there are no simple solutions. Racist resentments against particular religions and/or ethnicities don't.

Europe is unlike the US, Canada and Australia in that they do not share the tradition of taking in many millions of immigrants and refugees. Nor do they have the same land mass and expanding cities as we do. Europe will be destroyed if this continues unabated. And we're not too far behind them either. Immigration must be strongly regulated and this is the only thing that I agree about with Trump. Why should we destroy ourselves too?

End the wars and the contribution from the west leading to corruption and incompetence of governments or failed states, and then perhaps the steady stream of refugees would slow down to a trickle or stop. Just a thought.

NYT: "But is this the Europe of its founders, or is it something harsher, less optimistic and self-confident?" Maybe a Europe that's getting a little bit serious about controlling its external borders is "something harsher, less optimistic and self-confident", but it's much less suicidal.

Populist: derogatory term for democratic; used when democratic outcomes don't agree with the user's ideology.

It would be interesting to get a projection of losses due to trade constraint over, say, 10 years after national barriers are re-erected. Modeling.

The use of fear has become an ever popular tool used by those seeking to take power from the people. It seems democratic ideals are under attack around the world. What price will we pay for the weaponizing of fear and intolerance? Can democracy survive the attack?

I thought the whole idea to free movement was for people within the EU, so for example a French citizen could travel to Belgium or Italy without a visa or passport. Likewise, once someone came in with a passport or visa, they could travel anywhere in Europe instead of needing separate papers for each country. I agree completely with Mr. Kurz: “A Europe without internal borders can only exist,” he said, “if it has functioning external borders.” The undeveloped world will generate more refugees than the developed world can handle for the foreseeable future. We can't take all of them; we must control the flow to a level that we can handle without destabilizing our countries. The question should not be whether to allow immigration or not, it should be how much immigration to allow. When part of the polity wants it slowed down for whatever reasons, that is a legitimate part of debate in a democratic society.

the notion that the EU is open to all is not the case. as i know when arranging for a long sabbatical stay in Italy. I had to obtain a Schengen visa through the Italian consulate, which took about a month to accomplish. no hard feelings: the consul actually invited me into her office for a shared espresso when i finally picked up my passport with the visa Ypur article is misleading

“A Europe without internal borders can only exist,” he said, “if it has functioning external borders.” Same with the U.S.

European leaders are finally coming to the realization that millions of Muslims and Africans with little schooling possessing values fundamentally at odds with that of the West pose a grave risk to their countries. Legitimate asylum seekers are one thing, economic vagrants who end up scamming generous welfare states strain resources and create a backlash that allows for populists in power. Open borders are bad for America and bad for Europe. Nations have every right to protect the ethnic, religious and linguistic composition of their countries.

Mr. Kurz is correct. "No state or group of states can fail to protect its borders." However, it is not humane to merely shove people back to war torn countries. The key is to have an orderly process to review the plight of each individual. This takes time and money and usually infers some detention while such a review goes forward. The issue for Europe, though not as urgent as it was, is still a bubbling pot waiting to boil over with the next conflict in the Middle East or Africa. The US suffers from the same lack of procedure to effectively police the borders and to process those who are fleeing persecution. When migrants arrive and enter illegally this is not acceptable. There is no other country on earth that allows such behavior. It is difficult because I understand that many people are seeking a better life for themselves and their families. I do not despise them for breaking the law to enter a country better than their home country, but it is still breaking the law. It is like a man stealing bread to feed his family. You don't despise such a man but we are not going to change the laws on theft to accommodate him. Every immigrant must be willing to undergo vetting to seek asylum. If you show up at the border without papers you should be prepared to wait while you are processed. If you cross a border illegally every country should have the right to deport you immediately.

Even the far left socialists that comprise European government bureaucrats today are forced to come to their senses when their cultures and social safety net systems are overwhelmed by Muslim immigration. Now maybe they will also be forced to listen to the will and voices of their own citizens.

As long as countries in Central America, the Middle East, and Northern and Central Africa are unstable, people will leave and try to immigrate to Europe, the U.S. and other wealthier countries. Perhaps we need to start looking into helping these countries succeed so people do not want to flee them. I know many in America and Europe will say that helping these countries "isn't our problem", but it actually is. We also need to take climate change seriously as the refugee crises will only get worse and worse as more of this planet become uninhabitable.

ONE PROBLEM That has not been confronted in this sorry episode of immigrants seeking asylum in the EU so they can survive, is the fact that in the EU, birth rates are so low that there will not be enough workers to pay for social programs to maintain their elders. The ethnic groups that have the highest birth rate tend to be Muslim. So the center of gravity, politically and ethnically, will eventually shift, unless those who are already EU citizens increase the birth rates. After WW Ii, Germany had to import large numbers of Gast Arbiters, or "guest workers," mostly from Portugal and Turkey. Most from Portugal eventually returned, while many from Turkey remained and have lived in Germany for going on 4 generations now. Until the EU countries confront the demographic shift toward majorities of Muslim descent, they will find it extremely difficult to define immigration policies, both at international, as well as national borders. The ethnic center of gravity is shifting in Europe. Whether it continues to shift at its current rate or at higher or lower rates will depend upon the policy toward refugees and immigrants as well as the birth rate of those who ethically represent majorities in respective EU countries.