mead berger shevtsova garfinkle michta grygiel blankenhorn bayles
The European Immigration Crisis
2016: Deadliest Year Yet in the Med
Features Icon
show comments
  • gabrielsyme

    Kudos to TAI for continuing to cover this important issue and pointing towards the terrible consequences of Europe’s failed immigration policy. It is also good to see mention of the deaths en route to the Mediterranean – these deaths, unrecorded and uncounted, are probably similar, if not greater in number to those who perish at sea.

    If Europe wishes to admit refugees, they should resettle them directly from their origin countries (or adjacent refugee camps) in the number they determine. By implementing a policy of, “if you survive, you can stay” European nations are the indirect but indispensable cause of these thousands of deaths. I do not think it too much to say that the bien-pensant progressives that largely run Europe have the blood of thousands on their hands.

  • Andrew Allison

    Why is it that nobody seems to grasp the implications of “Millions and millions sub-Saharan Africans live in conditions that we would consider per se inhumane.”, namely, that given the opportunity sub-Saharan Africans will make living conditions in Europe inhumane?

    • Tom

      Because those implications aren’t there?

  • PierrePendre

    The “if you survive you can stay” culture is integral to the Jekyll and Hyde dilemma of European liberalism. There never was an EU welcome culture for mass migration. EU countries already cannot cope with the usual influx of Islamic immigration that has been routine over recent decades.

    There was early on an agonised realisation that progressive governments could not stop the vast, rolling migrant tide without resorting to measures which were incompatible with the progressivism, but no desire to draw the painful conclusions. Merkel caved and said she would take all-comers who could reach Germany and mobilised the political establishment and the ever-pliant media to pretend that there was no public dissent. But there is no doubt that European electorates are hostile to open borders, no matter how much noise activists make on their behalf, and mainstream politicians know that there is a limit to which this opposition can be contained.

    There is no way to stop the migrant tide which does not involve doing so by force or paying vast subsidies to the migrant-producing countries to keep them at home (and hoping the money doesn’t stick to the fingers of government kleptocrats). Whichever course the EU politicians take is guaranteed to enrage the pro-migrant lobby or taxpayers and, most probably, both.

    The Mediterranean drownings are entirely the responsibility of the migrants themselves and the people smugglers who send them to sea in unsafe boats that are overcrowded. The only way to prevent the deaths is to stop hoping that EU navies can rescue all those at risk before they get into difficulty or to provide shipping and embark all migrants who present themselves at Libyan ports. It goes without saying that the latter policy would cause a political conflagration across the EU. Americans will recognise the potential difficulties from their own experiences with Cuban and Haitian boat people.

    What is clear from all this chaos is that the open borders movement is a cruel deception and that uncontrolled immigration is unmanageable. Open borders can only work in Europe at the cost of an anti-capitalist social revolution which is not going to happen because only a tiny minority are interested in the extremist politics involved. At some point, circumstances will force the EU to be cruel to be kind and turn the migrants back. They have the Australian example in front of them.

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2017 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service