The arrival of unauthorised arrivals on the island of Kos depicted on 'Foreign Correspondent' last night typifies the unwillingness of Europe - the heart of Western civilisation- to protect itself from arrogant invaders who think that they have a right to enter any country they wish in search of a 'better life'. They are not refugees, nor are they
migrants as the politically correct, emasculated Europeans have taken to describing them.

These arrogant people, with their over-developed sense of entitlement, simply rock up in Greece, which surely has enough problems of its own, expecting to be given a documented go-head to travel anywhere in Europe. One cocky little spokesman admitted that he had no hope of entering Europe legally, but seemed quite sure he would be able to do so illegally.

It seems that the West has a death wish. I hope that our thankfully isolated banch of Western culture continues to appreciate our values and way of life, and our sovereignty, and that our politicians conintinue to protect them as the current givernment, for all its faults, is doing now.

Just a couple days ago it dawned on me that we haven't seen any new TV coverage of boats arriving in Italy for a few weeks. It got me wondering if there has perhaps been a covert adoption of the Australian model put into action.

Dear ttbn,

I've just read an interesting article by Nikolas
Feith Tan on this subject. He's a PhD fellow
with the Danish Institute for Human Rights at
Aarhus University and is an editor of "Asylum
Insight."

He claims that Europe will not adopt our border controls.
The reasons being are:

"The European Court of Human Rights has consistently upheld
the protection from returning a person (or persons) to a
place where they face a real risk of harm."

He points out that "In the past Italy was found in breach of
the European Court on Human Rights for pushing back migrants to
Libya under a deal with M. Gaddafi."

The second reason is humanitarian. Apparently, in Europe, three
overlapping aims dominate discourse on how to deal with
boats on the Mediterranean:

1) Saving lives at sea;
2) Protecting European borders;
3) Combating people smuggling;

The author tells us that "while the worst crises has given
rise to pressure to adopt a more scrutinised approach to
irregular migration, including through the Australian model,
the Union has thus far refused to back away from its
international legal and humanitarian obligations."

We're told that "Europe is at a crossroads on irregular
migration but the European Union's rejection of the
"Australian Solution" shows that even in a crisis the human
rights of asylum seekers matter."

I did not see the program you mention - on TV last night.
And I'm not sure if the fact that they are economic
migrants as you describe will have a future impact on the
European Union's decisions.

I guess we'll have to wait and see what develops.

I find this very interesting FOXY

The second reason is humanitarian. Apparently, in Europe, three
overlapping aims dominate discourse on how to deal with boats on the Mediterranean:

1) Saving lives at sea;
2) Protecting European borders;
3) Combating people smuggling;

Isn't that essentially what the Australian policy has achieved? Why are those three objectives regarded as a humanitarian approach if used by Europe, but inhumane when applied by Australia? Don't you see the hypocrisy?

Would it be wrong for Italy to consider protecting its people, it's fragile economy, even its culture over the needs of illegal immigrants (illegal in the sense they are using paid smugglers)?

No one is forcing these African immigrants onto boats, they are investing their savings in transportation in the hope they will gain permanent residency in Europe. If these immigrants are unhappy in Libya they do have other countries within the African continent they could go, but they are opting for Europe with its generous welfare system.

I don't blame anyone for trying to reach a better country to live in, but at the same time I don't see any reason any country has to accept them, if the country can prevent them from arriving in the first place.

Dear CH,

As stated earlier by the author - the European Union
has thus far refused to back the Australian model.
Even though Europe is in a crisis to them apparently
the Australian model goes against their international
legal and humanitarian obligations. According to Reuters
and other news sources the Australian model is too harsh
and inhumane.

Still it will be interesting if things change with the
continued increases of irregular migration.

Foxy, you didn't answer the question

Why are those three objectives regarded as a humanitarian approach if used by Europe, but inhumane when applied by Australia?

Foxy,

That's not surprising. I speak only for myself, of course, but I am very glad that I don't live in Europe, where they all seem to have turned to water. The loss of sovereignty between EU countries (no real borders for Europeans any more) seems to have been extended to Pakistan and other non- European countries. The whole thing defies common sense as far as I am concerned. I was very pleased that Rudd's grand plan to have similar 'community' with Asia died an ignominious death; so are the Asian countries, I believe.

From the Economist April 25, 2015
"THE European Union likes to boast that it is a force for good. But in the past ten days as many as 1,200 boat people have drowned in the waters of the Mediterranean. An unknown number were refugees from Syria, Eritrea and Somalia fleeing war or persecution. They perished in part because the EU’s policy on asylum is a moral and political failure."

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21649465-eus-policy-maritime-refugees-has-gone-disastrously-wrong-europes-boat-people

"Officials say 1m migrants are camped on the southern shore of the Mediterranean, waiting to embark on a life that is incomparably better than the one they are leaving behind."

Dear CH,

I think its a question of how these 3 overlapping
aims are applied by the Europeans as compared to
the Australian model. I would assume that the
Europeans are not keen to back away from their
legal and humanitarian obligations. And possibly
that is the difference between them and us. To the
Europeans it appears that human rights do matter.

However, Google the subject for yourself.

Asylum seekers riot in Bari italy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPv6u7CmCEo
Watch African migrants destroy southern Italy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fX73ggsMNEI
Calais: Three policemen against 2-300 illegal immigrants on the highway
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErwlKvhPQkE
There's another video going around on Facebook of that last incident taken from the cabin of one of the trucks before the Gendarmes arrived on the scene which shows the Africans trying to get into people's cars and in the description it talks about assaults and basically highway robbery all along the road to Calais.

Foxy, no the EU is staffed by people who don't care about human rights at all, they only care about their own image and these days they're completely open about their hatred of their own people, traditions and nations. The whole purpose of the EU asylum seeker policy is the prosecution of revenge against European traditionalists by the 1968 generation and a continuation of that platform by their younger successors, Google it if you want.

It's partially a matter of demography. The death rate has been reduced by modern western medicine. The birth rate has not been reduced sufficiently. Therefore the countries in question export the commodity in greatest surplus, people. Western ingenuity has created the problem and can possibly solve it.

1. Convene the most competent confectioners and have them concoct a delicious confection.
2. Include in this confection powerful aphrodisiacs, contraceptive material and dietary supplements.
3. Using the air forces of the developed countries drop these concoctions in the appropriate areas.
4.If a government protests stop the bombing in that nation and let the aroused and deprived population overthrow the government so bombing can be resumed.
5. If the Vatican protests drop the confections in that area.

How many will be too many ?
Europe is becoming one big tramp camp.
It will not be possible to feed and house all these illegals.
Senator Sara Hansen-Young is over there on the Med trying her hardest
to make the situation worse.
We were concerned about 1000 being drowned, but how many tens of thousands
will be drowned before anyone does anything.

However that is just one part of it. It would be interesting to find
out what the crime statistics have to show on these destitute or near
destitute people.
It all looks like an open invasion to me and if we had not cracked
down it is what we would be facing.

Asylum does not enter into the matter, it is irrelevant.

Foxy, you are a master at evading the substance of the question.

The quotes you cling to, to support your misconception that Europeans are more humanitarian than Australians, are not a reflection of the everyday person in the street. Just as most Australians support our current border policy, no matter how much you, Peeroh, Suse and Paul hate it, the same will be true in Italy.

Given the boats seem to have magically stopped crossing the Mediterranean, something must be happening that is effectively preventing them.

Go Google it yourself.

It will take a royal commission to see if Abbott's tactics are working or not, as we are not allowed to know. You can only imagine there is something dodgy going on, How many boats have been ordered from Vietnam to replace the ones that were not seaworthy. Cheaper than life boats apparently.

'It will take a royal commission to see if Abbott's tactics are working or not, as we are not allowed to know'

waste of money Doog. You already have the likes of Trigg making up stories to fit her narrative. She saw guns where there was no guns. Even when regressives 'know' they change what they see to fit their narrative. Look at Hanson Youngs encouragment of treachery.

runner, "You already have the likes of Trigg making up stories to fit her narrative. She saw guns where there was no guns"

That severely damaged her credibility as an independent witness.

Dear CH,

It seems to me that you're not really interested in
seeking answers but simply biting people.
Me especially.

That is not
a very attractive trait and in future it will
make me think twice about responding to any of your
questions.

I am not evading anything. I have tried to point out the
big differences that exist between Europe's treatment of
asylum seekers and the way in which our government treats
them. You seemed dissatisfied with my answers and I therefore
suggested that you Google the subject for yourself. There
are plenty of websites to choose from on the subject.

One is by Alecia Simmonds - "Four countries that treat asylum
seekers better than Australia."
Italy is one of them as it does list the differences between
Australia and Europe.

It's worth a read.

Here's another way in which Australia can better manage
refugees:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-10-14/mares-how-we-can-better-manage-refugees-5811458

By the time the ordinary European wakes up to what is happening, it will probably be too late to save Europe as we know it. They now have a fifth column in place that will make it impossible to return to a European Europe.

Even our own actions are probably too late to be effective in saving the Australia most of us love. We already have a fifth column in SBS, which will be obvious to any thinking Ozzie, when they broadcast their, much touted "Go back to where you came from program".

We are of course stupid in funding our leftist rag, the ABC, but not many there are traitorous. However is there another nation so stupid that it funds a subversive propaganda machine like the SBS.

SBS are very vocal in supporting the queue jumpers, illegals & gate crashers over existing citizens, who pay their salaries.

Adopting our border controls may slow the rot in Europe, but even here they are probably too late to really preserve the once great Oz.

Professor Trigg's is another offense that needs an enquiry into to find out Abbott's true agenda.
As an independent observer her findings are for the Un to assess not Abbott or [Dexta] Dutton.

Hasbeen misses the core of responsibilities, he is some sort of cocoon.

Hasbeen, the media in Sweden, Denmark and Norway leave the ABC for dead in terms of stupid, self hating, "progressive" rhetoric, it's appalling.
Don't even get me started on people like Hans Rosling, Olaf Palme or Mona Sahlin:
"I’ve often had that question, but I can’t think of what Swedish culture is. I think that is what makes us Swedes so envious of immigrants. You have a culture, an identity, something that ties you together. What do we have? We have Midsummer’s Eve and such corny things."
Across the board European politicians are enemies of Europe, the journalists and celebrities are beyond the pale and, sorry to be harsh but they just need to be rounded up and shot if anything is to change because they're simply incorrigible, Sweden is dead and gone, southern Italy is on the brink and England is not far behind.

I say before and ofen Australia is big place with lots of land we must take in everybody who wants to life here and it would make Australia a very happy place. All these peoples who leave Africa only want a safe place to live in and we are a safe place to live. People who say no to more people who live here is very racest. Australia is a very big place so millions of more people can come. Small country in Europe not expected to take a lot of people we understand that but here much diferent. You all understand that.

Don't you just love the sound of good old Hasbeen and JoM, salt-of-the-earth Aussies...lamenting what's wrong with Europe to the strains of rhetoric like this:

"... the journalists and celebrities are beyond the pale and, sorry to be harsh but they just need to be rounded up and shot if anything is to change because they're simply incorrigible..."

Yup - that's the Aussie spirit...

Lol!

Poirot,
You're right,it's got nothing to do with me and the Swedes deserve everything they get, unfortunately it would take a Napoleon, a Hitler or Julius Caesar and all the violence that messianic war chiefs bring to rectify the situation in Europe. Clearly I'm not the only one who thinks that liberal/progressive journalists should be made to pay with their lives for their views as we saw in Paris earlier in the year and in videos sent back from the front in Syria. Lord knows progressives spend enough time arguing that "racists" and "Fascists" need to be put to the sword if discovered and subjected to violence if we open our mouths, we racists tend to be far too "circumspect" in responding.
If Europeans want change it's up to them but in order to defeat the progressives and liberals they have to make the price of holding those views too high to bear, as they do in the Islamic State, Iran, Russia, Sub Saharan Africa and elsewhere.

Misanthrope,

Do you know what your psuedenom means? It means " a person who dislikes or distrusts other people or mankind in general." So why would you claim to care about people. And, if you intend to call people racist, you should learn to spell the word first!

The size of of Australia (2/3 uninhabitable) has nothing to do with allowing people to come just because the wish to. People should be trying to bring about peace in their own countries, not crowding ours and bludging of the hard work of Australians.

ttbn I know what my special word means perfectly well, its racest people like you that I don't like very much or trust very much. You should learn to be very kind and share all this beautifuil lands we have in Australie instead of been a greedy person. Been rude to me doesn't worry me from where I come from in Albania where we live in fear for years and years. You should be grateful you did not have to live in fear like me and my family, as well as all the people who get out of Africa countrys who run away from guns and bad men causing death. Instead of been greedy and stoping all the people from Africa country from coming here with peace.

Misanthrope,

Well, if you know what the word means, you don't even like yourself. It just doesn't mean disliking some people - it means everybody. As you come from Albania, you poor spelling and English is excusable. But don't call me racist (please not the spelling) sport. As an Albanian, you are probably a white European the same as I am.

You mention Africans. I have nothing against Africans. They, at least, are bone fide refugees SELECTED by the Australian Government to come here. Some are probably bone fide migrants who applied through the correct channels.

The topic, which I actually STARTED, is about illegal arrivals in Europe. But oh, no: Mr.

Name-calling Misanthrope has to go off topic and waffle and insult his hosts.

You need to learn about the geography of the country you apparently wish to live before you start blathering about how many "millions" we should be taking in and supporting because there are not enough jobs for the people already here.

Foxy, you said
"I am not evading anything. I have tried to point out the big differences that exist between Europe's treatment of asylum seekers and the way in which our government treats them."

Re-reading your posts I fail to see where you have pointed out any examples of the big differences, other than they haven't announced how they plan to stop the boats. Don't pretend Europe doesn't want to stop the boats, they are looking for a way to do it without appearing to do it.

In all honesty I don't know what you are hanging onto other than the belief Australia's policy cannot possibly be okay.

To call people who have fled their homes ‘arrogant invaders’ reveals meanness and a lack of compassion which in my opinion is all too prevalent in our society. Compassion is in order. Compassion is always in order.

There are around fifty million refugees in the world today. Poverty, war and oppression have caused them to flee their homes. There is no pressure on me to leave my home because I doubt that I would be better anywhere else. I sympathise with those who are not as fortunate. The government of Australia has passed laws who penalise people who have worked at or observed what goes on the detention centres and write or speak about what is happening in those centres. It is reasonable to think that conditions there are deplorable. Why else would the government want to prevent those conditions from being made public?

We can only take in a small portion of the refugees, and we can only alleviate the conditions that cause the situation to a limited extent.

However, we are not doing what we can do. Foreign aid wisely applied can alleviate the conditions which cause the flow of refugees. The Abbott government has cut back on foreign aid. Returning refugees to the source of their oppression will condemn some of them to more oppression and even death. The Australian Navy has turned Tamils fleeing Sri Lanka over to the Sri Lankan Navy. The Australian Labor Party has concurred in the actions of the current Australian government. The Australian government and the Labor opposition share a lack of compassion.

We can try to get together with other fortunate nations to change the situation. We can try to alleviate the desperate conditions in some countries. Limiting the flow of arms, population control, education – especially for women and equitable sharing of the earth’s resources are some of what can be done. Instead of seeing how tough and mean we can be let’s do what we can to make matters better.

CH,

"In all honesty I don't know what you are hanging onto other than the belief Australia's policy cannot possibly be okay."

Maybe because of things like this:

http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/more-asylum-seekers-have-died-on-manus-island-than-have-been-resettled-report-shows-20150716-gidi1b.html

"More asylum seekers have died on Manus Island than have been resettled, gay detainees are mistreated and refugees released from detention are not allowed to work or move freely, a human rights report says."

"Since then, not one has been resettled. This is despite Australian immigration officials confirming 129 detainees have been deemed genuine refugees.

Two asylum seekers sent to Manus have died – one killed during riots that swept through the detention centre and one from septicaemia after cutting his foot.

I can't see Europeans wanting to pursue a record like that.

Davd F,
Your brand of compassion could best be described as "xenophilia" and racism.
Poirot,
Fairfax,the ABC, HREOC, the RAC and UNHCR are not reliable sources of information regarding the character of illegal immigrants, and yes they have options, going home as directed ends their predicament in short order.

David f,

Your Australia-bashing has nothing to do with the topic. Your 'compassion' card shows your naivety and weakness. Peoples' individual compassion is directed as they see fit, not by you. I unashamedly have no feelings whatsover for so-called refugees who pull the wool over the eyes of people like you.

Your own assertion that we should be alleviating 'desparate situations' in some countries is a fine example of imperialist arrogance; your claim that Australia has not done its fair share is nonsense; your ignorance of the existence of non-disclosure laws already in place for government employees is appalling; you have no evidence that turning back illegals has seen more oppression, even death or, for that matter, any oppression in the first place.

You are able to go on about 'compassion' and deem me to be 'mean. I am able to say that people like you, constantly critisizing their own country on behalf of people they know nothing about, should be ashamed of themslves,

Dear CH,

I tried to point out the fact that Europe is
very adamant about sticking to their international
legal and human rights obligations. Australia is not.
Also there are big differences in the way Europeans
treat people compared to the very harsh policies that
our current government has enacted. This is not something
that is made up. This information is available on the web
and through various sources, including the article by
Alecia Simmonds that I mentioned earlier.

I realise that you do not understand my feelings on this
subject and the reasons for them. Perhaps if you were to do
some more research on the topic - you may see what it is
that we as a country - can do better.

Dear ttbn,

Australia bashing?

In Australia we have a great degree of freedom of speech. That comes with an obligation. The obligation is to use that speech to make things better. If we see that our country is doing wrong it is our obligation to point it out in the hope that the wrong will be corrected. In a totalitarian country we must be silent at the risk of punishment. When Australia punishes people for speaking out about what is happening in the detention centres the government is acting like the government of a tyranny where people must be silent. When I point out the wrong actions of the government I am speaking as a good citizen who recognises my obligation to speak out against wrong. Wrong does not become right when the wrong is committed by government. Australia does not have to continue the loathsome policies of the Abbott government in regard to asylum seekers. I can only hope enough other concerned citizens will add their voices so the policies will change.

Dear David F.,

I will add my voice to yours any time.

I'm sorry Foxy but it looks like you are trying to 'talk down' to me and I don't appreciate it. For example: "Perhaps if you were to do
some more research on the topic - you may see what it is that we as a country - can do better."

I have done my research and come to my own conclusions, which although are different than yours, are every bit as valid? I think what 'we as a country' are doing with border protection is better than what other Western countries are doing.

Its the condescending and superior stance combined with the diversion tactics of not answering a direct question with a to the point answer that puts us at such odds. I mean no disrespect to you when I ask you a question, and each time I receive your reply I think, why couldn't she just answer it.

I regard you as a nice and intelligent person, but I really dislike your inclination to argue from what appears to be a high horse position. I'm not saying this with an intention or expectation of changing you, I'm just sharing what it feels like to me, to read your replies to my questions.

Dear CH,

Thank You for letting me know
your feelings about the way I post and express myself.
I can assure you that I do not regard myself as being
"superior," in any way to anyone else.

I cannot help the way that I express myself -
that is the way I have been brought up. It is also
partly due to the way I have been educated. I attended an
all Girls' High School where we had an English Mistress
who insisted that we speak "properly." Not shorten words,
for example - we had to enunciate everything. And I mean
everything. Also, don't forget that English was not my
first language. My father spoke 8 languages. And we were
multi-lingual at home. I therefore took everything on board
that my English mistress taught me.

I do try to answer questions as best as I can.
I don't have the answers to
the big questions in life. I'm still on my own road to discovery.
I have been incredibly lucky, but everything is relative,
everything has its own story, and everyone has obstacles to
overcome. They are our greatest teachers.

All I can do is speak openly from the heart. My intentions
are to speak my mind without malice or anger - but just from
the depths of my truth.

Certainly there have been moments when I have said to myself
afterward - "I shouldn't have said that, or maybe I should
have said it differently." We all need to work on our presentation -
it is important to be conscious and compassionate and act with
civility. But I feel that we should also be secure and unafraid
of speaking our own mind. The only path to happiness is to
really be all that you can be.

As a wise person once wrote:

I'd rather be standing at the bottom of the mountain looking
up than at the top of the mountain looking down.

Cheers Foxy. Thank you for understanding and not taking offense.

Dear CH,

Thank You for being so patient and equally
for understanding me as well.

The topic begins: "Europe needs to adopt our border controls." How?

What nearly all people haven't covered on this topic has been where people have been jumping onto and into trucks to get into other countries in Europe to travel further - so in reality "to adopt our border controls", (with Australia surrounded by water) makes no sense.

In fact its impossible (to adopt our border controls) and the below link, with vision to watch shows that reality.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11675760/Video-showing-swarming-migrants-storming-UK-bound-truck-in-Calais-goes-viral.html

Will Australia be "turning back the trucks?" No and we can only truly really do that at Australian state/territory borders - and that's generally fruit and vegetable related.

//Europe Needs to Adopt our Border Controls//

Has it occurred to anybody that Europe is a vast continent composed of many sovereign nations and with very porous borders?

And that Australia is the only continent and sovereign nation in the world that has no land borders with any other nation?

How can our situation be translated into european? The politics are different, and the geography even more so.

Toni Lavis,

You have appealed to logic, reason and common sense. You do not belong on olo.

David F,

You are plainly anti-Australia. I've never seen you post anything postive about Australia, unless it is about some left wing rubbish that infests this site. You are a seditious old lefty who wouldn't say boo to a goose anywhere except via the ether. It is no wonder that undesirable illegal aliens thought we were a soft touch prior to Scott Morrison demonstrating how things should be done. I know we were talking about Europe, but you bleat the same nonsense about Australia every chance you get.

Some of your kind assert that there is a limit to free speeh - when speech goes against you, of course. I reject that idea, and believe anyone should be able say what they like: hence your drivel. But, I truly believe that accusing your own country of all sorts of 'cruelty' is disloyal and seditious. Given the threats to the West surrounding this topic, you could very well find yourself on wrong side of the law

Dear ttbn,

How dreary - seditious, lefty etc. You end up with threats of the law. You call names and make threats.

I am a law-abiding citizen using my free speech to criticise when I see something wrong. I am doing my duty as a good citizen. Anyone who cares for Australia would like to see the country do better. To keep silent in the face of wrong-doing is to give sanction to it. We do not live in Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia. We have the right to speak out and should exercise that right.

I certainly would not limit speech except where it causes a clear and present danger such as yelling 'fire' in crowded theatre where there is no fire. You have a clear right to call me names.

Sure, I have accused Australia of cruelty. The detention centres are cruel places. Turning Tamil asylum seekers over to the Sri Lankan navy is cruelty. It is neither disloyal nor seditious to point out wrong-doing. You choose to shut your eyes to Australian wrong-doing and to attack someone who mentions it. It is up to the citizens of country to point out the wrong their country does. If we remain silent the wrongs continue.

I think david f sometimes you are very smart with some people. They call you smarty person. The words are big big pride in your thinking. I thought you are a good man, but not so much because you think you are very smart over others I don't respect you to much now for this reason.

Dear misanthrope,

Thanks for your post. I shall try to be more respectful of the feelings of others.

David F,

Your carrying on doesn't make any difference. You are fantasising that somebody in Canberra says, "Oh, David F still thinks we are cruel with Tamils and we shouldn't lock up illegals; we really should be listening to him." Like hell! The government has actually toughened up while you have been blathering away, because that's what the majority of Australians wanted and voted for. You don't understand democracy at all. You are entitled to your opinions, but those opinions are totally irrelevant in the bigger picture.

As for being a law abiding citizen (which most people are, so no sainthood there), you might
have to start thinking about metadata, and how your opinions might look.

Dear ttbn,

I call it as I see it. When we start to worry about what we say because of how our opinions look we are giving up our freedom of speech.

I think I have a clearer idea of democracy than you have. You apparently think one should shut up if others don't like one's opinion. Free speech means exactly that. The fact that some might disagree or even find an opinion offensive is no reason not to express that opinion.

Hi there DAVID F...

I completely agree with you on the importance of 'free speech', unfortunately there are some instances where a person's opinion is either not welcome or utterly proscribed ? What does exist in Australia, is a healthy climate of 'freedom of speech', except when it isn't.

DavidF, I think you may appreciate the humour of this irreverent article re the current asylum seeker boat near Dampier, Western Australia today.

It apparently didn't hear that there are no longer any asylum seeker boats coming to our shores anymore, since Abbott has 'stopped the boats'.

Naughty, naughty little boat.....

http://www.sbs.com.au/comedy/article/2015/07/20/boat-unaware-boats-have-stopped-doesnt-stop