This article begins as a polemic against the alleged denial of human rights of those attempting to break European immigration laws, which is implicitly depicted as heartless and selfish.

Then near the end, it inexplicably makes a 180 degree turn on that count and attempts to argue that it's in Europe's own selfish best interests to attract as many immigrants as possible:

"... old and ageing Europe needs skilled and unskilled foreign labour to work in its factories, farm its agricultural lands and meet consumer demand in growing service industries. Tax payments by young workers are desperately needed to compensate for shrinking contributions to national coffers, funds which are needed to bolster health care systems and finance pensions."

This stupid and clearly disingenuous argument has been pushed ad nauseum by population growth pushers in Australia in recent years as if they are oblivious to the fact that its glaring self-contradiction has been pointed out inumerable times.

Who is going to supply "the skilled and unskilled foreign labour to work in [Europe's] factories, farm its agricultural lands," etc. when the current generation of immigrants age?

Should the aging workforce ever become the problem that the author insists that it is, there are plenty of other alternatives to indefinitely growing Europe's population. One is suggested in the article "Is population growth a Ponzi scheme?" of 17 Aug 09 on the Christian Science Monitor at http://features.csmonitor.com/economyrebuild/2009/08/17/economic-scene-is-population-growth-a-ponzi-scheme/ (also cited at http://candobetter.org/node/1484):

"And any labor shortage would fade if increasingly healthy older people worked an extra year or two before retiring to maintain their standard of living."

I think it's time we well and truly rejected that other oft-cited rationale for incessant importation of labour, that is, the need to remain 'competitive'.

Surely it's time nations should begin to cooperate with each other, instead of relentlessly competing, and in doing so, driving the living standards of ever larger sections of their respective populations ever further down.

(tobecontinued)

(continuedfromabove)

I would have though that it should be possible, in any properly functioning economy, run by capable Governments, acting in their peoples' best interests, to find the means to, over time, train sufficient numbers of people to meet all the needs of the people in that economy without excessively and indefinitely requiring more people to come from elsewhere.

However, it would appear that Shada Islam and other population growth pushers would disagree.

Furthermore, I think it's entirely appropriate that people in European nations take measures to stop themselves from becoming demographically overwhelmed by people from overpopulated regions of the world.

Of course, waging wars of aggression against the people of those regions and economic exploitation of their resources is entirely another matter, but I think I have made my stance clear on that (e.g in the "9/11 Truth" forum at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2166&page=83).

Well worth reading is “The Problem with the 1951 Refugee Convention” by Monash University academic Adrienne Millbank. It provides an appendix listing UN Member States and their status as being either signatories or non-signatories to the UN Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees.

http://www.aph.gov.au/library/Pubs/rp/2000-01/01rp05.htm

The following 45 African countries are UN member states and are signatories to the UN Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees: Algeria, Angola, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, Cote d'Ivoire, Djibouti, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Kenya, Lesotho. Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Rwanda, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Africa, Sudan, Swaziland, Tanzania, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, Zaire, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

So why is it necessary for African asylum seekers to travel long distances to Europe when there are many African countries close to their countries of origin where they could seek UNHCR protection. It seems the aim of the asylum seekers heading to Europe is not so much to escape persecution but to use the 1951 Refugee Convention to settle in affluent European nations. The 1951 Refugee Convention has become dysfunctional and is in great need of overhaul.

*The 1951 Refugee Convention has become dysfunctional and is in great need of overhaul.*

Hallelujah to that! At last somebody sees the light. Meantime the
rest try to invent more band aid solutions, rather then address
the core problem

There was an article I read on a web site of a UK soil association.
The article was headed like, "Can Britain Feed Itself ?".

The upshot was that it is unlikely that Britain could do other than
adopt war time rationing and home gardening if food imports stop.
The only relief would be by unloading some of its population.

There is no guarantee that food imports can continue in a energy
depleting world. The current tight world food supply is a forunner
of what is to come.
If you think illegal immigration is a problem now then I can only
see it getting worse.