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?