Both the United States and EU have decided to tighten their already strict immigration laws. The measures to tackle illegal immigration introduced in the new immigration bill in the United States in many ways resembles the flaws already made in European Union.
The new bill includes the use of force by troops and police to stop immigrants from entering the United States. There are also plans to build a 700-mile fence on the Mexican border. All these measures have already been tried in EU with results of death and misery.
Last autumn, Europeans were shocked with news about African immigrants being killed in Spanish enclaves in Morocco while trying to reach European soil. Later, the Moroccan government expelled these migrants to the Sahara desert without food or water. Since December, these mostly Sub-Saharan African immigrants have changed their departure point from Morocco to Mauritania after the EU pressured Morocco to tighten its border control. The Red Cross estimates that more than 1,000 people have died since the beginning of this year trying to enter "Fortress Europe".
The United States is still the ultimate honey-pot that immigrants from below the border want to reach, but many, especially Africans without contacts in the States, start their new lives in Europe. Escaping poverty, hunger, wars, political persecution, and unemployment, these immigrants try to reach "the land of milk and honey". Unfortunately Europe doesn't seem to stand up for its reputation. During last autumn's riots in France, a young Frenchman said: "When you're an immigrant here, you're just stuck in your shit. Does it really surprise you it's going up in flames?"
The other similarity I find in immigration policies of both the U.S. and EU is the hypocrisy; even though western nations are dependent on immigrant labour to do jobs westerners don't want or simply filling the void in the labour market, politicians refuse to grant them any benefits enjoyed by the legal workforce. The naturalisation of immigrants' status would benefit both sides. The government would know who's living within its borders and could collect tax revenues; the immigrants would be granted a safer work environment and at least the minimum wage.
Article comments
1 - Bliffle
Maybe Edward Abbey had the right solution: "Meet the Mexcian fugitives at the border and equip each one with a gun and a map to Mexico City and tell them: 'Go'"
2 - RedTard
Ah, put the responsibility on the EU and US to solve everyone's problems. The white man's burden I guess. Is that the only answer anyone ever has to the world's problems?
3 - RedTard
So unless the US or EU transfers welfare payments to corrupt third world countries they'll continue to pump out poor hungry mouths and dump them on our shores to take care of. Blackmail if I ever heard it. Par for the course for a new world order socialist.
4 - Richard Brodie
How many billions of "desperate people" are there in the Southern world? Why should only those who are within walking distance of the EU or the US get to escape from their poor corrupt socialist homelands? Why stop at advocating that the prosperous and still somewhat capitalistic North should welcome all of these millions in? Why not advocate an outreach program, whereby the more remote billions are provided with transportation to Europe and America? Isn't it just as cruel to leave THEM out in the cold, without the opportuinity to collect Northern welfare, as it is to turn away those who happen to be lucky enough to be located near the gates?
THANK GOD the Europeans and the Americans are finally starting to wake up and realize that they will be DESTROYED, and the WHOLE WORLD turned into one big socialist hell-hole of a planet, if we don't do what our ancestors of 600 years ago had the courage and good sense to do at the gates of Vienna, and turn back the invading hordes.
5 - Sampsa
Thanks for your opinions guys.
Hi RedTard, I'm quite sure the article didn't mention anything about EU and the U.S. being responsible for solving all the world's problems or making welfare payments to corrupt countries. Correct me if I'm wrong. Blackmail, Hmm, you could tell us more about this conspiracy theory of yours.
Richard Brodie, I'm afraid you missed my point:
"The ideal situation for everyone would be to work and live in one's homeland."
The whole immigration tragedy could be avoided if politians would do something about the causes of this problem. I'm sure you wasn't serious, suggesting that the West should be afraid of trying to find right sollutions to solve this difficult issue.
Be warned... The tomatoe you just ate was picked up by one of the people who is out to destroy you. Scary stuff, isn't it?
6 - Nancy
Realistically, no one anywhere in any country wants an influx of the ignorant & uneducated (& therefore overwhelmingly poor, usually) if they can have the educated & intelligent. I don't care where they're from: I don't want Andy Capp (a lazy, idiotic, alcoholic English loser stereotype) any more than I want some criminally-inclined fugitive Afghan peasant who can only 'read' the Qu'ran or some ignoramus who's as illiterate in Spanish as he is in English. It's a tragic fact that those lowest on the intellectual & educational ladder are those that breed the fastest & the most. I think we would all be better off, whether in China or Chevy Chase, if reproduction was restricted somehow, to those who at least could prove they aren't the Marching Morons.
7 - Sampsa
Nancy, if I understood you correctly, you'd prefer improving conditions in the countries of origin, by helping people to help themselves through better educational possibilities and in this way make immigration obsolete.
March on!
8 - Nancy
I should think most people would prefer to stay at home & earn a decent living there among family & friends if they could, than to migrate elsewhere. There are the few who do like to travel on a permanent basis, but most humans are homebodies. I think improving conditions in every country would be preferable to only having good conditions in a few, w/everyone trying to squeeze in to those few. I also think it would be a good thing to restrict breeding at the same time. I don't think going as far as the Chinese have done (forcible abortion, etc.) is a good thing, but maybe financial incentives to people NOT to have kids - a tax on every kid over #2, for example, coupled with free tuition for families that limit themselves to 1 or 2 kids. People who insist on having more kids having to take classes on overpopulation & reproductive health.
9 - Arch Conservative
Just a warning to all BC psoters..... if you do not agree with Althenios regarding the subject of immigration he will call you an "ignorant racist".
10 - Nancy
Yah, but those not agreeing w/Althenios call HIM a leftist lunatic, so I guess it's a draw. Besides, he's at work just now, so can't respond.
11 - Sampsa
Nancy, there are couple of "buts" regarding your suggestions.
Firstly, poor countries lacking tax revenues can't come up with free tuition, nor can they offer social security or pentions. People earning one dollar a day or less can't save, or even dream of pention funds. Large families are the only security net that people have. When going gets from tuff to miserable, people with large families have it better. When parents get to "pention age" their children will take care of them.
Secondly, one should be conscious not to generalise these facts, myself included. Every country has a unique situation with unique ways to solve it. For example Afganistan or Tanzania hardly have too big populations but are still struggling with poverty. Poor governance, trade barriers, war, HIV... Very complicated issues in this development bussines.
12 - Nancy
Not to mention corruption. Look how many billions have been poured into Africa, only to end up in the private Swiss bank accounts of these tinhorn African warlords/"presidents" like that slimeball Mugabe. However, I contest that large families are a means of support for anyone in this days' world: kids no longer support aged parents, especially if they're struggling to support themselves & THEIR horde of kids. So much for that fallacy. Poor countries need to get strict about birth rates - and so do the rich ones, for that matter. High birth rates invariably mean poverty, when too many kids have to share too few resources available to the parents, and especially where the country itself has no resources because over the centuries its squandered them, drained by a huge surplus population, altho probably more by wasteful, greedy politicians & rulers.
13 - ss
Microloan programs have had decent success in stimulating local business development in developing countries. These programs usually 'go around' corrupt leadership by offering very low interest loans directly to would be entrepenaurs (entrepenaurs? me spell pretty english one day) in the poorer parts of developing countries. They're not handouts in the sense that the money is not given away (the loans are to be paid back), but they're also not for profit, and the seed money to get them started usually has to come from wealthy philanthropists or well off governments.
It just addresses one part of a very compex problem, but these programs should be radically expanded immediately.
IMHO
14 - Sampsa
Nancy, you're right on point with the corruption issue and the Swiss bank accounts, eventhough I wouldn't be so sure with that "pouring of billions into Africa" part. I wonder what's the balance between African countries paying their depths over and over again because of the interests and development and aid money. I'm afraid it's on the negative side for Africa. Without going further back in history, that is.
I hope there aren't children out there who will let their parents die.
Thanks Nancy for commenting...
SS, like you mentioned microloans have proved to be a very effective way to get people back on their feet. Good way to avoid giving things like tools for free just for people to neglect and misuse them to get yet another set for free.
I was involved with a small scale development cooperation working in northern-Ghana where local women groups found microloans very helpful. By the way, I've a travelogue of my trip to Ghana in my homepage (linked in my blog), nice country.
I believe microloans are quite common in South-Asia?
15 - ss
Sampsa, I don't want to claim I'm an expert, I've seen a couple of good documentaries on microloans though. I believe they were started by an Indian billionaire and philanthropist (I wish I could remember the man's name, and forget bin Laden's) and India still has the most microloan programs, though they are spreading. Israel has one for Palestinian women living in Israel, there's a really good documentary showing the challenges and problems of these programs once the businesses actually start to turn a profit based on the Isaeli program. As you mentioned they're popular in northwestern Africa, also the Phillipines and there are a few in South America.
Again, I don't mean to claim this will solve all immigration problems, but they seem to be really productive programs that would help prime alot of countries so if they do get some decent leadership, that leadership will have a population that's ready to make the most of foriegn aid. And that seems like the best solution to immigration/wealth imbalance problems we're going to get.
Definitley better than Fortress Europe/Fortress America, IMHO.
16 - Nancy
I have to agree, I've seen various articles & documentaries on those microloans, and they (the loans) are a dynamite idea. That's the kind of thinking outside the box stuff we all need to do in order to help poorer nations enrich themselves. Tourism would be a big draw if some of these damned 'rebels' & what-have-you would just can the violence. Ditto religious fanatics in places like Afghanistan. People would come & spend their money in droves if the stupid governments would be more welcoming & less dogmatic.
17 - Sampsa
Thank you my friends for a great conversation,
until the next article...(Nancy let me know when you post, so I can join for a debate :) )
Peace be on you !
Sampsa