The EU should turn the boats around, tow them out to sea and point them back to where they come. If enough people don't make it home, they will eventually stop trying to emigrate where they are not wanted.
Interesting and revealing - not a surprise that we are taking the wrong lessons from Australia. My own view is that we will never solve this when we view it as an immigration problem. Europe needs to put itself in other's shoes. What we are seeing is an emigration problem from failed of failing states with poor governance, extreme poverty hunger and disease and often high levels of violence. These countries mostly have youthful demographics. Unless we find a way to address the source of the problem, no amount of border protection will last for long.
A very interesting article. For British readers, I must point out that there are several differences between the pushback operation carried out by the Royal Australian Navy and any such operation that might be ordered by the UK Government in the English Channel. I write as a former Royal Navy officer with over 20 years of seagoing experience.
First, the Australian operation was carried out in international waters, far from land. The boats involved were no doubt often unseaworthy but had at least been deemed suitable by the occupants for a long sea journey. In contrast, the boats crossing the Channel are inflatables with a freeboard of a few inches and are invariably heavily overloaded. They cannot safely be towed or somehow "pushed back" anywhere.
There are no international waters in the Channel. As soon as the boats leave French waters they are in UK waters. UK vessels cannot enter French waters to tow or push the boats back. While the Australian Government had significant diplomatic influence over the Indonesian response to their operation, the UK Government appears to have no influence whatsoever on French Government attitudes to migrants.
The people smuggling operation in the Channel is highly organised by ruthless people, far more so than the Australian experience, where organised crime was limited to the provision of boats. The article mentions a baby being thrown into the sea. We can be sure that, should the UK Government attempt push back, the people smugglers would ensure that every boat contained a number of women, children and babies. Once any entered the water, UK vessels would be legally and morally obliged to rescue them, at which point they would be legally in the UK. Whatever the legal position, as soon as the first migrant drowned during a push back operation the outcry would be immense and the operation would instantly become politically toxic.
In my professional opinion, push back in the Channel is a non-starter. The solution lies in eliminating the pull factors and detention, for as long as necessary, for all illegal migrants until they are deported or leave voluntarily.
This is one of the best articles I have ever read about cultural invasion - very well researched, and the conclusion is indisputable - turn them around BEFORE they get in.
Another lesson is, "how soon they forget, having taken so long to learn the first lesson through painstaking trial and error."
People have short memories, and are willing to make the same mistakes all over again once things settle down.
Such lessons are wasted on the next generation, which doesn't learn from history, and then naively wonders, "gee, I don't see what the big problem was before. It seems okay now. Let's try the same mistakes again. Maybe this time it will be different."
The EU should turn the boats around, tow them out to sea and point them back to where they come. If enough people don't make it home, they will eventually stop trying to emigrate where they are not wanted.
It is a shame that American policy makers of both parties do not read articles like this. Indeed they do not read at all.
Interesting and revealing - not a surprise that we are taking the wrong lessons from Australia. My own view is that we will never solve this when we view it as an immigration problem. Europe needs to put itself in other's shoes. What we are seeing is an emigration problem from failed of failing states with poor governance, extreme poverty hunger and disease and often high levels of violence. These countries mostly have youthful demographics. Unless we find a way to address the source of the problem, no amount of border protection will last for long.
What's with this "we," and why is it our responsibility to "find a way" to solve the problems of other countries?
"We" just need to keep them from bringing their crime, poverty, and disease into Western Civilization.
A very interesting article. For British readers, I must point out that there are several differences between the pushback operation carried out by the Royal Australian Navy and any such operation that might be ordered by the UK Government in the English Channel. I write as a former Royal Navy officer with over 20 years of seagoing experience.
First, the Australian operation was carried out in international waters, far from land. The boats involved were no doubt often unseaworthy but had at least been deemed suitable by the occupants for a long sea journey. In contrast, the boats crossing the Channel are inflatables with a freeboard of a few inches and are invariably heavily overloaded. They cannot safely be towed or somehow "pushed back" anywhere.
There are no international waters in the Channel. As soon as the boats leave French waters they are in UK waters. UK vessels cannot enter French waters to tow or push the boats back. While the Australian Government had significant diplomatic influence over the Indonesian response to their operation, the UK Government appears to have no influence whatsoever on French Government attitudes to migrants.
The people smuggling operation in the Channel is highly organised by ruthless people, far more so than the Australian experience, where organised crime was limited to the provision of boats. The article mentions a baby being thrown into the sea. We can be sure that, should the UK Government attempt push back, the people smugglers would ensure that every boat contained a number of women, children and babies. Once any entered the water, UK vessels would be legally and morally obliged to rescue them, at which point they would be legally in the UK. Whatever the legal position, as soon as the first migrant drowned during a push back operation the outcry would be immense and the operation would instantly become politically toxic.
In my professional opinion, push back in the Channel is a non-starter. The solution lies in eliminating the pull factors and detention, for as long as necessary, for all illegal migrants until they are deported or leave voluntarily.
This is one of the best articles I have ever read about cultural invasion - very well researched, and the conclusion is indisputable - turn them around BEFORE they get in.
Another lesson is, "how soon they forget, having taken so long to learn the first lesson through painstaking trial and error."
People have short memories, and are willing to make the same mistakes all over again once things settle down.
Such lessons are wasted on the next generation, which doesn't learn from history, and then naively wonders, "gee, I don't see what the big problem was before. It seems okay now. Let's try the same mistakes again. Maybe this time it will be different."
It's so interesting that the number of immigrants can continue to rise and people are much more accepting when things are done in a different way.