Which countries would you say are managing their borders successfully, Sass,

danivon wrote:Which countries would you say are managing their borders successfully, Sass,

What would Danivon's standard of success entail?

bbauska wrote:

danivon wrote:Which countries would you say are managing their borders successfully, Sass,

What would Danivon's standard of success entail?

Sass was the one who told us there were plenty of countries who can control their borders, so I will let him define his terms.

I think it's self evident that you can control who can come to live in your country if you've a mind to do it. It's difficult of course, especially so for liberal democracies who have scruples about human rights, but the idea that there's nothing you can do you may as well just accept everybody is nonsense. Australia manages pretty well. Granted, they have the sea as a natural frontier, but so does Italy and the Italian immigration system is in a state of complete collapse. The Aussies actively intervened to turn back the people-smuggling boats and reached agreements with nations outside of their territory to house asylum seekers in camps offshore where their claims can be processed before they're allowed to come in. This has led to a sharp dropoff in numbers of economic migrants into Australia. Italy could do something similar if it had a mind to. I'm sure a deal could be struck with Tunisia to house migrants intercepted at sea (we'd have to pay them a lot of money, but with the state of the Tunisian economy right now I reckon they'd go for it). That way, instead of operating a ferry service for tens of thousands of illegal immigrants, encouraging many more to take a chance on the same risky journey, we'd still be rescuing people but that rescue would not result in instant access to Europe. We could be doing these things, but we're not.

Does a country have the right to limit who and how aliens will enter?

Of so, then those who do not follow procedure are illegally entering, no?

To add onto what Sass said... I have picked up migrants attempting to enter illegally, both alive and dead. If there is nothing for a migrant to come to, they won't come.

Punish ANY business regardless of size that employs ANY illegal alien. Do not provide ANY government assistance to illegal aliens. Send ANY illegal alien back to home country and remove ANY foreign aid from a country that refuses them. Standardize all legislation at all levels of government regarding illegal aliens.

Illegal immigration will dry up.

bbauska

Do not provide ANY government assistance to illegal aliens.

No? If they're dying from thirst, don't given them water? If the children are hungry let them starve?

People become refugees because their homes are places where they are no longer safe. They often flee into the unknown with little in the way of a plan or support. The nations they flee into are sanctuaries more than they are destinations. (look up the history of sanctuary.)
For economic migrants, its true that they believe they will find opportunity and controlling how that opportunity is provided (at the employer level) cab provide a measure of control. The great fallacy in the US that economic migrants take jobs. They are given jobs, and usually exploited by their employers. Illegal immigration is largely caused by US employers.
But in Europe right now, the line between refugees and economic migrants is often hard to discern.

Consider what Pope Francis asked ...

If Catholic parishes in Europe all heed Pope Francis' call to provide refuge to 2 families seeking such, about 500,000 will be provided refuge.

The conditions of hospitality should conform more to the circumstances of the needy than to the economic anxieties of the wealthy.

If a nation has a Judea/Christian heritage, shouldn't that include Christ's call for the Golden Rule?
After all, we are all only one natural disaster away from becoming refugees.

Send ANY illegal alien back to home country and remove ANY foreign aid from a country that refuses them.

There's not many countries that ever refuse to take back their citizens. The difficulty is that it can be a cumbersome process to get them redocumented if they don't have a passport (which most of them don't of course). Your embassy has a duty to replace your passport if you've lost it, but they don't just hand them out like confetti. Generally they need to conduct checks to make sure that the person applying for a replacement passport is who they claim to be, and this can take time. In the case of illegal migrants they don't actually want a replacement passport because that moves them much closer to being removed, so they do whatever they can to obstruct the process or simply refuse to cooperate. Also, this kinds of work is not exactly top of the intray for embassy staff, so they don't have many people working on it and this creates further delays. That's especially true for embassies of third world countries which often operate with a skeleton staff that's already overworked (and these are exactly the sort of countries that contribute most of the illegal migrants). What it adds up to is a situation where illegal immigrants are caught, detained and then have to be released again because we can't get hold of a travel document for them and can't put them on a flight without one.

RickyP,
I am dealing with both the employer side and the Gov't assistance side of things. If an illegal immigrant is needing water, I would hope that a NGO would be stepping up. I think we can agree that NGOs provide assistance.

Sass,
If the country does not take them back, then no foreign aid. Give them 2 weeks. I am fairly sure they will choose the path of money.

It's more complicated than that unfortunately. How do we properly establish what their nationality is ? They could all claim to be Americans but you can be sure that the American embassy wouldn't just hand out a passport to anybody claiming to be citizen without first doing all of the proper checks. It's no different for any other nation and it's unreasonable to expect them to simply give a passport to anybody who we tell them is one of their citizens. Why should Pakistan just give a passport (and therefore give citizenship) to somebody who could easily be an Afghan or a Bangladeshi ? You can be damn sure we wouldn't do the same if the situation was reversed, we'd want to conduct proper checks to make sure they were entitled to a passport and that the name we were issuing it in was their real name. The checks typically involve face to face interviews with embassy staff who ask them questions about where they were born, who their parents are etc. It's not difficult to tell lies to frustrate this process.

My job is trying to progress people to a position where they can be removed. By far the most difficult aspect of that is the documentation process.

Fine. We drop them in Guantanamo.

bbauska wrote:Fine. We drop them in Guantanamo.

Kidding of course.

bbauska

If an illegal immigrant is needing water, I would hope that a NGO would be stepping up. I think we can agree that NGOs provide assistance.

If a nation is made up of compassionate people, if a nation is made up of people professing Judeo Christian values, that nations government should represent those people and provide the assistance that the nation would have them offer... (This has actually become an election issue in Canada by the way. The more generous responses by Leaders has lead to growing support for them)
Besides, there are many kinds of assistance, including relocation, that are the perview of governments. And only governments can provide legitimate security.

rickyp wrote:bbauska

If an illegal immigrant is needing water, I would hope that a NGO would be stepping up. I think we can agree that NGOs provide assistance.

If a nation is made up of compassionate people, if a nation is made up of people professing Judeo Christian values, that nations government should represent those people and provide the assistance that the nation would have them offer... (This has actually become an election issue in Canada by the way. The more generous responses by Leaders has lead to growing support for them)
Besides, there are many kinds of assistance, including relocation, that are the perview of governments. And only governments can provide legitimate security.

That is an odd comment from one who espouses separation of Church and State.

bbauska

That is an odd comment from one who espouses separation of Church and State.

A representative democracy means that the people are represented in their parliaments by representatives. And in the world forum as well.
If the people are generally welcoming, compassionate, and generous...they will want their government to represent that towards the rest of the world.
If the populace is predominately Christian, and practice the teachings of the Gospel why would they want their government to act differently then their personal beliefs? (By the way we can say the same about Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Bhuddists and Humanists. All espouse the rule of reciprocity that demands one be generous towards those in need).

I think it odd that the separation of church and state is used as a convenient excuse to evade the demands on behaviour of ones religion. The separation is of control over the mechanisms of state. Not over the conscience of the people. The separation is to respect the individual rights of citizens, not to deny the collective desire for actions that do not infringe upon individual rights.

Are you honestly saying that a government should practice the teachings of the religion that a majority of it's citizens?

That is quite the different view than what you have given in the past, RickyP.

Yes, a government should practice the teachings of the religion of a majority of it's citizens for the benefit of those citizens and legal immigrants.