2005 July 07 Thursday
Britain, Four Euro Countries Agree To Asylum Deportation Charter Flights
Spain, France, Italy, Germany, and Britain have banded together to run charter aircraft flights to deport asylum seekers.
BRITAIN is to join four big EU states in joint charter flights to send home failed asylum seekers as part of the drive to increase the rate of removals from the country.
The aircraft, dubbed “Asylum Airways”, will fly from capital to capital picking up illegal migrants in an initiative agreed at a meeting of the interior ministers of the five biggest EU states.
Many British and European airlines refuse to accept asylum deportees on regular flights because of threatening behavior from previous deportees. The bundling together of deportees from multiple European countries will allow the use charter flights with much fewer empty seats.
Britain stll has a net inflow of rejected asylum applicants who stay on illegally.
The scheme will effectively set up a discrete charter airline, already dubbed "migrant-air", that will cut the cost of deportations and reduce the need to send those being deported back home on commercial airlines.
The scale of removals of illegal migrants in Britain needs to be stepped up sharply if the Home Office is to meet Tony Blair's target that the number of monthly total deportations exceeds the number of unfounded new asylum applications by the end of this year. In the first three months of 2005 3,000 were removed but 5,200 new unfounded asylum claims were lodged.
"Our idea is simple - we think that foreigners with no right or entitlement to be in our countries should not stay. They are in breach of our laws," said the French interior minister, Nicolas Sarkozy.
"So we have decided to combine our political and financial efforts and organise return flights for those foreigners whose residence papers are not in order."
My guess is that in response to the London bus and train bombings Blair will now be under pressure to deport far more people. Might the bombings have been prevented if all the asylum applicants had already been deported?
The proposal was agreed to at the Evian G5 meeting right before the Gleneagles G8 summit.
The idea - suggested by Spain - was accepted by Charles Clarke, the Home Secretary, and France, Italy and Germany, at a meeting at Evian on the French shore of Lake Geneva yesterday.
If asylum seekers or asylum grantees are found to have been involved in the London bombings then this proposal will be seen as too little too late.
More than likely, blood is already on the hands of the extreme leftists who most stridently pushed for such asylum safeguards. That the Western world needs to push such laws back is no surprise and is greatly needed.
Randall, I was discussing the asylum issue just today with someone from work (before I read your article, BTW). I guess great minds think alike. But, I wonder how many US politicians will understand the crux of the matter like us. I was listening to John McCain this morning discuss what we needed to do to prevent such attacks. He mentioned shoring up our shipyards and airports. Didn't once talk about changing asylum laws or Mexico- US border security. And he's considered one of the 'better,' more enlightened politicians out there... Sign of the times I guess.
I hope this doesn't come out wrong, but if the dozens of people who died in London cause Western World to change their immigration policy, it may actually prevent hundreds to thousands more lives from being lost in the future. Sadly, I suspect that the politicians will do nothing, and their deaths will be for vain.
No, McCain is not one of the better politicians out there. He's a consistent Open Borders advocate.
The British politicians are much further along the road toward immigration restriction. Labour still drags its feet in acting. But the political debate in Britain has a much larger restrictionist faction in the elites than does the United States. Partly that is because the process is further along here and more politicians in the US see a gain from catering to Hispanics at the expense of the rest of us.
Raj, I think that associating illegal immigration with terrorism betrays the same logical fallacy as associating Iraq with terrorism. My point being that there's no causal relationship between a person being/becoming a terrorist and the process by which the person entered the country.
"I think that associating illegal immigration with terrorism betrays the same logical fallacy as associating Iraq with terrorism. My point being that there's no causal relationship between a person being/becoming a terrorist and the process by which the person entered the country."
It depends how you define 'causal link.' If you're saying that the vast bulk of the legal and illegal immigrants are not going to be terrorists, you'd be correct. All of the 9-11 hijackers entered the country with valid immigration documents and weren't even illegal immmigrants (scroll down page for info):
We need to be asking ourselves if our immigration laws are strong enough. We need to be asking ouselves what the benefits are of our current immigration policy. I feel looking at our asylum laws for legal immigrants is a good place to start. Then, we should move on to questions regarding illegal immigration.
I have no doubt that the overwhelming, vast bulk of the Muslims in Britain aren't a threat to society. But, it only takes a handful of people to cause massive havoc, and the majority of Muslims seem to be too passive to take on their more extreme brethren. These ARE serious problems. If the Muslim society cannot offer us a good solution, it is unfortunately incumbent on the rest of society to take matters into its own hands.
One final question: Was our present immigration policy for legal immigrants (especially including asylum laws) that has likely helped so many non-citizens leave poorer, more despotic countries, worth 9-11?
That is what it came down to for me I suppose.
Raj, I think its better to turn the question around and ask, "Would 9-11 have happened irrespective of the immigration policy?" My answer is 'yes' it would.
Stephen, fair enough. But, I see no reason to fascilitate the actions of terrorists. In addition, I think your answer to your own question is more than debateable. I strongly doubt, for example, that with proper societal vigilance against intruders, Finland would as easily experience a 9-11 event given its immigration policy (first paragraph):
Understand, I was born here of immigrant parents. If America had Finland's immigration policy, people like me and Razib the atheist would be left out. IMO, America should make common sense adjustments and attract high IQ immigrants before it adopts a Finnish model.
debatable= debatable (doh!)
Current immigration and visa policies both helped the 9/11 attackers. A few data points:
1) Some of the 9/11 attackers bought fake IDs from some Hispanics in Virginia (from Honduras and Ecuador maybe?) who normally sell to Hispanic illegals. If we were kicking out all the Hispanic illegals and hunting down the fake ID purveyers then those IDs wouldn't have been so easy for the 9/11 attackers to get.
2) Some of the 9/11 attackers overstayed the visas. We don't have good enforcement against visa overstay for the same reason we don't it against illegal entry: The Open Borders lobby doesn't want it.
One proposal that would have stopped some of the 9/11 hijackers: Make visitor drivers licenses expire when visas expire. One or two of the 9/11 hijackers were pulled over for speeding and could have been deported.
3) Weak analysis of visa applications was done in part to cater to the Open Borders crowd. Some of the 9/11 attacker visa apps probably would have raised red flags if their apps had been processed more rigorously.
4) Some of the 9/11 attackers lived around and got help from Saudis living in the US. An episode in San Diego comes to mind. If we had fewer Saudis here that help would have been less.
The fact is, that these massive terror attacks have been committed by immigrants, and if the cohorts of immigrants were not absolutely necessary to admit, the immigration policies were to blame, and must be corrected. There is no necessity to take care of refugees in a rich country; they can always be lodged elsewhere. Tolerance for aggression is not a virtue, but perfectly vicious subversion. Assisted immigration, carried out with net public subsidy, is aggression on those who are made to pay, and it is an increase in the sum of aggression in a country. The way to reduce the sum of aggression in these societies is to start mass deportations of foreign aggressors, even if most are only grabbing some welfare. The terrorists are thus retaliated against; their hopes of winning a beachhead are brought down.
On brain draining the rest of the world: A lot of brighties can not do much with their brains in really backward countries. Here they can work as scientists and engineers.
I argue that the net effect of spreading the bright out over the world's population is to decrease the amount of useful mental work that the bright can do. They end up getting sucked down into dealing with the less bright.
For example consider the effects of the dumber immigrants into the United States: I figure one effect they have is that they pull smart people away from biomedical research and other scientific and technical pursuits and into medicine treatment delivery. As the population grows we need more doctors. But the population growth from Hispanics does not produce very many people who have the intellectual octane to be doctors. So more of the rest of the population effectively have to serve them and we pay taxes to hire the services of bright minds to serve them as doctors.
Similarly, some of the people who become defense attorneys and prosecutors and judges to deal with Hispanic criminals could have been business managers or financiers or done other more productive work.
We need to raise our own ratio of smart to dumb so that more of our smart people can do mental work that develops new kinds of goods and services.
Put it another way: What would help Africa more in the long term? More doctors in Africa or more scientists and engineers in America and Europe? I would argue the latter. (not that many really smart people can be brain drained from most of Africa)
Raj as you say, this is an area in which men of goodwill can reasonably disagree and still gain from the exchange of ideas.
Not sure what you mean about not being able to emigrate to Finland - their borders seem to be open to immigrants. My guess is that low numbers are because not many people can get there (or its too cold!). Here's some recent stats on Finnish immigration - lots of Iraqi's oddly enough.
Immigration should and must be carefully managed like any other government policy
In the past waves of immigration into the US have helped build the US into the great nation it is today.
A controlled quota of immigrants should be accepted one that dose not strain the country and allows for intergration.
A right "balance" should be made.
Stephen, I was going to look up more stats, but I think your Finnish immigration data supports my position. There is a miniscule number of foreigners in Finland relative to its total population.
Look at pg 8 of this pdf to see stats on Sweden's immigrants from 1998:
It says that in 1998, 19.7% of people living in Sweden were 'people of foreign origin.' Contrast that with Finland! I strongly doubt that people aren't immigrating to Finland b/c it's too cold when there is so much immigration already going to it equally cold neighbor Sweden. For some reason, Finland is one of the few Western European countries without an extensive history of immigration. It's called the "Japan" of Europe for good measure:
"In the past waves of immigration into the US have helped build the US into the great nation it is today."
We agree. Immiration should be encouraged by a country's native population if it can be shown to HELP the native population somehow (making the economy stronger, enhancing the country's total fertility rate without exorbitantly detrimental effects on crime, education or welfare...). Simply doing it without adequate thought to these indices is insufficient reason for promoting immigration in any country. Groups that have histories of 'improving' other countries (i.e. the Chinese in Malaysia or Indonesia or anywhere in the world, Ashkenazi Jews anywhere in the world, Indians in Fiji, Malaysia or the UAE...) need to be strongly considered. Of course, this rationale excludes consideration of cultural reasons for not supporting immigration. Changing a country's ethnic make-up should be examined closely for what cultural implications this would have.
I think we should set a pretty high standard for immigrants because desirable real estate has become an increasingly more limited commodity. Look at housing prices in Florida. They are finally getting expensive in many areas where they were affordable for years. California already has very high housing pricse. Ditto much of New England and New Jersey. The Washington DC area now has high and rising housing prices. Why crowd the country even more.
To people who say we have a lot of undeveloped land: Yes, and so does Australia. But it is highly undesirable. Few people want to live in North Dakota for example.
RP - i think the current system for legally obtaining a work-visa for special skills (HB1 i think it's called) is fairly good as is, based on my co-workers experiences. it requires a company to sponsor the person because they would like to hire him/her due to their special skill set which is not available domestically. as i understand it, it's virtually impossible for a poor, uneducated person to legally immigrate and stay in this country (please correct me, anyone, if this statement's not true). the biggest problem, as you repeatedly stress on this blog, is actually enforcing the laws to get rid of illegals. i'd prefer to not even consider race and let each candidate stand on his/her own merit.
i agree intelligence broadly correlates with race, and we'll end up letting in more immigrants from specific countries of origin, but let the market decide what skills are most needed. i doubt the genes that cause a person to look 'white' actually cause him to be smarter, just that they happen to occur in the same population sets that contain whatever genes do contribute to intelligence.
Antimerit immigration is associated with increasing hostility of welfarized immigrants towards those whom they parasitize. It selects for those with the most hostility against the host populations; when there is permitted, a mass influx on net public subsidy. We have not seen the worst yet; ghettoization is guaranteed to increase annually, if there is not a net outflow of those deficient in specific and general language ability. Racial and other quotas in recruitment mean guaranteed increases in conflict between populations. While welfare societies celebrate increasing diversity as if it could be a proper value, no one mentions that the meaning of diversity includes diversity of behavior. Valuing diversity of behavior and cultural and anticultural practices, necessarily includes the ~valuing!~ of rare kinds of terrorism. They are not only asking for it, these officials and scholars who valorize diversity this way, they must want these precise disasters and delight in them. Do not be fooled by any leftist crocodile tears for the victims.
Hilarious. Absolutely hilarious. Sending these failed asylum seekers out by plane, seat belts and all.
I doubt it will solve the underlying problems, though. European nations not only should severly restrict immigration, but only allow those with skills to compensate for the social problems caused by immigration.