|Submited on :||Sat, 7th of Jul 2018 - 09:51:19 AM|
|Post ID :||8wpnum|
|Post Name :||t3_8wpnum|
|Post Type :||link|
|Subreddit Type :||public|
|Subreddit ID :||t5_2qhnn|
IMF request for CPEC contract details declined
The borders question is really a question of whether Europe can move past traditional notions of the nation-state.
The immigration debate is changing. In Europe, mainstream politicians are advocating regional disembarkation platforms, where asylum claims are processed outside the EU, in North Africa. This will only succeed if countries work together and migrants are barred from claiming asylum in Europe itself. These measures will at best only buy some time in terms of public opinion, but they won't resolve this highly complex problem which includes, among other huge challenges, an exploding African population demographic, drought, civil wars, declining European birthrates. It's an illusion to believe that the migration problem can be stopped with half-measures.
Público laments the lack of a discussion about European values in the migration debate:
The debate about the refugee and migration crisis does not revolve around migrants or refugees. Instead it is about the EU and its Charter of Human Rights. The vision of a Europe and a world that applies the Union's basic values bounces off politicians who campaign for an illiberal democracy, like Viktor Orbán or Donald Trump. ... The far right (and its xenophobia) can be beaten. But for that the political leaders who defend the rule of law must also be coherent in the defence of their values. Macron and Merkel, who are trying to organise an anti-populist front in the EU, lack a coherent stance on the subject of migration.
Macron and Merkel, who are trying to organise an anti-populist front in the EU, lack a coherent stance on the subject of migration.
What coherent stance are the centrists supposed to have that is not opposed by many of their supporters?
I've long thought the simple solution to the EU's migration problem is to create an EU-level immigration authority which issues identities to immigrants, helps them settle in new places (ideally where they'd meet the greatest success integrating), and checks for security threats. The EU's solution to immigration now is just stupid. Letting each country set its own immigration policy, then effectively requiring reciprocity across the EU for whatever those rules are, is a race to the bottom in terms of screening and immigration applications. Then you add in the problem of poorer border states like Greece, which can't afford to process all the migrants they are receiving. So they can't process them, essentially just let them in, and now because one country chose to not enforce EU immigration law, everyone else has to cover the costs ad hoc on their own while bearing the security risk.
It all just seems so easily fixed by an EU level immigration authority, funded at the EU level, and adhering to immigration laws set at the EU level. Then the border enforcement question gets handled (because its fully funded, and adhering to laws that everyone in the EU agrees on), migrants get encouraged / funding to re-settle in places that want them, the EU keeps its fundamental value of freedom of movement, and everyone is happy.
the border enforcement question gets handled (because its fully funded, and adhering to laws that everyone in the EU agrees on), migrants get encouraged / funding to re-settle in places that want them, the EU keeps its fundamental value of freedom of movement, and everyone is happy.
Then EU would end quickly. No way would sovereign states accept foreign powers dictating immigration policy. The only palatable position right now is to stop migrants ever getting into Europe.
EU states are already allowing other states to dictate immigration policy, right now. Having an EU level immigration agency at least gives all states a voice in what that policy looks like. Right now, it's decided by whichever state decides to do the least enforcement.