Grab a weapon and go confront these invaders and see what happens when things turn violent. YOU will be the one arrested and punished. You won’t have public support behind you. This is the basic problem.

Most people are driven by emotion not reason. You can lecture them all you like about history, demographics, crime stats, and the like – you may even get them to nod along in agreement for a while – but the moment they see a dead child bobbing in the water, it’ll all fly out of their heads and they’ll begin keening and wringing their hands and demanding to LET THEM ALL IN NOW.

If you know a way of changing this I’d like to hear it.

And its up to us women to stop worrying about the safety and well being of stranger’s children when the unceasing arrival of all these undocumented Third Worlders puts our offspring at risk.
Altruism and misguided media-manipulated compassion could cause us to lose what is most precious..
Our children and their children.

Of course they are picked up off the African coast. Has any bright spark of a journalist ever asked how these travel-weary migrants manage to stay dry and keep their designer shoes so immaculate..after an arduous sea and desert crossing? Then there is the matter of relieving themselves. Do they all pee in bottles?

Whiskey,

The US Military has been a major force for integration and social mobility/change in the country.Until such time as we have a Pinochet running things, it will remain so. In the US it is essentially a Center-Right institution which has been used to carry out Center-Left goals.

Francis’ rule that the leaders of an institution will be more liberal than its rank and file applies here, or do you think Petraeus, Odierno and Colin Powell are a bunch of good ole boys.

Back when Mahathir Mohammed was running Malaysia, and serving as unoffical spokesman for the southeast Asian countries, he made the connection between trade and immigration explicit: if Australians wanted to join Asian regional trade organisations then Australia would have to have more Asian immigration.

This is why the Australian political/business elite reacted with such fury to Pauline Hanson and her campaign against Asian immigration: she was jeopardising a lot of valuable trade deals.

It’s not so much about guns or fencing. It’s about all these bureaucrats saying “no.” All they have to do is say “no” instead of “yes” and the invasion will stop.

The bureaucracy requires clients. It is a symbiotic relationship between the parasites and the bureaucracy that feeds them. Without the parasite, the bureaucracy cannot grow. Without growth that low level bureaucrat cannot advance in rank and power. So the bureaucrat has every incentive to encourage growth in the parasitic client class. The only disincentive to the bureaucrat is the citizen with his guns demanding fencing. Today our system is wildly unbalanced with zero fear in the bureaucrat class of a citizen uprising. This is entirely due to debt financing of the bureaucratic growth. If taxes had risen commensurate to increase in bureaucratic growth, the citizenry would be in the streets with pitchforks and torches burning effigies of politicians.

Who the hell are you? Your hostility towards me is what is filled with stupidity, and I suggest you take own your advice.

If nobody is going to stop this large scale illegal immigration, why even have all this Homeland Security? If we can’t stop illegal immigrants, how could we possible stop terrorists coming in the same way the illegal immigrants do? Meanwhile, security is shaking down granny. It’s a crazy world.

Australia is in a delicate position because of its large volume of trade with Asian countries. Denmark could get away with banning Afro/Asian immigration after 9/11 because its foreign trade is overwhelmingly with neighboring European countries, so there was no danger of annoying important trade partners. But if Australia were to do the same there would be serious diplomatic and economic consequences.

Asians will do nothing about it. They have, anyway, no standing to complain seeing how they all maintain extensive trade relations with themselves while maintaining strict immigration policies of their own against other Asians, to say nothing of non-Asian immigration.

Where’s the economic harm in limiting citizenship to white Australians while giving out, within reason, business visas to Chinese executives, Japanese tourists, and Taiwanese manufacturers. What I’ve described is effectively their own immigration policy; limit citizenship by ethnicity but keep commercial relations open.

The only thing holding back White Australia (you were right the first time, Mates) is white Australia’s willpower.

The obvious difference is that nobody cares if pirates are killed or imprisoned. Unarmed civilians are another matter.

Who says they’re unarmed? And if they are, at that moment, how do we know they’ll remain so? An ordinary kitchen knife, piece of wood, lead pipe, etc, are all potentially deadly weapons. Is a Swedish prison worse than being poor in Somalia? Of course prison only comes if you’re caught. And sometimes not even then.

Everyone is big on “compassion” for these criminal invaders. Right up until your wife or daughter is gang-raped or your son brutally beaten to death. Then it’s, “why didn’t the government protect us?” If you aren’t man enough to do what must be done to protect your family then just sit down and shut up – let the real men do the dirty work of stopping the invasion with minimal damage and cost to the citizens. It really is just that simple.

You really don’t have to be particularly sensitive, much less attuned to the abstract plight of billions, to despair over the migrant drownings and support reasonable preventative actions.

I lack compassion for the guy who sneaks into my house to eat my food, wear my clothing, have sex with my wife, and kick my dog. My goal is to protect my family and my property. If some invader gets hurt or killed during his effort to invade my home, my local police and state prosecutor will clap me on the back and say, “Well done!” (I live in a state with good self defense laws).

There is no difference between somebody invading my home and somebody invading my nation. Both were purchased through the blood, sweat, and tears of myself and my forebears. My nation I share with my countrymen whose forebears, like mine, risked everything to secure it for their posterity. This is not a moral ambiguity – this is life and death. I have a moral right to defend myself, my family, and my property.

The issue is that my government and the government’s of Europe no longer defend their citizens. They openly aid and assist invaders. They take my earnings at gunpoint and give them to invaders. They take my children and grandchildren’s earnings and give them to the invaders. They make me a slave to the invaders. I feel some compassion toward a third worlder who is too dumb or otherwise unable to build for himself a fulfilling life, but that ends the moment he decides he is entitled to invade my home and take what I have.

Seriously, what is the point of having a nation if you can’t protect it?

Because it’s 2015. It’s racist to prefer your little white children over brown children who want what you have. It’s racist for you to have a big house and cars when there are brown people who want those things. It’s racist to want to keep the money you were given by your employer when there are brown people who want money. Ergo it is immoral to stop brown people from entering your so-called nation. It is immoral to stop brown people from non-violently taking your cars or your home or your child’s meal. It is immoral to resist or even object to brown people taking what your ancestors built. Because it’s 2015, that’s why. You racist.

That’s why we need to patrol close to the embarkation points and board these overloaded leaky deathtraps and put the people safely on the shore before the boats sink and they drown. And if 100% are turned back, it will be a deterrent to others trying the voyage which will prevent more drownings.

That’s very compassionate of you. How does that approach work with Mexicans? Once sent back, do they just shrug their shoulders and go back to tending their garden in the ejido?

The only thing that stops this is a bit more forceful. And there will be loss of life. The key is filming it and then broadcasting that 24/7 in the countries from whence the invaders come. It is an invasion. The invaders come to take from the natives. It is an inherently violent act and can only be repelled by use of greater force. When everyone in Africa and Arabia sees that attempts to invade Europe are met with merciless final judgement, they will decide life at home is much better and stay put.

Related somewhat, you may be interested in this: UN human rights review: Countries line up to criticise Australia for its treatment of asylum seekers

Geneva: Australia has copped a barrage of criticism at a United Nations human rights forum over its treatment of asylum seekers on the high seas and in offshore detention centres.

But Australia was defiant as dozens of countries called on it to wind back or end boat turn-backs and mandatory detention, and grant refugees their full rights.

…

During the review, representatives from more than 100 countries gave recommendations on how Australia should improve its human rights record.

…

Countries including Brazil, Turkey, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Bangladesh – even Rwanda, Iran and North Korea – expressed concern over Australia’s treatment of refugees.

…

Many countries called for Australia to ratify ‘OPCAT’ – an international convention against torture, which would expose offshore asylum seeker detention centres to new international oversight and review.

Countries taking part in the review also noted Australia’s inadequate treatment of Indigenous people, the high level of violence against women, and the spread of Islamophobia.

France’s spokesman Thomas Wagner called for Australia to “develop alternatives to the mandatory detention of asylum seekers, especially when dealing with children”.

Germany’s representative said Australia should “critically review” offshore processing on Nauru and Manus Island.

He recommended Australia “remove children and their families, and other individuals at risk – in particular survivors of torture and trauma – from immigration detention centres”.

Bangladesh’s representative said Australia’s response to migrant arrivals had “set a poor benchmark”, calling for the repeal of mandatory detention for asylum seekers – and she was also concerned by “firsthand reports of discrimination and racism, particularly associated with Islamophobia”.

The United States encouraged Australia to “ensure humane treatment and respect for the human rights of asylum seekers, including those processed offshore”.

The US said the processing of refugees and asylum seekers should be “closely monitored”, though it stopped short of calling for the offshore centres to be closed.

Read the whole thing, it’s a classic.

For this to work it would have to be done quietly – out of sight and hearing – of the general population. The media would have to be on board with the project. There must be no public scandal (e.g. hysterical women shrieking and tearing their clothes in full view of the world.) In other words, conspiratorial methods. Ideally this process should be completely invisible except to the people carrying it out.

“A key problem in Europe is the veto power of the ghastly holier-than-thou politicians in continental parliaments (and I am not talking just about Merkel). Look in these videos (from Galliawatch) of the shock-horror to the suggestion that MENA immigrants will not in fact be a boon to Europe:”

Few things are worse than stuck-up, self-righteous female scolds. To be fair, though, the Right takes it too far and does our own side an enormous disservice when any of us refer to these immigrants as “human garbage” (assuming that was an accurate translation). They are people. They are people who will be of no benefit to our economies and will overwhelm us demographically and oppress us when they do. We need to say that clearly and forcefully, but never say things that allow our enemies to (legitimately) dismiss us as racists or inhumane.

“Human garbage”? I cringe when those on our side use such language. It’s the language which keeps us marginalized and in the minority.

By the way, if you don’t stop with this complaining the authorities will surely punish you by sending even more immigrants.

Yes, the Pegida marches at the beginning of the year are a case in point.

As some commenter pointed out above, the problem is not lack of efficient ships and planning. The problem is the navies and coast guards of European countries are being used to ferry the so-called called refugees across the Mediterranean safely to shore. They’re part of the problem, so far not a solution. I’d rather have them do nothing at all. Fewer refugee boats would make it to Europe, and certainly a smaller number of refugees would land on Europe were it not for their help.

“Has anyone drowned on the way to Japan?”

Heh, yeah, actually. From what I gather, midget subs full of North Korean commandoes would occasionally wash up on Japanese shores. Not quite the context you’re referring to, but it made me think about it nonetheless.

And the citizens of this fine old maritime city are suitably grateful to the British Navy for this munificent gift of 900 Africans many of whom are lounging outside the Jonica Hotel as I write this whilst others are wandering the city streets making it dangerous for women of all ages to go out after dark. The last time the Brits were this generous with Tarantinos was in 1940 at the Battle of Taranto.

None. They will have new targets in a European setting.

Slightly OT.

A key problem in Europe is the veto power of the ghastly holier-than-thou politicians in continental parliaments (and I am not talking just about Merkel).

Look in these videos (from Galliawatch) of the shock-horror to the suggestion that MENA immigrants will not in fact be a boon to Europe:

The second doesn’t have subtitles but the faces tell the story. You just know they would have loved being in the Red Guard.(The only two guys clapping are NF.)

The requirement is only to be firm, not ruthless. The Vietnamese boat people were in dire straits; the current mob of welfare invaders are voluntarily taking a modest gamble.

The incredibly weak posture of Europe has sent out a massive signal to the third world. Suckers be here!

Much of workable life in the world revolves around the idea that those who cross forbidden frontiers – virtual or otherwise – will be punished somehow. To wilfully allow or even encourage the collapsing of this fundamental understanding is to invite disaster.

The world’s most fecund civilisation must be put in jeopardy because press photographers might find another drowned child? If these people were taking joy trips around the Med in their overcrowded boats you would stop them; but when it comes to a cold, calculated and in many cases ill intentioned invasion your hands are tied?

That is the point. They want borders to disappear and as night follows the sinking of the sun, likewise European nations will vanish. And along with the defunct countries, the distinctive European people.

A few months ago, we heard van awful load of guff about the Rohingya of Burma, and their attempts to usurp other peoples’ countries by imposing themselves by boat.

Now we hear very little.
Rest assured that the hard headed and canny Thais etc didn’t let them in, and the whole thing just fizzled out.
Like it should do.

Even during the depression, the U.S.Navy sailed their ships around, just cutting grooves in the water, because that’s just what they do. Naval ships are not simply parked someplace waiting for a war to start. The battleships were tied up at Pearl Harbor on Sunday morning because they were taken out every Monday through Friday so sail around and do gunnery drill and so forth. So all those European ships can just intercept smugglers while their getting their training in. It doesn’t cost any more than sailing in circles, which they do anyway.

The obvious difference is that nobody cares if pirates are killed or imprisoned. Unarmed civilians are another matter.

What’s more important, the touchy feelings of Turkey and Libya and whoever, or the continued existence of Europe? Put the rescued people on the beach with a week’s supply of MREs, and if the Turks or Libyans object, let them send their own navies out to contest the matter. Why else are there guns, torpedoes, and missiles on warships?

“There is no cohesive maritime law of the sort you suggest between Greece and Turkey…”

According to who, you? They are both IMO and IAMSAR signatories and thus are bound in exactly the manner I previously described.

Why did you not know that? Why are you so ignorant about even the most basic tenets of the topic you pretend to be an expert on?

Why are you claiming anything when its clear you don’t know the first word of maritime law? What is your experience in this field? You read a “No Running” sign by a pool once?

You are entirely too ignorant, and too comfortable fabricating “facts” to support your twisted world view. Go back to your cave and stop inflicting your stupidity on others.

Australia is in a delicate position because of its large volume of trade with Asian countries. Denmark could get away with banning Afro/Asian immigration after 9/11 because its foreign trade is overwhelmingly with neighboring European countries, so there was no danger of annoying important trade partners. But if Australia were to do the same there would be serious diplomatic and economic consequences.

The best strategy would be a combination of these options, or of some of them, but without making a totalitarian police state out of your country. It’s best to put as many obstacles as possible in the way of the prospective immigrant. If he takes to the sea, he may be stopped and towed back. If he makes it to the coast of the country he wants to enter, his attempt to embark may be detected and foiled. If he makes it inland, he’ll still need to prove he’s living legally in the country to find work or claim welfare benefits. In this way, the immigrant has to be lucky over and over again, while those trying to stop him need only be lucky once.

“…hardline military intervention against migrants (and their countries of departure? … There have got to be alternatives.”

There might not be.

But let’s pursue that. You have a rapidly rising world population with a surplus of young men (and others) who want to go to where they perceive things to be best.

If they all come, you have a tragedy of the commons in the extreme.

What options exist other than direct military action against the illegals or their country of departure? Ignoring practicality, what can we think of?

1) No action, surrender. Invite the world. Place all these people under your legal jurisdiction. Make it work after the fact. No matter what you do, you can probably say that it worked. Who’s going to argue with the King of the World?

2) Pay them not to come. Not likely to work. Probably backfire. They will just have more to pay smugglers.

3) Make illegals illegal and make employing illegals illegal. Throw those who hire them in jail. Based on US experience, this is a non-starter. But it probably could be made to work, if really needed.

4) Police the borders. Not military mind you, and not at sea. Use coastal radars, essentially along the entire coasts of Europe. Whenever a boat lands that hasn’t been tracked by the radars as something that left a local port, have the police or coast guard show up for a security inspection. They did it in Beowulf, surely we can do it today. This would not be cheap. But it might be cheaper than using a Navy, if you mass-produced the radars. You probably have to put airport-type security around ports to make this work, which will be expensive also.

5) Have drones that fly off some platform close to the problem areas. Whenever radar spots a boat that has the profiler of a smuggler, drop down to about 100 feet and stay there. If the boat lets off illegals, make sure you get a count. Have the police respond as if to a crime scene or a prisoner escape. Have the drone(s) (you probably have to change them on account of fuel/range) stay with the boat. Keep a database of boats, like one of criminal faces. Let the boat owners know. File a formal complaint with wherever the boat comes from. Work out treaties with countries of origin, so the drones can stick with the boats all the way back. Then stick with at least one of the crew. Terminator spooky. Make it cost them. Each recorded boat corresponds to a fine of some amount. You can probably automate much of this, but it is also likely hilariously expensive, compared to just having a gunboat stop the boat.

6) Fingerprint verify everybody, everywhere, all the time. For instance, every visit the a motor vehicle department or other government agency, every visit to a medical clinic or doctor’s office… When you find someone someplace they don’t belong send them back to where they belong. (Given computers these days, “fingerprints” can also be faceprints or any other biometrics…) Yech! Talk about giving up freedom! Why should these people force us to do this?

7) Pay unemployed people to act as bounty hunters and call in people who can’t seem to converse in the local language.

8) Treat human smugglers as terrorists. Track them down and kill them. Seems stopping and turning around or towing back boats would be more humane.

9) Pay local militaries of the countries that are ports of embarcation to police their own ports. This is probably what was sort of happening with Libya’s Col. Gadawfy.

10) Re-colonize much of the world. Would this even take military action? Obviously if it’s morally unacceptable to deny these people the right to live in the West, under Western law, it’s equally morally unacceptable to deny their countrymen who remained behind that right. So clearly it’s out moral duty to run their home countries. But why go to all this trouble? And what if they are still unhappy?

11) Reinstate the draft, but only for people found to be illegal immigrants. Draft them for a significant period, say 5 years. Do not grant them citizenship or let them stay. Deploy them to their country of origin (we seem to be able to work out treaties to deploy troops all over the world). Have a US military ‘Development Command’ that is in charge of all these ‘Foreign Legions’. Make them do things like build roads, hospitals, waterworks, and infrastructure in their own country, working with the government of that country. Pay them very little (the same as any draftees). When their tour is up, discharge them in their country of origin.

12) What was that technology that Boeing was going to develop to guard the southern US border so that a fence would not have to be built? Ah, yes, the “Virtual Fence”, aka Project 28. A good example of the high-tech approach being expensive and a flop:

“…Homeland Security Department conditionally accepted the delivery of the first phase of Project 28 and awarded Boeing a $64 million contract for the next phase…

…the system “works about 30 percent of the time”. During a visit in early January 2008 to El Paso, Carney said that he saw an incident where two illegal immigrants crossed in front of a project camera. Carney said that a technician tried to electronically reposition the camera to track them, but the picture was out of focus, the camera moved too slowly, and the illegal immigrants got away.”

Of course, these things don’t work, right up until they do.

I suppose you could try a grid or line of buoys that did this. But working right on the water is likely very challenging. Although… there are a lot of smart buoys out there, a lot of the world’s met/climate data comes from automated buoys… You still have the problem of doing something about what you detect.

13) I guess I don’t see it as being too militaristic if a Coast Guard just does Coast Guard stuff. If the Coast Guard came across a group of frat buddies packed in like sardines on a boat like that, they’d probably tow them to shore and give them a fine for not having sufficient life-jackets on board. I just don’t see this as an evil-meany militaristic response. I kind of like it. Issue a fine to the boat owner for unsafe opeation, fine the passengers for lack of required gear, unload the passengers onto a nice safe deck, sail back to wherever they came from, towing their boat. Land them at the public pier in the main port of wherever they came from. Don’t bother to enforce the fine, but make them accumulate, so if you have to you can.

Oh, well. What are your alternatives?

“We’re dealing with some of the most volatile “real estate” in the entire world here, yet you make turning migrants back to the Middle East sound so straightforward.”

Who says they have to send them back to the Middle East?

Here’s the first sentence of the Wikipedia article titled “List of islands of Greece”: “Greece has an extremely large number of islands, with estimates ranging from somewhere around 1,200 to 6,000, depending on the minimum size to take into account. The number of inhabited islands is variously cited as between 166 and 227.”

Most of those islands, of course, are in the Aegean Sea between Greece and Turkey. The Greek government almost certainly owns many of them, particularly the uninhabited ones. Tow the refugees there, leave them there, tell them they will never be allowed on the mainland, and that they can choose to stay there as the island rapidly becomes overpopulated and runs out of food, or they can go back home. They’ll leave. New refugees will stop coming. The end.

but what if there are 200?

We scoop up 5 boatloads per trip.

British navy brings 900 migrants ashore in Italy
Some 900 migrants rescued from boats in the Mediterranean are brought to southern Italy’s Taranto by the British Navy ship HMS Bulwark

Amphibious speedboat boarding parties:

Sealegs Amphibious Vessel Training with Pete Bethune
…
He and his crew have their sights set on tackling illegal fishing off the African coast, starting this summer.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-34732609

Why Ethiopian women are having fewer children than their mothers

“In the capital, Addis Ababa, the fertility rate is estimated to be 1.7 – lower than the rate needed to keep the population steady.”

“Things are changing now. I think my children will have only two babies each,” says Mrs Ayenalem.”

Overly optimistic?

Italian navy searches for, boards and transports (in the wrong direction) 4,000 boat people in three days. Avg 1,333 day. Times 365 = 486,000.

Italy says 19 boat migrants die, thousands rescued this week
… Jul 19, 2014 …
the Italian Navy on Saturday, which has rescued more than 4,000 migrants in the last three days.

This will work if there are 20 people in the boat, but what if there are 200?

Then you’re gonna need a bigger boat. Oh, here’s one now, in the area for the express purpose of transporting migrants (in the wrong direction).

U.S. Navy Ships Bataan and Elrod Rescue 282 Persons from Sinking Vessel in Mediterranean Sea

Raw: Migrant Boat Capsizes, Hundreds Rescued
..
Nearly 400 migrants have been rescued and 25 bodies recovered after a fishing boat carrying an estimated 600 capsized today in the Mediterranean Sea north of Libya, an Italian Coast Guard official said. (Aug. 5)

Italy’s current naval infrastructure is capable of searching, intercepting, boarding and transporting 6,000 boat people on one weekend. That’s 3,000 a day. Times 365 = 1,095,000. Its just a matter of which shore you deposit them on.

The spring surge: 5,629 migrants are rescued from Mediterranean this weekend as traffickers take advantage of calmer seas
…
Between Friday and Sunday 5,629 migrants were picked up in the Sicilian Channel.

As if flooding their countries with foreigners would not cause controversy.

“Pirates” has such a negative connotation.
I propose “undocumented crewmen…er crewmembers.”

I recently spent a few hours on one of the many excellent maritime tracking sites trying to find precisely where one of my speculative investments had disappeared under water. (Postings may be thin, as they say, if Steve discovers these fascinating web sites.) Anyway, the striking thing is that there seems to be some kind of (security?) embargo of GPS signals for the South Eastern Mediterranean. Either that, or there is not a single ship currently working off North Africa between Cairo and Tripoli.

Around the corner, the Gulf of Aden is similarly devoid of marine activity East of Djibouti. Perusing the historical ‘density’ traces, it is clear that the well-used channel is as far North of Somalia as Possible, without getting too close to Yemen. (Talk about the devil and the deep blue sea, or is it a rock and a hard place?)

Any naval types out there who can shed any light on the missing data/ships.

Northrop Grumman E-2 Hawkeye
Turboprop
Year: 1964
Cruise speed: 294 MPH
Endurance: 6 hr

Medditrenean map.

Take an airbase in Crete. A plane patrolling a line from Crete to Syria flies the 600 miles in 2 hours, for a 4 hour round-trip. A boat going 10mph will travel 40 miles in this time, so worst case it would be 20mi away, well within radar range, so it could observe all traffic crossing its patrol line. Another plane going west could patrol the 600 miles from Crete to Sicily.

So two land based planes could observe all ships crossing a line from Syria to Sicily. Spotted ships could be interepted by floatplanes or helicopters. So you need 2 radar planes in the air, 2 being maintained, for a total of four. Plus several floatplanes or helicopters to intercept.

Maybe the Europeans can help Greece out by giving them weapons so they could enable a coastal defense militia. M2HB .50 Brownings, concertina wire, night vision and TOW missiles. The Brownings & TOWs could be mounted on motorcycles like the British Army did on their Scott Motor Machine Gun units in 1914. Greece could declare the coasts to be “no-go areas” for the, uh, “refugees.” This would be an extremely cheap way of putting out a “Trespassers Will Be Shot” sign and mean it. No military involvement at all.

Simply a Greek version of the UK “Home Guard” or “Local Defence Volunteers (LDV).”

There is no cohesive maritime law of the sort you suggest between Greece and Turkey, either side could get into major trouble for doing what you described, to the extent that there are even territorial disputes over whom the nearest safe beach actually belongs to. There are similar issues with other countries involved, though perhaps not as extreme. We’re dealing with some of the most volatile “real estate” in the entire world here, yet you make turning migrants back to the Middle East sound so straightforward. There is conflicting protocol and antagonistic communications, not least during emergencies, and I know for a fact that the professionals involved are undertrained, despite the strong maritime traditions of these countries. Look at the disgrace of an international rescue mission of the ferry that caught fire last winter, that included countries arguing over who-does-what and your-port-not-ours, while the passengers were still stuck on the burning ship.

There is enough naval power to physically stop migrants from ever reaching our shores, we all get that. Most commenters here seem to believe that ongoing, hardline military intervention against migrants (and their countries of departure?) is the only viable solution. There have got to be alternatives.

East Asians aren’t Europeans. They have a completely different attitude to these things. Scenes on TV of refugees (especially children) drowning or in chains will cause a storm of controversy in Europe.

Whiskey, you’re full of shit. Letting them in is more expensive than sending them back. It is expensive as hell to let them in: the cost of resettling them and paying them welfare for (at least) several years will come to tens of thousands of Euros per refugee. Their employment rates even after a decade in Europe will be abysmal. Multiply the costs by the tens of millions who will come if you let them. It is far cheaper to send a refugee back than to let him stay, and if you keep sending them back they will stop coming.

Napoleon, then a brigadier general during the later stages of the French Revolution, famously dispersed a Royalist mob on the streets of Paris with a “whiff of grapeshot” on 5 October 1795.

I’ll bet it would work well against boats. Use it, film it, put it on YouTube with the message, “Next?”

This is not much. That level of effort in the Med would NOT be enough to significantly impact illegal immigration. Ships can’t just stay on station forever, they need to refuel (only the US, Russian, and Chinese navies can refuel at sea with tankers) and resupply with food, etc. Crews get too tired when on station, even the US can only sustain operational tempos for so long.

What would be the order of effort to stop illegals from using the Med (AND THE ATLANTIC) to get into Europe? You would need about 10 Aircraft carriers to provide, on station, about 4-5 carriers in each region of the Med (West, Central, East) and the Atlantic (say North Africa to France); backed up with a task force of supply ships, protective destroyers, cruisers, and submarines that is substantial again per wiki, about 7,500 people and about 70 total air craft, a cruiser, destroyers, etc.

We are not talking about blue water naval operations. We are talking about the Mediterranean and maybe some activity along the Atlantic coast. Ships sailing in the Mediterranean are almost always in view of land, that’s why it was such an important trading route in the ancient world. Not much of a chance of getting lost. Keeping ships fueled and supplied is a piece of cake in the Med.

As far as needing 15 aircraft carriers in the Med, that’s crazy. They already have airfields in Sicily, Crete, Cyprus, Italy, Spain and Greece that would provide easy air coverage. It’s not that hard to intercept broken down, overloaded vessels that have no weapons. Heck, you could even use the famous Swedish Boghammars to do the job.

That’s silly stuff or are you some kind of troll. Obviously the White Australia policy (attenuated after WW2 and abandoned about 1966) is not going to be restored. More, all but deadbeat underclass and a few elderly people who carry on about Chinese purchases of real estate (actually restricted largely to new buildings) understand that Australia is doing very well out of the high quality immigration it has been and is getting from Asia.

I’m quite serious. Asians are not culturally interchangeable with whites because culture is inseparable from and based upon the inherent, varying, racial characteristics and abilities of each race: An Australian city of 90% Australian born Asians and 10% white Australians would never be culturally Australian; a city of 90% Australian born Poles and 10% Anglo Australians would be. If you had to choose between residing in one of those cities you would surely choose the city that’s 90% ethnic Polish, no?

As for political feasibility, the West’s diversity regime is flying to pieces, everywhere. When it eventually collapses I see no reason why White Australia couldn’t be revived.

And why so sure only the underclass and elderly oppose Asian immigration? Polls show white Australians are still dissatisfied with legal immigration and want reductions to it. If Australia were importing whites there certainly would not be as much opposition to legal immigration.

Europe is at this point doomed. They did not build a navy, and just as important, the WILL when they could. They’ll be overwhelmed in a few years, even if they brought back the ships assigned to Operation Atlanta, they would not be enough to do more than move the tides of people around where they are stationed — like the French tanks and aircraft in WWII, too few and too dispersed to make any difference.

Weren’t you the guy who said that, “if Israel ever fell,” it would be the death of Western Civilization? So how do you feel about the future of Western Civilization now?

I don’t follow this analogy. Can you elaborate on the ceding of Spain and the Balkans?

Israel has been making border concessions (Sinai, Gaza) to Arabs for decades, and too much of Israel’s elite would be happy to turn over more land (parts of Jerusalem, Golan) in exchange for tenuous, at best, promises of peace.

Thilo Sarrazin: … Africa, which has 1.2 billion people now and will have 4.4 billion by year 2100, is not a monkey on their back.

” That’s raycisss!!! Can you imagine if someone used that expression here?”

He didn’ t use that expression. The translator employed creative license.

Herr Sarrazin hat gesagt:
“Allerdings haben die Amerikaner auch nicht unser quantitatives Problem, denen sitzt nicht Afrika im Nacken, das heute 1,2 Milliarden Einwohner hat und im Jahr 2100 nach der UN-Prognose 4,4 Milliarden.”

Literally translated, it means, “However, the Americans also don’t have our quantitative problem, in that Africa doesn’t sit on their neck, which today has 1.2 billion residents and in 2100 will have 4.4 billion, according to the UN prognosis.”

Steve, the ships “assigned” to the anti-Piracy measures off Somalia are mostly not on station and are window dressing. As others noted the rules of action are very restricted. The anti-Piracy effort in Somalia is mostly the US Navy with some Chinese assistance.

Per Wikipedia:

At any one time, the European force size fluctuates according to the monsoon seasons, which determine the level of piracy. It typically consists of 5 to 10 surface combatants (naval ships), 1 to 2 auxiliary ships and 2 to 4 maritime patrol and reconnaissance aircraft. Including land-based personnel, Operation Atalanta consists of a total of around 2,000 military personnel. EU NAVFOR operates in a zone comprising the south of the Red Sea, the Gulf of Aden and the western part of the Indian Ocean including the Seychelles, which represents an area of 2,000,000 square nautical miles.
——————
This is not much. That level of effort in the Med would NOT be enough to significantly impact illegal immigration. Ships can’t just stay on station forever, they need to refuel (only the US, Russian, and Chinese navies can refuel at sea with tankers) and resupply with food, etc. Crews get too tired when on station, even the US can only sustain operational tempos for so long.

What would be the order of effort to stop illegals from using the Med (AND THE ATLANTIC) to get into Europe? You would need about 10 Aircraft carriers to provide, on station, about 4-5 carriers in each region of the Med (West, Central, East) and the Atlantic (say North Africa to France); backed up with a task force of supply ships, protective destroyers, cruisers, and submarines that is substantial again per wiki, about 7,500 people and about 70 total air craft, a cruiser, destroyers, etc.

Thus we are talking about not 2,500 personnel in Operation Atlanta but 7,500 for each Carrier Strike Group, and remember because of limitations of men and machines you would need about TEN to have on station about FIVE constantly

This would require about the level of funding as the US Navy. Europe is certainly capable of paying for that, but won’t because it would entail massive welfare cuts and subsidies for industry which are politically non starters.

No, you can’t do it on the cheap, smugglers have GPS, they don’t need to hug the shore line like in 1842, they can set out in any weather and operate from protected bases that Charles V found impossible to destroy.

Yes, Europe CAN stop the flow. But it costs money, blood, and effort. It won’t happen overnight and CANNOT BE DONE ON THE CHEAP.

Europe is at this point doomed. They did not build a navy, and just as important, the WILL when they could. They’ll be overwhelmed in a few years, even if they brought back the ships assigned to Operation Atlanta, they would not be enough to do more than move the tides of people around where they are stationed — like the French tanks and aircraft in WWII, too few and too dispersed to make any difference.

North African nations can colonize Europe faster than Europe can find the will, money, and expertise to build a navy capable of stopping them. A rusty old freighter can carry thousands while a task force capable of stopping it requires billions: radar systems, the men to operate them, helicopter ships, SEAL type assault teams, and so on are not cheap. Smugglers use disposable ships they pay little for; and European navies are too costly to build and maintain. Its a resource mismatch.

You really don’t have to be particularly sensitive, much less attuned to the abstract plight of billions, to despair over the migrant drownings and support reasonable preventative actions.

The most reasonable, and effective, preventative action would be a firm “NO” in advance.

Has anyone drowned on the way to Japan?

You are talking nonsense. The Med is relatively tame, the distances short. The requirement is to be prepared to be, in global, historic terms, just a little bit tough.

Lee Kwan Yew simply pushed refugee boats from Vietnam away when they were in much, much worse circumstances. This is in fact very close to the attitude towards migrants in the non-western world.

Lee himself said:

“In the weeks before Saigon fell, a huge armada of small boats and ships packed with refugees set out across the South China Sea, many headed for Singapore… I signalled that we should refuse them landing and get them to move on to countries with more space to receive them. A massive exercise started on 6 May. The Singapore Armed Forces repaired, refitted, reprovisioned, and sent out to sea a total of 64 vessels carrying more than 8,000 refugees. Many of the captains of these vessels had deliberately disabled their engines to avoid being sent off.”

The Anaconda Plan:

“…outline strategy for suppressing the Confederacy…

…the plan emphasized the blockade of the Southern ports…”

I think we can find instructions in the history books.

Use the British anti-slavery strategy.

As with illegal immigration to the US, a lot of this call for cheap immigrant labour is only a hair wide of the old call for slavery. It makes economic sense, right, so let’s do it! It’s good for the slaves. They are well taken care of. They would rather be slaves here than free there, don’t you see, because the don’t want to go back. It’s win-win!

In this modern quasi-penumbra of slavery, which side are you on?

Blockade of Africa:

“…The Blockade of Africa began in 1807 when Britain outlawed the Atlantic slave trade, making it illegal for British ships to transport slaves. The Royal Navy immediately established a presence off Africa to enforce the ban, called the West Africa Squadron. Although the ban initially applied only to British ships, Britain negotiated treaties with other countries to give the Royal Navy the right to intercept and search their ships for slaves…

…Some effort by the United States Navy was made to prevent the slave trade. This mostly consisted of patrols of the shores of the Americas and in the mid-Atlantic, the latter being largely unsuccessful due to the difficulty of intercepting ships in mid-ocean. As part of the Webster–Ashburton Treaty of 1842 it was agreed that both countries would work together on the abolition of the slave trade, which was deemed piracy, and to continue the blockade of Africa.

…in the middle of the 19th century there were around 25 vessels and 2,000 personnel with a further 1,000 local sailors…”

West Africa Squadron:

“…the West Africa Squadron (or Preventative Squadron)…

…The squadron’s task was to suppress the Atlantic slave trade by patrolling the coast of West Africa…

…At the height of its operations, the squadron employed a sixth of the Royal Navy fleet and marines…

…As the 19th century wore on, the Royal Navy also began interdicting slave trading in North Africa, the Middle East, and the Indian Ocean…

…The United States Navy assisted the West Africa Squadron, starting in 1820…”

Africa Squadron:

“…The Africa Squadron was a unit of the United States Navy that operated from 1819 to 1861 to suppress the slave trade along the coast of West Africa.

…The squadron also lacked support from the navy itself: Secretary of the Navy… was …an extreme supporter of… slavery, and assigned only a handful of ships…”

Sounds like the Africa Squadron, like today, was intended to be ineffective. People in high places engineering failure, who would have thought it possible.

So would all those now saying it couldn’t be done have been saying then that it was hopeless to try to stop the slave trade? Save us from the Neo-slavers.

“…there is pure evil emanating from this modern migrant crossing.”

There is. You would think responsible political leaders would not be pushing for it. Of course, it does go way back. Whoever decided to try to push regime change in Syria has a lot to answer for, bad as the regime was. But then again, most of the migrants aren’t Syrians, yes? Never let a crisis go to waste, and all that.

So the solution is to do nothing and allow evil to win? Not likely a good strategy. Spend your life as if it means something.

“Would hardline patrol deter migrants from continually trying to reach Europe? No.”

There’s that old saying that the price of peace is eternal vigilance. Similarly, things like Border Patrols and Coast Guards have to operate 24/7/365. It is a type of defense that is continual.

“Have you seen the easy descent into chaos at border control areas and refuge camps within Europe? Now imagine that at sea.”

Okay. Seems dangerous. Maybe you are too close to the problem. It would be better to keep these people from thinking it makes sense to go to sea.

What are you proposing? Do nothing? How is that going to end up any better? Are you trying to foster a Europe that is in chaos and up in arms and descending into LA-style ghetto-ization? One that all the Africans, Chinese, Pakistanis, Indians, and South Americans in the world know that they can move to, no problem, and go on welfare? A world of large-scale human trafficing? The African slave-crossing was brutal; let’s recreate something like it at global scale? How is that any better than a simple blockade/inspection of “ports of embarcation” and smuggler interdiction? If you look at the well-being of everyone over a 50-year period, what is the best thing to do now, at the moment?

Laws can be changed. Laws that are stupid should be changed. Isn’t that one of thing democracies are supposed to do?

My point was that I fear police and military interventions at sea have the potential to descend into chaos and violence, and it could lead to even more death. As to the rest of your comment, you can be anti-immigration and still be devastated by the people drowning, now numbering in the thousands this year alone. You really don’t have to be particularly sensitive, much less attuned to the abstract plight of billions, to despair over the migrant drownings and support reasonable preventative actions.

“Chum the water.”

You and Mark Eugenikos have come up with slightly different proposals, but, with a little compromise between you and Mark, a decent solution might be found that would constitute a workable program. One obvious compromise might be “let them swim” and “chum the water.” Just a suggestion.

BTW I proposed in a message about a month or so ago that one solution might be for the Greeks to sink a couple of rafts once they enter Greece’s territorial waters and make no attempt to rescue the passengers in the water and boldly announce that they will no longer tolerate any invasions of their territorial waters. In this day of ubiquitous cell phone cameras, I’m sure the word would soon spread to the refugees awaiting passage in Turkey, and the rafts would soon stop coming. I drew an analogy to shooting the first rioters who emerge from a store carrying a stolen TV or whatever. It may cost a few lives, but such a draconian approach would surely save more lives if administered promptly rather than letting a riot continue until it petered out—and it might discourage the thought of any future riots breaking out. How could Turkey possibly object when it is so prickly about the Soviets violating their precious air space?

A few years ago I was visiting a beach in the Netherlands. I found it funny that the entire horizon was full of naval ships, you know, in case England decides to invade again…

Surely the world’s greatest shipbuilders can send a few down south, if only they wanted to.

The problem is 100 per cent one of will, not of ability

Of course, this is obvious.

My guess is that it’s unthinkable until someone goes and does it. Then, hypocrisy being what it is, you just hold your head down, make soothing noises and let the people with the string stomachs work. This is what happens in every society where the unthinkable suddenly happens. You explain it away later. Think of the fences.

Being pretty well run also means a reasonable chance of upholding your side of bargain, because you would have something to lose, like reputation and trade opportunities. Also, your prisons are less likely to leak like a sieve. Imagine Eritrea and think how easy it would be for some of the governments on the other side of the Aden to set up a pipeline smuggling the smugglers jihadis etc out of Eritrea and back into their old jobs or some new ones.

Not really. Have you ever heard the one about the Navy captain pointing to his cannon and saying “There is my authority!”? Same idea.

Plus if he is engaged in life saving, which is not a hard thing to spin, he can put them down on any beach he wants, legally.

You don’t seem very knowledgeable about maritime law.

Look at this German girl with a “free hugs” sign around her neck:
https://vid.me/MhgQ

Regardless of where you stand on the rights of migrants in Europe, the thousands of capsized boats and drownings are a tear-your-hair-out tragedy.

The lives of at least 2 billion people on the planet are a “tear-your-hair-out tragedy”. In a few decades that number will double. By the end of the century it will triple. What’s your point?

I do respect your moral sensitivity, though. I encourage you to move to Africa and save some of them.

The Somalis should just purchase some snazzy Italian uniforms and call themselves a coast guard. Then kidnapping becomes “detaining”, ransoms “fines”, extortion for passage “tolls”, etc.

Other governments have been doing it for centuries. But Somalis are the world’s worst at PR.

“Would hardline patrol deter migrants from continually trying to reach Europe? No.”

Yes it would. But even if not, it’s not really relevant. We don’t assume that a police force will be able to stop crime allowing as to disband them at some future time. The police force must be employed – what’s the word? – continually. Illegal immigration is a condition, like any other, which requires an ongoing solution. That doesn’t mean the solution is really a failure.

“There is also this film footage of policemen at sea yelling and hitting at migrants to turn them away. If there are other, similar instances of this happening, it could easily have cost lives.”

Try walking into the White House or George Soros’s house uninvited and see if they don’t yell at you, subdue you, and even beat you to keep you out. Worse comes to worse, I’ll bet they might even shoot you. It might easily cost you your life. Would a video of that prove that Barack Obama and George Soros are cruel and inhumane?

The videos of police ‘inhumanity’ are propaganda tools of the smugglers and invaders.

These laws and treaties are merely an excuse for facilitating the invasion of Europe. They have no real power to bar European governments from securing their borders and turning back the migrants.

“The supposed legal difficulties are an absurd excuse for lack of will and maybe ingenuity when the ingenuity of lawyers can ensure major corporations like Apple and Google pay practically no tax where profits are really made and others can be found to justify torture and, no doubt and more closely relevant, extraordinary rendition.”

I don’t think it’s legal difficulties, per se. What Merkel has done probably isn’t legal.

What’s happening, in the US and Europe, is that those who want our countries to be invaded by the Third World are far more willing to use and abuse their power and completely break the law in order to see that happens, while those opposed to them are not.

Obama has completely gutted our immigration laws, and various leftist judges and bureaucrats have assisted him. Those opposed to mass invasion have not been willing to use and abuse their power to stop it.

Let’s not build a roof to keep out the rain. It will never work.

Let’s not build a wear a coat to protect ourselves from the cold.
It will never work.

Let’s not close and lock the door to keep out burglars. It will never work.

Seriously, what is the point of having a nation if you can’t protect it?

To me it’s entirely absurd that we have to “prove” that Europe is capable of stopping the migrants. Of course they’re capable. And of course they have boats in the Mediterranean to address the issue. The problem is that they’re using those boats to facilitate the invasion rather than stop it.

Many of the boats coming from Libya send distress signals just miles from Libyan waters. Rather than taking them back to Libya, which would put the ships back in action far sooner, the Europeans pick them up off their boats or out of the water and carry them the entire rest of the way to Europe.

This invasion is being facilitated by the governments of Europe.

There is not remotely any argument to be made that Europe doesn’t have the resources to secure its borders. The cost per migrant of supervising their arrival and then providing them government welfare is far higher than the cost of simply returning each one to the country from which he left, usually Turkey or Libya. You can then multiply that cost by the far larger numbers of migrants they have to deal with because the migrants know they will be allowed to settle in Europe. The total cost of facilitating this invasion will ultimately come to hundreds of billions of Euros. If Europe turned them back they would stop coming almost immediately.

The supposed legal difficulties are an absurd excuse for lack of will and maybe ingenuity when the ingenuity of lawyers can ensure major corporations like Apple and Google pay practically no tax where profits are really made and others can be found to justify torture and, no doubt and more closely relevant, extraordinary rendition.

If the Brits could fend off the mighty Nazis, Europeans can keep out the ragtag hordes.

It is all a matter of will.

But the will has wilted. Not because of any fear of what illegals think but what the globo-elites think.

Illegals don’t own the western media.

You make excellent points about the legal and cultural difficulties that stand in the way of prospective host countries taking action to disinvite their would-be guests.

Regarding treaties and conventions, an undiscussed meta-issue is why nations accede to them. The textbooks claim that governments sign and ratify them as the final steps in a decision process. In a democracy, this would reflect the will of the polity (hopefully enlightened self-interest, perhaps otherwise).

The reality seems to be much simpler: a nation must abide by treaties because we say so. The identity of the “we” in that sentence is the crux, of course. It is certainly not the citizens or the voters of the nation in question.

One corollary relevant to Sarrazin’s suggestions is that citizens and voters have no right to modify their treaty obligations in response to changed circumstances. Without our approval.

The results of the two missions are for the same reason

The anti-pirate patrol is in support of globalism and the profits of the globalists. Can’t have pirates cutting into the profits of the globalist trading system. So they shoot up the small boats of the pirates

The ships in the Mediterranean are there to assist the mass movement of people into Europe in support of the globalist goal of destroying national borders. So they pick up the “refugees” from small boats a few miles off the African coast and deliver them to Europe

The Royal Navy has a vessel deployed, it is picking up migrants from the sea and ferrying them across. It really is a conscious choice being made by the media/political class.

So begins the Danegeld.

That would require cooperation by the country of origin, which is mostly non-existent, and in the case of Greece and Turkey, any violation of territory or other naval infraction would make Turkey actively hostile to such efforts, not just uncooperative.

Can such patrol physically stop migrants, and does it save lives? Yes and yes. As I said, the major issue here is the volatile bilateral relations between the respective countries of arrival and departure, and conflicting pan-European protocol concerning refugees. Australia this ain’t. Would hardline patrol deter migrants from continually trying to reach Europe? No.

Migrants have destroyed their own boats, ones carrying infants, in order to gain speeded access to care and rights, and used their own children as props in revolts against European border control and other authorities. We cannot begin to grasp their desperation and the lengths they will go to. Have you seen the easy descent into chaos at border control areas and refuge camps within Europe? Now imagine that at sea.

There are a lot of complicated laws and treaties concerning military/police intervention at sea, not least concerning treatment of refugees
…
There is also this film footage of policemen at sea yelling and hitting at migrants to turn them away. If there are other, similar instances of this happening, it could easily have cost lives.

If humanitarian concerns gives a boat filled with refugees right-of-way and license to violate territorial waters and to disembark on the shore, can not these same humanitarian concerns give the very same boat filled with refugees but towed by a coast guard ship right-of-way into the territorial waters of their country of origin and license to disembark on their home shore?

It’s not a great mystery. The EU values the major energy and commercial shipping lanes that the Somali pirates harass more highly than it values border controls.

Regardless of where you stand on the rights of migrants in Europe, the thousands of capsized boats and drownings are a tear-your-hair-out tragedy.

Agree 100%. That’s why we need to patrol close to the embarkation points and board these overloaded leaky deathtraps and put the people safely on the shore before the boats sink and they drown. And if 100% are turned back, it will be a deterrent to others trying the voyage which will prevent more drownings.

Check out the British security services’ priorities.

Frigates aren’t capital ships.

Why not just gas all the white people to death so that all the high IQ East Asians can settle faster?

Well I’d say that there are distinctly mixed feelings about the large number of Asians settling in Australia . Many do assimilate well but many also never quite fit in ( especially South Asians ) Of course Muslims and Sub saharan Africans are a disaster . Difficult to generalise but look forward to a country of Asian doctors and dentists

the mission in the indian ocean is a joke itself of course. At least the german ships are not allowed to do anything significant (like shooting at pirates). What they do is pushing some diesel in the air and the sea and not much more

Karel Doorman-class frigate
1 x Oto Melara 76mm (3 inch) gun
16 x VLS firing RIM-7 Sea Sparrow Anti-air Missile
8 x Launcher firing Boeing Harpoon
2 x Twin torpedo tubes firing Mk.46 Torpedoes
[cost ???]

A tad much to stop overloaded crappy boats. Better (and cheaper) would be floatplanes. They could search a large area. It could land in the water and deploy an inflateable boat for boarding. Then a tugboat could be sent over for towing.

Any naval officer who does this will become a social pariah. He and his family may even be attacked.

He’d be a hero. Everyone believes in borders, at least for their own country.

A lot of the times, I think you point out the obvious while msm is wilfully ignorant, but here the issue is a lot more complex. I live far closer to the action than you do. It’s not that affected NATO members, and in particular the defense ministries of first-arrival countries, haven’t considered naval intervention to defend their sovereignty. Of course it would be totally possible to turn away trafficked boats, ridiculously simple at some popular points of arrival, in fact. But it opens a whole other can of worms. The difficulty is in laws and treaties, and protection of human lives, not practical feasibility.

There are a lot of complicated laws and treaties concerning military/police intervention at sea, not least concerning treatment of refugees (or alleged refugees, i.e. economic immigrants in the midst of genuine war/political refugees; in this case it doesn’t make a practical difference). I’m most familiar with the case of Greece and Turkey, but a lot of this applies to other countries too. The Greek navy or even local police on boat cannot just approach a boat and turn them away, much less chaperone them back to where they came from. This is only compounded by their volatile relationship with Turkey. Also, seeking out and punishing traffickers requires murky negotiations for which laws and protocol are mostly not in place. Turkey (and to be fair, this would be true of other countries) doesn’t even actually want to host the migrants, so they have a further incentive to obstruct the legal process (or even protect the traffickers?).

Also, I’m not going to get too much into the non-military, human element, but there is pure evil emanating from this modern migrant crossing. Regardless of where you stand on the rights of migrants in Europe, the thousands of capsized boats and drownings are a tear-your-hair-out tragedy. As we know, many of these deaths are not accidents, but brought on by the traffickers and migrants themselves. There is also this film footage of policemen at sea yelling and hitting at migrants to turn them away. If there are other, similar instances of this happening, it could easily have cost lives. I fear more robust naval intervention and its potential for violence, on both sides, and murder of the most vulnerable.

Indeed.

What is the point of having a navy if it doesn’t defend your coastline?

The point is to commit aggression.

Aggression against foreign nations, and aggression against the homeland as well.

Somebody apparently thought European navies can do something about smuggling:

Maritime Task Force:

“..the MTF is under the command of Rear Admiral Wagner Lopes de Moraes Zamith of Brazil. The Brazilian frigate Constituição is the flagship of the fleet comprising vessels from Brazil, Bangladesh, Germany, Greece, Indonesia and Turkey. After the 2006 Lebanon War, the UNIFIL Maritime Task Force (MTF) was established to assist the Lebanese Naval Forces in preventing the smuggling of illegal shipments in general and armament shipments in particular. With its establishment in October 2006, the force was led by the German Navy which was also the major contributor to the force. The Germans lead the MTF up until 29 February 2008 when they passed control over to EUROMARFOR – a force made up of ships from Portugal, Spain, Italy and France (of which the latter three countries sent vessels to the force in Lebanon)…”

EUROMARFOR:

“…The European Maritime Force (Euromarfor or EMF) is a non-standing, military force with the current participation of France, Italy, Portugal and Spain…

…activation time of 5 days after an order is received…

…sea control, humanitarian missions, peacekeeping operations, crisis response operations, and peace enforcement.

…Spain, Portugal, France and Italy stated their willingness to create an international maritime force.”

I think my last comment didn’t go through for some reason. But I was wondering what is the likelihood that they would use a sketch with that song while Trump was the host and not be influenced by you? That’s not a new song so it isn’t relevant, and you recently used it.

I wonder how deep and pervasive your influence is. I’ve noticed a lot of talk about the Chinese women using our 14th amendment to make little American citizens. You are the only one, other than the rest of VDARE, that has ever brought attention to such fraud.

I wonder and hope that someone with a louder voice than you, like Coulter, is whispering into Trump’s ear about you…

NATO really needs to be downsized with resources transfered to Frontex.

The names don’t really matter. If anyone really wanted to solve this problem, it would be amazing how fast there would be some sort of ad-hoc combined naval operations group conducting Med maritime security operations:

“…Maritime security operations (MSO) are the actions of modern naval forces to “combat sea–based terrorism and other illegal activities, such as hijacking, piracy, and slavery, also known as human trafficking.

…requires inspections and, at times, forced boardings of vessels at sea. These actions are called visit, board, search, and seizure (VBSS).”

The problem is 100 per cent one of will, not of ability. Even if EU countries had no naval capacity, they could still track the movement of vessels by satellite and know exactly which part of the European coast they were heading for. They would then have three chances to stop them.

They could prevent them from disembarking. If they failed to do that, they could arrest the “migrants”, detain them until they know where they came from, and then send them back.

If the invaders made it past all of these controls, they could still be prevented from finding work or claiming welfare benefits. European countries have always had a high level of state surveillance, both of their own citizens and resident foreigners. Carrying a government-issued identity card at all times is mandatory in many of them, and it’s impossible to work legally or claim benefits in any of them without proving your identity.

Do you think it is your influence or a total coincidence? Too hard to tell. I often wonder how widespread your influence is. I notice a lot of topics you are the only one to bring up are being spoken about in mainstream media. One obvious one is the Chinese women using our 14th amendment to make little American citizens.

I wonder if Coulter or other well known voices are whispering into Trump’s ear about you.

From what I’ve seen in 5th fleet, the primary use of an EU vessel tends to be as a floating radio through which an actual naval force, usually in the form of a USN destroyer and VBSS team, can be summoned.