So it's in Turkey's best interest to see them move to other places.

Why would Turkey stop them on their way to Europe? Only if the EU pays them handsomely (and they did pay up).

You just need to have walls or fences on the land borders. If anyone tries to use force to illegally get in, border guards are of course entitled to use proportional force to stop them. Rubber bullets, tear gas, etc.
If you have a situation where hundreds or even thousands of people are trying to violently storm and overrun the border, that's literally an invasion and can and should be treated as such.

tbh you're not being realistic.



you 100% are.

You know that the EU has laws in place that protects refugees. In fact every refugee has the right to ask for asylum in the EU to start the official process.

That's where it all goes to shit. The EU can never stop migrants using tear gas etc because of their own progressive laws.

In fact when Greece was pushing boats back from shore they faced immediate backlash and lawsuits from the pro-immigration lefty parties in the EU.

The only solution for the EU is to pay other countries to stop the immigrants, or change the lenient immigration laws but good luck with that.

Why not? Are you of the opinion that countries are, at the end of the day, fundamentally unable or not allowed to secure their borders?



I'm well aware of the problem. But 1.) laws can be changed, this goes back to my earlier point about the lack of political will to address the issue. And 2.) even the laws currently on the book would allow for applications for asylum to be filed from outside of the EU. Even with current laws, asylum seekers wouldn't necessarily need to be allowed into Europe just because they say the word magic word "asylum" at the border. It is only handled this way right now because the EU institutions and a majority of the mainstream parties in the various national governmemts tacitly want (de facto) open borders.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Aug 13 2024 06:58am

Not realistic based on decades of lax policies and profiteering from it, completely realistic on a pragmatic and functional level. For most of history across most of the world, trying to cross into a guarded city-state illegally would get you hung from a gibbet for the crows, as was the case with countless smugglers. If a country was actually serious about its borders and meant to enforce them, it would be obligated to use proportional force to ward off people trying to cross, seize and expel or imprison any who made it past, and deadly force against aggravated incursions or mob action. We don't do that because we want illegal aliens to pick our strawberries, its not like we're gonna toil in the fields.

due to a combination of political will based on the cost and the sheer volume i seriously doubt the ability to prevent that wave. european counties should strive to control their borders, but applying that to the massive waves of migrants fleeing iraq, afghanistant, syria, lebanon, yemen, and just about every nation in africa is unrealistic from a border security standpoint. you can stop that much movement with a wall and tear gas, we literally watched people try in the aftermath of the syrian civil war? have you forgotten the droves of migrants trampling border walls as security deployed countermeasures? eventually u get to a point you need to literally kill them all or let them pass, it was literal waves of thousands of humans.

If it was easy to change the laws then I'm confident they'd preferred to do that over paying Erdogan a premium to stop the migrants (and still see many slip through).

The EU is simply not ready for it, the current political climate is still that calling for stricter immigration laws in the EU immediately nets you the title populist or fascist.

Once the border guards use actual live ammunition and it becomes clear that trying to storm the border gets you killed, the deterrent will be sufficient. Only starting with it once the border is already in the process of being overrun obviously doesn't work.
It also makes a big difference whether the migrants are still in the country they're fleeing from, the country in which their life is in acute danger, or if they're already in a safe third country. In the latter case, they will be less willing to risk their life at the border just to improve their living conditions.

The EU, Merkel, Scholz, Macron, Starmer and so on don't actually want the influx to stop, and that's the crux. They paid Erdogan to bring the volume down to a level at which the native European populations won't go into open revolt, to a volume at which the frog is boiled slowly. They paid him specifically so that they could reduce the influx without touching the paradigm that "saying the magic word 'asylum' at the border grants you the right to enter the EU".

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Aug 13 2024 07:14am