I can't see this idea of 'well-managed facilities' in Turkey or Tunisia or elsewhere for would-be asylum seekers is a runner. Why on earth would the governments of Turkey or Tunisia agree? It would be an invitation to very large numbers of migrants to head for these camps; after the Western European countries had accepted (say) 10% of them, what would happen to the other 90%? They'd become an immediate and huge problem for Turkey or Tunisia.
Well if it's a choice between having them all in Europe or being returned to the shores of North Africa from which they embarked then it will have to be the latter, in which case they will still be there.
So better to have something which could work. Otherwise the only choice is to put up our borders and turn everyone away, harden our hearts against even to the most desperate of cases, refuse to pick up drowning people etc or let everyone in, regardless of whether they're genuine refugees and regardless of the problems it will cause us and regardless of whether this is what people in European democracies want.
I think the latter is untenable. So if we can't find some interim solution, it will have to be the former.
I can't see this idea of 'well-managed facilities' in Turkey or Tunisia or elsewhere for would-be asylum seekers is a runner. Why on earth would the governments of Turkey or Tunisia agree? It would be an invitation to very large numbers of migrants to head for these camps; after the Western European countries had accepted (say) 10% of them, what would happen to the other 90%? They'd become an immediate and huge problem for Turkey or Tunisia.
Not to mention that people don't generally aspire to live in "facilities". The "free cities" idea is more of a runner, if we're looking for an offshore solution.
Their aspiration is surely to flee the place from which they are are in mortal danger?
I can't see this idea of 'well-managed facilities' in Turkey or Tunisia or elsewhere for would-be asylum seekers is a runner. Why on earth would the governments of Turkey or Tunisia agree? It would be an invitation to very large numbers of migrants to head for these camps; after the Western European countries had accepted (say) 10% of them, what would happen to the other 90%? They'd become an immediate and huge problem for Turkey or Tunisia.
Well if it's a choice between having them all in Europe or being returned to the shores of North Africa from which they embarked then it will have to be the latter, in which case they will still be there.
So better to have something which could work. Otherwise the only choice is to put up our borders and turn everyone away, harden our hearts against even to the most desperate of cases, refuse to pick up drowning people etc or let everyone in, regardless of whether they're genuine refugees and regardless of the problems it will cause us and regardless of whether this is what people in European democracies want.
I think the latter is untenable. So if we can't find some interim solution, it will have to be the former.
None of that contradicts mr Navabios central thesis though - ''Why on earth would the governments of Turkey or Tunisia agree? ''
Comments
So better to have something which could work. Otherwise the only choice is to put up our borders and turn everyone away, harden our hearts against even to the most desperate of cases, refuse to pick up drowning people etc or let everyone in, regardless of whether they're genuine refugees and regardless of the problems it will cause us and regardless of whether this is what people in European democracies want.
I think the latter is untenable. So if we can't find some interim solution, it will have to be the former.