For example (emphasis mine):
"An Island for ‘Unwanted’ Migrants Is Denmark’s Latest Aggressive Anti-Immigrant Policy"
https://time.com/5504331/denmark-migrants-lindholm-island/
Good news there is a bipartisanship in Denmark:
"Denmark's centre-left set to win election with anti-immigration shift
Social Democrats expected to return to power this week after backing once far-right policies"
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/04/denmark-centre-left-predicted-win-election-social-democrats-anti-immigration-policies
Again, we wander far from the topic, but as it happens, it's an interesting problem - amd problem it sure is.
People flee for many reasons: some out of fear for their lives as those of their family; others out of curiosity and yet more for economic improvement. Not all of those need become
illegal migrants, but if you start from the basis of being penniless and/or unskilled in any relevantly useful way, illegality is probably your only means to travel, and your feet your new best friends.
Those who flee war at home may or may not have the same concept of country and nationality as do we in the west; if they live in the desert, in the Rift Valley or deep in central Africa, does - can - nationality mean the same thing to them as to western people? Does religion replace nationality? Have they any idea of how different and alien they are going to appear to us, and how difficult if not impossible it will be to get legal, paid work that will let them survive in a place with such a relatively higher cost of living? I'd guess the chances are that, should they make it here, wherever in the west here happens to be, the only chance of a new survival will be found in crime, which the diaspora will help them turn to like a foot into a perfectly fitted shoe. The ghetto becomes the new country, leading to what folks already experience in France and Belgium and parts of Britain. Who has the slightest idea who lives there, how accurate any census that may have been collected?
How should the unwilling or unwitting host react? There are established laws governing such matters, but again, as with the old American one about carrying arms, designed for the problems of a different age, where none of today's modern weapons existed and a single man's mass shootings a physical impossibility, these are mainly no longer fit for purpose.
A country has to decide: does it want to retain its national identity as a white,
nominally Christian land where, already, the two broader brands have led to wars of religion and today still cause deep conflicts and division in several areas or, perhaps, does it perceive advantages in introducing yet more variables that can realistically only make matters more complicated and thus inevitably worse?
I believe that the only way to preserving the status quo prior to mass immigration is in preventing that immigration from happening. Whether through interventions abroad in one form or another - preferably not our own military - I don't know; that's what thinking politicians are supposed to know, and why politicians with no idea of foreign affairs are also unfit for purpose. Letting people in en masse as an emotional response is madness, one that if not instantly suicidal, is getting pretty close to creating that time bomb. You think that exaggeration? It's what much of Brexit is about, and those newcomers are mostly other Europeans, for heaven's sake, sharing the same religion - if any! The migration problems and ghettos Britain has are painted with the colours black and brown, not white. Which is not to suggest that the white ones will make you feel any the safer, should you wander there by mistake. Glasgow had/has? its own distinct ganglands, with slogans on the walls: Fleet, Toon etc. and to somebody from out of town, how could they possibly know since everybody looked the same? Even my own little town up here in northern Mallorca has graffiti everywhere, with repeated tags. The arches of bridges over the motorways are as festooned with such decorations as anywhere in a big city. More diversity is no friggin' help in these matters, just a further complication to be avoided at all costs.
How to treat those who do get in? How can anyone possibly vet them to know who they really are, from whence they come or why? Before we had modern terrorism and the volumes, it might have been permissible just to let 'em stay; in today's climate that would be a huge abdication of duty, so I guess the European idea of returning them to the point of entry makes sense, and then we have to help that point of entry turn back the tides through repatriation to whichever land from which those migrants claim to come. It's a humanistically tough call for anyone to have to make, but to avoid our own disaster, we have to make that call, one way or the other.
