OFFLINE

Berlin – When Tunisians rebelled against a corrupt government and drove out President Zine Ben Ali earlier this year, they received the applause of Europe’s political class.

When thousands of them turned up at Italy’s and Malta’s ports soon thereafter, they were greeted with much less enthusiasm.

Now their arrival has led to proposals for the overhaul of the so-called Schengen agreement, a system that allows the citizens of 25 European states – and their visitors – to cross borders without any controls.

Oops!  Guess its not just us then eh?  Europeans, faced with an unrestricted flow of who knows what sort of criminal may be slipping into their region, now wants to control their borders.  How are they gonna do this?  What keeps refugees from simply bypassing checkpoints?  And probably most importantly...why should they be allowed to control their borders and the US not?

OFFLINE

France, a nation bordering Italy, has refused entry to the people, and has stopped a highly publicized train, the "Train of Dignity", filled with Tunisian migrants and immigration activists from across Europe. French officials, claiming fear of a disturbance, have closed the entire train line.

I cant wait to see how this goes over.  If the EU regulates its borders, what will people say about the US trying to do the same?

OFFLINE

At what point have ppl (in here or elsewhere) been giving out about the US controlling its borders? All of the discussions/debates on "immigration reform" etc have been pretty much americans arguing with americans, no? Well, in here anyway. And most of the arguments seem to be of the type "the current ways of stopping illegal immigrants isn't working" as opposed to "you're not allowed let them in at all" anyway.

One of the main issues with immigrants over here is "benefit shopping", where illegal immigrants have entered though say France/Italy/Spain, and then instead of claiming asylum in the country they landed, they've travelled though europe to countriles like Ireland or England which are seen as "soft touches" for asylum seekers (as in, a longer appeals process, less people actually deported after an unsuccessful asyum claim, more generous social welfare benefits). Sometimes as well if an asylum seeker's application is denied, they move on to the next country before they're expatriated and start the process again.    

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Kieran Colfer:
"the current ways of stopping illegal immigrants isn't working" as opposed to "you're not allowed let them in at all"

should we be letting in any ILLEGAL "immigrants?" any people who duck the laws?