EU Agrees on Refugee Camps in Africa: One Problem, Africa Doesn't

A deal has been worked out at the last moment. Whether it satisfies CSU or is in accordance with rules is in debatable.

Via translation from SZ, EU States Agree to Tighten Asylum Policy.

  • After a 12-hour negotiation marathon, the member states agree to set up reception centers for boat refugees in the EU.
  • Italy had previously threatened with a blockade of summit decisions and demanded concessions from the other EU countries.
  • It is unclear whether the result achieved by Chancellor Merkel and her EU counterparts can point the way out of the bitter asylum dispute in Germany.
  • The partners also decide to extend the economic sanctions against Russia.

The member states agreed on refugee reception centers within the EU. Maritime rescued migrants should be "based on joint efforts" in voluntary "controlled centers" established by Member States, it said. It should check "with full EU support" whether it is "irregular migrants being returned" or those in need of protection. Asylum seekers will then apply the "principle of solitarity" among EU Member States, the summit stated. They could then enter other EU countries, but only if they agreed voluntarily. Which EU members are doing that is still unclear.

At the same time, according to the will of the EU states, mass transit camps are also to be established in North African states so that fewer migrants make their way illegally across the Mediterranean. However, the affected countries reject this so far.

Turkey receives another three billion euros from the EU to provide for refugees from Syria. After months of discussion, the heads of state and government agreed to finance the aid. According to this, two billion euros will be taken out of the Community budget. National budgets are expected to generate another billion.

The Wall Street Journal reports Euro Jumps After EU Leaders Reach Migration Deal.

“The details are fairly thin at the moment…but it seems that most parties are content with the deal and it’s averted a potential significant conflict in the EU.”

There are quite a few details. the WSJ simply did not have them.

Perhaps this buys Merkel time. I am not convinced.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock

No. 1-25

Australia has had, and still has, one of the most generous migrant immigration policies in the world but that policy was abused by people smugglers who started to ship boatloads of claimed asylum seekers to Australia. Some were but most were simply economic migrants who wanted to enter the country illegally. In the end the Government had to act.

Bear in mind that it was Australia with a population of only seven and a half million after WW2 accepted more than a 200,000 people kept in the DP camps because the countries in Europe, including Britain, refused to accept them.

In the end the only way Australia stopped this recent illegal flood was to deny them entry and ship them offshore where some of them remain to this day. It was controversial but it stopped the people smugglers from making money.

The African problem is simple. As long as the EU allows illegal migrants to land on EU territory, regardless of where they are processed, the more people smugglers will pursue their trade. It's a lose/lose situation which the EU cannot win with the present policies


"The most level-headed libertarian I ever met described Libertarianism as a very restrictive philosophy – each individual is free to do whatever he wants, PROVIDED THAT his actions do not interfere with any other person’s liberty to do what he wants.

In that libertarian view, the burden is on the immigrant to make sure that he does not negatively impact any other person in the destination country, e.g. by taking taxpayer handouts or by taking a job which a citizen could have done."

If that is the highpoint of "level-headed" you have experienced, you need to upgrade your circle of associates.... Talk about abject nonsense!

First, according to this "interpretation" of what libertarianism is about, exactly where does "immigrant" come into the picture? Does Sir Level-Headed also believe that in libertarian societies, noone whatsoever can "take" a job as a burger flipper, just because somoene else may also have "wanted" it, as long as it paid a quadrillion a millisecond and came with benefits worthy of a king?

And, where would "taxpayer" handouts even come from, in a libertarian society, unless they were literally voluntary handouts from individual taxpayers? In which case, noone is "taking" anything, now is he?

Libertarianism is a Political ideology. It's about restrictions on State power. Has nothing to do with restricting voluntary hirings, firings and handouts between free individuals. Just with restricting the State's ability to interfere in any of it.


It wasn't an overabundance of "advanced culture and technology" that reduced the natives to a bunch of drunks corralled together on barren reservations. It was simply the sheer number of Europeans that arrived, compared to the size of the native population.

Point being, no matter how proud it may make you feel to stand on your rooftop proclaiming to all that care to listen that you are with "those guys", the guys who wrote Shakespeare plays and, like, stuff; it doesn't matter.

You're 100 years old, childless and dumb enough to have fallen lock, stock and barrel for every disarmament scam ever invented by a wannabe totalitarian looking to make it easy on himself (not necessarily you personally.) Armed 20 somethings from the opposite side of the planet owe you exactly nothing. And have exactly zero reason to give a toot about whether someone vaguely looking like you dabbled in "advanced technology and culture" a few centuries ago.

Instead, like Europeans coming to America saw something they valued (Gold, arable land) and took it; so will Africans coming to Europe take what they like upon settling there. They've got the numbers, the aggression and the proper age to be militarily useful. A bunch of disarmed geezers sufficiently indoctrinated to believe the newcomers somehow "owe" them something, don't.


What about corrupt Europeans who willingly destroy this supposedly great culture for profit? Where do they fall into this spectrum of humanity, or are we intentionally ignoring them?


I'm seeing a lot of misrepresentation in this thread. Libertarianism has nothing to do with this migrant crisis. Does anyone seriously believe that career EU bureaucrats are libertarians?

The problem is that, at best, US/EU elites care nothing about their own populations and are seeking short term benefit from cheap labor, with the greater effect of beating down wages for the rest of the plebes (think H1Bs in the US).

At worst, they are intentionally destroying the fabric of society by bringing in foreigners quickly and discouraging them from assimilating. Divide and conquer, anyone? If they think the current kakistocracy is about to push up daisies, this strategy makes sense. Given how many people are easily distracted by the immigrants themselves, or any number of pet issues, it certainly appears to be working. Many would rather fixate on diversity, abortion, religion, gay rights, or just about anything else besides confronting their own corrupt elites.