EU Unveils 'Shocking' Border Force Plan

  • Thread starter Thread starter Seamus_L
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Probably a little less integrated. I think the UK had it right when they held off on integrating any more than they did. They’re still productive partial members of the EU, but they don’t seem to run into as many issues as a result.
They don’t have the main issue item to worry about, the Euro which could be a complete economic nightmare to undo if they try it. If they do it will more likely be removing the smaller economies that can be run over by ones like Germany’s. The boarders are not too much of an issue in most cases for the stronger countries and common standards between the countries should generally be good.
 
Probably a little less integrated. I think the UK had it right when they held off on integrating any more than they did. They’re still productive partial members of the EU, but they don’t seem to run into as many issues as a result.
And for this issue, they are on an island, an indelible part of their history.
 
When one looks at our border, porous, drugs and contraband coming through, the possibility of terrorists and dangerous weapons coming through, we obviously need much more enforcement ourselves at that.
 
And there in lies their problem. To join the EU they surrendered one aspect of what it typically part of national sovereignty. It would be akin to if the US joining NAFTA removed border controls between the US, Mexico and Canada. I mean the US and Canada are about as friendly and intertwined as two nations can get but you still have to stop and show you passport at the border as it should be.
I think a lot of southern and eastern European nations joined for the money. Getting access to the richer northern/western countries pockets for their development projects was probably an easy sell.

Trouble is, when you yield your sovereign rights for pieces of silver, this is the mess you often get.

The Canadian passport situation for Americans I believe changed after 9-11.

Otherwise, Canada is actually rather strict about Americans coming into their country, because 1) They don’t want to be a haven for criminals and kidnappers and 2) they don’t want lazy Americans coming up there mooching off their entitlements.

Mexico is also strict and won’t hesitate to deport Westerners and they have soldiers on their southern border. Guess it’s not racist when they do it, huh?🤷
 
But apparently, the EU already has laws that can be invoked for the self-defense of the Union or an individual member. We found this out about France.

Also, I don’t know if it is an apt analogy to compare the EU to the States during the Articles of Confederation. Did we not still have a National Standing Army?

Article III:
Article III.

usconstitution.net/articles.html#Article3

Sovereignty as in the States did not mean lack of cooperation.

Article IV:

And here, we find a difference with the EU:

Thank goodness, the EU members do not have to obey by every law from a centralized government.
Very true. As I said, it’s closer to the US under the Articles than the US today under the Constitution. That’s in part why I refer to the EU as an Alliance. They’re not quite to where calling them a confederation would be accurate. They’ve definitely been moving in that direction, but they’re not there yet. And the other issue the EU has is that they have members who are in at different levels, the UK being the obvious key member outlier here, who are not nearly as fully integrated into the union as other members.
 
The big difference between the United States of America and the possible United States of Europe is that one had a common culture and the other does not. When peoples speak different languages, with different established religions, and different values, everyone is going to have to give up some of those differences to get along. The USA has a history of assimilation where immigrants want to change and blend into a common culture, at least until multiculturalism became trendy, but European countries lack that history. They tend to have immigrants form separate sub-cultures rather than evolve a common culture.
Maybe but this does not seem to have much to do with wanting secured borders or having measures to secure the borders.
 
AI mean the US and Canada are about as friendly and intertwined as two nations can get but you still have to stop and show you passport at the border as it should be.
Ssshhhhhh… Canadians are really Americans, we just let them believe they are their own country. 😃
 
When one looks at our border, porous, drugs coming through, the possibility of terrorists and dangerous weapons coming through, we obviously need much more enforcement ourselves at that.
I just heard Rush talking about that.

A lot of Americans don’t want border security for their own selfish reasons. Laura Ingram even went as far to say that some Americans are willing to risk terror attacks in order to be politically correct. Can’t say that would surprise me.

The reasons are:
  1. It makes them look less “racist”
  2. It allows for cheap labor and for people to get away with paying less than they normally would. This isn’t just with cheap labor, either. There was a case that Michelle Malkin recently exposed where a tech firm that moved to Buffalo (in part by efforts of then Senator Clinton) to “create jobs for Americans” with government :bighanky: support. Well, they created 10 new jobs for Americans but in requests for 1600 K-1 visas because they can pay technie immigrants from abroad about 20-30K less than an American worker.
So there’s the caring American government for us.
  1. The Democrats “culture of death” has killed their “demographic destiny” and so they need new voters
  2. People don’t fundamentally understand Church teaching (no thanks to 1-3) on this issue. I think it was St. Thomas who discussed practical means to immigration, and open borders isn’t it.
 
If the borders are open, that doesn’t exactly sound like sovereignty to me for each member.

We have had States I believe that have had their own customs offices on the border? Az. maybe?
 
Maybe but this does not seem to have much to do with wanting secured borders or having measures to secure the borders.
Well, Europe, even since the Fall of Rome has had more defined borders and cultures. It’d be like if one lived in New York and would need to know another language to go to New Jersey, and that New York and New Jersey had been in dozens of wars against each other in the last 2000 years. And suddenly, it would be like California coming in and saying they need to build a wall to keep people from Vermont and Pennsylvania out.

It’d be more accurate to compare Native American tribes to Europe than the modern lower 48 of America.
 
Maybe but this does not seem to have much to do with wanting secured borders or having measures to secure the borders.
It means we don’t have to secure our Indiana border from the people of Chicago who are fleeing violence, corruption, and oppressive taxes. People from Illinois may vote for a lot of crooks, but they would not appear much different from Hoosiers. We might recognize that people from Boston or New Orleans talk funny, but not so much that we could not carry on a conversation. People from different regions of the US are perfectly welcome to move to any other state without any kind of permit. That would not be the case even inside some European countries.
 
Ssshhhhhh… Canadians are really Americans, we just let them believe they are their own country. 😃
Or maybe we’re all really Southern Canadians and they’ve just found a way to exploit us for our consumer goods and resources and keep us out of nicer Northern Canada… :eek:
 
This may well be the end of Schengen. The only way to have such a wide-open union is if everybody cooperates on security, which the ECnians seem unwilling to do.

But what’s happening isn’t totalitarianism. Was it totalitarian when Britain, Canada, the USA and others invaded France in 1944 without the invitation of its then government?

ICXC NIKA
 
Well, Europe, even since the Fall of Rome has had more defined borders and cultures. It’d be like if one lived in New York and would need to know another language to go to New Jersey, and that New York and New Jersey had been in dozens of wars against each other in the last 2000 years. And suddenly, it would be like California coming in and saying they need to build a wall to keep people from Vermont and Pennsylvania out.

It’d be more accurate to compare Native American tribes to Europe than the modern lower 48 of America.
When America, in its current form will have existed for 100 generations, there may well be locked borders and visas and all of it.

In European terms, we only just separated from the British Empire.

ICXC NIKA
 
Or maybe we’re all really Southern Canadians and they’ve just found a way to exploit us for our consumer goods and resources and keep us out of nicer Northern Canada… :eek:
Nah, it’s that whole King and Queen deal they have going on that they couldn’t give up…God save the Queen!
 
Was it totalitarian when Britain, Canada, the USA and others invaded France in 1944 without the invitation of its then government?

ICXC NIKA
Half of it’s territory was Nazi controlled and the Vichy controlled area was aligned with the Nazis Both which were in a state of war with the Allies.
 
I just heard Rush talking about that.

A lot of Americans don’t want border security for their own selfish reasons. Laura Ingram even went as far to say that some Americans are willing to risk terror attacks in order to be politically correct. Can’t say that would surprise me.

The reasons are:
  1. It makes them look less “racist”
  2. It allows for cheap labor and for people to get away with paying less than they normally would. This isn’t just with cheap labor, either. There was a case that Michelle Malkin recently exposed where a tech firm that moved to Buffalo (in part by efforts of then Senator Clinton) to “create jobs for Americans” with government :bighanky: support. Well, they created 10 new jobs for Americans but in requests for 1600 K-1 visas because they can pay technie immigrants from abroad about 20-30K less than an American worker.
So there’s the caring American government for us.
  1. The Democrats “culture of death” has killed their “demographic destiny” and so they need new voters
  2. People don’t fundamentally understand Church teaching (no thanks to 1-3) on this issue. I think it was St. Thomas who discussed practical means to immigration, and open borders isn’t it.
Believe it or not, it’s a libertarian mainstay at least of the Libertarian Party itself, open borders but no safety net to help those who do come through the open borders
3.4 Free Trade and Migration
We support the removal of governmental impediments to free trade. Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders. However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a credible threat to security, health or property.
That last sentence may be new to their platform but I can see the open borders amnesty crowd thinking this is going to far. We may well not have a real grasp on what Europe is dealing with in this.
 
Will the border troops be authorized to storm in and commit abortions when member states are unwilling to comply with EU directives? Not that many of them will be.
Ah! You would be talking about hypocrisy. A bit like the ‘citizen militia’ excuse for guns in the U.S, and yet abortions happen!

Back to the subject: I don’t think this news is that shocking, to be honest. When we lose the sense of right from wrong then ignorance and widespread moral illness is a natural occurrence.

I do think it is shocking, however, when self-proclaimed ‘Christians’ jump at the opportunity to oppose poor refugees - a certain U.S politican 1 : 0 Christian Ethics’; fear 1 : 0 love.

Decent border controls don’t have to turn away women and children at the very least. OP, you are correct, as this is totalitarianism in the guise of freedom (IMO).

👍
 
Ah! You would be talking about hypocrisy. A bit like gun laws in the U.S for the same reason to do with abortion.

Back to the subject: I don’t think this news is that shocking, to be honest. When people don’t know moral from wrong then ignorance and widespread moral illness is a natural occurrence.

I do think it is shocking, however, when self-proclaimed ‘Christians’ jump at the opportunity to oppose poor refugees - a certain U.S politican 1 : 0 Christian Ethics’; fear 1 : 0 love.

Decent border controls don’t have to turn away women and children at the very least. OP, you are correct, as this is totalitarianism in the guise of freedom (IMO).

👍
Just to play counter advocate… the San Bernardino shooter was a woman. And many of these terror groups are utilizing women more and more because they got overlooked by the west (maybe westerners can’t fathom that someone who we see as being so repressed by groups like Daesh, would actually support that lot in life).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top