Sweden Suspends Deportations to Greece

Today the BBC reports that Sweden is the latest in a line of EU countries to announce it will no longer deport "asylum seekers" (i.e. illegal immigrants) to Greece.

Under the rules of the Dublin II treaty implemented by the European Union, "asylum seekers" must make their claim and be processed in the first EU country they reach.

Unfortunately for the Greeks, this is generally them when it comes to "asylum seekers" travelling by land, particularly from countries like Afghanistan and Pakistan. The border between Greece and Turkey has recently been announced as one of the EU's "pressure points" when it comes to illegal entry, and a team of border guards from across Europe have been posted there under the EU banner.

Incidentally, shall we just take a brief moment to imagine how much more intense the "pressure" would be if Turkey joined, and the EU bordered Syria, Iraq and Iran?

Anyway, back to the point; the problem with the EU's grandstanding is that it's all largely for show. Most European countries have great legal difficulties expelling asylum seekers they detect as bogus, and many don't even seem to have the will to do so. The vast majority of illegal entrants will end up staying, one way or another, as their host countries tie themselves in legal and ethical knots - throwing even more money down the drain than they spend supporting the vibrant newcomers and their (invariably numerous) dependants.

Which brings me to Sweden's announcement (following similar ones last week from Austria, Finland and Norway); the BBC helpfully informs us:

Under the EU's Dublin II Regulation, asylum seekers generally have to be processed by the first EU member state they come to. That means many have been sent back to Greece.

But in Greece far fewer asylum seekers are granted refugee status than in northern European countries.

Sweden's decision affects about 100 people who would otherwise have been returned to Greece, said Swedish Migration Board director Dan Eliasson.

"The situation in Greece is deteriorating constantly for asylum seekers," the AFP news agency quoted him as saying.

'Inhuman' conditions

Last month a UN special rapporteur, Manfred Nowak, said Greek holding centres for migrants were in a "critical state" and conditions for many of them were "inhuman".

So, the reason for not sending "asylum seekers" back to Greece is simply that they have a much lower chance of being accepted than if they're lucky enough to reach Northern Europe?

Given that the vast majority of these illegal immigrants are simply Third World people, often young males, seeking a new life, often on the Western taxpayer, such criteria simply beggars belief.

On that basis, shouldn't the governments of Sweden and Norway simply send a delegation around the Third World, addressing large crowds and asking "hands up if you want a new life, to you akin to winning the lottery, courtesy of Scandinavian taxpayers."

It would probably be cheaper for them in the long run than maintaining any pretence about "border security".

The flow will only be stemmed when getting into Europe doesn't automatically mean staying in Europe, and UN employees in non-jobs funded largely by Western taxpayers don't describe any conditions which don't include free flights to Scandinavia, large wads of cash, free accommodation and a free hand to harass Swedish women as "inhuman".

I shan't be holding my breath, however.