Mass Migrations: How to know who's being impacted by a the surge in "refugees"

Ripped from the headlines - UN urges Europe to help Italy with refugee 'tragedy'

The UN refugee agency is putting pressure on Europe to help Italy defuse the "unfolding tragedy" of tens of thousands of migrants and refugees flooding its shores.

The move comes as interior ministers of France, Germany and Italy prepare to meet in Paris on Sunday to discuss a "coordinated approach" to help Rome.

Italy needs more international support to cope with a growing number of people who have braved a perilous Mediterranean crossing to reach Europe this year, Filippo Grandi, the UN high commissioner for refugees, said on Saturday in a statement.

"What is happening in front of our eyes in Italy is an unfolding tragedy.

"In the course of last weekend, 12,600 migrants and refugees arrived on its shores, and an estimated 2,030 have lost their lives in the Mediterranean since the beginning of the year."

Italy, he said, was "playing its part" in taking in those rescued and offering protection to those in need.

"These efforts must be continued and strengthened. But this cannot be an Italian problem alone."

Last week, Italy threatened to close its doors to people arriving on boats that were not flying Italian flags.

But the EU says "no" to opening more European ports to migrants:

EU interior ministers have refused to support an Italian proposal to open up European ports to ships carrying migrants.

But governments did agree to help the Libyan coastguards do more and step up deportations of failed asylum-seekers.

“Returns in this case are being backed up by a common visa policy. That means that those countries, which don’t comply with returns will have to face visa restrictions, by single EU countries, said Marco Minitti, Italian interior minister.

Italy plans to draw up a code of conduct for NGOs as some EU officials believe sea rescue services are a pull factor for would-be migrants.

“We abide by Humanitarian principles, by the principle of Humanitarian action, by Medical Ethics, by International Refugee Law and by International Maritime Law, because we operate at sea. So, we are quite clear about the frame in which we operate, and we doubt that a Code of Conduct will complement that,” said Aurélie Ponthieu of Doctors Without Borders.

Italy had sought help, even at one point, threatening to close their ports to foreign humanitarian ships

Escaping wars and poverty, more than 360,000 refugees and migrants arrived on European shores across the Mediterranean last year. More than 85,000 have reached Italy so far this year.

So, Italy mulls sending navy into Libyan waters to stop migrants:

Italy is considering a plan to send its navy into Libyan waters to stop migrants and send them back. Approval for the mission could go before parliament as early as next week.

taly's center-left government will brief lawmakers about a plan to deploy Italian navy vessels along Libya's shores to stop traffickers sending migrants to Italy, Premier Paolo Gentiloni said Thursday.
A Libyan request to send Italian navy ships to patrol its waters was "a possible turning point" in the migration crisis, said Gentiloni, who convened military chiefs and ministers on Thursday to discuss immigration, security, and Libya.
Libyan Prime Minister Fayez Serraj, who leads the UN-backed unity government in Tripoli, made the request for Italian naval help while in Rome on Wednesday. His visit came after Serraj and the rival government of General Khalifa Hifter met in France and agreed on a ceasefire and possible national elections in the unstable North African country.
Nearly 600,000 boat migrants have arrived in Italy since 2014 after making the dangerous cross-Mediterranean journey in boats.

Which generates a response from another Libyan group Libya's eastern commander vows to destroy Italian warships if sailed to Libyan water:

The Libyan eastern commander of Dignity Operation forces, Khalifa Haftar, has ordered to bombard any warships sailing into the Libyan waters, in a U-turn that could see escalations between eastern Libya and the UN-proposed government's bodies in western Libya get tense.
The call of Haftar came just hours after the Tobruk-based House of Representatives (HoR), which backs Haftar's Dignity Operation forces, announced in a statement the rejection of any agreements made by the Head of the UN-proposed government's Presidential Council, Fayez Al-Sirraj, and any requests he made to Italy.
"We reject Al-Sirraj request to Italy which can vividly violate the sovereignty of Libya under the pretext of fighting illegal immigration." The spokesman of the HoR Abdullah Belheeq said.
He also said that agreements with other countries come from legislative bodies like the HoR, not by executive ones like the UN-proposed government, which has not been given the confidence vote by the HoR yet, he added.
The HoR statement warned that Italy - by its deal with Al-Sirraj - is trying to export the crisis of illegal immigration to Libya by returning scores of migrants to Libya, making a new security, social and economic dilemma for the country.
The HoR also urged the UN to help thwart the current violation of Libya's sovereignty as it is a member of the UN just like Italy, which means that the latter should commit to the international laws and conventions by respecting Libya's sovereignty.
Meanwhile, Wednesday afternoon, the Italian parliament voted for sending a naval mission to Libya's waters to help stem the current migrants flow right from the inside, knowing that Amnesty International called the step earlier this week a shameful attempt by the Italian authorities to circumvent their duty to rescue refugees and migrants at sea and to offer protection to those who need it.

For those who follow such things, Amnesty International is an NGO which offers up the EU as a resettlement area for migrants and refugees because . . . Central Mediterranean: Death toll soars as EU turns its back on refugees and migrants:

The soaring death toll in the central Mediterranean and the horrific abuses faced by thousands of refugees and migrants in Libyan detention centres are clearly linked to failing EU policies, said Amnesty International in a report published today.

A perfect storm: The failure of European policies in the Central Mediterranean finds that by ceding the lion’s share of responsibility for search and rescue to NGOs and by increasing cooperation with the Libyan coastguard, European governments are failing to prevent drownings and turning a blind eye to abuse, including torture and rape.
***
“Rather than acting to save lives and offer protection, European Ministers meeting today are shamelessly prioritizing reckless deals with Libya in a desperate bid to prevent refugees and migrants from reaching Italy,” said John Dalhuisen, Amnesty International’s Europe Director.

“European states have progressively turned their backs on a search and rescue strategy that was reducing mortality at sea in favour of one that has seen thousands drown and left desperate men, women and children trapped in Libya, exposed to horrific abuses.”

Measures implemented by EU leaders to strengthen search and rescue capacity in the central Mediterranean in April 2015 dramatically decreased deaths at sea. But this priority, which saw several countries provide more rescue boats closer to Libyan territorial waters, was short-lived. Instead, EU governments have shifted their focus to disrupting smugglers and preventing departures of boats from Libya: a failing strategy that has led to ever more dangerous crossings and a threefold increase in the death-rate from 0.89% in the second half of 2015 to 2.7% in 2017.

Changes to smugglers’ practices and an increasing use of unseaworthy boats with a complete lack of safety equipment on board have made the sea crossing even more unsafe. But despite a spike in deaths - more than 2,000 since January – the EU is failing to deploy an adequately resourced and dedicated humanitarian operation near Libyan territorial waters. Instead it is focusing on strengthening the abilities of the Libyan coastguard to better prevent departures and perform interceptions.

So, what prompted this mass movement again? The EU or the miserable states these people are fleeing? What's AI saying about that? Not much, as the AI piece from which I just quoted quotes a man from Bangladesh and one from Gambia.

Here we get to the nut of the issue. Given that EU governments are paid for by the taxes of their citizenry and those taxes are being used to sustain tens of thousands of migrants many of whom are not "refugees" at all, at what point can a government tell migrants "No vacancy?"

An excellent post by Claude Berube and Chris Rawley at War on the Rocks, DUELING NGOS ON THE SEAS: ‘WHAT SHIPS ARE FOR’ covers what happens when nation states don't react as non-state actors may wish and the Non-state actors start taking matters into their own hands and perhaps into confrontation with other non-state actors with a different view of matters:

Today’s ideological battles are not simply confined to land or cyberspace. Nor is conflict at sea reserved for state-sponsored navies. The high seas are increasingly a battlespace for non-government organizations (NGOs). Although organizations such as Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd Conservation Society have been conducting maritime operations in support of their environmental missions for four decades, in recent years other maritime NGOs have emerged for a variety of causes.

The recent wave of migration from Africa and the Middle East into Europe – often by boat – has encouraged both state and non-state navies to begin rescue and interdiction operations in the Mediterranean. The thousands of people fleeing growing instability in North Africa and the Near East have set the stage for competing political positions.

Search-and-rescue organizations seeking to help migrants have found themselves in conflict not with the government, but with a competing NGO, Defend Europe. The dispute highlights that future maritime battles may not be restricted to governments or to militant groups on the seas, especially as government resources shrink and NGOs see increasing political incentives to enter this space.

This could get interesting.

It seems some NGOs are "more equal than others" and are getting local law enforement to reject other NGOs. As in Far-Right Anti-Migrant Ship Told It’s Not Welcome In Crete:

The Djibouti-flagged C-Star is part of an operation by the far-right Generation Identity movement called Defend Europe, aimed at stopping nongovernmental organizations and national coast guards from rescuing refugees and migrants in the Mediterranean.

Defend Europe set out its mission:

Every week, every day, every hour – ships packed with illegal Immigrants are flooding into European waters. An invasion is taking place. This massive immigration is changing the face of our continent. We are losing our safety and our way of life and there is a danger we Europeans will become a minority in our own European homelands.

We want to start an identitarian search-and-rescue (SAR) mission in July on the Libyan coast. Our goal is to document the doings of the NGOs, expose their collaboration with the human smugglers, and intervene if they do something illegal.

We will reach out to the Libyan Coast Guard and offer them our help as a recon ship. Our goal is to step in where our politicians are failing and to do what is necessary to stop the deadly illegal migration into Europe.

If we get an SOS signal, we will of course save the people in distress — and hand them over to the Libyan Coast Guard to make sure that they are brought to the closest harbour, according to international law. We will not enter territorial waters without their permission!

Defend Europe will make the Mediterrenean Sea more safe. An additional ship is able to answer SOS calls and our “No Way” policy for illegal immigration will discourage human traffickers and NGOs to lure people into the sea.

The closing of the Mediterranean route is the only way to Defend Europe and save lives.

Stay tuned.

Monday Read: Border War

The drug and illegal alien troubles on the border with Mexico are the topic of a disturbing post at Herschel Smith's The Captain's Journal "Border War". Then NBC News report is good and shows the use of boats to move large quantities of drugs.


A U.S. Environmental Protection Agency plan for the border here, from whence came the map above. That blue thing wandering the border is not a security zone, but an environmental planning area.

Before Arizona: "Border Emergency Declared in New Mexico" - in 2005

See CNN.com - Border emergency declared in New Mexico - Aug 13, 2005:

Richardson's declaration makes $750,000 in state emergency funds available to Dona Ana, Luna, Grant and Hidalgo counties.

Richardson pledged an additional $1 million in assistance for the area, his office said in a news release.

He said on CNN that the funds will be used to hire additional law enforcement personnel and pay officers overtime.

In announcing the state of emergency, Richardson -- a Democrat who served in President Clinton's Cabinet -- criticized the "total inaction and lack of resources from the federal government and Congress" in helping protect his state's residents along the border.

And my post on the topic at the time where I wrote here:

By ignoring minor incursions, we now have a much larger and more complex issue to deal with. While I am not a fan of Governor Richardson, I do admire his effort to do something now on this problem. I can only hope the politicos in Washington will act cuanto antes to make sure we remain a country open to legimate immigrants and genuine guest workers who are willing to obey our laws. Law breakers and scofflaws deserve no special treatment. I cannot imagine that we can long continue to allow this particular "broken window" to remain unrepaired.

Of course, with a Hispanic governor and a Republican president, the New Mexico shout out mostly was an attempt to embarrass the Bush Administration and did not receive the attention that the Arizona law and situation has, with cries of racism and all. In fact, I don't think Rev. Sharpton even phoned.

In fact, I can't recall any suggestions at the time that New Mexico be boycotted...

Of course, some NM legislator had a short memory as seen here:

Maestas says, "We should immediately start an ad campaign saying 'Come to New Mexico — we're not Arizona'."

Nice. Welcome illegal border crossers from a foreign country and insult a neighboring state.

Arizona Sheriffs: "Don't Sue Us, Help Us 'Plug the Hole' in the Border"

Good points in Don't Sue Us, Help Us 'Plug the Hole' in the Border:

But instead of trying to seal the border, the federal government is going after its own people to prevent us from doing our job. Even more outrageous is the American Civil Liberties Union stepping into the fray and naming individual sheriffs in its suit.

Moratoriums on offshore drilling? Sure, says the administration. Moratoriums on illegal immigration? Not even considered.

Well, I guess it depends on what view you hold of where the real danger to our country comes from. It seems the current administration's view is: "Oil company= 'criminal' activity. Illegal alien= 'future voter'..."

The ACLU is simply beyond the pale.

This Will Drive Liberals Crazy: Controlling Borders Through State Militias?

Ray Hartwell, Washington Times commentary: "Obama lawsuit invites fortified state militia":

So, the militias organized and armed by a state may go to war when the state has been invaded or is in imminent danger. This is clear under Article I, and plainly justified when the federal government has deliberately failed to protect against invasion as required by Article IV. As Joseph Story explains in his treatise on the Constitution, the prohibition against states engaging in war is "wisely" limited by "exceptions sufficient for the safety of the states, and not justly open to the objection of being dangerous to the Union."

References: U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 10: "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress , , , engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."

Article IV, Section 4: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence."

Second Amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Interesting argument.

I like it when the Second Amendment gets brought into play in this context.

A well-organized, state-controlled militia - exactly the what many liberals is the only meaning of the Second Amendment. Like this professor:

"The Second Amendment was simply a promise that the national government would not abolish the state militias," Finkelman said last week. The amendment states that "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
"Only if you're in a well-regulated militia, do the people have a right to keep and bear arms," he said.

So, professor, how do you like Mr. Hartwell's argument?

Probably by invoking Timothy McVeigh and these creeps. As in this "news" story:

Critics point out that the National Guard already provides for the state's military needs. They worry a militia would stoke extremism.

"Have they heard of the Oklahoma City bombing?" said Joseph Thai, a constitutional law professor at the University of Oklahoma, adding that a militia could "throw fuel in the fire of radicals."

Suing Arizona:Silly Move by a Joke of an Administration

You can read the pleading here:

The United States understands the State of Arizona’s legitimate concerns about illegal immigration, and has undertaken significant efforts to secure our nation’s borders. The federal government, moreover, welcomes cooperative efforts by states and localities to aid in the enforcement of the nation’s immigration laws. But the United States Constitution forbids Arizona from supplanting the federal government’s immigration regime with its own state-specific immigration policy – a policy that, in purpose and effect, interferes with the numerous interests the federal government must balance when enforcing and administering the immigration laws and disrupts the balance actually established by the federal government. Accordingly, S.B. 1070 is invalid under the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution and must be struck down.

Apparently, the "interests" of the federal government include allowing "sanctuary cities" and more or less open borders and forcing legitimate immigrants to jump through hoops not required of those who sneak across borders. UPDATE: To clarify, I mean it seems unusual for an administration to argue that its interest in not enforcing the law of the land somehow rises to an act of supremacy that forbids states from enforcing the law of land. Heck, if you don't like the federal law on which the Arizona statute is based, Mr. President, why not ask your gang in the Congress to repeal it and replace it with something more to your liking?

I told you this would be fun, and here, here, here.

UPDATE: James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal sees signs of an "imperial presidency":

Brennan expressly cited "the predominance of federal interest" in immigration (as opposed to employment law), and the federal government's complaint against Arizona alleges, plausibly, that the state law will impose burdens on legal aliens.But he also makes clear that the power to pre-empt or sanction state laws in an area of federal interest rests with Congress, not the president. This would seem to suggest that if the Arizona law is consistent with federal law and Congress has not expressly barred action by states, the Arizona law should stand.

A large part of the administration's argument, by contrast, is that the Arizona law is inconsistent with federal immigration policy--i.e., with the executive branch's decisions about how to enforce laws passed by Congress. An important question for the court, then, will be whether Congress has delegated its authority to pre-empt state laws by granting discretion over law enforcement to the president.

In other words, this is a case about the balance of power within the federal government, with the Obama administration on the side of expanding the authority of the executive branch.

Wait, Obama as an emperor? Who'd a thunk it?

Mexico/Texas Border Pirates

Mexican "lake pirates" on the Texas border at Falcon Reservoir reported here in a video report out of San Antonio.

It's probably the fault of rich Americans for owning boats.

And they aren't really pirates, just dirtball armed robbers.

On the Arizona Immigration Law

Report on latest protests here.

See previous post on this topic here.

All weekend I heard the chattering classes saying this law makes it "a crime under state law to be in the country illegally..."

Which just puts state law into compliance with federal law, which says exactly the same thing.

You can see why the feds hate it when someone tries to get laws enforced when it is counter to a political party's interests...

More constitutional fun ahead.

Illegal Immigration from the Sea

From here:




Recent attempted landings reported here (8 people) and here (23 people),
More here.

UPDATE: A look at the U.S. Coast Guard and the illegal immigrant problem off the east coast of the U.S. here. Photo nearby is of a Yola used for people smuggling from the Dominican Republic.

The Power of One State: Arizona's New Immigration Bill

I guarantee this will be a really interesting legal battle over the right of a single member state of the United States of American to control undocumented aliens as Arizona Clears Strict Immigration Bill.

It is almost certain that the federal government, under its current leadership, will oppose one or more states bordering on Mexico from asserting their own rights in controlling access by illegal aliens who cross over that border.

The usual federal response to states asserting sovereign rights has been to threaten to cut off federal funding for various projects like highways, education and the like - buying the state into compliance using the argument that the Commerce Clause* covers such matters because the Supreme Court has given that clause very broad scope.


Here, however, the southern border states have legitimate concerns over border security and the federal government has not been able or willing to enforce federal laws against illegal access to this country across the borders with Mexico.


Naturally, "rights groups" are all upset, as reported here and here:  

"Dozens of people rallying Wednesday at the State Capitol urged Gov. Jan Brewer to veto a bill that would require local law enforcement to assist in enforcing federal immigration law"

Really? Dozens? Probably outnumbered by the Arizona legislature.

See a "fact sheet" on the bill here. And the bill itself here. You might note that the underlying law to be enforced is federal law.

Almost certainly the 10th Amendment will come into play:

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people

UPDATE: Is immigration mentioned in the Constitution? Not directly, but Art I, Section 8 provides Congress has the power "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization" which the Supreme Court has ruled covers immigration (here)...

UPDATE2: Here is an opinion piece.

UPDATE3: A roundup of views - all of which point out why this will be some Constitutional fun down the road:


My view is that Geraldo is simply incorrect (once again)in his Constitutional knee jerk reaction. There's no trampling on federal "supremacy" if you are simply enforcing existing federal law that the feds are not enforcing. In fact, I want to see that argument fleshed out. Take your best shot in the comments.

To me it looks like Arizona is actually complying with federal law and some assistant attorney general is going to have to get creative in arguing that is somehow unconstitutional.

I suppose you could argue that the law will have a disparate impact on people appear to be, well, Mexican in that undoubtedly fewer Nordic type blonds will be asked to show some sort of identity proof.

This all could have been avoided with tighter border controls. As it is, it seems unfair to be able to ask a foreign person who has legally entered the country for his/her passport as they travel and not be able to ask the same of a person who sneaked across the border. Especially if you find the latter on some rancher's land out in the middle of nowhere (but near the border)or involved in a crime or in an accident.

*Article I, Section 8. The Congress shall have power ... To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states...

Port Security: Smart Sensors on the Job

How do you see in the dark or see what can't be seen? Some tools identified here:

The mission of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the U.S. military is, in part, to ensure the protection, safety, and security of the nation and its citizens. Science and technology are playing an ever increasing role in this mission. In fact, the Directorate for Science and Technology, the primary research-and-development arm of DHS, is working in partnership with private businesses, national laboratories, universities, domestic and foreign government agencies, and the military to drive the development and use of high-tech solutions in support of securing the nation. Together, the homeland security and military communities are making significant strides in technology, particularly in the vital areas of intelligence and surveillance.

One example here.

UPDATE: On the other hand, these tools have to be part of a larger effort, not the sole line of defense.

Quick look at cargo container security issues

Found as 100% Screening and Other Cargo Insecurities:

Those who operate ships recognize the dangers of shipping un-inspected cargo, though not as intensely as some prefer. The growing concern over the likelihood of a catastrophic act of maritime and other transport-system terrorism has led to measures for increasing physical security.

Among such measures, one could cite the strict enforcement of the International Code for Security of Ships and of Port Facilities (ISPS) Code, which was adopted in December 2002 and went into effect globally in July 2004. The code, which was introduced by the International Maritime Organization in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in the United States, attempts toward a similar strict enforcement of the Container Security Initiative.

Beyond ships and ports, the danger of importing nuclear bombs and other weapons (not to mention terrorists, themselves) in containers may have increased with the U.S. government having opened the borders and highways to Mexican truckers working for 100 companies, according to a 20-plus-year truck driver at FamilySecurityMatters.com.

Which points back to the need for "tamper proof" containers discussed in an earlier post here.