European Defense Against The Invasion From North Africa

The people-traffickers, the ones who run the boats and then fill them with human cargo, and then sometimes abandon ship so that they won’t be caught, as they leave putting those boats on automatic pilot, ought to be sought and sentenced for homicide. All of the traffickers, and many of those they smuggle into Europe, are Arabs, and “Palestinian” Arabs have been among those cited. Where do they live? Out of what ports to they sert? Can’t the boats be destroyed in the North African ports before they are loaded with human cargo?

And why can’t the EU take as its task the preservation of European society, European culture, European laws and letters and morals, which means stopping these boatloads, and that requires a naval blockade? If North African states protest, give them a choice: You Do It Or We Do It.

One more thing. According to the EU’s rules, if “asylum seekers” manage to get to any area under the sovereignty of a member state, then those “asylum seekers” cannot be turned away, must be allowed to undergo the long and expensive process of examination, and appeal. That’s why the Africans who manage to climb over the fences at Ceuta and Melilla, tiny Spanish enclaves within Morocco, become ecstatic, and why the Spanish try, not always successfully, to keep them out. If this EU rule cannot be undone — it’s a crazy rule, without any justification, and now dangerous — then the Spanish might as well just give up Ceuta and Melilla. Their continued possession, if it does more harm to Spain, and to Greater Schengenland, than whatever benefit (what is that benefit? are there deposits of phosphorus? what?) that may be derived from them, should be re-examined in the Cortes.