Migrants, who are trying to reach Greece, are rescued by members of the Greek Coast guard and locals near the coast of the southeastern island of Rhodes April 20, 2015. A wooden sailboat carrying dozens of immigrants ran aground on Monday off the coast of the Greek island of Rhodes and at least three people have drowned, the Greek coast guard said. REUTERS/Argiris Mantikos/Eurokinissi TPX IMAGES OF THE DAY GREECE OUT. NO COMMERCIAL OR EDITORIAL SALES IN GREECE NO SALES NO ARCHIVES

MARGARET WENTE, The Globe and Mail

(…) The moment these people set foot on Greek soil, or are rescued by the coast guard, they’ve won the lottery. They can’t be deported unless they have applied for asylum and been rejected – and that can take years. Nor can they be returned to any place that is deemed unsafe. Because continental Europe has no internal border controls, they can go wherever they want. And if they don’t report for their asylum hearing, the system can easily lose track of them.

The new arrivals are commonly referred to as refugees, although technically they are asylum seekers whose refugee status is yet to be determined. But to many Europeans, they’re looking increasingly like invaders. Their sheer numbers could soon overwhelm society’s compassion. Hungary – where xenophobia is rampant – is building fences to keep them out. Even Germany is starting to feel the strain. “The 400,000 asylum-seekers predicted to arrive this year will put Germany’s new welcoming culture to the test,” wrote Der Spiegel. “Can it endure? Can it survive?”

The Eurocratic vision is a unified asylum policy, in which each country will take its fair share of asylum seekers and refugees, and share the burden of resettlement and deportation of people who aren’t entitled to stay. Many urgent meetings have been held. But no one can agree on the rules, responsibilities and procedures – to say nothing of the meaning of “fair share.” In many countries, the idea of taking in more migrants is deeply unpopular. “It’s not okay that Germany, Sweden and France are taking 50 per cent of the refugees while other countries do nothing,” groused the German immigration commissioner.

(…)

Another constituency of compassionate souls believes that because Europe is big and rich and needs immigrants, the answer is essentially to let them all in. Why should the French and British discriminate against the Nigerians and Afghans? This view is held by quite a few idealists and Church of England bishops, although not by the lumpenpublic, nor by politicians, some of whom are even rude enough to ask how European culture would survive a further onslaught of non-Europeans.

No one is discussing the Australian solution – yet. It is too harsh for European sensibilities. But it works. Australia’s solution is to make sure that no migrants who arrive illegally by boat have any chance of being settled in Australia – even refugees.

(…)

The Australian solution, or something like it, is the only one that stands a chance. That’s because people want to wind up in Britain or Germany or Sweden, not Papua New Guinea. And right now they know that so long as they set foot on Lesbos or Lampedusa, Italy, they have a pretty good chance. But the chance that the European Union will come up with such an approach is close to zilch. And that means the outlook is not great: more dogs, more fences, more drownings on the perilous boat trips.