@pvdh
....
To answer your question: NO, I do not believe that Belgium should prevent its citizens from emigrating to Monaco. A free country should not restrict the freedom of its citizen in such a way.  However, I re-affirm that Belgium remains responsible for its citizens. If the Monegasques send them back to Belgium - for any reason - Belgium certainly has an obligation to take them back and is in no legal (and even less "moral") position to demand "payment" for taking them back or for not putting obstacles in place for the Monegasques. 

 And, further,  if it is clear that Belgium is being used as a conduit for nonbelgians to illegally emigrate to Monaco, then it SHOULD be clear (but apparently it isn't to many moral relativists), that Belgium has an obligation to assist the Monegasques in stopping this illegality. At least, that is what one would expect from fellow members of the famous "international community".  If not, then Monaco would be justified to see this as an unfriendly act on the part of Belgium.  If countries want their own laws to be respected, they should certainly not facilitate the undermining of other countries' laws.   One could hardly expect the citizens of West Vlaanderen to feel part of a 'common political community' with East Vlaanderen, if the latter helps to undermine the 'local laws' of the former.  And it would be outrageous if the latter would demand 'payment' for acting responsibly as a member of a 'community'.   

@pvdh

It is a basic tenet of international law that governments are responsible for their own people. It is, of course, a theoretical tenet, because international law usually cannot be enforced. So, international law is often more akin to 'simply words', because it is not part and parcel of a true political system or 'community'. By contrast, in democratic countries, laws get normally enforced, and preferably in a uniform (nondiscriminatory) manner. In nondemocratic countries 'law' will often not get enforced, or get enforced in an arbitrary manner (usually in accordance with the whims of the dictator or ruling clique). You can see the similarity with the selective enforcement of (subjective) 'anti-racism' legislation in Belgium.

You already know my position on "international law". I only consider such 'international pious words' as "law", when they involve treaties between democratic countries, or treaties that involve at least some democratic countries. This is on the basic assumption that at least those democratic countries can be relied upon to fulfill the obligations to which they have committed themselves. However, I do not place any stock in 'obligations' undertaken by characters like Ahmadinejad, or Castro, or Hitler....or not even Louis Michel and Gerhard Schroeder, because all these people have shown that they do not adhere to their own INTERNAL constitutional legal provisions (or "basic law"). Of course, there are gradations and I do not equate Louis Michel with, for instance, Castro (even though Louis once called Fidel a genuine "sympathetic friend").

...

In my opinion, a mass migration can be a WMD against a foreign population. Therefore, for every illegal alien who is allowed to escape Libya for Europe, one (1) bomb will be dropped on Ghadaffi's regime - not on civilians of course. A force of diesel submarines can cheaply patrol Africa's coastlines, sinking any migrant-bearing vessel that does not wish to return. Foreign criminals in Europe will be repatriated if they commit a crime, public demonstrations by non-Europeans will be ended with force if necessary, and foreigners will only acquire their citizenship after 10 years of residence and will have it reviewed every 5 years after that until year 20. Additionally, non-Europeans will have to apply for a permit to have a child (not unlike Chinese policy), and illegal children will constitute a crime = repatriation. Legally born foreign children will only be considered citizens at age 25 if the government deems it right. Families will face repatriation if a member commits an act of terrorism, etc.
As Europe is gracious enough to let these people in, these restrictions are appropriate. Europe is not a worldwide revolution for human rights and egalitarianism for all; it is the homeland and ancestral homeland of a great number of people on Earth, and a vital contributor to human diversity.

Do you think the Belgian government should prevent their citizens from emigrating to Monaco, because Monaco doesn’t want immigrants with less capital then 1 million Euros? I don't think so. It's a Monegasque law. It’s the Monegasques that should do the necessary to get it implemented. It’s the responsibility of Monaco to protect their frontiers. In my opinion, the Libyans are entitled to ask money in return for their help. That’s not against any international law.

Like Germany is paying reparations, turks, pakkis and sudanese must be made to similarly pay reparations for their genocide and ethnic cleansing in and out of their borders - not what Gaddafi wants. Charles Taylor of Liberia is in jail now. But not the war criminals of 'fakistan', turkey or sudan. I read in another article:-
"Europeans allow themselves to be replaced through immigration because they want to die as a culture. It is true that there is a loss of cultural confidence in Europe, but there is one catch to this thesis: Many Europeans have never expressed any such desire to be wiped out."

No one expresses explicitly to be wiped out but only tacitly by default mode of inaction. Europeans are same as the India's Hindus who are being decimated by inaction to all the endless savagery on-going for the past one thousand years - perhaps suffering from Stockholm syndrome of liking the oppressor.

Reports of mob violence by islamofascists against them is more credible given the long lists of unprovoked violence on them with absolutely no connection to those people of the ancient culture. Those reports can be trusted immediately. I believe every one of them completely and totally. Consider ten deaths for the foul remarks of the evangelist, Jerry Falwell, in far away USA. Why should the islamists cause ten deaths in India - NOT in any of the 60 odd islamic countries? Who is savage like? QED

Absence of revenge by Hindus also clearly demonstrates they are rather the true victims of millennium long islamic hate crimes - not the other way around.

Ethnic cleansing in Kashmir, Kerala and Assam is taking place even as we 'speak'. Yet, the timid and cowardly Hindus are unable to do anything to end it. [It was Mahatama Gnadhi who called them 'cowards' and Dr Ambedkar called the islamists as those with "extravagant" ambitions which is true all over the globe - be it India or Europe].

Yes, this is what one Indian wrote when a Sikh Professor was killed by the savage islamists:-
---------
LETSC comments:
on Dec 30 2005 5:06AM
“Peace kills Peace”. I share the grief and sorrow with the family of a noble professor killed during the attack on greatly treasured IISc, Bangalore. It is high time that the highly corrupt Indian politicians lead by the so called Congress immigrates to Pakistan. The way a small country like Israel deals with their adversaries would be a much learned message for the corrupt and so called secular Indian politicians, I consent to send these pseudo’s to some Israeli school for learning the basics of stopping this intimidation against innocent humans with GUNS and not with PEACE. "
---------
No wonder then even so-called pacifists have been violent or talked of being violent. Gandhi and Nelson Mandala are perfect examples. When at Godhra town of India and Beslan town of Russia, you recall the savagery of the islamists killing innocent babies, you may think of counter violence. No wonder the violent islamist insurgents of LEBANON, IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN are killed by nation states most violently.

It is rather mob violence of muslims against Hindus and people of other religions that is reported more regularly.

Europe is facing the anarchy of the islamist immigrants who may never be integrated because you see the example in India where even after 1000 years, they are yet to be assimilated. Worse, they are practically ruling that nation, rioting and killing in "savage serial mass murders" at the most trivial of reasons and with no revenge or backlash from the native Indians (non-muslims including Sikhs).

One may recall murder and damage to property during riots such as the very recent
* Bombay/Mumbai serial blasts of 2006, 1993..
* Bush visit riots
* Danish Cartoon riots
* Mau riots
* Delhi multiple blasts
* Varanasi multiple blasts including deliberate slaughter of members of marriage party;
* acid attacks on innocent women celebrating ancient religious functions;
* Aligarh lighting related riots; etc etc

That none of them was linked to any provocation and none was followed by any reprisal clearly proves that the citizens of native culture are indeed **angels**. Media hype and lies cannot deny this fact.

Similar savagery - again completely unrelated to any single Hindu or Hindu org has been
* Moplah genocidal pogroms in Kerala related to the caliphate;
* Godhra carnage of innocent women and children roasted alive;
* riots for already banned Rushdie book;
* similar, Nasreen book riots; etc etc

One Sikh Professor of Indian Institute of Science was killed recently and a train full of Sikhs and HIndus were blasted too - by islamists.

Even the Mahatma Gandhi once said that, “Violence is preferred to cowardice” who also called the islamists bullies and the Hindus "cowards" enduring savagery year after year and century after century over the past 1000 years.

You are right when you say:
"The result (in India) is a step back to Anarchy. Those in authority make excuses as to why they must not (not cannot) act."

The Hindu's have their own problems with bad conduct. Mob violence by Hindus against other religions is reported on regularly.

The issue in the "West" is simple really. Multiculturalism was and is all about the country defering its moral values to that of those coming in from the outside. While this sounds great and appeared to be working over the years the true nature of multiculuralism is now being felt. Those living in a country have no particular affinity for the culture and morals of the country so they revert back to what they had when they arrived (which most were escaping from) and import what is missing from others.

The result is a step back to Anarchy. Those in authority make excuses as to why they must not (not cannot) act.

Remember this article
"Beheading Nations: The Islamization of Europe’s Cities
From the desk of Fjordman on Thu, 2006-07-13 22:31" where you read,
"It has been reported that shopkeepers in certain areas of Oslo now need to pay protection money. The criminals are more trigger-happy than ever, and since many of them abide by the rules of blood vengeance, violence is rapidly increasing. In Sweden, reports about criminal gangs and mafias, a phenomenon that is growing day by day, are coming in from urban areas all over the country, and a feeling of powerlessness is spreading among ordinary citizens. “We have no other possibility than to flee from this area. Families cannot fight against these problems alone. We are talking about survival, you can get stabbed here. We can only survive by attempting to avoid getting targeted.”

Yes, "this is a classic protection racket." It is notoriously
true in India. Now after London bombings, they said "We are disaffected youths who need jobs and that is the reason (for mass murder)!" as if to justify the savagery.

Boycotting of muslim business is the first baby step to teach them a lesson! IT IS PERFECTLY NON-VIOLENT POWERFUL TOOL! They did to the Danes for cartoons.

Dont forget to court and woo one billion Hindus fighting along with us on the same cause on the side of the WEST, over several centuries!! They are the truly deserving types!!! Their gypsies of Indian origin remain in Europe after long persecution, neglected too w/o compensation or holocaust museums.

He's been watching Godfather movies again; this is a classic protection racket.  And I have little doubt he and his bureaucrats are busily squeezing every penny they can out of the immigrants themselves.

Well, this puts the concept of "international law" in its proper perspective.  In other words, there is no such thing as "international law", at least not in the sense of the word "law" as understood in democratic societies (of which there are only very few).  

It used to be under "international law" that governments were responsible for their own citizens.  Today, apparently some of these governments need to be 'bribed' to take on their own responsibility. "International Law", i.e. in the sense of "the international community", therefore, resembles more a 'crime syndicate' than "law".

As for Khadafi's notion that "the earth belongs to everybody" - a sentiment one often hears also expressed by Belgian naive-lefties -  well, how do you think Khadafi would respond to massive illegal immigration from Egyptians and other 'Africans' to Lybia, let alone (hypothetically) from large numbers of westerners?  Any doubts about that?  If so, get real!

Well they're not our people, we're not responsible for them but their State is...so if they don't prevent it they shouldn't expect our help (of any kind). If that doesn't work for them, then more drastic measures will have to be taken.