Opposition to a so-called “Fortress Europe”—i.e., the enforcement of designated points of entry, a requisite corollary to the outlandish concept that a country, or a union of nations, should be in a position to ascertain the identity and regulate the flow of new arrivals—appears to rest on the daringly sanguine premise that the number of migrants entering through unsecured borders will never exceed a certain limit at which Europe’s capacity to distribute and integrate newcomers in a humane and orderly manner would be exhausted and all-out chaos would ensue.
In other words, that no matter how many famines and civil wars break out on this warming and ever more drought-ridden planet of seven billion people—to which, at the present rate, another billion is added every thirteen years—the number of refugees and asylum seekers pouring into Europe will always remain manageable (at least assuming the E.U. were to eventually get its act together on the equitable distribution front).
That the number will cap itself, as it were, commensurate with Europe’s ability to handle the influx in terms of providing the kind of assistance that wealthy nations are expected to provide to downtrodden individuals seeking shelter and protection from intolerable hardship abroad.
That if Europe ever came close to reaching a point where keeping basic tabs on and providing basic services to at least the majority of migrants that splashed ashore willy-nilly became unfeasible—and all Europe could do were to stand back, watch the huddled masses come in, and more or less leave them to fend for themselves—the influx would somehow peter out and stop on its own.
So assuming no Fortress Europe were put in place, what exactly might be the nature of this mysterious self-regulating mechanism—on which the anti-Fortress forces appear to rely implicitly—that will prevent untrammeled immigration into Europe from attaining critical mass at some as yet unspecified point in the future?