Ilegal Migration and the EU Court of Justice's Politicised Interpretations of the Law

It was reported the EU Court of Justice (EUCJ) ruled that non-EU migrants who enter a Member State illegally should not face detention on those grounds – instead they should be returned to the country they came from under the “Return Directive”. But when each EU Member State has specific laws regarding illegal entrance in their territory and the EU Treaty says that National Law is sovereign: what did immigration-related IGOs and NGOs celebrate exactly?

The Legal Trigger

The EUCJ ruling was triggered by the case of a “Ghanaian migrant who was found to be using false Belgian travel documents by French police at the entrance to the Channel Tunnel” and therefore was detained (for more details click here). This detention was deemed unlawful and hence a French court referred the case to the EUCJ for consultation, but did it really need to?
The Return Directive prevents a national of a non-EU country who has not yet been subject to the return procedure being imprisoned solely because he or she has entered the territory of a Member State illegally across an internal border of the Schengen area, - Ruling of the EUCJ

First of all, 'A "directive" is a legislative act that sets out a goal that all EU countries must achieve. However, it is up to the individual countries to devise their own laws on how to reach these goals.' (in Regulations, Directives and other legal acts) therefore, France is to follow its own laws first regarding illegal migration.

Second, as reported, the Ghanaian migrant was found with fake travel documents – a punishable crime, in most countries, with jail sentences (up to 3 years). Thus, for this fact alone Selina Affum was lawfully detained (unless, the French police and the District Attorney forgot to include this crime in their charges). But even if France wanted to follow the directive of return and grant 30 days to Ms Affum to leave voluntarily, she could just disappear meanwhile (like it happened in Portugal with the 72 individuals who entered the country with fake Syrian passports)...

Fake Passports: a Terrorist's Gold Chain

Europe suffers from a deep Passport Counterfeit problem, which was highlighted after the migrant crisis started and the Paris terror attacks occurred (two terrorists, at least, got into Europe holding fake travel documents). It has been reported that groups of Pakistani, Afghani, Palestinian “migrants” have been caught (e.g. in Brazil, in America, in Portugal) with fake Syrian, Iraqi, Turkish and Greek passports that allowed them to either enter/return to Europe or attempt to enter the US. So, when a Ghanaian citizen tried to enter the UK through France with a fake Belgian passport, it immediately raised red flags.
Document fraud is an important enabler of organized crime and terrorism, clearly. There is a whole subset of criminal activity and a criminal sector that is involved in stealing passports and producing sophisticated passports and supplying them to the criminal market. — Europol Director Rob Wainwright

Not only did the French authorities have strong reasons to detain Ms Selima but they also had the obligation, within a context of high security alert, to detain her for questioning: where did she acquire the fake travel document, who was her contact, etc – vital questions to learn whether ISIS imported its counterfeit industry to Europe (a very strong one in Syria, Iraq and Libya) or if corrupt European Civil servants are aiding and abetting terrorist activities (in addition to the many other committed crimes: counterfeit of documents, document counterfeit practised by a state official, and [in some countries, like Portugal] crimes against the State).
Documents are rarely examined for authenticity – a risky oversight given the huge ISIS-based industry in falsified Syrian passports, a business which, in turn, helps fill Islamic State coffers. Indeed, one of the Paris bombers used such a passport to enter Europe, leading the former French intelligent chief to remark, "It's obvious now: amongst the migrants, there are terrorists." - Arrests Show Jihadists Infiltrating Syrian Refugees
A state's security must always supersede politicised interpretations of the law. The EUCJ's ruling was hailed by IGOs and NGOs (who obsess over “international standards” for Human Rights, an obsession that allows the enemy to use our laws and liberties against us) but the fact is national laws are supreme and if they grant the authorities the right to detain citizens who acquire fake documents and who enter countries illegally under false pretence, then they should do so for investigative purposes. Politics and special interests must not get in the way of National Security.

Redundant Laws

Each EU Member State has specific provisions – in their penal code and constitution - regarding the defence of human rights, the prohibition of the use of torture and of other sorts of violence against detainees and people of interest; so, why do they even need a EU Convention on Human Rights for? Why the need for repetitive legal instructions? The more we learn about the EU, the more we understand the growing discontentment with the Institution – which begins to sound more and more perfidious and working towards an evil paradigm called “Political Standardisation”.

The EU insists its Member States hold complete sovereignty over their decisions and legal proceedings but then it tries to interfere with the internal affairs of those same States when they simply enforce their own national laws.


There's nothing to celebrate about the EUCJ ruling because the court invoked a EU directive that is not even binding – as per the EU's guidelines. At least one crime was committed (e.g. possession of a fake document) therefore the French authorities made a lawful arrest. The EUCJ made a politicised analysis of the directive (not law) and therefore it should be questioned not hailed. Political Public Relations are putting the Security of the peoples at risk by shouting violation of human rights at every chance they get. Perhaps it's time to review the Conventions on Human Rights since they repeat existing national legislation in most of the world's countries (besides, the whole issue has turned into a mockery when countries that do not respect the human rights of their own citizens – i.e. they lack protective legislation – are heading Human Rights Councils in international bodies).
"Foreign officials in Western Europe ... said that already some asylum seekers had been identified as having potential terrorism ties," the report notes, "but by the time they were flagged the individuals had already left the area." As a result, "Europe's 26-country Schengen area is ground zero for the continent's terrorist travel woes." - Arrests Show Jihadists Infiltrating Syrian Refugees

[The views expressed in this publication are solely those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Dissecting Society]


  1. Perhaps there's something missing from the whole story? Cuz I don't wont to believe that people can be this stupid!

    1. Hi Anon :D!

      I think so, yes, because it really doesn't make sense that a court would be this silly. People can be stupid but we wouldn't expect them to be so blatantly stupid...

      Anon, thank you so much for your comment :D.


  2. Hello Max, long time no see! This case just highlights the uselessness of the EU but I'm also cautious to say that maybe a detail is missing from the record cause how come the French court sent the case for consultation in Europe? Unless the judge is himself political!? Holding a fake document is a crime in any decent country and for that reason alone the young woman should've been arrested, so I don't get it.

    1. Hey Joe :D!

      Welcome back! Where have you been, mate?

      I agree: something must be missing from the report. Perhaps it was an entrapment for the court itself (knowing the French). Perhaps France wants to know how it can act in a certain way without triggering the EU anger, if you know what I mean (after all, France has already had to face off the EU twice over violation of human rights).

      Well, nowadays, everybody is political. Even international lawyers will interpret the law according to their ideology; so I wouldn't be surprised...

      Of course it was a lawful arrest. There's something more to it...

      Joe, thank you so much for your great comment :D


  3. "We hereby rule that the first principle of the rule of law is that enforcing laws is a violation of fundamental human rights, therefore, laws must not be enforced." - European Union Court of Justice

    This reminds me of the end of the age of Philosophy in Greece, when the Academic school took over and imposed their doctrine that "all doctrines are false". Thus, philosophy was ended by the philosophers. It does seem that we are likewise entering the final stages of the rule of law, where the judges are the ones to put it out of its misery by systematically declaring laws to be unlawful, except the ones that promote more unlawful behavior.

    1. Hi Looney :D!

      That's right: the EUCJ said it and now it seems to be retracting its own words. Everybody is nuts.

      'the Academic school took over and imposed their doctrine that "all doctrines are false".'

      Including its own...but what did the Academic school call its "doctrine", a directive? :)

      "It does seem that we are likewise entering the final stages of the rule of law, where the judges are the ones to put it out of its misery by systematically declaring laws to be unlawful, except the ones that promote more unlawful behavior."


      Looney, thank you ever so much for your super comment :D. Always a pleasure, indeed.


  4. The judgement does not seem to be logical and leads me to believe that perhaps the full story has not been revealed. It however does not take away the merits of the rest of the argument about EU. With Brexit and the resurgence of the Right everywhere, EU is undergoing some serious soul searching as it is.

    1. Hi Rummy :D!

      I think you are correct. The EU is about to experience the ride of its life. They stretched the line too thin and now will see the consequences of doing so.

      I read that the number of Brexit supporters is going up (52% of the country so far backs the exit) and these are bad news for the EU bureaucrats. Let's see...

      My friend, thank you so much for your great comment :D.



Post a Comment

Dissecting Society welcomes all sorts of comments, as we are strong advocates of freedom of speech; however, we reserve the right to delete Troll Activity; libellous and offensive comments (e.g. racist and anti-Semitic) plus those with excessive foul language. This blog does not view vulgarity as being protected by the right to free speech. Cheers