Hrolf isn't wrong about the parallels between Rome and the West. There are definitely similarities in the decline of both.

There are historians who will back that up, the last book I read on it certainly did.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

As I have said before, if they do not have a passport or no stamps in their passports, Countries do not accept them back. This is even with CCTV evidence. No country will accept a person with no official travel document, this goes for those signed up to the Dublin Convention…… fact
They will have left departure airport with a document, then destroyed it on route or handed it to an agent who is a legitimate traveller

Ireland and the UK now share their immigration information so they know where they are coming from. Birmingham most likely.

I'm wondering has the Northern Ireland protocol stopped the Afghans and pakistanis crossing over from Scotland?

We'll never die

That's why I referred to CCTV. If everyone was captured on CCTV as they deplaned (which they probably already are) then matching the face to the "I don't know where I came from" claimant ought to be possible. Anyone trying to conceal their identity as they left the plane could be held back and then guided to a special holding area. Once the flight they arrived on has been identified, then the airline becomes responsible for returning them to their departure point on the basis they have travelled without papers. It would soon stop.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Read this after I wrote my previous response. I get the problem.

How is this to be solved, then? Surely if we can identify the person, we ought to be able, via the airline's own CCTV, trace that to the booked seat and through that to the passport details used to book the seat.

Would that not equal sufficient travel documents for their home country to have to accept them back? Any country that refused to co-operate to be put on a visa black list.

I realise that anyone with a genuine refugee claim would still have to be processed, but they have no need to destroy passports, so we could make our default position, no passport = not a refugee.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

I can see why the right look for parallels between the fall of Rome and what they perceive as the decline of western civilisation. Right wing writers produce books on the subject.

There are, though, many reasons why such comparisons are, in my opinion, invalid. We now live in a completely different world, one in which, for many, the nation state is becoming much less important, or influential. We have undergone an industrial, and now a communication, revolution. These change everything.

Rome could not fall today because Rome would already not exist today. Our Rome fell when our Empires fell. Possibly in Russia or China the parallels are stronger, but not in the democratic world.

Try reading this:- [Link]

This passage struck me as being particularly apposite:-

"The comparisons, of course, can be facile. A Roman state of some sort lasted so long—well over a millennium—and changed so continuously that its history touches on any imaginable type of human occurrence, serves up parallels for any modern event, and provides contradictory answers to any question posed. "

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.