The piece on European maritime interdiction was especially enlightening on the initial roots and beginnings of borders at sea. While disheartening, it was not surprising to learn that moving border screening out to sea was an attempt by governments to avoid national and international scrutiny over harsh violations of human rights law. However, I wonder if even on violations of human rights on land screenings are even met with threats of penalty. Because while situations may have improved after some dissent for Haitians for example, the blanket disapproval received no serious backlash from the international community and certainly did not stop the U.S. from continuing its punitive measures towards migrants. The physical distance from the legal systems in place have prompted serious infractions, such as a privately run detention center on Guantánamo. Moreover, in Australia, an island country guarded by miles of oceanfront, migrants face even more severe treatment than in Europe and the U.S. While in the U.S. and Europe, these punitive measures tend to be kept more hidden and secret, Australia often broadcasts it’s for intolerance for migrants. However the treatment they face once they get there are often more severe than people may realize. The lack of public awareness or media attention on issues like this have also been severely stunted by its location on the water. Without a public eye on the officials to maintain checks and balances, it seems the systems have grown largely problematic. Moreover, these warnings for migrants and punitive measures upon arrival do nothing to lessen the supposed “pull factor” towards these Western nations because they do nothing to mitigate the “push factors” from within the migrants own homes. Perhaps, if these push factors were more properly addressed or alleviated, in the context of the historical issues that may have led to them, the migrant “problem” could be stopped at its root.