Italy Shuts Ports to Migrant Ship

[Sol thewall Bamba]

4 minutes ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

Meh.   Taxes arent really a choice are they?

If someones opinion is to leave a load of people stranded on a boat in need of medical att. etc. I dont really respect their opinion

 

The problem needs a solution, but that is not a solution

 

Everyone's entitled to an opinion even if it's not the same as yours. 

[Redouane]

22 minutes ago, DennisNedry said:

 

I can see the point with say, Syria or Libya, because Europe contributed to the crisis in these countries with poor foreign policy. The conflicts in Africa are nothing to do with us. The majority of these people are simply trying to escape being poor and seeking a better life in Europe (who can blame them?). But if they are are allowed into Europe - surely any citizen in any country in the world has the right to come here no questions asked?

 

I would ask why middle Eastern countries don't accept and help migrants (there'd be less of a culture shock there too), but that's probably going off track a bit.

I beg to differ. Do you want a historical refresher?

 

Because they are c*nts. North African countries on the other hand, do take in refugees.

 

[Alf Bentley]

44 minutes ago, breadandcheese said:

You're correct but the reality is not as easy as that. There are systems for repatriation of economic migrants but they break down when the system is played. It takes time to process all the migrants, which could easily be running at 1,000 new immigrants per week. Add to that the complications of ways to delay your stay and avoid deportation, for example having no identifying  papers and claiming you do no know what country you are from, thus making repatriation impossible.

 

I don't have any answers but the ideal and the reality are clashing.

 

Yep, I appreciate that it's not a simple situation - and not one that I have a great understanding of. But leaving people to die at sea isn't the answer, even if they've put themselves at danger (I appreciate you're not suggesting that).

 

Europe has already done deals with Turkey and Libya to take more migrants. There is presumably more that could be done to address the scourge of people traffickers who facilitate this problem. Also maybe more to be done in supporting development, trade and business/public investment in the countries that economic migrants come from.....and, yes, there need to be immigration controls and repatriation to ensure that illegal migrant flows aren't so great that they destabilise Europe socially, economically or politically, a serious risk. Given aging populations in Europe, it makes sense to allow some inward economic migration, but not to let it get out of control.

[Guest MattP]

2 hours ago, Captain... said:

Even if it means leaving hundreds in a boat to die? 

 

Something may may need to be done but I don’t agree with risking human lives to achieve it.

 

The latest I have read is that they are still in Italian waters unable to make the 3 day trip to Spain because they have no water or supplies and they have people in need of urgent medical attention including pregnant women and young children.

 

It’s all well and good agreeing with the principle but the reality is there are still hundreds of lives at risk in that boat.

 

Had we not taken the first few of these boats in the first place you wouldn't have the numbers coming across over the last few years.

 

There is a pretty good argument that taking in the first wave of these boats has cost more lives than it would had we let the first few just sink, let alone the amount of money we have also put into the hands of the gangsters running the trade in Libya.

[Guest Foxin_mad]

12 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

So, basically, you're saying let them drown as a warning to others?

So basically you are saying send a shit load more boats and bring them all to Europe?

 

At the end of the day the more that get here successfully, the more will be encouraged to come to find a better life.

 

Its simply not sustainable. We have the same problem who pays for all these people,? where does the food come from? where does the education come from?the health care? the housing?, much of the western world is at breaking point financially because of delusional policies like this. 

 

[leicsmac]

Stuff like this is the reason why I'm glad to not be involved in this kind of politics.

 

What kind of decision do you make when you know that innocent, needy people are going to die no matter what you do?

[Guest MattP]

5 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Stuff like this is the reason why I'm glad to not be involved in this kind of politics.

 

What kind of decision do you make when you know that innocent, needy people are going to die no matter what you do?

Like anything, you try and do what this is right and what will cause the least long term damage.

 

What you certainly don't do is things that make you feel good, rather than what is actually good, that's the worst thing any politician can ever do.

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

7 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

So basically you are saying send a shit load more boats and bring them all to Europe?

 

At the end of the day the more that get here successfully, the more will be encouraged to come to find a better life.

 

Its simply not sustainable. We have the same problem who pays for all these people,? where does the food come from? where does the education come from?the health care? the housing?, much of the western world is at breaking point financially because of delusional policies like this. 

 

It depends how tribalist your thinking is.  Whats the difference between 'these people' and the people that already live in Europe?

 

I live in the Czech Republic.  It is very common here to loathe immigrants depsite the fact that they have very few

 

They also have more jobs than people to fill them, yet they dont want immigrants out of cultural protectionsim or whatever they call it, dont want foreign influences, dark skinned people etc, i'm not being facetious with that wording.  It is not logical. 

 

If countries like this were more open to immigrants maybe the spread wouldnt be so bad

[leicsmac]

Just now, MattP said:

Like anything, you try and do what this is right and what will cause the least long term damage.

 

What you certainly don't do is things that make you feel good, rather than what is actually good, that's the worst thing any politician can ever do.

I think we've been here before when discussing warfare,  Matt.

 

And just like that, yes - you try to look long-term and choose the action that will cause the least long-term loss of life across the board, rather than acting emotively. Even so, I wouldn't want to be calling the shots on this tbh.

[bovril]

1 hour ago, Buce said:

 

As a European, he has as much right to an opinion as anyone else.

 

Everyone has a right to an opinion, the questions was what gives an individual the right to decide? And I'm not sure what 'being a European' has to do with it, especially as it's a pretty nebulous concept anyway.

[Guest Foxin_mad]

19 minutes ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

It depends how tribalist your thinking is.  Whats the difference between 'these people' and the people that already live in Europe?

 

I live in the Czech Republic.  It is very common here to loathe immigrants depsite the fact that they have very few

 

They also have more jobs than people to fill them, yet they dont want immigrants out of cultural protectionsim or whatever they call it, dont want foreign influences, dark skinned people etc, i'm not being facetious with that wording.  It is not logical. 

 

If countries like this were more open to immigrants maybe the spread wouldnt be so bad

Well there is quite lot of difference culturally I would say. There are certain parts of the UK and I am sure Europe where the integration hasn't got that well and it has seemingly had the effect of bringing down the living standards and neighbourhoods of the indigenous population. 

 

Obviously we have to consider here, a poor person from Africa is many times poorer than a poor person in London. if you have a large influx of a population living a certain living standard it could/may drive down the living standard locally, as comparatively for example; living in a flat in London with 10 others, clean water and a toilet is perhaps better than they may have had at home. 

 

I don't know a lot about Czech Republic but perhaps they have seen the issues in other parts of Europe and don't want that for themselves.

[Buce]

37 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

So basically you are saying send a shit load more boats and bring them all to Europe?

 

At the end of the day the more that get here successfully, the more will be encouraged to come to find a better life.

 

Its simply not sustainable. We have the same problem who pays for all these people,? where does the food come from? where does the education come from?the health care? the housing?, much of the western world is at breaking point financially because of delusional policies like this. 

 

 

Actually, I didn't give an opinion.

 

I was asking you to clarify yours.

 

2 minutes ago, bovril said:

Everyone has a right to an opinion, the questions was what gives an individual the right to decide? And I'm not sure what 'being a European' has to do with it, especially as it's a pretty nebulous concept anyway.

 

Clearly, he was making a decision as an individual doesn't have the right to decide - he was expressing an opinion on what the decision should be.

 

Europe, in this case, is a geopolitical entity, of which he is part.

[Guest Foxin_mad]

Just now, Buce said:

 

Actually, I didn't give an opinion.

 

I was asking you to clarify yours.

 

 

Clearly, he was making a decision as an individual doesn't have the right to decide - he was expressing an opinion on what the decision should be.

 

Europe, in this case, is a geopolitical entity, of which he is part.

My view if that it is questionable whether having NGOs saving migrants is a good idea. 

 

If they know they are going to get rescued it encourages the trafficking, in encourages them to take the perilous journey. It could in the long term lead to more dying, as there will always be some we cant save. 

 

I don't have the solution but at the minute we are sending out the message to traffickers and migrants, its ok to try and get across in a dingy because you will stand a high chance of being rescued. Surely that is only going to have one outcome? 

[bovril]

46 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

So basically you are saying send a shit load more boats and bring them all to Europe?

 

At the end of the day the more that get here successfully, the more will be encouraged to come to find a better life.

 

Its simply not sustainable. We have the same problem who pays for all these people,? where does the food come from? where does the education come from?the health care? the housing?, much of the western world is at breaking point financially because of delusional policies like this. 

 

You think the current state of the European economy was created by allowing Africans into Italy? Any stats to back that up? 

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

7 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

Well there is quite lot of difference culturally I would say. There are certain parts of the UK and I am sure Europe where the integration hasn't got that well and it has seemingly had the effect of bringing down the living standards and neighbourhoods of the indigenous population. 

 

Obviously we have to consider here, a poor person from Africa is many times poorer than a poor person in London. if you have a large influx of a population living a certain living standard it could/may drive down the living standard locally, as comparatively for example; living in a flat in London with 10 others, clean water and a toilet is perhaps better than they may have had at home. 

 

I don't know a lot about Czech Republic but perhaps they have seen the issues in other parts of Europe and don't want that for themselves.

That is a concern, lack of successful integration.  The left I guess dont talk enough about that

But then the right just say 'whataboutery' if you go into root causes of these issues. The balance that keeps politics going and barely relevant is perfect

 

You are right about Czech. But I dont know if its a legitimate view point that they have.  They see London and think oh my what a nightmare, look at all these brown people.  Maybe there is a basis to these concerns, but they are expressed in base racist ways so its difficult to sympathise with

 

They would view Leicester as a disaster, but is it not an example of cultures living together? I dont know not living there, but posters on here have said that they view it as such

 

The questions always go deeper.  Is there enough to go around for everyone?  If not, why not?  If so, why isnt it shared?  Massive questions which arent easy to answer

 

But if you're poor as shit in Africa and think you could have a better life across the sea and believe you have a right to live the best life humanity can offer you, can you blame the guy?

 

 

[DennisNedry]

1 hour ago, Redouane said:

I beg to differ. Do you want a historical refresher?

 

Because they are c*nts. North African countries on the other hand, do take in refugees.

 

Are you referring to colonialism? I don't take credit for this quote but it answers your point expertly I feel:

 

The classic lame excuse of the self-loathing white man. The more recently colonised India, Singapore and Hong Kong seem to be doing fine. Ethiopia and Liberia were not colonised in any significant way and yet are still basket cases. How many decades does it take to rebuild and sort out the problems caused by colonialism (forgetting the benefits such as infrastructure, housing, rail, European engineering and medicine and education)? Japan and Germany have rebuilt themselves from rubble and a decimated population in less time.

 

Edit: I would also think that the humanitarian argument is the only one that holds any sway with me at all, because at the end of the day when you see someone drowning in the Med you'd rather they were saved than not. 

Any argument about socio-economic benefits of the illegal entry of a million plus poor, low skilled, culturally and religiously alien men into the continent is fanciful at best. 

Edited 12 June 2018 by DennisNedry

[leicsmac]

5 minutes ago, DennisNedry said:

Are you referring to colonialism? I don't take credit for this quote but it answers your point expertly I feel:

 

The classic lame excuse of the self-loathing white man. The more recently colonised India, Singapore and Hong Kong seem to be doing fine. Ethiopia and Liberia were not colonised in any significant way and yet are still basket cases. How many decades does it take to rebuild and sort out the problems caused by colonialism (forgetting the benefits such as infrastructure, housing, rail, European engineering and medicine and education)? Japan and Germany have rebuilt themselves from rubble and a decimated population in less time.

 

1

 

Um..

 

@Dr The Singh, care to weigh in?

 

Regarding the topic itself, I think it much more complex than this paragraph implies - Interference in the various African nations (amongst others) didn't end with decolonisation, after all. It's entirely possible to be an "independent" state and still rely heavily on what one of the bigger boys is going to do - ask all of Latin America about the US and their Monroe Doctrine, for instance.

[Buce]

10 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

My view if that it is questionable whether having NGOs saving migrants is a good idea. 

 

If they know they are going to get rescued it encourages the trafficking, in encourages them to take the perilous journey. It could in the long term lead to more dying, as there will always be some we cant save. 

 

I don't have the solution but at the minute we are sending out the message to traffickers and migrants, its ok to try and get across in a dingy because you will stand a high chance of being rescued. Surely that is only going to have one outcome? 

 

You still haven't answered my question directly, though.

 

Are you saying we should allow people to drown to deter others from making the journey?

[Guest Foxin_mad]

4 minutes ago, bovril said:

You think the current state of the European economy was created by allowing Africans into Italy? Any stats to back that up? 

Its nothing to do with allowing or not allowing Africans in to Italy, although the recent mass migration into Italy and Greece has had a significant impact on those nations.

 

We are talking many hundreds of years of migration, some successful some not. I see for the UK we had huge levels of EU migration during the late 90s and early 00s, our population rose by 10 million and we did not put the housing, infrastructure, education and healthcare in place to cope with this influx. Obviously the left will blame 'austerity politics' but I would say we perhaps need to consider is there a point at which a countries services break? 

 

We are seeing it across Europe now, I couldn't honestly think of one European country that doesn't have some public service issues, some cultural integration problems, Its been doing on for decades and we are gradually becoming poorer more divided nations across Europe. 

[Guest Foxin_mad]

8 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

You still haven't answered my question directly, though.

 

Are you saying we should allow people to drown to deter others from making the journey?

Its not my decision to make. Thankfully. 

 

Of course I wouldn't want people to drown, they are people. But people are and will drown even now because we are encouraging this trafficking process to continue in much larger numbers, because they know there is a higher than 50% chance they will be rescued. At the ned of the day these people are making a choice to take that Journey no one has made them. 

 

Its a difficult call to make, I think in the long time as harsh as it sounds letting some drown now, may send out a message and it could significantly reduce the numbers willing to risk this journey. 

[Buce]

11 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

Its not my decision to make. Thankfully. 

 

Of course I wouldn't want people to drown, they are people. But people are and will drown even now because we are encouraging this trafficking process to continue in much larger numbers, because they know there is a higher than 50% chance they will be rescued. At the ned of the day these people are making a choice to take that Journey no one has made them. 

 

Its a difficult call to make, I think in the long time as harsh as it sounds letting some drown now, may send out a message and it could significantly reduce the numbers willing to risk this journey. 

 

Jesus, it’s like nailing jelly to a plate. 

 

A simple yes or no - are you saying we should allow them to drown to deter others from making the journey?

[Guest Foxin_mad]

9 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

Jesus, it’s like nailing jelly to a plate. 

 

A simple yes or no - are you saying we should allow them to drown to deter others from making the journey?

Yes because some are drowning anyway, possibly in larger numbers now than they would if we discouraged it in my view. 

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

Just now, Foxin_mad said:

Yes because some are drowning anyway, possibly in larger numbers now than they would if we discouraged it in my view. 

 seems like it wasnt that difficult a decision to make

[Guest Foxin_mad]

1 minute ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

 seems like it wasnt that difficult a decision to make

That's my view doesn't make it right, and I am not in charge. So is irrelevant really.

 

I seems counter productive to send out the message to the people traffickers its ok to take peoples life saving to bring them to the Med and send them across in a dingy because when they start sinking we will rescue them and bring them into the EU! We are keeping the traffickers in business! Its never ever going to solve the problem. We are aiding and abetting them! 

 

I would ask is the solution to lay on ships and bring more and more into European countries already with massive economic and social integration problems? Most of these countries have been having civil wars for years, you move the same problems to Europe do you think they will go away? 

[Dr The Singh]

56 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

 

Um..

 

@Dr The Singh, care to weigh in?

 

Regarding the topic itself, I think it much more complex than this paragraph implies - Interference in the various African nations (amongst others) didn't end with decolonisation, after all. It's entirely possible to be an "independent" state and still rely heavily on what one of the bigger boys is going to do - ask all of Latin America about the US and their Monroe Doctrine, for instance.

I think Dennis needs to go there himself, India is a grade A shit hole and majority of the infrastructure hasn't been improved since the Brits owned it's ass