The EU does not have a duty to just let in anyone who shows up. It's morally irresponsible to encourage people to make the dangerous trek to pay smugglers who put them on inflated crafts unable to make the journey that depend on them getting picked up by the coast guard. As Australia's example shows, the way to stop drownings is to give no benefits to taking the journey.
Your position can be rephrased as "It is better to let refugees drown in the Mediterranean than think Europe might welcome more of them." I agree - it is likely over the long term that the more dangerous and hopeless the journey, the fewer might attempt it.
So now, we pit the "moral responsibility" to Europe to minimize population growth via immigration vs. the moral responsibility to save the lives of those in your backyard who have risked it to get there.
OR the EU could make/force an agreement that Libya/Algeria/Morocco take back migrants recovered in the Mediterranean.
There is also a third option, which is to send them somewhere else. There are a number of countries in Africa that are poor, but still aren't in the midst of any active war or genocide. If you're from a country that is, why not go there?
The answer is that the real reason so many want to come to the EU isn't the humanitarian crisis at home, it's for the better money. But when that's their primary motivation, and they have the same alternative as anyone from any of the other countries they could live in, then their claim is no better than anyone else's.
It's fair to not want to be in Libya right now, but when you have the option to move east, west or south, there is a lot less moral force in the argument that you have a right to move north.
Why? Those people are _economic migrants_, we don't have a duty to welcome them (unlike, say refugees from Syria)
Some countries in the Middle East are already hosting as much as total EU is hosting and even more.
They just don’t complain as much as some of our politicians do to get voted.
Which is why they want to leave, but has nothing to do with the point that there are many other places for them to go.
> They just don’t complain as much as some of our politicians do to get voted.
Because they don't have redistributive social assistance systems based on assumptions about what proportion of the population are net recipients that accepting large amounts of indigent immigration would violate.
A poor and rural country can accept almost arbitrarily large numbers of refugees because they're also a labor force, so you give them jobs building housing and growing food and they support themselves.
That doesn't work in urbanized countries because there isn't any cheap land available and in a lot of places there is already an oversupply of unskilled labor, so in that environment they can't support their own weight and it limits the number you can accept.
I think most of us agree that migrants traveling long and dangerous distances to Europe don't have much to loose back home. Now the question is if their lives are not in danger anymore why should Europe host them and pay them a better life ? Is this supposed to be a solution to world's poverty? As we've seen if support is provided or better said lack of counter-measures you may experience a continuous stream of migrants(i.e millions). Even if we want, we can't welcome everybody, I fear we can't coup even with the people who really need help, let alone the economic migrants.
On the other side there is also the cultural issue. Millions of people change the landscape for sure and the natives don't want to compete with migrants(why would they?). UK is leaving EU because of european "migrants" so it's not something to ignore.
Well I don't think "anyone" in Europe wants to send these migrants to the bottom of the sea.
A solution currently worked on is to pay other countries closer culturally, socially and even geographically (i.e Turkey) to host these people.
The lack of border security gives a sense of unease especially if you expect people from a war torn country or a country where crime is high so I fully support securing the borders.
However the deshumanisation of migrants and treating them as criminals (or worse) is totally wrong and has no place in a civilised country. You can have both border security and immigration. Just be honest who is allowed in and who is not, put in place agreed quotas and that's it. At least everyone knows(including the migrants) what your stance is.
Because if you're going to uproot your life, you're not going to simply go to another miserable country like Bulgaria, you'll go to a country where it's worth moving to. When you buy a new phone, do you buy last year's phone ("it's good enough!") or do you buy the damn best phone you can afford ("it'll last me a long time!")? France will "last" someone a longer time than Bulgaria.
In any case, I don't think it would change too much, since most of the migrants are not Libyans running away from the civil war.
The people that live in those countries, the warlords they support, the wars they fight, the human atrocities they commit, their ethnically motivated conflicts, are never their fault, we are supposed to treat them as infants when it comes to all the shortcomings of their actions.
The pattern is: There is a dictator that is oppressing his people, we feel bad about it and want them to be able to have democracy. We overthrow the dictator, and then things get complicated and we walk away, leaving the place in civil war and ruin.
Often the problem is that the only reason it's a country at all is that some guy in London drew a line on a map a couple of hundred years ago, and the borders do not reflect ethnic or religious loyalties. In this post colonial situation, often the only thing holding the country together was the violence of the dictator. We then swoop in with fighter jets and maybe even ground troops, maybe stick around a while to run a few elections, but generally without the understanding of what's left of the power structure in the country.
This is precisely what happened in Libya, and after Iraq and Afghanistan it's shameful that we just continue to do the same thing. Bomb Gaddafi and let the chips fall where they may, which turns out to be years long civil war.
If you want to look for a relatively successful model of U.S. intervention, it's what we did in Yugoslavia. Just recognize that the country doesn't have enough holding it together to be a functioning democracy, break it up along ethnic lines, institute democracy in the statelets, and then let them all join the EU when they're ready.
Wouldn't the diversity give them strength?
I’m actually in favour in smaller nation states and redrawing lines as a solution to the failures of centralized mega states and old world borders, such as lack of representation and cultural differences which cause policy conflicts (the smaller stuff, not just violence which is atypical in most places). Plus smaller states = way more experimentation, which the US states were supposed to be with Federalism but has had that slowly taken away.
But that’s another story which doesn’t help explain the contradictions of this common explanation used selectively in Africa.
If democracy is instituted, and the ruling group was a minority, there will be resentment on the side of the majority for past treatment, and resentment on the side of the formerly ruling minority for their diminished status. This has a tendency to boil over into civil war.
This is exactly what happened in Yugoslavia, and we solved it by breaking up the country, and it has been fairly peaceful for twenty years. The main place where there are still problems is in Bosnia, and specifically because we left Bosnia together and the Bosnian Serbs want out.
I agree with you that many countries had flawed leadership to begin with it's not really the case with many others(i.e much of the middle east). Removing the government of another country by military force and destroying the social and physical infrastructure is the direct reason for the current situation. Arming various extremist groups does not help either. As we know Al-Qaeda was armed and trained by the U.S in the first place.
Why did US invade Iraq? We know it's for the oil now but at least it should have had the decency to provide security/safety transition to a democracy in exchange for their resources. Not to mention that US vets their leaders/administration. They are not infants but have little choice in the face of the world's most powerful country/countries.
That's why I believe the world starts loosing its faith in the West. The latest interventions brought nothing good.
Why did Iraq invade Kuwait? Start a fight with a US ally and then complain when the US intervenes.
The pretext of invasions were different though. Busch said it was because Saddam was evil and had weapons of mass destruction. Saddam was more decent in its allegations and said Kuwait was stealing Iraqi petroleum through slant drilling.
Btw Saddam Hussein regime was "created" by the US and the UK...
Unfortunately some politicians are harming the way we feel about each other for the sake of their own game.
EU is already rejecting many refugees. It’s not like someone that makes it to the shore is going to stay without a good reason.
That’s not just a good solution to this problem.
The comment was about perpetually blaming the EU/US for whatever bad happens in 3rd world countries.
The article cites: Gabriele Iacovino as the expert. His bio via google translate https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&...
I'm not sure whether they are a positive or negative contribution, and this also depends on how good the accepting state is at integration and education.
In the best case, taking in random people off the boats is still worse than a capability based immigration policy that encourages people with qualification to immigrate safely.
In fact countries hosting much more refugees aren’t complaining as much.
Here is a vague overview with a map if you are unaware: http://www.msnbc.com/specials/migrant-crisis/libya
Perhaps illegal immigrants who are just seeking economic benefits should be returned after checking their cases even if their skills are needed simply because they have entered illegally. But, Mediterranean sea is not the right place to filter them.
But I world argue, that supporting a solution to actively prevent someone from putting themselves in a situation where they can drown, is not a duty.
I.e.: I have the duty to help my neighbor if I see that she fell off the stairs and needs medical attention. But I don't have the duty to go check on her door every hour to see if everything is fine.
EDIT: Disagreeing with someone's comment because it goes against your political ideology, is not supposed to be a reason to down-vote a comment in HN.
3) This actually depends on where you are. In the US in most states, your only duty is to call 911 so that she can be attended to by professionals. In 3 states, the duty extends to actually rendering aid to the best of your abilities. Outside of the US, Australia, and the UK--which all have "Good Samaritan laws", I'm not sure many other countries have laws protecting "rescuers", and correspondingly no duty to "rescue" a person in need of aid.
That last bit is correct. There's no affirmative duty to checkup on someone else unless you have a legal duty to do so, such as if you are a paid caretaker.
The EU has financed walls (yes the same EU that makes fun of Trump) like the one at Evros river at greek-turkish borders, a place that could be used as a safe passage, away from risky sea smuggling.
While supposedly it's illegal to return migrants back to countries that could risk their life, still the EU made a deal with Turkey to do exactly that.
Same wise they paying the Libya to keep refugees and migrants in awful concentration camps away from the EU, yes the same Libya that is under civil war is considered by EU a safe country. In fact a few days ago such a concentration camp was bombed and many lost their lives.
EU's Frontex and local forces keep pushing back the boats with refugees, something that's totally and universally illegal.
It is high time to stop this immunity that EU enjoys to the public talk, childhood's end has arrived long ago for that particular organization.
People who come here for economic benefits should be returned(unless they have skills that can bring a positive contribution).
Everyone is responsible for its own life especially when the risk is known.
As for the rest of it how sensible closed borders policies are i will rephrase old Smullyan, it's only sensible to your satisfaction and to the satisfaction of those who share the same right-wing values, but without hearing the argument of why this is a sensible policy i can assure you that it carries not the slightest conviction to the people of the left.
Open borders and free, safe passage.
Safe passage to where? Bringing people in is the easy thing to do, taking care of them and keeping the same standards of living for the "natives" is not so easy. I'm all on board welcoming as many people as possible as long as there is a plan for them once they get here. Nobody provided a such plan.
We've seen what happens with open borders: countries that welcomed massive numbers of migrants found themselves unable to coup and started looking at their neighbours to distribute them. Good plan, right? That's what I call "responsibility".
>> i can assure you that it carries not the slightest conviction to the people of the left.
Yeah sure, until their benefits are hit or when they see migrants doing better than them in their own country.
Tell that to the people who voted Brexit and UKIP and keep in mind they voted against "european migrants" who made a net positive contribution to the economy.
My point is that people change their stance on "open borders" when the reality hits(i.e they no longer get access to benefits, get mugged by a migrant, loose their low skilled job to a cheaper migrant etc).
Now of course there was a plan about distributing some migrants BUT let me remind you that those quota NEVER achieved, most european countries never received the amount of refugees they were "obligated" to.
The distribution plan wasn't because refugees gathered for example here in Greece and they wanted to stay here, not at all, most of them wanted to leave the country. It was only a passage for them to other countries. Many people had family waiting for them. What happened? Walls were raised. Borders were closed and Greece almost kicked out of schengen (informally it was suspended).
Obviously the government was forced to accept the EU plan about keeping the migrants in concentration camps and distribute some people around the europe (that again never really happened other than a small extend). Later on the EU-Turkey deal happened.
Nowdays that xenophobic, anti-immigration feelings are in rise you can hear that plain and simple even by moderate politicians that when syrian war is over refugees are out of here.
In other words, there never was an open borders and integration policy that failed.
It is the same fascist policy by EU that getting people killed or rot in prison.
>> Uhm, those countries that got "some" amount of migrants which wasn't massive (only Jordan has more than 600k refugees)
Germany got about 1.5 million migrants. The question is what is the plan? Most of the EU governments dodged the question and thus the reason people voted far right. In Germany they have tried to integrate them but the truth is that not all of them integrate and of course all this integration comes with a cost. Now keep in mind that not all the countries are run like Germany and even Germany has found itself overwhelmed by the task thus asking for "solidarity" from the other member states. Greece can't manage its own unemployment let alone train, educate and integrate migrants.
I think you confuse refugee camps with concentration camps which are entirely different things. There is no need to dramatise it any further.
>> In other words, there never was an open border...
There was an open border policy but it didn't work. It proved that letting people in freely won't end the migration
issue, it only makes it worse. I would even say this
open border policy is the reason why migration from Africa through mediterranean sea intensified and we see so many drowned now.
>> It is the same fascist policy by EU that getting people killed or rot in prison.
I think it's just not fair to say that. You can see anti-immigration feelings all over the world where you have mass immigration. I don't even mention the leader of the free world(U.S). Even in Turkey, Istanbul which is closer culturally with the migrants they started deporting illegal immigrants with the exception of Syrians(due the EU agreement). Truth is that I don't see why anyone would want to integrate millions of unskilled immigrants from conflict zones. Some of them don't even want to integrate. We have a responsibility to offer food and shelter but not to make them european citizens. There is a different path for that(i.e skills based visa).
>> Greece can't manage its own unemployment let alone train, educate and integrate migrants.
It's funny you saying that because Greece is a good example of open borders back to 90s and the influx of hundreds thousand of migrants from Albania. Was there any plan? Absolutely nothing. There were tensions and racist attacks but in perspective they did have a positive effect to the greek economy that wasn't back then any better than it is now. And they did integrate to society.
>>I would even say this open border policy is the reason why migration from Africa through mediterranean sea intensified and we see so many drowned now.
That's exactly what right wingers are saying. And makes absolutely no sense. Offer to those people safe and guaranteed passage and they will not be drowned, won't be killed, won't be raped on their way to wherever they want to go. Why do people have to make this complicated?
"As mood sours, Syrians report forced deportations from Turkey"
"Greek Coast Guard caught on video pushing a boat full of refugees back to Turkey"
"EU border force Frontex implicated in migrant abuse"
The issue it's not really complicated. You just have to admit that massive immigration has some social and economic costs. Maybe not for the wealthy but surely for the leas fortunate "natives". Right wing wins because of deniers like you who can't provide a compromise solution. "Let them all in and we see afterwards how we handle it" doesn't put people at ease. Not to mention the security risk.
"During 2018, the refugee population in Germany continued to increase, numbering 1,063,800 at the end of the year. More than half were from Syria (532,100), while other countries of origin included iraq (136,500), Afghanistan (126,000), eritrea (55,300), the islamic Republic of iran (41,200), Turkey (24,000), Somalia (23,600), Serbia and Kosovo (S/ReS/1244 (1999)) (9,200), the Russian Federation (8,100), Pakistan (7,500) and nigeria (6,400)."
Do you see anything weird in those data? 24.000 turkish people have been granted asylum by Germany.
The same country that EU acknowledge as a safe place for refugees to return them back.
I think that speaks a lot about EU's totally despicable deal with Turkey that has been criticized again and again by so many organizations.  
Sadly, we always return back to Smullyan. Whatever i show or tell you won't change your mind about how the little way of life of natives must be protected over human rights of others.
I only hope that pro-europeans, left or right, stop ridicule themselves by criticizing Trump's ICE while they are responsible for far worse atrocities.
Same pig, different color.
I think you deliberately ignore the details for these asylum seekers. We all know that after the failed coup Erdogan started to persecute political opponents. Does this mean is an unsafe country for syrian refugees? Maybe you should ask yourself why the west supported the military coup(media included) in the first place?
There are 50-70 million refugees over the world. How many should Europe take to be considered a good protector of human rights? Should we go all in? Let them settle in and see how we handle it afterwards?
And since we all live in open, participative democracies here in the EU, you are absolutely free to elect left wing parties that defend your views, while the other people are free to elect right wing parties thet defend theirs. In the end, the position assumed in the EU, will be determined by the outcome of that democratic process.
What you are not entitled to do of course, is to impose the views of the minority of the population uppon the majority with the argument that the minority holds the "morally correct view".
Anyway, i'm mostly referring to the people of the left when i'm saying that they have nothing to gain out of this reactionary silence about the massive human rights violations in EU.
It's obvious that the parties chose by the majority are drowning people in Mediterranean sea.
The EC is elected by a voting by your elected representatives in the European Parliament. In a representative democracy (which is basically how it works every democratic nation in the planet) you are not supposed to vote for every decision taken, you vote for a representative and those representatives then pass resolutions observing a majority. This is why it is called a "representative democracy".
> reactionary silence about the massive human rights violations in EU
Well, that the EU is engaging in a "massive human rights violations" is clearly a position held by the reactionary left, that is not shared by the majority of the population.
Do you by any chance have any wikipedia link explaining that?
Now let's review another twist of democracy. How is that a "remainer"(May) become the person to deliver the victory of the "leave" campaign? There wasn't much televised campaign either if I recall correctly.
Would a direct election of the EC make EU more democratic? Should the UK elect the PM that way as well? Not many voted for Boris either, right?
No need to add to the gigantic amount of money Europe wastes on social care.