> The Problem - Migrants
(slide two in the gallery on the landing page)
You know that this is an important topic because "ZDF (former Neo) Magazin Royal" is behind that. They are an kind of investigative satire format, unfortunately topics like these are not too funny... But very good work from their side.
Frontex was always suspected and accused for not following any EU moral and legal processes, this is just a proof and absolutely unacceptable.
Certainly a very strong influence, much stronger now than before the 2020 hiatus/reboot, but it still retains more classic late show elements than Last Week Tonight (e.g. the stage band)
The slide is part of the SafeShore project (System for detection of Threat Agents in Maritime Border Environment[1][2]), which received ~5 million EUR in grants, the largest beneficiary being an Isreali defense contractor. I'm not entirely sure what it bought us, I'm certain it included a PDF report and a few powerpoint slides.
One of many (MANY) grants under H2020-EU.3.7. Secure societies - Protecting freedom and security of Europe and its citizens programme with a total budget of 1.7 billion EUR[3].
Another example chosen at random[4]: Improving the Effectiveness of the Capabilities (IEC) in EU conflict prevention, 2 million EUR, beneficiaries seem to be universities and think tanks. Another one? Ok[5]: EfficieNT Risk-bAsed iNspection of freight Crossing bordErs without disrupting business, ~7 million EUR, 1.3 million of which went to -- for some reason -- the French government owned nuclear power research think tank CEA, other beneficiaries include manufacturers of things like airport metal detectors who apparently need millions of EU funds to improve their own products.
The H2020 in H2020-EU.3.7. is Horizon 2020[6], the 2014-2020 research funding framework (2014-2020 was a EU budget cycle, the current one is 2021-2027), which had an overall budget of an "estimated €80 billion of funding".
What's my point? I have no point, really, I don't know a lot about EU research funding in general or this domain in particular, but it was interesting to look this stuff up and if nothing else it's nice to see that these things are out in the open for anybody to look up, even if virtually nobody does. Given how much money is being spent here, I can't help but wonder what kind of fraction of a fraction civil society is spending checking up on all of these projects.
The CEA is not a think tank. It is indeed a public research institute specializing in nuclear energy but with zero contribution from private individuals or investors, nor does it fit any other part of the definition of think tank or is included in any think tank ranking. The CEA's annual budget is € 5 billion, whereas the IFRI (Institut Français des Relations Internationales, definitely a think tank) is only € 7 million.
Furthermore, the CEA is leading the project for very good reasons and the help of companies manufacturing airport metal detectors makes perfect sense:
"3) Enhanced relocatable unit for non-intrusive detection of wide number of threats including explosives, illicit drugs, chemical warfare agents, nuclear and radioactive materials (NR) and special nuclear materials (SNM) such as enriched uranium and plutonium, 4) Trans-European RPM network for passive detection of illicit nuclear and radioactive (NR) materials combining detection facilities of different types and technologies" (simply quoting your sources)
Why is it problematic for Frontex to meet with weapons companies?
“A new regulation passed by the European Parliament in the spring of 2019 stipulates that Frontex is to have a “standing corps” of 10,000 by 2027, and it is allowed to equip border agents with handguns.
The problem is that no legal regulations permit members of an EU agency to carry firearms.”
Why are lobbyists so interested in Frontex?
“...In addition: Since 2019, Frontex has been permitted to own and acquire airplanes, drones and firearms.”
-
So the concern is that Frontex is being “too forward” in acquiring weapons it’s allowed to own, but not carry for some reason, while also being dishonest/misleading about meeting with vendors, correct?
Biometric usage, and meeting with other border agencies instead of human rights groups aside.
Why is lobbyism not a solved problem? Why is it not yet more scrutinized than it should be? Peace and freedom in all western countries is at stake because there is no accountability.
Is money that powerful? What else can we do than to vote carefully?
Because lobbying is currently a solution, not a problem. While we see that it causes problems, formal lobbying structures were set up specifically so that we can see what is happening. Without the framework we have today, it happens anyways but more in backrooms with less oversight. For example, if instead of formal meetings where FOI requests can get access to documents like listed on the website, this was all done at someones home at a private dinner would we the general public be better off?
To be clear, I agree that we need to improve the situation, however ignoring that lobbying is better than what came before it isn't particularly helpful. Influence is a core component of social power structures. You can't legislate it away.
As discussed in the Frontex papers, the problem here is, that Frontex does not even comply with EU lobbying regulations. They go around them as if these just don't apply to them.
So even if there are regulations in place, as long as institutions not facing dire consequences for noncompliance, the rational thing to do as a member of such an institution is to ignore said regulations.
As long as the negative consequences of your actions are minimal at best while some form of positive consequences are very likely, why comply with regulations.
I absolutely agree. And we need to do better in terms of enforcement. What I was trying to convey was that by formally allowing lobbying it gives us more power to do something about it. Same reasoning for why drug legalization works better than prohibition.
Maybe it's just my own ignorance, but in the EU context, I don't understand the difference between a company "lobbying" an agency like Frontex versus a company having a "government sales team" doing "customer outreach" to Frontex?
The usual definition of lobbying involves meetings with various interested 'stakeholders' who are not aiming for a vendor/customer relationship; sales meetings and tenders for goods or services are something separate than someone getting their word in about policy.
One other thing that surprised me in this article is the inclusion of "representatives of EU border control agencies to these meetings, but also international organizations such as Interpol, Europol and the OSCE, as well as representatives from countries known for their brutal border control policies" - I would definitely consider meetings with relevant state institutions from EU countries (which are partners of Frontex) and non-EU countries (which are generally doing equivalent functions as Frontex) as something entirely distinct from lobbying.
In the US, it would have better fit the definition of lobbying if Frontex had gone the elected representatives and pushed them for business. Having webinars and inviting potential government customers is sounds more like what Frontex is doing, and regardless of the ramifications, it's considered standard practice for government sales in US.
Frontex is not looking for government customers, it's (another) government agency - it's the EU-wide European border and coast guard agency that is cooperating/coordinating with all the border control agencies of the individual states. So meeting with these border control agencies is, like, one of the tasks the government has explicitly assigned to them.
Governments are violent monopolistic organisations, and lobbying is a natural reaction to this. No morality or value creation is to be found anywhere near it.
Democratic goverment is the best way the people have at organising their society.
Devolving power to organisations that by their nature represent fewer than the whole population and aren't under any form of democratic control are nowhere near what we should want.
Unless you're a rich billionaire who can afford lobbyists of course.
> Democratic goverment is the best way the people have at organising their society.
Is this a fact? States are monopolistic armed organisations, and democratic states mean that who to point this violent threat at is determined by popular vote - the mob decides.
My claim is that this does not remove the moral evil of using violent threat to get your will.
Re: your last paragraph: lobbying exists just because of the state - if you can convince those closest to the trigger who to use force against and who to leave alone, you can succeed at your competitors cost. It is a natural reaction to lobby, like a child of a violent family may convince the parent to spank a sibling instead
> Democratic goverment is the best way the people have at organising their society.
It's not a fact, but it's parroted so often that people take it as one. Disagreeing with it immediately makes you a fascist. Sadly. I can't understand how voting about other people is supposed to be freedom, but somehow this question is also fascist.
Legitimate ownership of property can be gained in the following ways:
• Purchase/trade with a legitimate owner
• Receiving as gift from a legitimate owner
• Creation of discovery where there is no legitimate owner
Otherwise, we call gaining property “theft”. For example by using threats of violence to coerce others to give you what they legitimately own.
The sin of democratic governments is that they are all about gaining property in non-voluntary ways. When I vote for a candidate who promises my interest group money taken from others, I am just stealing with a proxy. That is why representative democracy is not ethical or good. Note that this does not make kings or emperors ethical either.
The right way to resolve disputes and protect property without a state would be with agreements between clients, insurance companies, and dispute resolution companies, just like how businesses in their contracts write that in case of dispute, company X will decide who is in the right.
Those who think they can plan other people’s lives, and who today aspire to work in government and centrally plan on behalf of others against their will, should instead open advice columns in newspapers. If they are so good at planning for others, they’ll be widely successful, but I have my doubts.
Case in point: Norway has 10x the amount of oil as America, and infinitely more than Switzerland, a country devoid of natural resources. Norway has a huge coastline and many ports - Switzerland is land locked. Yet you’re 4x as likely to be a millionaire, the average person makes more in CH before and after taxes. This is clearly due to Norwegians choosing high regulation, high tax, and limited personal freedom. With their head start of massive oil resources, the average Norwegian should live better than the average swiss. But incentives for central planners are inherently inefficient.
Not influencing what is going on this way - not everything has to be standard and decided by a majority, multiple options can be done at the same time. Second thing is reducing the size of government - not everything has to be the same for literally millions of people and thousands of square kilometers, and especially not for hundreds of millions of people and entire continents. Some things shouldn't ever be voted about.
Subsidiarity of responsibility/scope between layers of government seems orthogonal to the way we (s)elect people in charge.
> Some things shouldn't ever be voted about.
In many democracies, certain things are codified into constitutions and are hard to change, and typically not frequently, if ever, voted on. Is that what you mean?
Democracy is not just the way we s/elect people in charge, it's also the idea of having people in charge and having a single way of life for millions.
The country where I live (Czechia) was praised for having one of the strongest constitutions ever written. Now its been destroyed by a populist government for a decade, with the destruction rate multiplied with the pandemic which this government is unable to do anything about while constantly trying to shift money into their pockets. Thanks to the pandemic they can do anything regardless of the constitution or law, but even before the pandemic we found out the constitution is worthless if there isn't anyone with the power to protect it, and that any wording (specific or broad, doesn't matter) will bend to the will of the judge.
If constitution is what you rely on you're in for a bad ride, you need ordinary people with guns ready to defend it. I will not trust a constitution to protect me or my property ever again.
Young democracies usually have a period in which both politicians and the people need to get used to a new way of doing things, and defining the new way of doing things. This can take a while, e.g. see the Napoleonic period and its aftermath. A nice feature about the French republic is the tradition of the reboot: they're at v5 of the Republic now, with fully revised constitutions and significantly changed shapes (parliamentary to presidential systems for instance), something many countries could learn from I think. A defacto dictatorial period is often one of the first phases of new democracies.
Secondly, a problem common to quite a few eastern European countries is an unclear separation of powers (trias politica) and even unclarity about the need for it among many voters. Such an instance could (and should) be able to overrule certain kinds of fundamental changes.
Some scholars describe democracies as inherent experiments, which I think is very fitting and something we need to emphasize more. Obviously trying to organize things in a cooperative, or not that cooperatively, is a ongoing affair. There is no way to guarantee anything, but the people's continued involvement. I'd hope they typically wouldn't need guns, but can use tools like constitutionals courts, and, of course the ballot box at various levels of government. Like you say, a more regionalist design can make more local autonomy possible, see Germanys states vs highly centralized French style of governing.
For a bit of a background for non-German folks and particularly Australians... that's a "government-run", "federal" broadcaster publishing this. Sounds like shooting your own foot? No.
The Basic Law of Germany, approved by the Western allies in 1949, included telecommunications as a responsibility of the federal government. And so the federal government thought to create a television service to compete with those of the states. The states sued and won in the constitutional court - saying that telecommunications only referred to infrastructure and delivery, definitely not the content (think fascism and communism as to why). The resulting corpse was used by the states as a foundation for a new broadcaster formed through a state treaty.
Germany is part of the EU and thus Frontex. The individual states of Germany organised a sister organisation, ZDF, to the Federal Republic of Germany itself and it isn't.
One reason I mention all this is because we've got a broken media environment unlike Germany here in Australia with a vast amount of media concentration. And the constitutionality of the ABC is based on the constitution saying that telephones and the postal service fall under the responsibility of the federal government. The ABC isn't Australia Post or Telstra. Yet somehow we all just went along with the premise. So this is what happened here in a similar situation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan_Files_(Australia) - a police raid, the federal government applying pressure and a chilling effect for all future publications. The top three options in Australia for a 'stop the boats' leak like this would be 1. a broadcaster under a massive _chilling_ _effect_ by the 'stop the boats' government, 2. Rupert Murdoch or 3. Nine, with Costello in charge, who was literally the deputy 'stop the boats' guy. Horrifying.
So when I see comments like
> It's really worrying that there's some concentrated effort to take Frontex down.
No, this leak comes from the constituent states of Germany being concerned by a "superior" power doing things that they haven't been authorised to do. Whether it's the Federal Republic of Germany deciding to start a public broadcaster despite the states (and Allied powers) not having agreed to that being its responsibility or whether it's the European Union starting a military (which it's not allowed to do) it's the same thing. It might be a concentrated effort, whatever - it doesn't matter - because it's a constitutional necessity. This leak here is an extremely important part of the process that all "inferior" constituent parts of something should engage in to keep the greater parts in check.
Something the constituent states of Australia should take more seriously.
In addition to that, German public-service broadcast is supposed to be independent. It is not state-TV. Politicians attempts to influence content and programming are generally frowned upon.
This is reflected in the supervising board and television board consisting of a broad mixture of appointees, both political and not [1]. The board does not have direct influence on editorial decisions [2] (in German).
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZDF#Supervising_board
[2] https://www.zdf.de/zdfunternehmen/fragen-an-das-zdf-108.html
You’re right, I had missed that. I had watched the original segment but evidently missed that part. Partly probably by design because how the information was obtained and collated kind of distracts from the subject matter.
AFAICS it's not a leak, but a regular freedom of information request. And I'm not too familiar with how German media works, but if it's anything like the Dutch national broadcaster, it's not actually the states that are pursuing this, but journalists on their own accord.
To emphasise, our national broadcasters are not our only broadcasters, so the funding of our media is not dependant on the government. There are commercial broadcasters as well.
Partially. Most of the funding comes from corporate sponsors and individual donors and those tend to be on a station by station or program level. The funding sources for NewsHour, probably the most relevant part of PBS, are listed here for example: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders
Which leads to hilarious results like the Koch Brothers funding NOVA.
That said, Sinclair and the like excluded, the splintering of television networks into individual markets and restrictions on O-and-O stations are world-class exemplary parts of the US media landscape.
Also, what I meant is that put it funding somewhere out of reach of the general taxation pool. Tie it to property taxes, have a licence fee, a foundation with an endowment, a levy on something or other, individual sponsorships, that kind of thing.
Tying the funding and thus existence of your media to a healthy democracy is like giving a horse its own rope, they'll trot off into the sunset never to be seen again.
Nah, they’re not there yet. ICE has two separate parts, deportations, and a mini FBI [0]. All federal agents, but not dependent on the border.
This is like a federal CBP x Coast Guard that also works with the Texas Border Patrol & Texas Coast Guard, the California Border Patrol & Florida Coast Guard, etc
[0] - Homeland Security Investigations (small, quiet, transnational), deals with e.g. cartels, movie piracy, the FBI, child porn, while Enforcement and Removal Operations (big, loud, domestic) deports. There is some tension.
As TFA points out, Frontex routinely and systematically ignores/breaks both European and international law. We do not deny medical treatment to people that get in car accidents, even if they caused the accidents themselves by driving recklessly.
If the EU wants to keep migrants from Africa out, fine, but letting hundreds of people drown each year in order so send a message is not acceptable, ethically or legally.
Maybe I missed something because I read with JS turned off, but in the article I read, Frontex is accused of meeting with lobbyists. Certainly fishy and morally dubious, but hardly unusual for the EU or for Germany for that matter. What laws are they systematically breaking and how is that connected to people drowning?
For the record the EU has an obligation to look into asylum claims made in the EU and reject or accept them as applicable. On the other hand, it turns out many are approved even if not valid and the EU is barely able to deport anyone, illegal migrant or not. Basically whoever gets into the EU has a good chance to stay there, even if they don't have that right, so it's no wonder the EU is trying to deter more people from coming because this is putting immense stress especially on Western European societies and causing conflicts.
EU countries (and I think all countries) have a separate obligation to rescue people in distress at sea. The fact that someone is drowning in the middle of the Mediterranean is not a concern of the EU, as crass as that may sound - one rescues whoever is in trouble near one's ship. Still the EU is going above and beyond and is also sponsoring rescue missions that fish people out of the sea. Obviously not everyone makes it.
Frontex is accused of doing pushbacks, meaning the large boats create waves that push the migrant boats back. In the linked Video Segment they had a German police offer testifying to that.
The concern with Frontex investing into planes and drones rather than boats is seen as a strategy to control the border without needing to help the migrants.
One other point that is mentioned is the „coast guard“ of Libya which Frontex allegedly cooperates with. That coast guard is accused of either not responding, or if they respond to torture and rape rescued people.
One final problem, that even if one were to have proof of those atrocities, it is really hard to sue Frontex for misconduct, because you have to sue them to what’s equivalent of the EUs Supreme Court.
The problem is, ironically, that the second best way to prevent migrants from drowning in the Mediterranean is to stop them from crossing.
The first would be to set up ships to help them cross, which obviously isn't going to happen.
So now smugglers and human traffickers have had field days (and years) smuggling people into Europe. All at an extreme cost: migrants are paying through their noses, getting abused along the route and they are drowning in the Mediterranean.
All so Europeans can feel good about helping them instead of starting a massive campaign to inform everyone that:
- immigrants will be flown right back
- money saved will be used to help them where they re (ha ha, not going to happen with the politicians we vote for, but this is what I wish they would do)
Let me be clear: I want to help those people. I'll happily see my taxes raised almost as much as I can bear to see it happen.
We don't talk much about religion here but since this account isn't linked to my identity I'll admit my motives here: I believe in an afterlife, "heaven" to be more precise, and I believe that enjoying life here while not caring about others is a rather effective way to make myself ineligible for that.
However moving everyone to Europe isn't sustainable way of fixing everyones problem, so for now I try to cut my luxuries and spend them on things that can help:
- giving people in developing countries work
- supporting Amnesty International (yes, I'm conflicted about this as they support the migration scam but I love their work in other areas)
- spreading the gospel so more people might start to think like I outline above, hopefully creating a positive feedback loop.
OP was claiming that this article offers proof that Frontex is systematically breaking the law and that's what I was responding to.
I am not familiar with all the wrongdoings that Frontex allgedly participates in, nor am I particularly interested in that topic. If they're doing illegal things, there should be no problems suing them, supreme courts or not.
There's one thing that I'd like to address though: you said that Frontex wants to control the border(s) without helping migrants. The latter is not part of the mandate of any border protection agency that I know of, so it's no wonder they won't want to invest money into it.
Okay so how do you come to the EU when you from Africa?
Or if you are from the far east?
Please enlighten me.
Oh wait either you go through turkey where we don't even know whats happening with these people or you get pushed back on the Mediterranean sea by frontex.
Try that in a country where there is no real goverment anymore or you are on the wrong side of history or you just have the wrong religion or you don't have enough money to buy a visa because you need to first bribe a lot of people or your country is a warzone and there is no gov anymore.
Yes you can apply for a visa but try that without any papers...
Or if someone gangs have taken away your passport and other ID documents...
Or someone comes to your home and threatens you that if you don't fight for them they will kill your family...
yeah apply for a visa... which can take years...
<irony>
good comment!
</irony>
There's a huge difference between refugees, which is what you'd be if your country is indeed a war zone. The EU doesn't deal well with refugees, but let's face it, many refugees also don't want to be granted asylum in Romania, they want to do to France or Germany.
Part of the problem is that refugees and migrants mixes at the borders. EU is also terrible at managing refugees, mostly due to not being able to agree to distribute the refuges equally across the member states. Of cause that would provoke some people, because apparently Slovakia or Bulgaria isn't better than living in a war zone, but Sweden and Germany is.
Yes, living in Slovakia can be as bad as living in a refugee camp even for Slovak citizens. It's rather obvious that people want to have better life, not the same they had - especially given Slovakian attitude towards non-white people.
Mostly everything - I live in the region. Slovakian people, similarly to Czech people (my own birthplace) are very unhappy about non-white people. Many of them are openly racist, thankfully that's slowly improving, but I still wouldn't want to be non-white here. It's better in the capital cities but even there you'll get weird looks and verbal attacks. Physical attacks are not unheard of outside the capitals.
I've spend significant time in this region; I have a family there.
There is a large Vietnamese community in these countries, well, since the Vietnam War. They are obviously non-white and they are not discriminated in any way. Do you know why? Because they are working hard, they encourage their kids to get good education, they don't abuse the social system and they don't get involved in petty crime. These things result in the majority population not having predominantly negative experience with them.
Then there the Roma minority, which behaves in exact opposite way. This is not problem only in Czechia and Slovakia; the experience is same in the entire Eastern and South Europe, for exactly the same reason.
So obviously it is not race problem. It is behavioral problem, other people not liking being abused and being careful about that. If you want to solve it, start on your end.
Yes, I know these excuses - people around me are parroting them daily. You've just proven the racism I am speaking about, and why Slovakia (or Czechia, Poland, etc) is really bad place for Arabs.
Vietnamese are tolerated because they are perceived to work hard. That is racism, and it still leads to negative outcomes - for example dating a Vietnamese is often considered bad, people are still trying to not have children in the same classes as Vietnamese children, Vietnamese medical professionals are avoided, white people are preferred for flat rentals, etc; your ignorance doesn't mean they're not discriminated. The fact that people here don't even distinguish between Vietnamese and other Asian nationalities speaks for itself too.
BTW one would think that the petty crimes the Romani people are associated with would be more acceptable than large scale drug dealing associated with the Vietnamese - but who would look for logic in racism.
Arabs are perceived negatively because they're associated with Islam, which is associated with terrorism - even though the only terrorist attack that ever happened around here was carried out by a white supremacist. Many Arabs are Christians or atheists but that doesn't stop people from immediately labelling them as terrorists and ostracizing them from services, jobs, flat rentals, etc based on their skin color. Women in a hijab or burka are often attacked, as if every Arab woman had bombs under her clothing. Tell me please, what did they do to justify this, and how should they "start on their end", and why?
Racism is so bad here (CZ, SK, PL, ...) that it has its place in the parliament and senate.
The biggest problem are not the rural-living low income racists, but people like you who spread (normalizing it) how they're so tolerant and thus not racist - the truth is that even if you thought about a person positively based on their race it's still racism. More generally, as long as people think about individuals in terms of groups connected by bodily features, place of birth, etc there will be a problem - and there is a huge problem in Slovakia, not just racism but nationalism too (please tell me how Ukrainians are good only for manual labor...).
I am white, the only thing to do on my end is reducing the racist attitude of other white people. It's funny that you spoke about abuse in that same sentence, btw.
> You've just proven the racism I am speaking about, and why Slovakia (or Czechia, Poland, etc)
That's not racism. That's being careful, based on past experiences. You are welcome the make improvements to the current experiences, but blaming them for racism will push things exactly the opposite way.
> is really bad place for Arabs.
Do not conflate faith and race either. This area is not suitable for Muslims, and you can thank Ottoman empire for that. See that string of castles in Slovakian mountains? Same story. They have really bad historical experience with them.
But not everything is just bad and people are not keeping in their shells. During 80s, the Eastern bloc countries has sent many thousands of experts to build up the infrastructure in some (at the time friendly) Arab and ME countries. During these years, the relations improved significantly, it was relatively safe for white people to be in these countries.
Now that went down the drain.
> for example dating a Vietnamese is often considered bad, people are still trying to not have children in the same classes as Vietnamese children, Vietnamese medical professionals are avoided, white people are preferred for flat rentals, etc; your ignorance doesn't mean they're not discriminated.
Vietnamese children in the same class are usually the better students in the class; you must mistake that for something else. Vietnamese community has different problem, called "banana" - yellow outside, white inside - i.e. they integrate too well. Just like the Greeks did ;)
> The fact that people here don't even distinguish between Vietnamese and other Asian nationalities speaks for itself too.
It doesn't; one race usually cannot distinguish minor differences on other races. For example, Asians cannot distinguish person of Czech, Italian or Swedish descent, but that is trivial for other whites. Same thing from other side of the table.
> The story of Romani people is also way more complex than you make it out,
I know it is not trivial, and it will stay that way, while there are activists making good money while "they are trying to help". For now, the only improvements were made by those Roma members, who integrated with majority community. Yes, it is difficult for them to sever connections to community that is dragging them down, I know. So it remains resource drain for years to come without any result.
> BTW one would think that the petty crimes the Romani people are associated with would be more acceptable than large scale drug dealing associated with the Vietnamese - but who would look for logic in racism.
Employ the logic then: most people won't be aware of drug dealing, but they will notice very well, when they are on the receiving end of petty crime.
> Arabs are perceived negatively because they're associated with Islam,
True
> which is associated with terrorism
False. Terrorism is West's problem, not East's. For now.
It is more related to historical experiences, when Ottomans tried to conquer them. Another thing is the problems they brought to Western Europe. Establishing no-go zones, enforcing Sharia or having political and social demands that the majority population has to fulfill for them are not acceptable, it is just continuing the expansion using other means. So they get the picture: don't let them in, there won't be any problems then.
> Many Arabs are Christians or atheists but that doesn't stop people from immediately labelling them as terrorists and ostracizing them from services, jobs, flat rentals, etc based on their skin color. Women in a hijab or burka are often attacked, as if every Arab woman had bombs under her clothing.
Not in these countries, though. Despite urban legends and manufactured problems, that activists tried to push to show how these people are "racist".
> should they "start on their end", and why?
How do you think would people in Arabic country react to traditionally dressed christian woman? What would happen to her? (I do have stories...)
So if you want to be treated certain way, make sure do you as you preach. Behave in your country to foreigners the same way, as you want be treated abroad. This is not one-way street.
> Racism is so bad here (CZ, SK, PL, ...) that it has its place in the parliament and senate.
Conflating conservative parties who want to preserve their cultural identity with racism is pushing it too far.
> The biggest problem are not the rural-living low income racists, but people like you who spread (normalizing it) how they're so tolerant and thus not racist
I see liberal youngster with purely academic knowledge, without much practical experience there. No, your passive-aggresive blaming won't get you far.
> More generally, as long as people think about individuals in terms of groups connected by bodily features, place of birth, etc there will be a problem
You may want to deny it, but shared culture does have an impact on behavior. For example, Arabs are one of these cultures, who highly values theirs. It is their right to do so, and I don't see any reason why other cultures should be denied the same. We want to treat them equally, right?
> not just racism but nationalism too (please tell me how Ukrainians are good only for manual labor...).
Ukrainians have it very difficult in general, not just in CZ/SK/PL. They come to EU countries, because they have more opportunities there than in their home country. So do Serbs. (For other readers: these two nationalities are abused by multinationals, who bus them into manufacturing plants located in eastern-EU countries. They get the advantage of cheap workforce from poor countries, while having the plants inside EU jurisdiction). I don't see what the CZ/SK/PL citizens have to do with this, except being pissed of by having their wages pushed down even further by wage dumping.
> I am white, the only thing to do on my end is reducing the racist attitude of other white people.
I suggest spending some time in Asia, Middle East/Magreb and Latin America to be able to compare and contrast how racist the white people in CZ/SK/PL really are.
Sorry but this is just rambling around while you simply went around the main points, e.g. what past experiences with Arab people? The fact is that Slovakia is extremely bad place for Arabs due to racism = people attacking people based on assumptions they got based on their skin color, so it's no wonder they want to go to Germany or somewhere else where they won't be attacked and a community of their people is established. Invoking Ottoman Empire is really funny, I'm pretty sure nobody remembers it, and as you said yourself people actually weren't hostile towards Arabs just two decades ago, so it's probably not because of Ottomans. BTW speaking about "Eastern European experts helping them" is also funny, as these countries were more technologically and societally advanced than Eastern Europe was in the 70s and 80s; this is a story the communist government told you, not the truth.
Many places in ME are often significantly Christian so it's no wonder they don't react to traditionally dressed women in any way, of course it varies by place though, it's true there are places where being Christian is bad. What this tells me is that your standard of behavior is countries with non-free theocratic governments, that's what you compare Slovakia with? Lol. One would think that a free democratic country would never lessen itself to this. Slovakia has a lot of growing up to do, pointing fingers and saying "they're bad too" is not a grown up thing to do (sarcastically remarking "and they kill niggers in America" is how we make fun of this attitude here).
> Not in these countries, though. Despite urban legends and manufactured problems, that activists tried to push to show how these people are "racist".
Don't lie, I've seen it personally multiple times in Prague, Bratislava, Hradec Kralove, and many other towns - even if I was just visiting it was rather easy to see a scene like that, don't tell me I was so lucky I was there the ONE TIME it happened.
Ok, so you don't have any answer except misdirection.
> so it's no wonder they want to go to Germany or somewhere else where they won't be attacked.
They want to go to Germany, because the welfare in Germany is higher than average wage in EE. That's it. They get more money, easier.
> you spew bullshit
Nice and thoughtful rebuttal of my points. Where did you learn to discuss like that?
> As these places are often significantly Christian
Some of them. Others are not. I've yet to see a budhist attack a christian. Or vice-versa.
That's because they are not and never were treat to each other.
> What this tells me is that your standard of behavior is countries with non-free theocratic governments,
Like, for example, Arab countries? Which of them are not theocratic?
Even if some of them in the past dared not to be (like some of the regimes of 80's), movements like Muslim Brotherhood appeared. Can you point out similar movements in other religions or nations? Appearance of such movements means, that the issue is not even the governments, but goes much deeper.
> free democratic country would never lessen itself to this.
AFAIK the EU isn't neighboring any countries without governments or which are a war zone. So in theory, there should be very very few people seeking refugee status in the EU - the odd individuals persecuted for their political beliefs or religion. There's a process for that which was working quite fine, before being subverted by economic migrants trying to gain refugee status, or actual refugees avoiding safe countries along the way and applying in Europe. So ironically exactly those persecuted people may have to wait much longer to clarify their status.
The fact that someone lost their papers or had them stolen is their problem. The EU isn't responsible for solving everyone's problem, in fact the political conflicts within the EU are mainly caused by EU countries pretending that they can.
To legally claim asylum in a schengen state which has no external border to non-schengen states you literally have to fall out of the sky or travel into the country on a tourist visa.
Guess what happens in the moment a crisis breaks out like it happened in Syria? Yes right, all the wealthy northern european states do not give out tourist visas anymore.
But the sub-thread was about immigration policies, not about refugee policies. It is perfectly consistent to have simultaneously lax immigration policy and harsh refugee policy (or vice versa).
But there is also no possibility to ask for asylum in an embessy. Asylum is a right given by the constitution in germany and its not possible to fullfill this right because of the european border politics.
Sure you can go to turkey - where you have no chance to legalize your status in mid- or long term. Where your children are not allowed to go to school.
Most of Europe indeed has very progressive law regarding the asylum, but very hypocritical enforcement practice - you can get a refuge or at least a permission to stay for a prolonged time once you get across the border (even "illegally"), but a lot of people are going to try to stop you from doing that.
So basically what Frontex does is protecting Europe from legal obligations that Europe voluntary committed to. What's even more dangerous, it's not under control of any single European government, so control over it by human rights activists and through political means is complicated.
As a refugee, you don't get to shop for a country where you want to immigrate. You get the asylum in the first safe one, and only until the danger is present.
While you are there, you can of course ask different countries to grant you immigration visa, but then you don't do that as refugee anymore, since you have been already granted protection in the first safe country.
So no, Frontex is not protecting Europe from legal obligations; it is protecting Europe from abusing and misrepresenting them by activists.
The people coming in aren't playing fair: many are not refugees and are transiting safe countries (including EU countries) to apply for asylum in their favorite country. It's understandable that they're desperate, but the EU doesn't have to accept that.
Of course there's a lot of people trying to stop them, because what those migrants are doing is not according to the spirit of the asylum laws and it's threatening to seriously harm the social harmony of the countries receiving them. A significant number of EU citizens do not want migration from outside of the EU, unless the EU benefits (highly-educated specialists, etc) and those people integrate into their host countries. This conflict has been smouldering within Western Europe in particular for many years and I have the feeling that tensions have been rising strongly in the past years.
Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that "Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution."
The critical point is that people are traversing several countries or seas to apply for asylum in the EU. This is obviously not following the spirit of the applicable laws which were designed for avoiding humanitarian tragedies in neighboring countries.
Many aren't even persecuted, just poor, lacking education and desperate.
I had a colleague from Cameroon (in Germany). He applied for a study visa, studied here, applied for a work visa, worked here, applied for German citizenship, got it. Same for people from Egypt and Nigeria I have met.
People who claim there are not legal ways are ignorant or deceptive.
You just said in a public location and with no sense of shame that an appropriate consequence for trying to escape your country is drowning. During the years of communism, you had to be a pretty heartless Stalinist to say that those shot by border guards “bear the main responsibility”. It’s a very coarse and degrading thing to say, and I don’t see how anyone can say it without an ideology that denigrates human beings in their minds. If you think people should be sent back once they cross, fine, whatever. But you’re advocating something else, and it’s monstrous precisely because it’s seemingly banal.
Nobody's shooting anyone or advocating that people should drown, tone down the drama. If someone is paying to get smuggled across the sea, there's a strong chance they will drown. That's reality.
That wasn't the claim. The argument was that they kill people and that we've punished border guards who kill people before, so why not now. Shooting was just an example of killing.
The problem is everybody is looking at the symptom and wants to keep the poor people from moving to new places, yet nobody seems to care about the causes why they are leaving their homes.
One example is the European food industry that exports milk products to Africa and disrupts the local economy, so people loose their jobs. But instead of regulating our industries to allow African countries to build up their own economies, we ramp up our forces to let those poor people die in the moat we call the Mediterranean.
Instead of looking at the migrants, we should ask, what we, our organizations and especially our corporations are contributing to the problem. After all, how many rich migrants have you seen and how often are poor people the ones who control the situation?
Isn't that what decolonialization was all about? I find your point of view rather insulting, implying that big white saviour must come and what? Build functioning society from outside? Impose "correct" government? Maybe send waves of missionaries to teach them how to live?
Colonialism still exists in the form of lopsided trade economics.
Most of Africa is not able to trade freely with EU, creating a favorable economic situation for the EU. I'm not sure the milk example is a good one, but historically (post-colonialism) most value gained from mining in Africa has been gained by companies in the EU -- not much value gained for the African countries and citizens. This is due to the lopsided trade agreements but also corporate exploitation of the African countries.
The African countries needs our help in the form of proper free-trade agreements, and in the form of us not meddling with their natural resources.
In principle, you are right and this should at least be done in cooperation with African states. But it isn't about being a savior or missionary, it is about not being a bully.
Simply letting advanced industries compete with local farmers isn't going to work out. In Europe, twelve people can run six farms with hundreds of cows each. In Africa twelve people work with two cows. In addition, European farmers receive subsidies, so that they work with lower cost and can compete with Chinese factories.
I am not sure how much African politicians can do alone about such dynamics. And as the migration problem shows us, we have shared interests here.
We already have a success recipe in form of china and other asian nations.
They start in position at the bottom of the economic food chain and work their way up, acquiring know-how and finding their place in the world. Charity is not necessary and probably harmful.
When exactly did the Chinese drowned by the thousands in the ocean just to migrate from their home country? And how is that period related to the latest success of their economy?
I disagree. I am living in Cyprus and we received 1848/mil population asylum seekers in 2020 alone. We have by far the highest number of asylum seekers of any EU country (more than double from Greece which made the news).
We really do nothing but letting them walk in at this point even if most of them are financial refugees from africa rather than war-torn areas.
Why is journalistic reporting on supra governmental entities a concerted effort to take this entity down.
In a democracy journalism is the fourth power. It is a vital part of checks and balances.
Using loaded comments to discredit journalistic reporting on governmental misdoings feels somehow as if there is an agenda hidden behind such comments.
Frontex has been criticized for their methods for years and now it becomes obvious that they are not just doing their job in a morally questionable way, but also don't comply with EU regulation. This is a step forward.
Just to be clear, I am not saying that there doesn't need to be someone who cares about the border control, but the way Frontex is doing it is just wrong.
Frontex is being criticized for using shady methods but I don’t see any criticism towards illegal immigrants who aren’t respecting the immigration laws in the first place. Double standards as usual.
The difference between private citizens violating administrative laws and government entities violating humanitarian laws of their own constitutions should be immediately obvious to you.
> The Problem - Migrants (slide two in the gallery on the landing page)
You know that this is an important topic because "ZDF (former Neo) Magazin Royal" is behind that. They are an kind of investigative satire format, unfortunately topics like these are not too funny... But very good work from their side.
Frontex was always suspected and accused for not following any EU moral and legal processes, this is just a proof and absolutely unacceptable.