Europe, Boring Until it's Not

[Haumana]

Monte = RAnt.

+1

[Montegriffo]

invade Europe

Willful ignorance noted.

Maybe, maybe not. What I do try to do is avoid being willfully ignorant. For example avoiding all information about why refugees/migrants are heading to Europe and simply calling it an invasion.
Or avoiding all the facts available in a contempt of court case and insisting it is the supression of freedom of speech.

[BjornP]

Tunisia and Libya is actually Waterworld. Only Kevin Costner can survive there.

Help me out here Bjorn. How does returning refugees/migrants to a war zone or a country unable to provide any assistance make them go home and stop trying to get into Europe?
Are you going all ''not our problem'' on this too?

Won't a return to sender policy just mean that the leaky boats will set out at night and try to avoid the boats which are there trying to save them from drowning?
The logical conclusion to that would be even more people drowning in the Med.

"Refuges/migrants"? "Refugees/migrants"?? All refugees are migrants, but Monte, all migrants are not refugees. Huge difference between the two. I don't care about those who are not refugees. Don't care that their own countries can't "provide assistence" to them. That's just too bad for them. I see your worries as "The White Man's Burden" thinking of ALL their problems being our problems. If they're war refugees, or if they belong to some persecuted group or seeking political asylum, fine... we should take as many as we can...without imperiling the welfare and wellbeing of our own societies (even you should be able to understand that you can't fund refugees staying in a country simply by wishing you had enough money to run a refugee center). And then, when it's safe for them to return - wether that be in a year, ten year or a generation's time from now we'll send back most of the refugees and whatever children and grandchildren they got, unless they proved themselves willing and able to become citizens.

If returning to sender leads to more people drowning, then it leads to more people drowning. If you want to solve the problem, solve it locally, solve it where the problem actually IS. Not in Europe, but in those countries those people are fleeing from. Grow the economies, invest, establish markets, promote education.

This idea that Europeans must emulate America's "melting pot" ideal, is not just irrational and delusional culturally, but also delusional economically. Sweden finally realized they're simply bankrupting themselves by having too many people who refuse to integrate into society, Germany also came to that conclusion when Merkel herself said "multiculturalism has failed".

This idea that all these people would be "returning to war zones", is complete nonsense. Yes, they are escaping poverty and want more opportunities. Good for them that they have that ambition. But if they want to live here, they apply for either residency or citizenship, and we'll decide wether we find them useful or wether we kick them back. And even so, they can't ALL live here. If they decide to crawl back into a boat and drown, after being rejected? Their choice. If you think of them as your equals, you'll grant them their free choice to crawl in a boat is also their own responsibility.

It's not like there aren't millionaries in Africa, you know. Entrepeneurs do exist there. They do grow wealth there. Nigeria's a good example of that, and Nigerians come here legitimately, legally, and apply to work here. Some Malinese who can't find work at home, and thinks because he got on a boat and landed in Europe, that Sweden, France, Italy or Germany or whereever now owes him that sweet, European easy life he may fantasize about?

[Kath]

Nice post, Bjorn.

[Zlaxer]

Nice post, Bjorn.

I found it to be "willfully ignorant".

[Speaker to Animals]

The melting pot idea was a huge mistake. FYI, cousins. Bad idea. Do not emulate.

[Arc Light]

I think the migrant issue is just getting started.

[Montegriffo]

Tunisia and Libya is actually Waterworld. Only Kevin Costner can survive there.

Help me out here Bjorn. How does returning refugees/migrants to a war zone or a country unable to provide any assistance make them go home and stop trying to get into Europe?
Are you going all ''not our problem'' on this too?

Won't a return to sender policy just mean that the leaky boats will set out at night and try to avoid the boats which are there trying to save them from drowning?
The logical conclusion to that would be even more people drowning in the Med.

"Refuges/migrants"? "Refugees/migrants"?? All refugees are migrants, but Monte, all migrants are not refugees. Huge difference between the two. I don't care about those who are not refugees. Don't care that their own countries can't "provide assistence" to them. That's just too bad for them. I see your worries as "The White Man's Burden" thinking of ALL their problems being our problems. If they're war refugees, or if they belong to some persecuted group or seeking political asylum, fine... we should take as many as we can...without imperiling the welfare and wellbeing of our own societies (even you should be able to understand that you can't fund refugees staying in a country simply by wishing you had enough money to run a refugee center). And then, when it's safe for them to return - wether that be in a year, ten year or a generation's time from now we'll send back most of the refugees and whatever children and grandchildren they got, unless they proved themselves willing and able to become citizens.

If returning to sender leads to more people drowning, then it leads to more people drowning. If you want to solve the problem, solve it locally, solve it where the problem actually IS. Not in Europe, but in those countries those people are fleeing from. Grow the economies, invest, establish markets, promote education.

This idea that Europeans must emulate America's "melting pot" ideal, is not just irrational and delusional culturally, but also delusional economically. Sweden finally realized they're simply bankrupting themselves by having too many people who refuse to integrate into society, Germany also came to that conclusion when Merkel herself said "multiculturalism has failed".

This idea that all these people would be "returning to war zones", is complete nonsense. Yes, they are escaping poverty and want more opportunities. Good for them that they have that ambition. But if they want to live here, they apply for either residency or citizenship, and we'll decide wether we find them useful or wether we kick them back. And even so, they can't ALL live here. If they decide to crawl back into a boat and drown, after being rejected? Their choice. If you think of them as your equals, you'll grant them their free choice to crawl in a boat is also their own responsibility.

It's not like there aren't millionaries in Africa, you know. Entrepeneurs do exist there. They do grow wealth there. Nigeria's a good example of that, and Nigerians come here legitimately, legally, and apply to work here. Some Malinese who can't find work at home, and thinks because he got on a boat and landed in Europe, that Sweden, France, Italy or Germany or whereever now owes him that sweet, European easy life he may fantasize about?

Yes I do recognise that there is a difference which is why I didn't just say refugees. I also pointed out that trying to end the wars and poverty of their own nations was the best policy to follow.
However enacting a policy which results in migrants either dying at sea or just getting on the next leaky boat available solves little.
Once in Europe they can be processed and their eligability for asylum can be assessed. Floating face down in the Med that process is not available.

As for white man's burden, Western policies often lead to widespread destabilization of whole regions and are the root cause of poverty and violence in many of the countries these people are fleeing from.

But yeah, turning a blind eye and letting thousands drown will certainly save us money and reduce the appeal of far right populists across Europe.

I guess I'll just have to add you to the ''not our problem'' crowd after all.

[BjornP]

Yes I do recognise that there is a difference which is why I didn't just say refugees. I also pointed out that trying to end the wars and poverty of their own nations was the best policy to follow.
However enacting a policy which results in migrants either dying at sea or just getting on the next leaky boat available solves little.
Once in Europe they can be processed and their eligability for asylum can be assessed. Floating face down in the Med that process is not available.

As for white man's burden, Western policies often lead to widespread destabilization of whole regions and are the root cause of poverty and violence in many of the countries these people are fleeing from.

But yeah, turning a blind eye and letting thousands drown will certainly save us money and reduce the appeal of far right populists across Europe.

I guess I'll just have to add you to the ''not our problem'' crowd after all.

And who's "enacting a policy that results in migrants dying at sea"? Seehofer in Germany? Oh, so the right to turn migrants who have sought but been rejected asylum in other countries, away, equals "letting them die at sea"? No, it means they'll either move on to another country (Hey, how about Britain...? You recieved what, a whopping five refugees compared to the thousands and thousands Denmark did), or it means they'll have to return to the countries they came from.

I do want to stop migrants from drowning off the coast of Tunisia and Sicily. I would propose two easy steps:

1. Don't spend money on transporting yourself illegally across the Med.
2. Don't enter non-seaworthy crafts that are nearly guarenteed to kill you in the rough Mediterreanean sea.

And of course 3. Help them where they live, and help them build their own society. But the specific, how-to-not-die-at-sea part? Don't sail in your murder-boat. You don't put your family of twelve in a goddamn kids rubber boat, and try and sail them across an angry Med Sea.
There, problem of drowning migrants solved. Don't want to die? Don't enter means of transportation with an incredly high risk of getting you killed.

There is no such thing as "a policy that results in migrants not risking their lives at sea". There are always people who think that if they can't get in legally, they'll try the illegal way. You seem to keep forgetting that European countries already determines wether migrants are eligble for asylum or not. According to you, they can and must let everyone's asylum be accepted or else risk them "dying at sea" later.

I believe we have responsibilities. But not to the whole WORLD AT ONCE, Monte. If you want to help those people, help their countries? Help them where they live. If you don't support regime changing every single country in the world where government treat people like shit, does that make you part of the naughty, evil, "not our problem" crowd, too? Do every single migrant who applies for an asylum, just get an automatic approval stamp, in your ideal world? Yes? Then why have asylum rules, at all? If no..., well, does that not make you an evil, far right populist, nationalist, Hitleristic, "let them die at sea", monster who hates foreigners?

[Montegriffo]

The question was whether or not to take migrants to Italy or drop them off in Tunisia.
Enacting the latter will lead to more drowning as boats would set out at night and actively avoid the ships patroling the area trying to prevent them from dying at sea.
Sending them to Tunisia will also have the bonus effect of further destabilising yet another Northern African country and making matters worse.