• EU looks to step up migrant deportation
    61 replies, posted
[quote]BRUSSELS — The European Union is looking to step up the deportation of migrants as part of a drive to counter the impression that asylum-seekers will enjoy a good life once they make it to Europe. An internal EU document on action to deal with the migrant influx, obtained by The Associated Press Wednesday, urges member countries to "take action to curb the level of expectation" of would-be asylum seekers. "The swift return of migrants could serve as an example to counter the vain promise that migrants will see an immediate improvement in their lives," said the EU presidency text, obtained ahead of a two-day summit of EU leaders starting Thursday. The new measures are yet more evidence of the EU's desire to shift the onus for illegal immigration more onto countries in Africa, notably Libya's neighbors. The document said that "more efforts are needed with regard to certain transit countries," including Turkey, Egypt and Tunisia. No details were provided about how the EU return policy might now be enforced. Italy, which has borne the brunt of the migrant wave, urged its EU partners last week to set up migrant reception centers in northern Africa as efforts to beef up the Frontex borders agency falter. A test phase has already been planned for Niger, and Tunisia said this week that it was willing to discuss the EU plan.[/quote] [URL="http://www.stripes.com/news/europe/eu-looks-to-step-up-migrant-deportation-1.335401"]Source[/URL]
those damn immigrants are just taking all the raps and playing jobs the whole time
The problem is that coming from Africa, almost anything is better.
The entire EU is swinging right. I don't like it one bit. And if Harper stays in office much longer, Canada's heading that way as well.
EU isn't swinging either left or right. It is swinging forward.
[QUOTE=proch;47355701]those damn immigrants are just taking all the raps and playing jobs the whole time[/QUOTE] But Poland, what will you guys do when the Africans take all the Jobs no one wants?
[QUOTE=Reshy;47355789]The problem is that coming from Africa, almost anything is better.[/QUOTE] Well they did fuck it up they should get all the refugees from their massive fuckup
People who rate this thread dumb probably just read the title title and not actual article, or knows nothing about Europe. They aren't deporting any legal refugees or immigrants. They just want to make it more shown that illegal immigration is, well, illegal. Europe is a wonderful place in most places, but even refugees need to follow the rules and we should hope they can also seek refugee in the meantime in nearby countries.
yes, this is to deal with people are that illegally entering the country.
[QUOTE=LVL FACTORY;47356011]Well they did fuck it up they should get all the refugees from their massive fuckup[/QUOTE] what
[QUOTE=LVL FACTORY;47356011]Well they did fuck it up they should get all the refugees from their massive fuckup[/QUOTE] That's real fucking neato, so how exactly did Europe ruin Africa this time?
[QUOTE=Rust666;47356079]People who rate this thread dumb probably just read the title title and not actual article, or knows nothing about Europe. They aren't deporting any legal refugees or immigrants. They just want to make it more shown that illegal immigration is, well, illegal. Europe is a wonderful place in most places, but even refugees need to follow the rules and we should hope they can also seek refugee in the meantime in nearby countries.[/QUOTE] You can't deport illegals! That would be racist you xenophobic scum! Or at least, that this the response i get when I talk about deporting illegals in the US.
[QUOTE=Rapscallion92;47356379]That's real fucking neato, so how exactly did Europe ruin Africa this time?[/QUOTE] I mean, European colonialism is the primary reason for most of the problems in Africa today. Doesn't make his point less stupid, but it's true.
[QUOTE=ImperialGuard;47356411]I mean, European colonialism is the primary reason for most of the problems in Africa today. Doesn't make his point less stupid, but it's true.[/QUOTE] Africa would still be shit, with or without Europe.
[QUOTE=Superkilll307;47356465]Africa would still be shit, with or without Europe.[/QUOTE] For what reason exactly?
[QUOTE=ImperialGuard;47356498]For what reason exactly?[/QUOTE] Because without outside intervention it would likely continued the way it was before European Intervention, which was for lack of a better word, a Shithole. [editline]19th March 2015[/editline] And the Arab salve Trade [editline]19th March 2015[/editline] Actually to be fair some parts of North Africa aren't that bad, but still.
[QUOTE=Superkilll307;47356507]Because without outside intervention it would likely continued the way it was before European Intervention, which was for lack of a better word, a Shithole. [editline]19th March 2015[/editline] And the Arab salve Trade [editline]19th March 2015[/editline] Actually to be fair some parts of North Africa aren't that bad, but still.[/QUOTE] A shithole? You mean feudal in the north and still tribal in the south? How is that a shithole? It was pretty much just like Europe without the guns and the propensity for widespread imperialism. I mean, even without the disgusting Eurocentrism, do you know anything about the history of Africa, or do you think they just sat in mud huts for thousands of years. Does the name Musa mean anything to you? Also the Arab slave trade didn't remove 60 million Africans, depopulating the continent and turning areas like Angola into wastelands, and the Arabs didn't end up conquering the continent, dividing the borders arbitrarily when their exploitation became unprofitable, and then leave.
[QUOTE=ImperialGuard;47356564]A shithole? You mean feudal in the north and still tribal in the south? How is that a shithole? It was pretty much just like Europe without the guns and the propensity for widespread imperialism. I mean, even without the disgusting Eurocentrism, do you know anything about the history of Africa, or do you think they just sat in mud huts for thousands of years. Does the name Musa mean anything to you? Also the Arab slave trade didn't remove 60 million Africans, depopulating the continent and turning areas like Angola into wastelands, and then divided the borders arbitrarily and left.[/QUOTE] You cant just blame the entire future of a country by the actions of another, look at Ireland we were one of the very first colonies and we didn't turn into a shithole (with the exemption of Dublin)
[QUOTE=Superkilll307;47356465]Africa would still be shit, with or without Europe.[/QUOTE] Africa got historically demolished by reckless colonialism. It was extremely poorly handled back then and the consequences are still felt today. [QUOTE=Superkilll307;47356577]You cant just blame the entire future of a country by the actions of another, look at Ireland we were one of the very first colonies and we didn't turn into a shithole (with the exemption of Dublin)[/QUOTE] Ireland is a tiny fucking island that did turn out to eventually enter bloody civil war and get cut in half. Africa is a massive continent.
Also it was still a shithole. [editline]19th March 2015[/editline] Not to mention a lot of African Economies were reliant on slave trading so there's that. But if you want to call a Globalist economy outside intervention fair enough.
[QUOTE=Superkilll307;47356577]You cant just blame the entire future of a country by the actions of another, look at Ireland we were one of the very first colonies and we didn't turn into a shithole (with the exemption of Dublin)[/QUOTE] Ireland was a complete and utter wasteland for a long period because of attempted English genocide, and only survived because of its long history and the fact that they did things like spoke English and sat close enough to actually be a threat to the English. It was also run completely different from the African colonies. Good job knowing as little about your own country as you do about Africa. And yeah we damn well can blame the current situation in Africa when almost all of its problems can be traced back to the Europeans dicking the continent so hard that most people associate it with poverty and war. [QUOTE=Superkilll307;47356595]Not to mention a lot of African Economies were reliant on slave trading so there's that. But if you want to call a Globalist economy outside intervention fair enough.[/QUOTE] The slave trade was based on war and normally took warriors, but left many to continue tribes. Europeans encouraged it and had them kick the African slave trade from a fairly minor thing and turn it into a massive industry, giving guns to tribes so that they could depopulate entire regions of other tribes and drop every single one of them on a ship to the Americas. When they didn't just kill everybody or take the women and children too, they'd take all the able bodied males and cause the tribes to collapse. Open a god damned history book.
[QUOTE=ImperialGuard;47356620]Ireland was a complete and utter wasteland for a long period because of attempted English genocide, and only survived because of its long history and the fact that they did things like spoke English and sat close enough to actually be a threat to the English. It was also run completely different from the African colonies. Good job knowing as little about your own country as you do about Africa. And yeah we damn well can blame the current situation in Africa when almost all of its problems can be traced back to the Europeans dicking the continent so hard that most people associate it with poverty and war. Open a god damned history book.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]Action was also taken against African leaders who refused to agree to British treaties to outlaw the trade, for example against "the usurping King of Lagos", deposed in 1851. Anti-slavery treaties were signed with over 50 African rulers.[58] The largest powers of West Africa (the Asante Confederacy, the Kingdom of Dahomey, and the Oyo Empire) adopted different ways of adapting to the shift. Asante and Dahomey concentrated on the development of "legitimate commerce" in the form of palm oil, cocoa, timber and gold, forming the bedrock of West Africa's modern export trade. The Oyo Empire, unable to adapt, collapsed into civil wars[/QUOTE] Those Horrible Europeans and there awful laws! Also what are you on about wasteland, I think you mean the North because of the Plantations but that was replacing the citizens, which is why its such a shithole.
[QUOTE=Superkilll307;47356641]Those Horrible Europeans and there awful laws! Also what are you on about wasteland, I think you mean the North because of the Plantations but that was replacing the citizens, which is why its such a shithole.[/QUOTE] Oh my god you're so right, one country decided to ban the slave trade almost a hundred years after its largest extent. Clearly the Europeans didn't strip the continent of 60 million people! Ireland was in widespread poverty and facing constant famine for most of its time as a colony, which is still far better than what the Africans got.
[QUOTE=ImperialGuard;47356663]Oh my god you're so right, one country decided to ban the slave trade almost a hundred years after its largest extent. Clearly the Europeans didn't strip the continent of 60 million people! Ireland was in widespread poverty and facing constant famine for most of its time as a colony, which is still far better than what the Africans got.[/QUOTE] It wasnt, the reason the famine happened was by the Blight and lack of other crops being farmed for consumption. Poverty happened due to the Penal laws which stopped Chatholics, nearly the whole population, from holding proper Jobs. That's why the North was the Rich part. The penal laws never happened in Africa, and the slave trade had been around since the 7th Century in Africa, there economy was decimated when they had no partners to trade with, I mean who did you think was selling the Africans?
[QUOTE=Superkilll307;47356688]It wasnt, the reason the famine happened was by the Blight and lack of other crops being farmed for consumption. Poverty happened due to the Penal laws which stopped Chatholics, nearly the whole population, from holding proper Jobs. That's why the North was the Rich part. The penal laws never happened in Africa, and the slave trade had been around since the 7th Century in Africa, there economy was decimated when they had no partners to trade with, I mean who did you think was selling the Africans?[/QUOTE] The potato famine was genocide, and even that was far better than what the Africans faced. The slave trade began in the 7th century, but if you had a rudimentary knowledge of it you'd know that it wasn't some constant static thing that continued and then ended. It spiked massively with the discovery of the Americas where the slave trade turned from something that was easy labor to a business to be exploited. The idea that so many people try to underplay slavery with (which is probably one of the most idiotic sides you can ever take in a debate) that the Africans are the ones who sold slaves is almost completely incorrect. Yeah they captured them, they also only captured them because Europeans wanted so many slaves, and they only had the ability to capture in such a large number because Europeans happily armed them. Before the Europeans decided to jack up demand, the slave trade was hardly widespread, and left things fairly stable. The only reason the Africans became so reliant on slavery is because Europeans created the fucking trade in the first place. Seriously, how could you possibly argue this?
Also where the fuck did you get the Figure 60 million from? That looks off by at least 40 to 35 million.
[QUOTE=ImperialGuard;47356663]Oh my god you're so right, one country decided to ban the slave trade almost a hundred years after its largest extent. Clearly the Europeans didn't strip the continent of 60 million people!.[/QUOTE] Uhhh the highest estimates for the Atlantic slave trade are capped at 12 million over 400 years, and for most of that timeframe Europeans literally couldn't get into the interior of the continent because of malaria. The Atlantic slave trade was only possible because the various Africa kingdoms were more than happy to plunder each other for slaves just like they'd been doing for the past thousand years; as terrible as it was you can't pin all the blame on Europeans. And that doesn't even include the Arabs, who traded in African slaves long before Europeans set foot in sub-Saharan Africa
[QUOTE=ImperialGuard;47356749]The potato famine was genocide, and even that was far better than what the Africans faced. The slave trade began in the 7th century, but if you had a rudimentary knowledge of it you'd know that it wasn't some constant static thing that continued and then ended. It spiked massively with the discovery of the Americas where the slave trade turned from something that was easy labor to a business to be exploited. The idea that so many people try to underplay slavery with (which is probably one of the most idiotic sides you can ever take in a debate) that the Africans are the ones who sold slaves is almost completely incorrect. Yeah they captured them, they also only captured them because Europeans wanted so many slaves, and they only had the ability to capture in such a large number because Europeans happily armed them. Before the Europeans decided to jack up demand, the slave trade was hardly widespread, and left things fairly stable. The only reason the Africans became so reliant on slavery is because Europeans created the fucking trade in the first place. Seriously, how could you possibly argue this?[/QUOTE] Thats like saying Europe should balme Russia for being reliant on Russian trading needs. And the Potato Famine wasn't genocide, there are plenty of actual genocides in Irish History but that one was just really bad mismanagement trying to make things better and uh, you know failing horribly and killing everyone. Also Africans did sell slaves, it was huge in Africa like really Huge, sure Europeans created and increased Demand but like I said they were the ones capturing and selling the slaves.
Basically they gave weapons to people that hate eachother, start killing eachother and then come in again and say "no not good very bad" and slow everything down ignoring the fact that the less ethnicities there are the more stable a place is
I wonder if they're still going to criticise Switzerland's immigration policies as harshly after this. Italy's certainly taking the bulk of the immigrants so I guess I can see why they would complain. By comparison other European countries see much less immigration coming from crisis zones.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.