Italy's new right-wing interior minister shuts port to 629 rescued migrants
25 replies, posted
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-44432056
If they're rescued from the sea, why aren't they returned back to Africa? Not necessarily have to go back to Libya, but I'm sure Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco or maybe Egypt are stable enough to return them?
this whole situation is just a major shitshow really
He also complained, on Facebook that: "Malta takes in nobody. France
pushes people back at the border, Spain defends its frontier with
weapons."
I have no data from Malta and France, but I already can tell you that Spain doesn't stop recieving critics from both the EU and the NGOs due the brutality and lack of empathy on how "we defend" our border. Excusing your acts with this makes you already a terrible person.
Mr Salvini says he is considering action against organisations rescuing
migrants at sea. He has previously accused them of being in cahoots with
people-smugglers.
Oh great, so we just should let them die at sea as we already do from time on time. How humane of you. Sure, one can see how is benefitial for the mafia to save their "travelers" as it guarantees future clients coming to them, but then again is all over again the old problem of abuser and abused. Track and hunt them down, most of the times we just let them free.
Rather than tackle the problem at their roots, we either resort to this continue offend of human rights, like how we ignore the slave trade in Libya due the reigning chaos "because it feeds from the inmmigrants that comes into here so it actually it makes us a favour".
Because those aren't the same place at all where they're fleeing from or trying to get to, sending them to another north african country would just be arbitrary to do.
Back in 2016 NGO ships were outed as picking up boats a few kilometers off the Libyan coast. I would be all for stopping that. At that point there's almost no journey that they made though sea and surely not all of them would make an actual journey without being picked up so conveniently.
There's nothing wrong with this.
Fleeing? I was under the impression that majority of those from Africa are economic migrants, not refugees
Also just helping them get in isn't an effective way to stop illegal immigration.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XdLNqWYgGI
Relevant right about now.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_St._Louis
reminded me of this
I wouldn't mind (too much) if it weren't Salvini doing it
he's a hypocrite, racist, hateful bitch
Any politician who doesn't represent his nation's population (regardless of politics, once you're in charge you have a duty to the people who haven't elected you also!) and attacks some parts of it, is an asshole who should be locked up
I'm not trying to sound like an asshole....but since when did other peoples problem become that countries problems? I do not want anyone to die, but how can we judge a country for not wanting to have to take on the burden of this? Its a damned if you do and a damned if you don't situation. I do not see any other solution then to turn them away. Saying this doesn't mean I want them or any of them to die or get hurt. It just means I respect a countries right to deny entry into their own bounders. At some point something has to give and European countries have been dealing with this issue for a long time now.
Yea, it's a fucked up situation with a lot of shades of grey. You can interpret the refugee crisis as a fundamental failure of liberalism in a time democracy and the nation-state are made less relevant by modern development. This, combined with the poor economic lot of Southern Europe, naturally opened the way to pushback which would be led by unsavory figures.
But we have to be real here. This is a failure to be heaved upon lauded international institutions and other facets of the order to come after 1945 and 1991. Nobody voted for this, this was done by a small but powerful section of liberal-democratic civil society (NGOs, the EU, economists, etc.) who are acting at least outwardly in the vein of humanitarian values and a vision of Europe that not everyone agreed with, and likely would change their opinion on when taken to new and burdensome extents.
The response, in a frankly insufferably bourgeois fashion, has been to condemn those swathes of the people as backwards and reactionary while romanticizing refugees as actually valuing democracy because they came all the way here. The whole thing reeks of class warfare, because the people at odds with the nationalists don't live around the effects of their policies, only have power due to inequality and capitalism, and don't care about national or popular interests. Just their ideology of bourgeois philanthropy and cosmopolitanism as it's gone into overdrive with globalization.
This fight was inevitable, and I find the idea it's a challenge to be democracy to be the single greatest lie peddled by the powerful in liberal civil society who lack popular mandate. It's just a challenge to them, the simple idea that the country comes before them and their ideas for society.
We've come a long way since 1848, when democracy and liberalism was inseparable from nationalism.
Migrant rescue ship rejected by Italy invited to dock in Spain |..
Many people from Africa have been displaced by wars, for many of which EU countries bare at least some responsibility. Other issues such as persecution of LGBTQ people and other minorities have also forced people to flee.
Regardless of whether the aim is to send people who aren't refugees back or something else, knowingly allowing people to die when it could be stopped is the single worst option available.
When we crawled out from a world war that devastated a large part of the world caused by the consideration that human lives aren't important.
We are in 2018 and the world is interconnected, based on the principle of cooperation with each other. Not a single country has to bear this kind of problem ( I'm going to just ignore we are debating the real possibility of just let people die ).
Remember that the actual problem that we have in Europe is that some countries refuses to help just for xenophobic reasons. Hell, we haven't even recolocated the tousands of inmigrants waiting in Italy and Greece yet because "1000 per country" is too much.
You got it all wrong, is only for xenophobic and capitalistic reasons. This situation became a crysis when almost all of east Europe refused to help "because it would unbalance their culture" and then further increased when making constant cuts to the Frontiex budgets, recolocation to other countries, and just helping them to integrate on the host countries ( the fact that Germany and Netherlands have just "discovered" that integration plans solve almost all the problems is just sick, and more when knowing there were considered as extra ) plus refusing to create safe paths in order to kill illegal inmigration.
Is not democracy and liberalism the problems ( in fact, what even is liberalism mentioned here if is totally unrelated? Is just another cause of north americans using this term without knowing what it means? ), but just the classic problem of not spending the necessary and considering the outsiders as enemies.
Despite it always being referenced, ironically the biggest lesson of both world wars was that proper delineation of borders and self-determination makes for good neighbors and peace, it's the necessary prerequisite for identifying with a sense of internationalism and must be respected in the course of fostering international cooperation. Even the communists knew this. But, the way we've handled the refugee crisis has been in violation of such balances because of how a long-term growth issue and demographic crisis warps the policy debate and thinking among our elites. We are forgetting that what matters above all is that the trajectory of the modern world since the French revolution has been towards breakdown of multinational or multiethnic states in favor of free democracies based on a unified and conscious people, who then subsequently respect provincialism/regionalism, develop social programs, trust in government, etc. with ease. I have no idea why some are suddenly thinking it's the historical mission of the West to now turn around and reverse all this progress with neoliberalism, when a large facet of modern war and revolution has been to separate, delineate, and organize along national lines out of a spirit of freedom, localism, self-determination, and small, transparent government.
It's all because of capitalism, basically, but we know full well that this system hardly creates stable societies and is a centralizing force. Italy's populism is in reaction towards an imbalance in how modern government and ideology views balancing economic and social capital, this view is warped less by an idea of Europe's past and what it should accordingly look like in the future (like you seem to think) and more by internal economic inequality and political inequality between nations in a union.
One of the biggest reasons we have peace in Europe isn't international institutions and civil society (which presided over a resumption of East-West tensions and internal political instability), it's the fact that, for example, the USSR essentially forcefully and permanently settled national questions and territorial issues in the East which pan-Germanism negatively interacted with, made democracy largely impossible in the newly independent Eastern states, and caused a series of petty conflicts that'd all snowball into WW2. It'll go down as a historical irony that communism made Eastern Europe ripe for liberalization and democracy when it receded because of this.
I would argue that, far from being a threat to democracy, populism is restoring a balance in it by reminding increasingly detached political elites not to get carried away with chasing growth at any social expense after being enabled by this 'end of history' unipolarity, the original imbalance that has fucked up a lot.
I'll be honest, this is pretty funny. It's your writing style mixed with looking down on burgers and their education system. We do misuse the term liberalism a lot
While he did get some stuff wrong, we've been taking in the bulk of migrants since waaaay before the current crisis, many times even sending ships in their aid as soon as they clear the African coasts. We're pretty much out of room and money, us taking in more migrants would mean creating even more hobos to be exploited by organized crime. It's not blind xenophobia, it's that they're really better off somewhere else.
Salvini's being a real dick about it tho I'll give you that.
They've docked in Spain
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-44510002
Theres a really good jounralism comic by Joe Sacco, a half Maltese American, about the immigrant situation in Malta and its a perfect example of why the attitude of seeing Matla and Italy are the bad guys is stupid.
No one in the situation is happy because 90% of them and probably more aren't asylum seekers, they're economic migrants and they don't leave. They can't afford to go back, Italy and Malta can't send them back so they just end up living in government facilities or in poverty.
Sure them drowning at sea is horrible and they shouldn't be left to die but at some point you've gotta stop letting them in.
Blaming migrants for wanting a better life is wrong
Blaming other nations for not letting them in because "they're brown" and "fuck you, we got ours" is right. And Salvini's real close to the nations that put this burden on us. If he really wanted to solve anything he'd be going up against them
Migrants can already get the "better life" they want from any other nation that they arrive in that isn't a warzone, for example if a migrant lands in Italy theres no need for him to come to the UK. We're overpopulated already.
And we aren't? The easiest way to ease this burden is for every nation to take some of them. However too manu of them don't for no reason other than "nah it's your problem friend but let's pretend Europe is united"
i can imagine the hoo hah of trying to make Poland take some
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.