That's What You Call A Near Miss!
ChatterBank1 min ago
629 Migrants, What Are Your Thoughts?
21 Answers
Both Italy and Malta have refused to take them in, but Spain has agreed to do so, what are your thoughts?
For what its worth, here are my feelings.
In everyday life, if a person knocked on my door asking for something to eat and drink, I would gladly help, and also give him/her a couple of quid as well, but the next day if 10 people turned up on my doorstep asking for help, I would have to refuse any help, and the day after if 100 turned up, the same answer, and so on!
What I am trying to say, in a very roundabout way is, where does it all end?
Does it make me a bad person in not helping?
There has got to be a tipping point, how many more boats of 629 people can any country take?
For what its worth, here are my feelings.
In everyday life, if a person knocked on my door asking for something to eat and drink, I would gladly help, and also give him/her a couple of quid as well, but the next day if 10 people turned up on my doorstep asking for help, I would have to refuse any help, and the day after if 100 turned up, the same answer, and so on!
What I am trying to say, in a very roundabout way is, where does it all end?
Does it make me a bad person in not helping?
There has got to be a tipping point, how many more boats of 629 people can any country take?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by saintpeter48. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I'm in favour of immediate repatriation. Britain and it's European neighbours cannot keep letting these people in so they and their ever-increasing broods can kept leeching off us.
We don't exactly need a deeper housing crisis, a more over-stretched NHS or more crime than we're already struggling to deal with.
We don't exactly need a deeper housing crisis, a more over-stretched NHS or more crime than we're already struggling to deal with.
If my memory serves Ichy, the Italians tried being "cooperative" some years back. Even making impassioned appeals about the unreasonable expectations, that they were to allow such an influx of illegal migration without recourse. I think that they even threatened to issue them all with documentation that allowed free travel throughout the EUSSR. No joy from Brussels/Berlin HQ. The French even set up "controls" on their side of the Italy...France border to prevent any escaping into France. What would you do?
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
It's an extremely complicated and serious issue. Turning the boat away very likely means death for its inhabitants - or at least a large number of them. Obviously, though, allowing everyone who makes the journey to settle in Europe is unsustainable. To make things worse, the processing centers are overwhelmed.
At the moment we're already at a point where the system for identifying and assisting refugees has failed, because it can't cope with the sheer numbers adequately. One solution is to put more resources into processing migrants on the other side of the Med, and effectively have a border there - but this would be a) just a stopgap and b)logistically complicated.
Other than that, the only real ways to actually reduce the numbers are
1. Mass killing, which is out of the question
2. Making Libya, Syria, etc., more stable and livable, as Jim said in the other thread.
Unfortunately, the latter won't happen overnight, so we are just stuck with trying to share the burden of providing those who get refugee status with our neighbours, per our legal commitments. That seems the least-bad short-term answer to me, with a foreign policy aimed at resolving the root cause over the long-term.
At the moment we're already at a point where the system for identifying and assisting refugees has failed, because it can't cope with the sheer numbers adequately. One solution is to put more resources into processing migrants on the other side of the Med, and effectively have a border there - but this would be a) just a stopgap and b)logistically complicated.
Other than that, the only real ways to actually reduce the numbers are
1. Mass killing, which is out of the question
2. Making Libya, Syria, etc., more stable and livable, as Jim said in the other thread.
Unfortunately, the latter won't happen overnight, so we are just stuck with trying to share the burden of providing those who get refugee status with our neighbours, per our legal commitments. That seems the least-bad short-term answer to me, with a foreign policy aimed at resolving the root cause over the long-term.
The people seeking residence in Europe are mainly sub-Saharan Africans, so the Syrian situation is irrelevant. The stability of Libya is relevant only in the sense that a stable Libya might co-operate in controlling the traffickers. (As Gaddafi did before Obama/Clinton - with Cameron and Sarkozy in tow - conspired to break faith with Gadaffi over the WMD deal and get rid of him). Even a stable Libya would be small beer compared with the greater prize only 12 miles outside territorial waters, even assuming that such a Libya were willing to accept and capable of dealing with mass-immigration now in its hundreds of thousands.
How many more? MSF and the other charities involved in this don't
see it as their problem. Most of this modern phenomonen is due to the third world now being plugged into the incredible communications available only in the last couple of decades, which brings billions within what they may see as touching distance of relative Utopia.
see it as their problem. Most of this modern phenomonen is due to the third world now being plugged into the incredible communications available only in the last couple of decades, which brings billions within what they may see as touching distance of relative Utopia.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.