Muslims on refugee boat throw Christians overboard for being non-Muslims

[Indy Texas]

The religion of peace strikes again.

Unclear is why people who hate Christians that much were trying to illegally immigrate to a country full of them.

[BaconBacon96]

I hate the term 'religion of peace' as its only ever used to attack Islam and it's followers. It's not fair to generalize about billions of people.

Anyway this was a disgusting act and I hope those responsible are prosecuted with the full force of Italian law.

[bgwah]

The religion of peace strikes again.

Unclear is why people who hate Christians that much were trying to illegally immigrate to a country full of them.

Clearly we need to embrace such immigrants in the name of tolerance.

[ag]

The religion of peace strikes again.

Unclear is why people who hate Christians that much were trying to illegally immigrate to a country full of them.

Clearly we need to embrace such immigrants in the name of tolerance.

I would take you seriously, if you embraced the Christians on that boat while they were still alive. Perhaps, then, they would not have to have been on that boat.

[ag]

The religion of peace strikes again.

Unclear is why people who hate Christians that much were trying to illegally immigrate to a country full of them.

Considering how many Christians die on similar boats because of policies of Christian European and American governments, policies fully supported by their electorates... He, who sits in a glass house should not do something.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

Restrictive immigration policies literally kill people.

[Cory]

Considering how many Christians die on similar boats because of policies of Christian European and American governments, policies fully supported by their electorates... He, who sits in a glass house should not do something.

There is no parallel here, cut it out.

[ag]

Considering how many Christians die on similar boats because of policies of Christian European and American governments, policies fully supported by their electorates... He, who sits in a glass house should not do something.

There is no parallel here, cut it out.

Is there not?  Well, I guess, there is some difference between desperate people in tiny boats fighting and premediated policies thought up in comfy offices by clean-shaved white men. The latter are also substantially more murderous.

[Ban my account ffs!]

My solution:  charge them with manslaughter with unusual circumstances so they serve 2 years in Italian prisons.  The Italian government and the EU each cover half the cost to house and help them find work upon release.

[politicus]

Restrictive immigration policies literally kill people.

Human traffickers kill people by transporting them in small, sinkable boats and cramming far too many people into them.

If you are looking for structural factors reactionaries preventing family planning, wealthy Arabs promoting Jihadism around the world and lobbies preventing free access for African products to Western and Asian markets would be more obvious culprits.

Besides, at least in Europe free immigration would lead to massive civil unrest and possibly civil war, which would kill even more. You can not have free immigration into societies where the whole nation is ethnically defined without destabilizing them and most of the non-American world is ethnically defined. Mass migration is not a viable solution to population growth.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Besides, at least in Europe free immigration would lead to massive civil unrest and possibly civil war, which would kill even more. You can not have free immigration into societies where the whole nation is ethnically defined without destabilizing them and most of the non-American world is ethnically defined. Mass migration is not a viable solution to population growth.

Nah. In the long term, societies will adapt. Sure there will be a lot of xenophobia and stupid "culture wars" in the meantime, but eventually even the most backward people will have to accept the fact that they live in a multicultural society, and there's nothing they can do to change that.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     My solution: send them back. Murderers have no place here.

[Hydera]

     My solution: send them back. Murderers have no place here.

Rescue them and send them back to shore.

[Famous Mortimer]

Besides, at least in Europe free immigration would lead to massive civil unrest and possibly civil war, which would kill even more. You can not have free immigration into societies where the whole nation is ethnically defined without destabilizing them and most of the non-American world is ethnically defined. Mass migration is not a viable solution to population growth.

Nah. In the long term, societies will adapt. Sure there will be a lot of xenophobia and stupid "culture wars" in the meantime, but eventually even the most backward people will have to accept the fact that they live in a multicultural society, and there's nothing they can do to change that.

Re:politicus 1) There might be riots or even more incidents of terrorism, but I doubt anything that could be called a civil war is even possible in Western Europe at this point. 2) the argument sounds a little bit like "well, racists will try to kill immigrants so I guess we just have to bend to the will of those racists"

The main reason large scale immigration is harmful, besides weird religious views of some immigrants, is because it brings down wages.

re:Antonio V who are the backward people you're talking about? Local xenophobes or fundamentalist immigrants? Given the last decade, I really doubt the ability or will of Europe to clamp down on fundamentalist Islam as an ideology. The most they do is go after specific people after there's already been an attack.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

What ag is getting at is that not only are European countries adopting increasingly tight rules on immigration from outside the EU, but (and ultimately this is linked) that funding for rescue missions in the Mediterranean has recently been cut back. We are likely to see many many more accidents and 'accidents' in that sea over the coming decades.

[Indy Texas]

The religion of peace strikes again.

Unclear is why people who hate Christians that much were trying to illegally immigrate to a country full of them.

Considering how many Christians die on similar boats because of policies of Christian European and American governments, policies fully supported by their electorates... He, who sits in a glass house should not do something.

There is no inalienable right to enter any country you want without restriction.

Africans aren't entitled to immigrate to Italy any more than I am.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

It's more that policymakers (particularly at a European level) have decided that the best way to deter African refugees/immigrants is to make less of an effort to rescue them when (as so often happens) the rickety ships they are on sink.

[politicus]

It's more that policymakers (particularly at a European level) have decided that the best way to deter African refugees/immigrants is to make less of an effort to rescue them when (as so often happens) the rickety ships they are on sink.

The moral responsibility for their faith would still be on the human traffickers. No country is responsible for saving people in international waters.

[ZuWo]

Members of the European Parliament who support cutting back funding for rescue missions claim that this will actually save lives at the end of the day. Apparently human traffickers have used examples of successful European rescue missions in the Mediterranean as a "marketing tool" to attract even more refugees. I have no means of verifying that but I wouldn't put it past the human traffickers responsible for all the suffering we are seeing.

[politicus]

Besides, at least in Europe free immigration would lead to massive civil unrest and possibly civil war, which would kill even more. You can not have free immigration into societies where the whole nation is ethnically defined without destabilizing them and most of the non-American world is ethnically defined. Mass migration is not a viable solution to population growth.

Nah. In the long term, societies will adapt. Sure there will be a lot of xenophobia and stupid "culture wars" in the meantime, but eventually even the most backward people will have to accept the fact that they live in a multicultural society, and there's nothing they can do to change that.

To quote Keynes: "In the long run we are all dead". Lots of bad stuff can happen in the meantime.

Just to be clear: I was talking about free immigration = everyone can enter. Which would cause massive and sudden social upheaval. Not a general high level of immigration.

DeadFlagBlues seems to be in favour of unlimited immigration.

Your faith in the inevitable triumph of multiculturalism in the entire Western world is far too deterministic. Probably because you view the issue through a normative lens.

It is better to hope that economic growth will take off in Africa and the Middle East (the former is happening, just not quite fast enough). People generally do not leave their homeland when their living standard is around  25-35% of the countries they aim for. Not sure if those levels will hold, but there are costs (cultural, emotional/family wise, economic etc.) connected to migrating. At some point in their development countries stop producing huge numbers of migrants. - and that point is well before they reach the level of the rich world.

Climate change could skew this up by destroying living conditions, but hopefully we can handle that. In general mass migration is a very bad and conflict prone way of handling population growth.

War refugees seems likely to be more numerous, but should be distributed to countries with a culture and norms compatible to theirs, not by wherever the refuges happen to go. At some point there will hopefully be better UN  coordination of this, otherwise more and more countries will likely just stop (de facto) accepting refugees.

As an example Arabs seem to do quit well in Latin America, while they clash head in with locals in Europe - whereas Asians do well in Europe. I think at some point there will have to be a global solution to this.

The whole refugee concept is also dated (mostly designed for political dissident from the Eastern bloc) and not well suited to the modern world, where economic motives mix with oppression and the situation is closer to the 19th century migration of Europeans to America than the refugee situation in the 50s and 60s (using very broad strokes here, I know).

Most countries don't mind taking refugees if they is a decent chance they are going home at some point, but a  lot of countries (incl. some affluent ones in Asia) are not interested in changing their population profile and that needs to be respected - a guarantee that some other countries will take them if it turns out to be impossible to repatriate refugees would make it more realistic to persuade Europe, Japan and Korea etc. to take more. A more rational and realistic refugee policy is badly needed. As it is we are just undermining the whole system.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The moral responsibility for their faith would still be on the human traffickers. No country is responsible for saving people in international waters.

This is broadly speaking true. Nevertheless...

[Cory]

Is there not?  Well, I guess, there is some difference between desperate people in tiny boats fighting and premediated policies thought up in comfy offices by clean-shaved white men. The latter are also substantially more murderous.

No, there isn't. These people threw people overboard based on their religious beliefs. Stop deflecting and making excuses.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

It's more that policymakers (particularly at a European level) have decided that the best way to deter African refugees/immigrants is to make less of an effort to rescue them when (as so often happens) the rickety ships they are on sink.

The moral responsibility for their faith would still be on the human traffickers. No country is responsible for saving people in international waters.

You're mistaking proximate cause for ultimate cause: while it's true that human traffickers are responsible for these deaths, these deaths could easily be prevented in a number of different ways. Frankly, I don't care about the moral/ethical responsibility so much as I care about saving people from death. I'd also be willing to accept tight immigration restrictions so long as governments made an active effort to take care of refugees for at least 2-3 months + save them from drowning.

This isn't asking for much. Apparently, Europe is filled with deluded quasi-fascists who don't care about human life, which is why this is an issue. I find it ironic that the same people harping about "maintaining Europe's liberal values" make no attempt to treat all human life with dignity. What is the  purpose of liberalism if it does not respect human rights?

I've come to the conclusion that you're either a bigot or incredibly myopic. The idea that nations should have the right to restrict immigration from different parts of the world is quite dangerous. If this notion informs a normative stance, it would implicitly support democracies to discriminate against Jews or Gypsies or Blacks or non-Whites. I suggest that you re-evaluate you're notion of "liberal democracy" and "multiculturalism": multiculturalism is the only viable solution to the horrors of the early 20th century because it's the only value that does not tolerate any level of racial or ethnic discrimination. No nation should restrict immigration in order to maintain ethnic, racial or religious homogeneity. Obviously some nations will but the idea that you'd support this in principle is terrifying.

I don't expect much from Europeans, who clearly have a lot to learn from "the New World" about the issue of immigration. There's a reason why I have no desire to ever live in Europe: most of you are terrified of immigrants or despise immigrants. It's quite pathetic.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Is there not?  Well, I guess, there is some difference between desperate people in tiny boats fighting and premediated policies thought up in comfy offices by clean-shaved white men. The latter are also substantially more murderous.

No, there isn't. These people threw people overboard based on their religious beliefs. Stop deflecting and making excuses.

At a distance, it looks like the overloaded boat ran into problems and a majority tried to save itself by throwing a minority under the bus boat.  While not an excuse for their behavior, it does explain it without trying to cast blame upon a particular group irrespective of the circumstances.  It wasn't that Islam calls for drowning Christians and unfortunately I wouldn't be surprised if the situation had been the reverse if there had been only a few Muslims on a distressed boat mainly stuffed with Christians for this modern day version of the Middle Passage.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Restrictive immigration policies literally kill people.

No, a few crazies on a boat kill people. Not the greater immigration policy. Hopefully all onboard will be packed off back home to face trial for murder in their native country.