Salvini vs. Rocket

[Velasco]

It's remarkable the way Tender refers the events. The issue for him is "bringing illegals to Europe and giving a s**t about the laws". The German captain, on the other hand, stated that her aim was "to bring desperate and exhausted people to shore" and her act of disobedience was necessary to avert a tragedy. While Tender dehumanizes persons rescued at sea by calling them "illegals", the captain takes a personal risk in saving their lives and bringing them to safe harbour.

Disobedience is justified when injust laws conflict with humanitarian reasons and are contrary to the Law of the Sea

[Velasco]

[

The situation is complicated. On one hand, these are people who might otherwise drown, and rescuing people at sea is a must (imagine if while the Titanic was sinking there was a boat nearby and didn't pick them up!)

On the other hand, illegal immigration should be cut. Even if I believe that people come illegally only because they can't come in legally, Europe can't take everyone who wants to come in either. (although I still believe we should adopt a softer legal immigration policy but with a hard line against illegal immigration). These so-called rescue service NGOs should be heavily restricted.

I am not sure if she should go to jail or not to be honest. Maybe she deserves just a fine but her sailing license revoked so she can't do it again?

My feeling is that many of you are posing false dilemmas.

On the one hand, there should be no doubt on the moral duty to rescue people at sea. However, we live in times of moral degradation (or relativism if you like). Salvini and like-minded people don't care at all, as they don't consider these people human fellows but "illegals". There is a short distance from "illegal" to "no human". The insults of the Salvini crowd to Pope Francis at Piazza del Duomo in Milan are telling. Dehumanizing the Other is one of the main characteristics of fascism.

On the other hand, there is no way to "cut illegal immigration". Pretending that it can be controlled with walls, fences and internment camps is delusional and inhumane. Only massive and comprehensive efforts in origin countries may help to keep the problem at bay. Also, European countries need immigrants to maintain their prosperity. You may argue it's preferable that immigrants come in an orderly and controlled way, but we need them.

[Velasco]

On the other hand, there is no way to "cut illegal immigration". Pretending that it can be controlled with walls, fences and internment camps is delusional and inhumane.

Of course it can be done, as Australia or Singapore show. You (and me) might think that it is morally wrong, but it is perfectly possible.

Australia is geographically isolated and Singapore is a tiny city-state. European borders are much more difficult to control, particularly the Mediterranean Sea. Of course European countries make efforts and put resources. The point is, sooner or later there will be crises that will entail massive population displacements. The flood of refugees caused by the war in Syria won't be an event isolated in time. Which policies are the best to handle these situations? Do you think border patrols are enough?

[Velasco]

Internment on Islands like Lampedusa or in North Africa (who are resisting this) after picking them up, without possibility to pass on to Mainland Europe. Verdict on the Asylum request there, rejected Asylum requests are deported or indefinitely detained, accepted Asylum requests are settled in "safe" African countries, who are desperate for financial assistance from Europe. This is almost exactly the policy that Australia has, and it is the policy that many mainstream European politicians have (in part) been proposing.

Fortress Europe is not just a possibility, but indeed looking increasingly likely when, as you have said, the numbers increase. Hardline policies, do actually work in bringing the amount of people who try to come down, when they know that there is no way that they will be accepted. Australia is a perfect example.

If one just wants to fight the consequence, i.e. the Number of People coming (and lets face it-thats what European politicians are interested in), then yes this is a viable approach in my opinion. But it is necessary to fight the root cause.

All the things you have mentioned are temporary solutions, except the last sentence. As far as I know, Australia has never faced a situation comparable to the one created by the war in Syria. Despite Angela Merkel decided to host a large number of frefugees, assuming a high political cost, many thousands of asylum seekers are still trapped in internment camps located in the Greek islands. The living conditions in those camps are deplorable and they are a shame for Europe. Remember that Syrians are not criminals, but people trying to escape from death and destruction in their country. Regarding Northern Africa, the situation in Lybya is so horrible that people coming from the south prefer to die drowning at sea to suffer the abuses of the Lybyan warlords. On the other hand, Salvini wants to lock Lampedusa and the Italian ports forever. Regardless the numbers Europe is willing to host, our countries have the moral duty to treat asylum seekers with dignity.

Of course it's necessary to address the root causes in the origin countries. This entails fight against poverty and climate change and commitment for peace.

[Velasco]

If you want a Muslim and African Italy (geographic expression only) that cares nothing for the Italian culture and history as it’s evolved for the past 1000 years than I suppose the pre-Salvini course was optimal for you (of course I’m not saying Salvini will succeed in changing that course long term).

This is a strawman and for two extremely simple reasons:

1) Neither Freedom Fighter Rackete nor anyone in this forum is advocating for a Muslim or an African Italy. We all love the Italian history, culture, monuments and cuisine... but not the politicians. Your claim is a tremendous absurdity,

2) With the current figures, despite all the scaremongering, there is no imminent danger for our beloved Italy.

The subjest of immigration is too serious, especially when we are talking about human beings who die and suffer, to be discussed on these demagogic grounds. Thank you.

[Velasco]

Re: Salvini vs. Rocket
Quote from: Absolution9 on Today at 04:42:00 am


How is it a strawman?

Before 2017 Italy was getting 150-200k boat migrant arrivals per year.  That’s set against a back drop of a doubling of the population of the African continent between 2015 and 2050 and a roughly 10% decline in the native Italian population during the same period.  If that had continued, even without additional possible arrivals due to increased demographic pressure in Africa,  it would mean easily 8-10M migrants + descendants by 2050.

I think you are mixing up figures. It's true that Italy received a large influx of people in recent years

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-44660699

  While the number of arrivals has dropped in Greece, the number of people arriving in Italy showed little change until 2018 when it also dropped considerably. In 2016 and 2017, 180,000 and 119,000 arrived in Italy respectively, smuggled by traffickers from North Africa and rescued at sea. In 2017, Italy received 67% of the EU's migrant arrivals.

However, since January this year, the number of arrivals in Italy has greatly reduced, with 20,120 arriving by mid-September 2018.

In the same period, Spain received the highest number of migrants and refugees - almost 35,000 - the majority of them by sea and more than 5,300 by land to Ceuta and Melilla, two Spanish enclaves in North Africa.

The UN refugee agency (UNHCR) says that routes used by human traffickers are constantly changing and are dependent on a number of factors, but the drop in numbers reaching Italy is attributed mainly to its close co-operation with the Libyan coastguard.

It's important to take into account the significant reduction that took place in 2018, that must be credited to the effort made by the previous Italian administration and not to Salvini.

You are assuming all these people will apply for asylum succesfully and stay in Italy or other European countries. There are some graphs in the article showing the number of asylum applications and the total of succesful applications for the 2014-2017 period. In the case of Italy the applications were around 150k in 2015 and 2016, but the number of succesful applications in the same years is well below 50k. With these figures and taking into account the 1M of people with African background already living in Italy and the total population exceeding 60M... I'd say your projected 10M is scaremongering.

 Each asylum application is assessed on an individual basis. The process can take many years, and those who apply for asylum are given basic housing, food, education and healthcare.
At the end of the process, asylum is granted to those who can prove they fled war and persecution, while those who do not meet the criteria are refused asylum (...)

The governments of the EU countries have warned that those who do not have a legitimate asylum claim will be returned to their country of origin.
 

Reading the last sentence and looking at the figures, I don't see the asylum policy is so permissive. But you claim otherwise and make assumptions that I find... insidious

 Under a continued  scenario of permissive migration that existed in Europe between 2012 and 2017 it is certain that the continent would be utterly demographically and culturally transformed by the end of the century. In my opinion not for the better, but we probably differ in that assessment.

Human societies don't remain static and petrified in time. They are dynamic and are subject to changes. I have no doubt that Europe and the rest of the world will face cultural and demographic changes.  I don't know if they will be for better or for worse. The only thing I know is that human beings on this planet will face huge climatic and demographic challenges in the near future. Possibly we won't be able to find solutions if we can't work together. Honestly, the problems are so great that I find populists, demagogues and  racist scaremongers a bit annoying. Please stop saying stupid things: we neither want a Muslim invasion nor to destroy Europe. On the contrary, we love Europe and believe that democracy, tolerance and respect for human rights are among the best European traditions and they must be preserved. Thank you.

[Velasco]

Talking about insanity and conspiracy theories:

 "Former German spy chief causes alarm sharing far-right tweets"

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/15/former-german-spy-chief-georg-maassen-alarm-sharing-far-right-tweets

  On Sunday Maaßen shared on Twitter an article from a rightwing extremist blog claiming that the rescue of a group of people adrift off the Libyan coast by the rescue boat Sea-Watch 3, and the subsequent arrest of its German captain, Carola Rackete, was in fact a “piece of propaganda” orchestrated by the German public broadcaster ARD.

The article likens a documentary about Sea-Watch 3 by ARD’s programme Panorama to the Nazi propaganda ministry embedding film crews on “Strength Through Joy” cruise ships, and suggests the film crew could have dragged the rescued refugees out to sea in the first place. 

Regarding conflict between the brave captain and the demagogue deputy PM, it's a relief to know that judges in Italy are independent. This aspect is extremely important in the present circumstances