Putting 700 or 800 folks in a wooden fishing hulk, driving it across a sea, and setting the autohelm to collide with a rocky coastline is the sort of plan that should be nipped in the bud. No matter the reason. The ends (finding gainful work, let’s presume) cannot justify the means (putting all these lives in danger).
[QUOTE=Emrobu;187108]What to do with people is a complicated logistical and financial crisis. I guess UNRRA needs to step in: that’s their area of expertise. In the mean time, lives can be saved by enforcing SOLAS.[/QUOTE]
We have the UNHCR who is responsible for “certifying” refugees, but how are they to do so, unless they are given the means and security to do it? Besides, there are already millions of approved refugees waiting for resettlement, but few countries stepping up to the base to take them.
Canada is an exception, but it is like “a piss in the Indian Ocean” relative to the numbers languishing in UNHCR camps in 3rd world countries.
[QUOTE=Emrobu;187111]Putting 700 or 800 folks in a wooden fishing hulk, driving it across a sea, and setting the autohelm to collide with a rocky coastline is the sort of plan that should be nipped in the bud. No matter the reason. The ends (finding gainful work, let’s presume) cannot justify the means (putting all these lives in danger).[/QUOTE]
It is not just a question of 7-800 people and wooden fishing boats. We are talking maybe 2-3000 people on old freighter, or roro ferries etc.
The largest single load on one ship leaving Vietnam in 1979-80 was 2300 if I remember the numbers right.
Here is a link to a wikipedia article for those who are interested: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnamese_boat_people#Exodus_in_1978.E2.80.931979
Can it be repeated in Europe?? You bet, plenty of old wrecks to be had is easily available around the Med. and the money to set it up can be found from “hungry” investors in places like Dubai, London etc.
Same with people to fill the wrecks.
[QUOTE=ombugge;187105]What do we do about it?? Build walls, physical or otherwise.[/QUOTE]
What part of there is nothing we are willing to do is so difficult to understand?
The sources of the invading hordes are non functional states defined by internecine fighting between and among stone age cults and the tribal warfare that has existed for thousands of years without change. The only difference post colonial period is that they have “self rule” which in most cases means rule of the gun supplied by the defense agencies of American and European nations.
Short of a total blockade of Africa there is not much anyone can do other than prevent the flood that will overwhelm every aspect of European society and its economy. In the meantime, a practical approach is to blockade the North African coast and prevent any “refugee” boat from leaving. Any other approach is simply facilitating human smuggling while committing social and cultural suicide.
It’s not our place to separate “legitimate” refugees from those seeking a free ride and the latest fashions. It is our job to protect our own society and economy and perhaps we can do that by not supporting the people and processes which enable the conditions that drive people from their homes. We have the power to stop this at its roots, we just choose not to use it because a few of our own politicians, bankers, generals, and industrialists are getting fat from it.
Short of doing what needs to be done, stop the do-gooders who “rescue” the product the smugglers deliver to them. The article in today’s Marine Executive mentions the fact that the smugglers are actually making the “rescuers” part of their product supply chain. Break that chain today, stop this filthy business and your emotional pain might go away.
Other countries should require the USA to budget for refugee expenses they incur due to the USA deciding to go stir up shit storms creating refugee crises all over the world. In the last 50 years every hemisphere on the planet earth has had to deal with refugee crises due to USA meddling in other countries’ affairs. As Colin Powell once said, “It’s like the Pottery Barn; if you break it you bought it.” [Of course he forgot that a few years later.]
Such expenses should be part of the defense/offense budget.
[QUOTE=tengineer1;187148]Other countries should require the USA to budget for refugee expenses they incur due to the USA deciding to go stir up shit storms creating refugee crises all over the world. In the last 50 years every hemisphere on the planet earth has had to deal with refugee crises due to USA meddling in other countries’ affairs. As Colin Powell once said, “It’s like the Pottery Barn; if you break it you bought it.” [Of course he forgot that a few years later.]
Such expenses should be part of the defense/offense budget.[/QUOTE]
It already is indirectly and added to the Chinese credit card for you grandsons and granddaughters to pay for, I believe to the tune of $50 Billion annually, not counting the trillions since the inception of NATO.
The US has enough of its own problems with economic and political refugees (gang and drug related violence) whom have been illegally entering for decades. When Europe starts helping us with our backyard, then maybe we can talk about helping them with theirs.
If all of Europe doesn’t get involved and do something to proactively convince the the Syrians, Libyans, Iraqis, etc that paradise isn’t waiting for them in the EU, you won’t be just dealing with a BREXIT. Italy, Greece, The lower Balkans are getting fucked.
It’s no secret that Eruope’s North African and near Middle East backyards are 3rd world / developing world overpopulated and impoverished nations. And I don’t think anybody on this planet thinks that is going to change anytime soon. The EU can not be all things to all people, and it does most certainly have an obligation to its current residents to protect its current social service responsibilities as well as employment levels, etc.
EU’s going to have do something… nation building, a blockade to prevent the boats from leaving…
Or maybe just handing out some fucking rubbers would be a good idea. Maybe if the US had done that a long, long time ago we’d have a lot less than millions upon millions of illegals than we currently do.
[QUOTE=ombugge;187124]It is not just a question of 7-800 people and wooden fishing boats. We are talking maybe 2-3000 people on old freighter, or roro ferries etc.[/QUOTE]
For sure. But this boat in this case: wooden fishing derelict. These passengers in this case: 700 or 800. (not the much quoted, misleading ‘217’). Im not nit-picking. As PM Renzi of Italy said, “I ordered the navy to recover the wreck to bury those brothers and sisters of ours who otherwise would have remained at the sea bottom forever. I did it because we Italians know the value of the word ‘civilization.’ ”
[QUOTE=lm1883;187152]You tell us…
Then you say…
Just curious, why economic refugees do not deserve the same consideration for asylum (migration) that “political” refugees do.
I guess the Ottoman Turks should have just sent refugees in the 1600s instead of using an army.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Vienna[/QUOTE]
You should check what is said in the UN Treaty on Refugees and the 1967 amendment.
In case you don’t:
Refugees: Someone who are approved as such by UNHRC and ready for re-settlement in 3rd country.
Asylum Seekers: Someone arriving in a country and applying for protection from political prosecution or other dangers.
Economic Migrants: Someone who move to another country looking for work, or looking for work.
Illegal Migrants: Some who try to enter (or actually arrive without approval) to a country.
NOTE: This is not verbatim, but by way of explaining the difference of the terms.
-
-
- Updated - - -
-
[QUOTE=anchorman;187149]It already is indirectly and added to the Chinese credit card for you grandsons and granddaughters to pay for, I believe to the tune of $50 Billion annually, not counting the trillions since the inception of NATO.[/QUOTE]
Me no understand the relevance? Is NATO involved in rescuing or feeding Refugees??
That Chinese Credit card is not the fault of the people dying in the Med right now. You have to look elsewhere to find someone to blame for that. (Your grand children may)
[QUOTE=ombugge;187168]
Me no understand the relevance? Is NATO involved in rescuing or feeding Refugees??
That Chinese Credit card is not the fault of the people dying in the Med right now. You have to look elsewhere to find someone to blame for that. (Your grand children may)[/QUOTE]
To help you understand, or correlate my comment as you see fit…
- The comment was made that the US should finance certain costs regarding refugees that were the result of some US involvement.
- The cost are currently absorbed in some manner by someone, a simple fact that cannot be argued. Obviously, the poster does not see the US as being that someone.
- The US contributes more $ than any other country in the form of some type of foreign aid, to around 90% of all countries. Estimates provided.
- Although the US contributes $, in large part it’s deficit spending.
- A large part of this deficit spending is carried by government bonds held by China.
*“China Creditcard” is a common analogy used in popular commentary.
*Every (US citizens) granddaughters and grandsons will bear this cost genius)…although anonymity of a forum does not convey our citizenship, I am pretty sure I was responding to one. - Whenever there is an outflow of reserves, cash, or debt incurred from the US to another country, the receiving country is offsetting other costs of their own. For example: If I pay your electric bill, which has nothing to do with your diet, you can use the funds saved to purchase a cake made out of shit. “Indirectly” (a term that I posted) I may have contributed in you eating shit.
[I]* Since the US funds disproportionate share of NATO to GDP, and the rescue was conducted by a NATO country…
[/I]*I am not saying what is right, wrong or what should happen, just pointing out the relevance which the refugee could care less about. The comment was made around “incurred cost by other countries” regarding refugees. I say the US is offsetting certain costs now.
Oh, and I don’t need anyone to blame either, nor did I. WTF, You pulling a rabbit from thin air as the encore?
We don’t need c.captain to have fun 
Encore??? What encore, this is not the last word by a long shot. I’m having fun.
A: There is no such thing as a “Political Refugee”. A refugee is a refugee, period. There is nothing political in running away from war. Bombs and grenades are not political. Those who send them may be, but those on the receiving end are mostly innocent civilians.
B: There are no such thing as “Economical Refugees”. That is a oxymoron. Economical Migrants is seeking the good life and has no claim on protection according to the UN Refugee treaty.
I don’t know how better to explain these simple facts.
So a few humble facts, if I may:
Countries who donate the most to foreign aid (compared to their GDP)
1)**United States – $31.1 billion (0.2%)
2) *United Kingdom – $18.7 billion (0.6%)
*3) Germany – $17.8 billion (0.5%)
*4) Japan – $9.3 billion (0.2%)
5) *France – $9.2 billion (0.4%)
*6) Sweden – $7.1 billion (1.4%)
7) *Netherlands – $5.8 billion (0.8%)
*8) Canada – $4.3 billion (0.3%)
9) *Norway – $4.3 billion (1.1%)
*10) Italy – $3.84 billion (0.2%)
*European Union – $87.6 billion (0.5%)
These numbers are kinda interesting. But most interesting of all is the question: where’s China’s contribution? On paper they are wealthier than everyone except the US. Bit anti-social for communists.
Countries who receive the most aid (and their contribution to the migration crises)
1)* Egypt * * * 5.5 billion (no significant migration)
2) Afghanistan. * * ***5.3 billion (17% of migrants arriving by sea to Europe)
3) Vietnam * * * 4.1 billion (no significant migration)
4) Myanmar * * * 3.9 billion (no significant migration)
5) Ethiopia * * ** 3.8 billion (no significant migration)
6) Syria * * * 3.6 billion (33% of migrants by sea to Europe)
7) Tanzania * * * 3.4 billion (no significant migration)
8) Kenya * * * 3.2 billion no significant migration)
9) Israel * * * 3.2 billion (ACCEPTING migrants from Europe)
10) Turkey * * * 2.9 billion (no significant migration)
13) Nigeria * * * * * 2.9 billion (5% of migrants by sea to Europe)
16) Pakistan * * * * * 2.2 billion (3% of migrants by sea to Europe)
18) Iraq * * * * * * * 1.5 billion (11% of migrants by sea to Europe)
25) Côte d'Ivoire * 1.2 billion (2% of migrants by sea to Europe)
57) Guinea * * * * * * 0.5 billion (2% of migrants by sea to Europe)
96) Gambia * * * * * * 0.1 billion (3% of migrants by sea to Europe)
108) Eritrea * * * * *$ 0.1 billion (4% of migrants by sea to Europe)
All figures are in USD.
So as you can clearly see, in a way, we are all paying people to emigrate from Europe to the Middle East (Isreal). If I hadn’t dug up these numbers, you surely would not have believed that statement.
http://data.unhcr.org/mediterranean/regional.php
(random stars everywhere. Idk why. Sorry)
Does anyone honestly think foreign aid is charity? No, no. Try bribe, rent, payment, influence buying, soft power or whatever.
The United States rents influence from more affluent states with trade, security cooperation, and popular support (think Germany and Japan). From the less affluent we rent influence with aid, business and security support.
Understand that if the United States stopped paying for influence other less friendly countries would step in and pay the going rate. This would leave the United States in a less secure position. Imagine if we stopped supporting Korea and Japan with security guarantees. It wouldn’t be too long before they moved into China’s orbit. (Or Norway. They’d cozy up to the Russians soon enough.)
For a country like Afghanistan we would like to keep out of Russian, Chinese or Iranian hands. For that we pay a high price in aid to rent their tolerance of us.
[QUOTE=Emrobu;187181]
So as you can clearly see, in a way, we are all paying people to emigrate from Europe to the Middle East (Isreal). [/QUOTE]
Israel has been importing warm bodies for decades in order to populate the occupied territories in order to avoid having to return those lands to their rightful owners.
That policy is among the most cynical and odious human relocation projects in history.
[QUOTE=Steamer;187197]Israel has been importing warm bodies for decades in order to populate the occupied territories in order to avoid having to return those lands to their rightful owners.
That policy is among the most cynical and odious human relocation projects in history.[/QUOTE]
Couldn’t agree more. My feelings on the topic are too caustic to be aired in public.
[QUOTE=DeckApe;187190]Does anyone honestly think foreign aid is charity? No, no. Try bribe, rent, payment, influence buying, soft power or whatever.
The United States rents influence from more affluent states with trade, security cooperation, and popular support (think Germany and Japan). From the less affluent we rent influence with aid, business and security support.
Understand that if the United States stopped paying for influence other less friendly countries would step in and pay the going rate. This would leave the United States in a less secure position. Imagine if we stopped supporting Korea and Japan with security guarantees. It wouldn’t be too long before they moved into China’s orbit. (Or Norway. They’d cozy up to the Russians soon enough.)
For a country like Afghanistan we would like to keep out of Russian, Chinese or Iranian hands. For that we pay a high price in aid to rent their tolerance of us.[/QUOTE]
Typical. Luckily, there is visibility to each and every invoice that is dispersed from the US government. There is some truth to what you have said but very small in the grand scheme of bi-lateral foreign assistance. Larger geo-political issues are usually multi-lateral functions, support, and assistance toward those agendas.
This of course does not include the tax brakes given to private foundations such as the Bill & Melinda Gates foundation to help facilitate their good work tax free.
You can find the database here, and maybe realize that there are moral convictions of a nation that drive most aid to poor countries.
http://beta.foreignassistance.gov/
Foreign assistance is aid given by the United States to other countries to support global peace, security, and development efforts, and provide humanitarian relief during times of crisis. It is a strategic, economic, and moral imperative for the United States and vital to U.S. national security.
The first U.S. aid program took shape after World War II when then Secretary of State George Marshall acted to provide significant aid to Europe after the war to assist the continent in rebuilding its infrastructure, strengthening its economy, and stabilizing the region. This led to the creation of several foreign assistance programs in subsequent years to build off the success of the Marshall Plan. The next milestone for foreign assistance occurred in 1961, when President Kennedy signed the Foreign Assistance Act into law and created the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). This marked a significant increase in U.S. foreign assistance efforts and USAID became the first U.S. foreign assistance agency whose primary focus was long-term global development to include economic and social progress.
In 2010, President Obama signed the Presidential Policy Directive on Global Development, which calls for the elevation of development as a core pillar of American power in accord with diplomacy and defense for an integrated approach to national security. The directive governs U.S. efforts in support of global development and provides clear policy guidance to all U.S. government agencies managing and implementing foreign assistance.
Today, the U.S. manages foreign assistance programs in more than 100 countries around the world through the efforts of over 20 different U.S. Government agencies. These investments further America’s foreign policy interests on issues ranging from expanding free markets, combating extremism, ensuring stable democracies, and addressing the root causes of poverty, while simultaneously fostering global good will.
We can call the glass half-full or half-empty.
[QUOTE=DeckApe;187190](Or Norway. They’d cozy up to the Russians soon enough.)[/QUOTE]
We are the only neighbouring country they have not been at war with, so you could say we are kind of best buddies.