I’m a bit surprised that so many from countries that is populated by migrants and decedents of migrant (not all voluntarily) are dead set against migrants.
Those who migrated voluntarily to the US and Australia did so to escape poverty, starvation, war or persecution in the country of their origin, as does those that is being treated as less than animals today
All European countries with a coastline and most other developed countries are signatory to the UNCLOS and the UNHCR Refugee Convention 1951 that set out the rights of Refugees and Asylum seekers.
Everybody have the right to be treated humanly and have their case heard. Who is Refugees and who is actually in need of protection under the Asylum rules are not decided by anonymous forum writers but by neutral UNHCR personnel, or the Courts.
Those who is found to be economical migrants can be returned to their country of origin, but some of them may have skills that is needed in the country they arrive in.
Basically all European countries is in need of more people, as is many other developed nations. Falling population is problem. More elderly people that need medical care require more young people of working and child bearing age. This is a sought after “commodity” in many places, including here in Norway, where many small communities are in danger of being depopulated because there are not enough people to maintain schools and basic services.
Many communities in Northern Norway has housing and jobs ready and are begging for people to move in. Refugees and migrants are welcome as long as they are able to work and bring children with them.
A lot has changed in the past 70 years, in case you haven’t noticed.
Is this some kind of surprise?
There aren’t many people from any place or condition looking for a home in the Arctic wastelands of Alaska, Canada, or Russia either. They obviously prefer a temperate climate, modern conveniences, state subsidies, health care, education, and all the other amenities that the kleptocrats running their homelands have stolen from them and reserved for themselves.
This “refugee” problem didn’t exist when they were ruled by a colonial power. Only after they were independent and given the freedom to build their own nations did they F it up so badly that they can’t stand to live there anymore and feel the need to escape to their previous masters.
Maybe Norway should build a huge city in the far north and collect all the survivors of the ferry services to Europe and transport them up there. I bet most of the EU nations would even chip in to ship a few of theirs. Let them eat lutefisk.
Yes thing have changed. 70 years ago the majority of refugees and migrants were Christian and Europeans (some of Jewish decent) Could that have something to do with the change of attitude?
BTW: In 1940-45 Norwegian refugees fled to the UK in small boats, or thought the forest and over mountains to Sweden. They may not have been wanted, but they were not sent back to German occupied Norway.
Maybe you should Google Northern Norway, or at least hide you geographical ignorance.
PS> They would even welcome Americans, whether as refugees or migrants. (Maybe not right now thought. They are mostly Covid-19 free up there)
You obviously also lack historical knowledge. Rattle of the name of US Presidents isn’t the same as world history.
You missed the point (deliberatly?) It is a question of saving small communities that already exist, not building “shining cities on the hills”.
Even you would be welcome, provided you would be willing to hang stockfish to dry in winter:
If you believe the “Out of Africa” theory of human origin that is the consensus among scientists then everyone outside of the Ethiopia area is the descendant of migrants, no populations outside of where humans originated are really ‘native’, Ethiopians are the only native population on the planet, everyone else is descended from migrants.
It may not be all that bad. Here is average temperatures in Lofoten: https://www.timeanddate.com/weather/@3147088/climate
It may not be as hot as New York City in the summer, but not much colder in the winter.
Besides, they got the Midnight sun and Northern Light. (I don’t like the darkness in the winter though)
Yes, they were. They went back from England in small boats, submarines and parachutes in order to help free their nation from an invader and Quislings.
WTF is that supposed to mean?
You missed the point (deliberatly?) It is a question of saving small communities that already exist, not building “shining cities on the hills”.
Oh, so even Norwegians don’t want to live up there!
The migrant population is the problem, where do you get data that EU countries need people?
With massive youth unemployment for 20 years they need productivity gains not more unskilled people that cant speak the language.
The future is not increased population its reduced population.
Dumping people in a country is just a short term boost to GDP as thats the way gdp is accounted for but when you do that productivity goes down and thats the measure of wealth.
WWII migrants had skills so became very useful to the growing countries they migrated to who welcomed them with open arms.
Spain has a rate of over 40% unemployment for men aged up to 25. Surprisingly, Colombians form the largest group of immigrants. I would have expected Moroccans but they are second followed by Venezuelans.
I was in the port office in Trinadad years ago, had been listening to a SAR on a sinking ship, crew got rescued by ship and then came to Trinidad to drop them off, ports said F off, they are your problem not ours. Stunning look on their faces.
After they left I said to the staff, that was a bit harsh and they said no, we know that shipping company and they wont pay to repatriate them so we dont want them.
Perhaps ships should confirm the insurance status of a sinking ship before rescuing it?
“… the [government of Norway, which said the Australian government failed to meet its obligations to distressed mariners under international law at the United Nations.”
So, five of that mob were “distressed mariners” (or possibly human traffickers), the remainder beiing illegal migrants.
If the five crew were indeed distressed mariners they should have been repatriated. Australia has every right to refuse entry to the others.
Let’s say for example a few hundred folks charter or buy an idled airliner to fly them from New York to Zurich in order to enjoy the Swiss lifestyle. They happen to have no passports or money, skills, or any connection with Switzerland other than they heard it was nice place to live. Should Swiss authorities allow them to leave the aircraft and go on the dole while they wander the hills and maybe sell umbrellas or other trinkets on the street corners?
You are (deliberately?) confusing matters.
Maritime law doesn’t separate people in distress by their profession.
In the Tampa affair the majority was classified by UNHCR as Refugees after they got to Nauru.
Nobody (except PM Howard) accused the Master and crew of Tampa of being “human traffickers”. They complied with a request from Australian SAR to assist a boat in distress and followed the rules thereafter. Capt. Rinnan got a medal for his handling of the affair and Howard lost his job eventually.
PS> Americans charting a plan to enjoy the freedom and hospitality in Switzerland has nothing to do with Maritime Law.
The five crew of the “fishing vessel” might have been human traffickers. I didn’t say the Tampa crew were, stop confusing matters to avoid addressing the facts that except for passing merchant vessels in normal commerce that happen to come across sinking boats, the owners and operators of the “rescue” vessels are human traffickers carrying cargoes of illegal migrants. They and there cargo are engaged in an illegal enterprise.
The Maersk ship and crew should not be held hostage to this obscene trade. Malta should gather up the “refugees” and ship them back to Libya or their home country.
This entire business has become nothing more than a different form of piracy.
That is what we are talking about. Both the Maersk Etienne and the Tampa are merchant vessels and did what any seafarer are obliged to do when coming across people in distress, no matter who or what they are.
That is totally consistent with what I have said all along, and with merchant shipping.
If the Maersk Etienne (or anybody else, except the Libyan CG/Navy) tried to return those they have picked up on the high seas to Libya they MAY not accept them.
Unfortunately there are seldom time to worry about such thing when performing a rescue.
Besides, it is the obligation of seafarers to assist those in peril, no matter who and what they are.
That is how it has been until recently at least.
