Italy's Matteo Salvini shuts ports to migrant rescue ship - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#14927979
Drlee wrote:Here is where I draw the line. It is one thing to individually flee from a particular tyranny. Economic migration is quite another.


It's not possible to entirely separate refugees from economic migrants. There is a bit of both in every migrant.

And as long as there are substantial differences in living standards on both sides of the border, there will be migration. It's just like trade. If you prohibit or restrict trade, smuggling becomes lucrative.

In the EU, we don't need walls because of economic convergence. Even if there are differences, they are not so big as to cause unmanageable migration. Extending that economic convergence to Africa isn't easy, so there is no choice but to move the walls further South for the time being. But ultimately, walls are not the solution, just like trade protectionism is not the solution.

Walls appeal to the simple-minded, but to effectively control migration we need a multi-layered approach, which will have to include measures for bringing greater prosperity to Africa. Ultimately, migration needs to be controlled at the source, and not at the German, Austrian, Italian, Tunisian, etc. border.

That's why Trump is wrong. Instead of fucking with your Southern neighbors you should be cooperating with them to achieve economic convergence and control illegal mass migration. Then walls will become superfluous.
#14928013
Atlantis wrote:It's not possible to entirely separate refugees from economic migrants. There is a bit of both in every migrant.

And as long as there are substantial differences in living standards on both sides of the border, there will be migration. It's just like trade. If you prohibit or restrict trade, smuggling becomes lucrative.

In the EU, we don't need walls because of economic convergence. Even if there are differences, they are not so big as to cause unmanageable migration. Extending that economic convergence to Africa isn't easy, so there is no choice but to move the walls further South for the time being. But ultimately, walls are not the solution, just like trade protectionism is not the solution.

Walls appeal to the simple-minded, but to effectively control migration we need a multi-layered approach, which will have to include measures for bringing greater prosperity to Africa. Ultimately, migration needs to be controlled at the source, and not at the German, Austrian, Italian, Tunisian, etc. border.

That's why Trump is wrong. Instead of fucking with your Southern neighbors you should be cooperating with them to achieve economic convergence and control illegal mass migration. Then walls will become superfluous.


There has not been a single time in recorded history where there was not ‘haves’ and ‘have nots’. To pretend elimination of this is any kind of a solution is disingenuous. You may as well say you can eliminate there being a ‘mean’ in math. Only accepting the differences offers a solution. I don’t care if your community has more money than mine. I will work with my community to do the best we can.
The only ‘help’ we should offer is interest free or low interest loans with no strings attached. There is no solution to be found through immigration.
#14928233
It's not possible to entirely separate refugees from economic migrants. There is a bit of both in every migrant.


I am convinced of it. I also agree that the best solution is to improve conditions at home. WRT violence, we should be eliminating the bad guys in these countries and providing economic aid.
#14928237
I do not understand why these boats can not be turned away. It is clearly the whole asylum and refugee policy is being taken advantage off. This in turn leads to unprecedented influx of migrants that have already changed demography of so many countries in Europe.

I bet for most of these people there is no way to actually verify who they are. They can say whatever they wish of themselves.
#14929270
But what about the women and children?

Denying small children the right to enter a safe zone is not morally justified.

And I am not speaking about normal immigration that happens in peace time but refugees who have to escape in a time of war. Refugees are not normal immigrants and their residential status in Europe need not be permanent.

It is very easy for a person to sit in peace and cast doubt on the legitimacy of refugees when they do not have shells falling around them.

Good refugee policies are not that hard to draft up and enact. Both Merkel and Salvini failed to implement suitable policies.

Albert wrote:I do not understand why these boats can not be turned away. It is clearly the whole asylum and refugee policy is being taken advantage off. This in turn leads to unprecedented influx of migrants that have already changed demography of so many countries in Europe.


It is not as black and white some people think. If European countries had governments that could actually act and not just talk it would be possible to accomodate refugees without worrying about demography because they would not settle in Europe permanently.

A lot of the refugees do not come by choice. Many would happily return to their homelands. There would not be a refugee crisis if the West had not destroyed so many of these countries.
#14929371
Political Interest wrote:Denying small children the right to enter a safe zone is not morally justified.

Do you consider Turkey to be a safe zone?

Many migrants would rather risk drowning in the Mediterranean than settle for a safe, secure prosperous country. Some pass through multiple safe countries in their quest to attain a first world standard of living.

Expecting children to risk drowning before offering them assistance doesn't strike me as a responsible, safety conscious policy.
#14929514
AFAIK Said: Many migrants would rather risk drowning in the Mediterranean than settle for a safe, secure prosperous country. Some pass through multiple safe countries in their quest to attain a first world standard of living.


All too true and all too infrequently mentioned.

Regarding the United States. If Central American migrants are in fear and only want safety, why are they not fleeing to much closer places like Columbia, Venezuela, Ecuador and Panama?
#14929537
Are you saying that Panama and Columbia are as bad as Honduras and Guatemala? They are not. Not by a long shot. Venezuela is an economic nightmare so I might give them a pass for that one.

If these folks are fleeing violence, as they say they are, Panama gets them out of danger fastest.

(He said sarcastically.)

Let's face it. These are economic migrants as much as they are fleeing violence.
#14929539
Drlee wrote:Let's face it. These are economic migrants as much as they are fleeing violence.


Well, that really is the crux of the whole issue isn't it?

If there are closer alternatives, then barring the rare exceptions, the asylum argument seems a bit superfluous.

Rather, it seems the concerns expressed by those who voted-in the new administration in 2016 might actually have some reasonable justification.

This isn't about being charitable to the "down-trodden" this about keeping our pantry from being raided at our expense.

Otherwise, the glaring fact of other latin-american states not caring for these poor refugees simply begs the question, just as Saudi Arabia not caring for refugees begs the questions regarding the actual intentions of migrants across the pond.

Its time everyone started being honest about this and then we can have a real talk about the merits of the supporting and opposing views, until then the conversation will continue to be tainted by the spectre of "meany racism," as if that were the modus operandi of the right.
#14929559
Yes. We should be having a discussion about this. Unfortunately the republicans have chose to make this a no-compromise issue for their voters. You must admit that they have chosen their actions very poorly. They have done outrageous things to dog-whistle their followers making any kind of discussion impossible.

Deport dreamers?

Lock up children?

Build a wall that is simply ridiculous.

Call immigrants names and make obviously false claims about them.

Refuse to consider workplace enforcement.

Can't blame the democrats for a single bit of this.
#14929675
Atlantis wrote:It's not possible to entirely separate refugees from economic migrants. There is a bit of both in every migrant.

And as long as there are substantial differences in living standards on both sides of the border, there will be migration. It's just like trade. If you prohibit or restrict trade, smuggling becomes lucrative.

In the EU, we don't need walls because of economic convergence. Even if there are differences, they are not so big as to cause unmanageable migration. Extending that economic convergence to Africa isn't easy, so there is no choice but to move the walls further South for the time being. But ultimately, walls are not the solution, just like trade protectionism is not the solution.

Walls appeal to the simple-minded, but to effectively control migration we need a multi-layered approach, which will have to include measures for bringing greater prosperity to Africa. Ultimately, migration needs to be controlled at the source, and not at the German, Austrian, Italian, Tunisian, etc. border.

That's why Trump is wrong. Instead of f***ing with your Southern neighbors you should be cooperating with them to achieve economic convergence and control illegal mass migration. Then walls will become superfluous.


This post really started out with some promising observations, IMO: It is definitely true that you cannot fully separate an economic migrant from a politically motivated migrant in most circumstances. For instance, while it is definitely not so great to be a Christian in Egypt for political reasons and there is a latent terror threat, at the end of the day , the main motivator for a lot of emigration is perhaps economic, but the political components really do justify people wanting to get out of there. I appreciate the subtlety of this point and I think that the right has to account for it.

You are also objectively right that there can be smuggling industries surrounded on exploiting these sorts of imbalances across the Mediterranean or the US/Mexican border, and I do agree that we need to work with the states on the other side of it...

But you are acting like these differences basically justify illegal immigration / invasion of Europe or the US.

In reality, working within these realities means that we should have far stricter policies and barriers to immigration, and more proactive engagement of the problem, as opposed to less.

Moreover, you know what the wall is for, right? It is for slowing down the countless vehicles that can just drive people across stretches of land.

Of course a wall does not get illegal immigration down to ZERO...

You are dismantling a strawman.

The wall is not the singular solution to the problem in anyone's mind.

Moreover, the Left does not appreciate that the Right Wing is well aware that policies like e-Verify, whichs ound good, would be endlessly obstructed by the Left. We can't even get the conservative state of Kansas to have a voter ID law without a justice striking it down, for Heaven's sake.
#14929684
Moreover, the Left does not appreciate that the Right Wing is well aware that policies like e-Verify, which sound good, would be endlessly obstructed by the Left. We can't even get the conservative state of Kansas to have a voter ID law without a justice striking it down, for Heaven's sake.


It is not the liberals that are blocking this. It is both of them. The bright red state I live in has e-verify for all employees. So do the bright red states of Georgia, Louisiana and Mississippi. But before we go after liberals/ democrats the brightest red state of Texas does not require e-verify. Neither does Kentucky, West Virginia, New Mexico or Arkansas. They are all pretty red.

This can't be blamed on the left. This is an equal opportunity sellout to the wealthy.

I agree that migration needs to be controlled at the source. The thing is though, how to do that. I do not favor sending American aid dollars to prop up corrupt regimes like Guatemala or Honduras nor to pay corrupt intermediaries like Turkey to take these refugees. Do we send the marines, depose the government of Guatemala and kill the criminals?

Solutions?
#14929747
Drlee wrote:I agree that migration needs to be controlled at the source. The thing is though, how to do that. I do not favor sending American aid dollars to prop up corrupt regimes like Guatemala or Honduras nor to pay corrupt intermediaries like Turkey to take these refugees. Do we send the marines, depose the government of Guatemala and kill the criminals?

Solutions?


End neoliberal foreign policy, abolish the IMF and World Bank.





#14929759
Verv wrote:This post really started out with some promising observations, IMO: It is definitely true that you cannot fully separate an economic migrant from a politically motivated migrant in most circumstances. For instance, while it is definitely not so great to be a Christian in Egypt for political reasons and there is a latent terror threat, at the end of the day , the main motivator for a lot of emigration is perhaps economic, but the political components really do justify people wanting to get out of there. I appreciate the subtlety of this point and I think that the right has to account for it.

You are also objectively right that there can be smuggling industries surrounded on exploiting these sorts of imbalances across the Mediterranean or the US/Mexican border, and I do agree that we need to work with the states on the other side of it...

But you are acting like these differences basically justify illegal immigration / invasion of Europe or the US.

In reality, working within these realities means that we should have far stricter policies and barriers to immigration, and more proactive engagement of the problem, as opposed to less.

Moreover, you know what the wall is for, right? It is for slowing down the countless vehicles that can just drive people across stretches of land.

Of course a wall does not get illegal immigration down to ZERO...

You are dismantling a strawman.

The wall is not the singular solution to the problem in anyone's mind.

Moreover, the Left does not appreciate that the Right Wing is well aware that policies like e-Verify, whichs ound good, would be endlessly obstructed by the Left. We can't even get the conservative state of Kansas to have a voter ID law without a justice striking it down, for Heaven's sake.


Perhaps you projected your own straw-men into my comment?

But you are acting like these differences basically justify illegal immigration / invasion of Europe or the US.


Neither in this forum, nor in any other place did I ever suggest that illegal immigration is justified or that mass migration is something positive.

I think you are not really doing justice to the refugee-versus-economic-migrant issue. There are more than 60 million refugees in the World today. These are genuine refugees. Nobody leaves his/her home village to life in a refugee camp. Only a very small portion of these very real refugees has migrated to the rich industrial economies. Most are in poor countries.

Having said that, even a refugee is a human being with aspirations for a better life. If a refugee has the choice, for example, between Germany and Portugal, he'll move to Germany for economic reasons (stupid choice, but even refugees can be stupid). That doesn't mean he is not a genuine refugee fleeing war or persecution at home. Refugees are humans who also have an aspiration for self-fulfilment. Nobody has a right to deprive them of that. Depriving them of that means depriving them of human dignity.

From the process of consensus politics in Germany and Europe I know only too well that it's not possible to simply impose an immigration policy you or I may think desirable. The policies adopted are a result of a compromise reached between different political forces. That compromise is gradually shifting to the right with the increase of migrants and with the inability of left policies to cope. It's irrelevant whether you are I think this is a good thing or not. The fact is nobody can do anything about that shift in politics, except for solidly occupying the middle ground. Well, we ought to resist the shift to the right, because the numbers of migrants has been radically reduced already. At this point the issue is primarily exploited by right-wing politicians for their own agenda.
#14929765
Drlee wrote:It is not the liberals that are blocking this. It is both of them. The bright red state I live in has e-verify for all employees. So do the bright red states of Georgia, Louisiana and Mississippi. But before we go after liberals/ democrats the brightest red state of Texas does not require e-verify. Neither does Kentucky, West Virginia, New Mexico or Arkansas. They are all pretty red.

This can't be blamed on the left. This is an equal opportunity sellout to the wealthy.

I agree that migration needs to be controlled at the source. The thing is though, how to do that. I do not favor sending American aid dollars to prop up corrupt regimes like Guatemala or Honduras nor to pay corrupt intermediaries like Turkey to take these refugees. Do we send the marines, depose the government of Guatemala and kill the criminals?

Solutions?


I think the solution is to get over our superiority complex that makes us think we should even suggest solutions to others. We should only look at changing what we do. We should stop interfering. The past harm we may have done can not be overcome by us. You don’t correct interference by interfering. We must let them do it on their own and this includes closing our border to eliminate immigration as an outlet.
Another problem I see is our acceptance of limited war as preferable to all out war. If there is a need for US troops then it should be for total destruction, occupation, and annexation. War should not be made convenient or used for ideological expansion. I think the Monroe Doctrine is in our self interest, but should not be used to prevent Latin American countries from pursuing their own path. A tricky thing to do, but ideally the correct thing.
#14931187
Drlee wrote:
It is not fundamentally different. I have no problem with the US denying asylum requests.

We have laws covering asylum requests here. I am sure Germany and Italy do also. Ours state that once they present themselves at a port of entry they have the privilege of an asylum hearing.

Here is where I draw the line. It is one thing to individually flee from a particular tyranny. Economic migration is quite another.

Don't think for a moment that because I am critical of the Trump administrations draconian family separation policy and "zero tolerance" policy that threatens people who have been in the US for decades, that I am for open borders. I am not. I lean toward a version of Trump's merit based system in some respects.

Here is what was going on in the US for a long time. In the past, when the border patrol caught someone illegally crossing they would simply process them and kick them right back across the border. (That is if they were Mexican. Many aren't.) Now we are prosecuting all illegal entrants caught at the border. This serves the purpose of making any further attempt at illegal entry a more serious offense. I am fine with that too. I never did like "catch and release".

Also. Please do not think that I am being facetious when I say that I favor strict workplace enforcement. I do. I believe it is outrageous to allow American business people to dangle a huge carrot in front of the desperately poor and then complain when they try to eat it. Make no mistake. Business benefits greatly from illegal labor. It does drive down wages for citizens. There is no doubt about that in my mind. I believe that business owners should be prosecuted for hiring illegals and I believe that we should move to a tighter verification standard before any worker is hired. FULL STOP.

Now that we agree to do that we have to do some stuff before we can implement it. We have to decide what to do with the workers who are here and have been here for many years. We have to decide what to do with the parents of American citizens. It is my opinion that if we decide that one child born here is not entitled to American Citizenship in accordance with our constitution, then where does this stop? IMO, if a mom and dad work here, pay taxes, and abide by the law, it is in our enlightened interest to allow them to stay. Sure they could take their daughter to Mexico where and raise here there. But we can't deport her. And she has a constitutional right to either remain here or come back whenever she pleases.'

Another smart thing we need to do is look at the practical economic reasons to allow some illegal immigrants to stay. There are many and I have already outlined them.

So simply. I want the dreamers to stay. I want the employed and law abiding parents of American citizens to have the opportunity to stay. I believe mass deportations would destroy our economy and disrupt our daily life extremely. In other words I want sensible immigration programs that move us to some reasonable form of stasis.

Does that explain my position better?

On edit.

Let me propose a hypothetical that is not that far fetched.

Suppose I was born in Mexico and brought to the US, illegally entering at the age of two in my mother's arms. I am 13 now and was deported at the age of 12 to Mexico. . I don't speak Spanish well and know nothing of Mexico. I try a few months of living there and hate it. So I grab my American birth certificate or passport and walk to the port of entry. Informing the ICE agent that I am a citizen and crave entry into the US, what is the agent to do? Then, with no family in the US I walk in to child protective services and ask for help. They can't by law turn me away. So into very expensive foster care I go. I maintain that the US would have been far better off offering a green card to my parents in the first place.

See what I mean.

The problem with amnesties is that they reward illegal entry and undermine all other efforts to curb it. I also don't think mass deportations are necessary, especially if common sense policies such as e-verify are combined with making it clear, preferably by law, that if you ever came to the country illegally you are barred from ever obtaining legal residence or citizenship. Deportations should be a last resort and announced well in advance to give people the chance to self-deport.

There will be hardship, no doubt, but that's clearly also the case with the migrants that come via the Mediterranean. So far in 2018 over 1,000 have drowned and there are plenty of stories of migrants being abused on their journey through Africa, including by police forces of countries which have deals with European countries to stop them. And while drowning isn't a factor for illegal migrants coming to the US, abuse and violence certainly is. Anybody who purports to care about those people needs to address the incentives created by lenient policies in Europe or the US and that they contribute to a situation that leads to more hardship than a temporary separation of children from their parents.

As for your example, if the person has come to the US illegally as a child, why would they have a US birth certificate or passport? I'm not a fan of birthright citizenship, by the way, in case you meant to say that the person was born in the US to illegal immigrants.

Rugoz wrote:The "Trump separates children from families thread" was full of bullshit like "it's the will of the asylum-seekers since they come here" and "it's impossible the incarcerate them as a family" and "they will go into hiding" etc., instead of being honest and saying "we have to be cruel to them for deterrence".

Leaving aside the "it's the will of asylum seekers", how are the claims "bullshit"? I agree that deterrence is probably the main point.

Rugoz wrote:I think we should limit the cruelty to what is "necessary", namely sending them back to where they came from.

And frankly stop NGOs from acting as smugglers, though I'm not sure shutting down ports to their ships is the right way to do it.

Everybody would agree that cruelty should be kept to a minimum if it is indeed necessary. That's the theory. In practice, having a deal with a country like Sudan to stop migrants is likely to lead to a lot of cruelty and abuse, and it could be argued that having no such agreement and dealing with illegal migrants once they arrive in Europe is much more humane. Yet, Europeans seem to be much more prepared to ignore hardship and cruelty if they happen, say, in Libya rather than in Italy and I suspect the same is true for Americans. So there is quite a discrepancy in what is and is not acceptable to people depending on where it happens.

Personally, I'd prefer if people could just own up to the fact that stopping illegal migration isn't going to happen without hardship, but since that is unlikely to happen outsourcing most of the deterrence is probably the next best option.
Israel-Palestinian War 2023

A good discussion here with Norman Finkelstein and[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

ISIS wants to create a division between Chechens […]

PoFo would be a strange place for them to focus o[…]

In my opinion, masculinity has declined for all o[…]