|
Post by mrsonde on Apr 16, 2015 6:21:00 GMT 1
Illegal immigration into Europe from Africa and inreasingly the Middle East is now by some estimates said to be approaching two million a year, a doubling in less than ten years, with little sign that the factors driving such migration will be changing any time soon. There is little sign either that the otiose and increasingly sclerotic EU has the wherewithal to think up let alone implement a solution to this problem: those in charge of doing so, nominally at least - both in the EU and the UN -, seem to believe, judging by their predictable hand-wringing proclamations, that there is no problem at all, other than the obvious one of a lack of a humanitarian response to the poverty and desperation of the immigrants. Their suggestions include giving them decent housing and setting up employment centres to ditribute them more fairly throughout Europe, enabling them to find work more easily in the richer areas of Northern Europe, rather than overburdening Spain, Portugal, and Spain.
I recall a TV drama back in the early 90s portraying a futuristic extrapolation of this problem into the next deacde or two, where Europe had become a virtual fenced-in fortress, defending itself with gunboats and armed militias against an increasingly violent invasion from new African migrants, and increasingly unmanageable civil disorder from those already living on European streets. Febrile alarmism, was I believe the only reaction at the time: now it seems impressively prescient.
Given that civilised European countries will not be forcefully deporting millions of poor deprived desperate people back to hell-holes like Somalia, Mali, Syria - or let's face it, virtually anywhere - what on earth can be done? Build dozens of vast refugee camps like the shitty shanty-town the French have turned a blind eye to outside of Calais? And then what - keep cramming hundreds of thousands more into such places, and wait until they explode?
I think it's time Europe took a more proactive approach and create a place for all these desperate people, a place where they can be safe and have some prospect of being prosperous, without endangering themselves or the existing communities that simply cannot absorb them, even if it was wise for them to do so. The only solution I can imagine is for the EU to lease a sizable area of Libya or Tunisia or Egypt and fund the creation of a viable new community - a small new country, in effect - that they themselves can build and, eventually, administer. Maybe somewhere on the Sirtene coast, or the Cyrenian desert. The Libyan government - if one can be found - would welcome such an income, and a solution to their own migrant problem. The cost would not be all that great - most of it could presumably come from a redirection of the already existing development aid, instead of going to countries able to send rockets to Mars or spend billions on battlefield nuclear weapons. The first task would be to build large Israeli-style desalination plants, so that the place can be irrigated and planted. Then there'd be funding for the setting-up of businesses - to build the towns, the infrastructure, the markets, the farms; training for the creation of the schools, colleges, the health services, the police, all the paraphenalia of a functioning society. Defence could be provided by the UN - and so could a lot of the cost, of course.
The real problem with such an idea is if successful it would merely increase the problem, of course. But then again - maybe that would be a good thing. Maybe that's what's required for all these dysfunctional regions in the first place. Turn them into European colonies, and save them from themselves.
|
|
|
Post by fascinating on Apr 16, 2015 8:19:53 GMT 1
Where do you get that figure from? At any rate, there is a problem, but the northern countries of Europe want to shirk it, believing that the it is entirely the responsibility of the nations whose borders are first being illegally crossed, mainly Italy, Spain, Greece etc. See www.economist.com/news/leaders/21612152-rich-countries-must-take-more-migration-burden-europes-huddled-masses. Italy is patrolling and rescuing people on overcrowded boats, an increasingly costly operation. I'm not clear what it does with these people, seemingly it ultimately accepts them, rather than deports them. If I went to Australia and wanted to live there, I assume I would be deported back to Britain. Ultimately, the European countries have the right to deport back to their native country any illegal immigrant. (If they claim asylum then a process must be followed but they will be kept in compounds while their cases are gone through). If such a policy was stuck to, one would hope that the message would eventually come through that paying somebody to carry you in a rusty tub across the Med will not be worth it, if you are lucky, you will just end up back where you started. (If you are unlucky you will drown). At the same time we must consider the wider realities that are the driving forces behind this ever increasing pressure of immigrants. In fact, when you look at the nominal differences in living standards between say Morocco and Spain, or Libya and Italy, and the short distance between them, it is something of a wonder that there aren't more people trying to get in, especially considering the increasing population. (For a while I have been thinking of starting a thread about the ballooning population of Africa, which must lead to more attempts at migration, and suggesting that we send more aid directly for the education of girls there, since that has been proven to be the most potent means of restraining population growth). In principle I am in favour of your ideas for Libya, creating a place where economic migrants can settle (provided a legitimate government of Libya would agree to it). (Libya has at least one saleable asset, lots of sun-drenched land where solar cells could be used to generate electricity for, as you say, large-scale desalination, and for selling on to Europe). But I am afraid that the first necessary step is to enforce some security there (otherwise, of course, the local armed militias will just raid the nice new community). That would require the invasion by armed forces to control at least one region. You would imagine this would be well within the capabilities of the combined armed forces of Europe, but can we be so sure? Look at what happened in Somalia: a broken country divided among militia groups, the US invaded with a view to restoring order. You would think that there would be no contest, that the might of the most powerful armed forces in the world would quickly show unquestionably who was boss, that this great democracy would soon be able to give the ordinary people there representative government, and the prospect of some welcoming by the people of the restoration of order and American spending power to boost the economy. Instead, we saw debacle in which the US got a very bloody nose and had to withdraw. So, even if Europe (or the UN, which is even less interested) roused itself to actually make a decision to implement some kind of of policy in Libya, there would not be sufficient commitment to carry it through. Probably a much weaker force than required would be sent over, and a few body bags later might see calls for the scaling down of the operation, then the ineffective European presence would become a rallying call of "anti-imperialism" for the local militias. If the new zone ever got started it would probably not be given enough resources due to "budgetary constraints" in Europe. Soon the politicians would be promising an "orderly withdrawal". Only if some Churchillian leader came along who would command respect, and be given the required (and no less) military and economic resources and time to implement fully-thought-out military and political strategy over the short, medium and long term, could your idea be implemented. I wouldn't be surprised if the Chinese took over!
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Apr 16, 2015 9:49:25 GMT 1
The only solution I can imagine is for the EU to lease a sizable area of Libya or Tunisia or Egypt and fund the creation of a viable new community - a small new country, in effect - that they themselves can build and, eventually, administer. Unfortunately something similar to this has already been tried Nick, called Liberia - it simply collapsed into that miasma of corruption and poverty that unfortunately seems endemic to sub-Sahara Africa (there are notable exceptions - Ghana and Botswana in particular - Uganda was a hopeful for a while) The problem seems insoluble fro a European perspective - although properly directed (and substantial) aid in the form of investment by established European Companies in Africa (giving, for example massive tax incentives to them to invest in Africa)might be a way, but I cannot see it happening - it would make Europe a poorer place (reduced social services) , but then Europe is becoming poorer right now (culturally it is a disaster area already- and we have the equivalent of shanty towns in ares such as Southall)and things will become much worse unless Africa improves - the liberal-left self-destructive ethos that is so prevalent in Europe simply does not have the balls for mass deportations - we are witnessing the movement toward a world mean which means effectively universal poverty except in those countries that are determined to not allow massive illegal immigration
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Apr 16, 2015 15:49:40 GMT 1
Where do you get that figure from? Stephen Sacker. That's the law. No thanks. I just said that's what the response is. In other words - don't let's try and solve the problem: let's encourage it and make it a lot worse instead. If they claim asylum, that's the law. No they don't, if they claim asylum. It's the law. How's the weather on your planet today? You mean these immigrants are largely coming to Europe to get a better standard of living? You know...you might just have something there. Not education. Empowerment. No point educating millions of girls if there's no work for them when they finish school. It's not education they need, and it's not education that's been "proven" to be the most - or even a - means of restraining population: that's the self-glorifying fantasy of teachers and academics. It's property rights. That's why I said the UN would be responsible for defending the place. Get with the program! As for Libya agreeing - the best way would be to simply buy the land lock stock and barrel, like the US bought Alaska. Then you can give property rights to the settlers - totally useless if you can't do that. No, it wouldn't. The Libyan government owns the vast majority of the desert: like any other desert region, it's State land. Don't be mad. The idea's far-fetched enough without you making it into a Sylvester Stallone movie. Wild exaggeration. If the US had wanted to invade Somalia to restore order it would have done so, and fairly easily. It's not Afghanistan or Vietnam. Nonsense - a typical anti-American fantasy of the loony left. Not if you listen to Amos it isn't. It's a European problem, the EU should pay for it. The UN would go along with that readily enough - they did in the Balkans. It's just a question of who pays - the rest is merely a matter of legal authority and what colour hat the soldiers wear. I don't know what you're imagining. Invasion from IS nutters, that sort of thing? Easily repelled with a modern properly equipped force, despite your bizarre fantasy about the weakness of the Americans. The Americans would have wiped Boko Haram or IS off the face of the planet years ago. There are no local militias in Sirtene or Cyrenian deserts. The population density is about two people per square mile, thanks to the few small oases that exist there. An F-15 or Apache gunship would send any such militia to hell in a few minutes. You are joking?! Hell, that's not the problem! The problem would be restraining the ensuing corruption to within manageable levels. This would be just another gravy train for European bureacrats - not to mention the UN refugee racket. No - you're getting carried away with this fantasy, I'm afraid. There's nothing simpler than a military operation in a desert. You remember how many days it took the US to wipe out Saddam's entire army? It's a turkey shoot. I don;t think so - I think you've completely misunderstood the nature of the problem, and the difficulties it would involve. Defending it militarily would be a doddle. Policing it would be too, I suspect - I don't think these migrants are criminals. On the contrary, I suspect the vast majority of them are entrepreneurial, hard-working, ambitious, and resourceful - just the sort of people who need and respect law and order the most. The lack of it is what they're running away from. The money is the hard bit. And, as I suggested, there's more than enough of that about already - it just needs to be redirected. Work out for yourself what 0.7% of our expenditure is alone. I see it as the creation of a fully autonomous country in its own right, ideally. One whose success would inspire and illuminate Africa like a beacon. The key is the ability to grant property rights - everything depends on that. Then you have successful capitalism, instead of what happens now in most of the Third World, or Russia for that matter.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Apr 16, 2015 16:05:52 GMT 1
The only solution I can imagine is for the EU to lease a sizable area of Libya or Tunisia or Egypt and fund the creation of a viable new community - a small new country, in effect - that they themselves can build and, eventually, administer. Unfortunately something similar to this has already been tried Nick, called Liberia Hmmm...I must confess my woeful ignorance of this. I'll look it up later - or maybe you'd be so kind as to give me a quick rundown? Yeah...the problem of property rights, again, I firmly believe. I was convinced of the pivotal role such a basic principle plays by reading the Peruvian economist Hernando de Soto's brilliant analysis of why capitalism hasn't worked in most of the Third World ten or fifteen years ago - I can't remember what it was called now. Why Capitalism Hasn't Worked - something like that. He's not a commie or even pink: on the contrary - just very very insightful. Yes, it's all rather bleak, I agree. But I suspect I'm more optimistic than you - the liberal-left post-war consensus is drawing to a close, new ideas will come along, new breakthroughs will come along, in technology and in inspiration, the human spirit...shall prevail. Yes, it's very sunny today, and I've been doing the fishpond. I should wear a hat.
|
|
|
Post by fascinating on Apr 17, 2015 8:07:04 GMT 1
That's not a source, it's a persons name. I did a search using that name with the words "immigration europe million" and I can't see anything which shows an estimate of 2 million a year.
The law doesn't solve the problem.
I disagree.
Well obviously it's the law, but that doesn't solve the problem does it?
How's the weather on yours? You gave a partial quote there. The relevant part was "Ultimately, the European countries have the right to deport back to their native country any illegal immigrant". Do you believe that most of these immigrants have the right to have asylum ie most of them are fleeing persecution? I know they will CLAIM asylum, but that doesn't mean they are actually entitled to it.
If you are saying that most of these people are economic migrants, not fleeing persecution, then there is the option of refusing them asylum and of deporting them back to their home countries.
You flatly deny that more education for girls leads to decreased fertility? Why? You may be right that giving more property rights to women has lead to decreased fertility, I just don't see any evidence for that. But anyway, we cannot really assign property rights to people in foreign countries, not on a large scale anyway, we can only give aid for things such as education.
No, I don't agree fully with your program, so I won't get with it. You can wish that the UN will help, but I don't think there is any chance that they will.
Buy it from whom exactly?
Which Libyan government? Are you aware of the political/military situation in Libya? "Against this backdrop of division, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and Ansar al-Sharia, as well as other militant groups both religious and tribal in nature, have seized control of several cities and districts across Libya, especially in Cyrenaica, which is theoretically under the control of the Tobruk-based government."
It would be mad to think that your idea could be implemented in Libya in its current state without the use of some armed force.
OK, you tell me what actually happened in Somalia then.
It's only about who pays? Oh well then, in that case, it will simply be a shoo-in won't it?
As I indicated, IS nutters are already there. Western forces weren't able to wipe the Taliban off the face of the Earth in Afghanistan, even though they were there for years. Your new zone could well be kept safe, but only with a properly funded substantial force, with the political will to have it remain there for the foreseeable future.
If some kind of colony was set up there, without protection, the militias might well invade it.
In your fantasy, you imagine it will be like national armies fighting a short-term war to a satisfactory conclusion. You remember how many years the armed forces had to remain in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Doh! I never suggested they were!
!
I think it's basically a worthy idea, but you must face up to the difficulties, not least the fact that it will be painted by many, in both Libya and Europe as just an example of hateful colonialism.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Apr 19, 2015 21:20:47 GMT 1
I had no need to post an authoritative source - I wasn't making any claim to fact. The only fact that is recorded is that the figure was at least one million a year in 2006 - before the civl wars in Libya, Syria, Mali, Nigeria, Sudan, etc etc. Now if Steven Sackur states that some sources estimate that figure to have doubled since then, I see no reason to doubt it - it seems to me entirely predictable. As for Sackur's reliability as a source - I respect him, on the whole: the BBC still employ journalists with some integrity.
Neither does changing it in the way that you propose. That would merely encourage it, obviously. The law is there precisely to stem such encouragement.
And look, as a general methodological criticism of your typical style of posting, do you really think you're adding anything to the discussion issuing your typical de haut en bas judgement "there is a problem"? I'm relived, of course, to be assured that I'm not merely imagining it, but wouldn't it be more productive to any debate to move on the conversation a little?
Well - couldn't you at least give a little clue as to why? Just for the sake of a debate, like? How does it help solve the problem for prospective migrants to know that if they can get to Italy or Spain they'll be given somewhere comfortable to live, a stipend to live on, and then be relocated to the wealthier parts of Europe, where presumably they'll be given yet further hand-outs before, hopefully, they'll be able to find well-paying employment, citizenship, benefit-entitlement, and all the rest of the Western European welfare state provision? Presumably, the "problem" that you deign to acknowledge is not the one of unsupervised immigration to Europe at all - it's that whoever comes here doesn't have what they're trying to get, the entitlements that indigineous citizens have inherited? Or, maybe, it's the problem that there are borders at all? It's hard to tell exactly how left on the spectrum you are. Speak up. Disagree by all means, but explain yourself.
If you're suggesting we withdraw from the various binding international treaties guaranteeing asylum rights, including the EU, then plainly say so. I wouldn't necessarily disagree - it seems to me that we may well be arriving at just such a point. Most of Scandinavia is effectively there already.
I believe that the asylum system cannot cope with two million immigrants a year, the majority of which will never come under its supposed aegis in the first place. Some of those that do might be "processed" - most will not. Those who escape its aegis lose themselves on the streets. Those who are caught are treated little differently from those who legally claim asylum - the system simply cannot cope with such numbers, and if it was given the enormous resources to enable it to do so, this wouldn;t be a solution to the problem, but merely an exacerbation of it. In other words, the system is utterly inadequate, and broken, asked to manage a problem it was never designed for. Everyone understands this, except it would seem for you.
As I said, you it seems to me that you don't understand the nature of the problem. It is an extremely lengthy, expensive, and complicated process to deport anybody, even the few hundreds it happens to at the moment - an objection that the country is not safe is adequate to trigger the whole asylum procedure, to determine which can take several years.
I wasn't talking particularly about "fertility" - that's an issue that follows from economic success, or dictatorial enforcement, not education. And I wasn't talking about "women". If you think you can solve the Third World's problems by giving women special treatment, or "workers", or the "disabled", or "ethnic minorities", or any other little issue that might be appropriate in a developed Western society in terms of balancing rights and privileges, dream on. The truth is the problems of Africa, and the Third World in general, are far more deep-rooted and fundamental - they're institutional, and systematic, and until you address them at that level tinkering around with the rights of women, or children, or fair trade, or drilling wells in the village, or adopting goats, or sending Lenny Henry into classrooms to beam on while kiddies learn about Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King, will not change the economic circumstances of their countries one little jot. At most you might be able with enormous expenditure to qualify them to move abroad, to become nurses in Hackney or engineers in Dubai.
It's nothing to do with what "we" can or cannot do. You believe they're totally helpless, mindless victims of colonial exploitation, unable to raise the spirits required to lift themselves out of the deprivation our forefathers left them in? Some such standard lefty bullshit? It's what they need and require in order to progress: what we have and they do not. Legally enforcable property rights, properly documented and easily obtained, defended by the full power of the State - that's how the West prospered, and was able to afford to educate its populace, develop its countries, build the institutions and stable legal systems to foster responsive democracies and polities not ridden with corruption. Not education: that's a consequence of stable prosperity, not a prerequsite. The essential prerequisite is the ability to raise capital, and the prerequisite of that is a legal system that grants undisputed property rights. Then people work because they can accumulate and build - first their homes, legally and unquestionably theirs; then enterprises, started and developed because they can offer collateral for loans, accumulating assets that are provably their property, and can therefore be used as a share against an investment. The the assets of the poor - far exceeding the GDP of the US in Africa alone - and the creative spirits of its people, their drive and enterprising ambition to build a better future for their families, can be unlocked. It's the same bloody dividing line between the poor and the "privileged" in this country - the dividing line that the Labour Party has been determined to keep cast in concrete since its very inception.
Fine - then disagree with it on your own innovative grounds, not grounds that I've already covered.
Why? The UN are spread throuhgout Africa and the Middle East already. They have a vast industry set up and exorbitantly funded specifically to assist refugees. Why should they arbitrarily and illogically decline for this situation?
The elected and internationally recognised government of Libya. There is one. De facto, there are three - but that's irrelevant.
Ditto.
Yes - it's not that complicated. No different from Somalia - much less complicated than Syria, at the moment.
And who suggested that? I pointed out that it would be necessary for there to be an international defence force. I also pointed out that such a task would be very simple, in an unpopulated desert, very easily fenced off and patrolled. Infiltration might be a problem, of course - we'd have to see.
What, as opposed to an "invasion" and the enforcement of law and order? Like Japan or Germany in 1945? Look it up.
Yes, who pays. You think UNHCR would be operating if it wasn't funded, mainly by the Americans?
No they're not. Nobody is there. It's empty desert. A few nomads, a few berbers around the scattered oases.
You don't recognise a difference between an empty desert region of the size of, say, Hampshire, in a vast flat desert region, easily surveilled and patrolled, and a well-populated settled region larger than Wesytern Europe with one of the most rugged and lengthy borders in the world? Seriously - is that the level of your militarily strategic awareness?
The force required would be minimal. Some drones, some helicopter gunships, an RDF of a half dozen tanks and a few hundred troops. The whole Libyan army couldn't take such a force. In a desert control of the air is everything.
Nothing unusual about that. It's less than we keep in the Falklands, and will do for decades perhaps centuries more.
I've pointed out to you the indisputable fact that any such militia would be wiped out in a few minutes. Do you know how many professionally trained and fully up-to-date equipped soliders, including tanks and armoured vehicles, the USAF destroyed in a few hours on the road out of Kuwait in Desert Storm?
Completely different situations, militarily, and politically. You may as well blabber on about the difficulty and cost of maintaining British rule on the Isle of Wight.
You didn't suggest anything. I'm having to imagine what on earth you're fantasising about. Speak up.
Look up the EU aid budget. Look up the overseas aid budgets of the EU members.
What the lefty nutters say is entirely predictable, I agree. I saw one on the news tonight making much the same point - the reason all these migrants want to come here is because European colonialist have enslaved and impoverished and pillaged them blah blah blah and we should therefore accept a bit of payback. They said much the same sort of thing with undisguised glee about the Twin Towers. I'm not interested in pandering to such twisted lunacy - I was trying to imagine what on earth could be done to solve what seems to me a problem of enormous proportions, that's only going to get worse, with inevitably disastrous consequences not too far down the road. I can't think of any solution, that doesn't make Europe into a fortress and that's not morally repugnant. The only answer is to find somewhere to send illegal immigrants - somewhere where we know it's safe, and where they can prosper, because we're in charge of it, for their own sake and for their own future inheritance. I suggested Libya, or parts of the North African desert, because there is nowhere else - everywhere else is already occupied, and run by African despots or Islamist fanatics.
|
|
|
Post by fascinating on Apr 20, 2015 9:19:06 GMT 1
This discussion is about the merits of your idea for helping to solve the problem of illegal immigration into Europe, but you have raised a second issue about my method of discussing it; I will discuss the second issue first.
Regarding your remark above:"do you really think you're adding anything to the discussion issuing your typical de haut en bas judgement "there is a problem"? .............wouldn't it be more productive to any debate to move on the conversation" - you should be aware that I thought much the same thing as you do there. Your remark was simply "that is the law", which I took to be a haughty dismissal of my support of the Economist's idea that the Northern European nations should take more responsibility for the problem, you failing to move on the conversation one iota. Nevertheless, I continue discussing because I want to politely discuss your own idea. Had I come up with a different proposal you might well have said "If you want to discuss your silly left-wing ideas start another thread". (I still think there is some merit in getting all of Europe to help with the immediate immigration problem, at least financially, but I won't labour the point because it is your idea we are discussing, so I stick with that).
You made the remark "don't let's try and solve the problem: let's encourage it and make it a lot worse instead" - are you suggesting that I take such a remark seriously? Do you actually, seriously, REALLY want to ecourage the problem and make it a lot worse? Do I actually have to explain why I don't agree that we should make the problem a lot worse?
Certainly not. Where do you get these ideas?
A person can disagree with someone else's proposal, without having to produce his own solution. I have said that I like your idea, in principal, I basically don't think you are facing up to the difficulties. You have not shown to me that the UN could be persuaded to help. Maybe no innovation is required, just financial and logistical support from the whole of Europe to speed up the system of processing these people.
Why do you answer my questions with questions? I already did look it up. You told me that the facts I had looked up were wrong. So I ask you to tell me what the facts really were. But you won't.
You were the one who likened the situation to that in Iraq.
I will address the relevant points of the main discussion in the next post.
|
|
|
Post by fascinating on Apr 21, 2015 11:04:27 GMT 1
OK, so let's agree that the number is not, in fact, 2 million. The UNHCR reported that about 219,000 migrants crossed the Mediterranean in 2014. So far this year there have been 31500 known to have reached Italy and Greece, so I would guess that would be something like 200,000 attempting to cross the whole of the Med for the whole of this year. See www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-24583286 The only suggestion I made was to consistently return those that were trying to enter illegally. I don't see how that would encourage more immigration. No I am not. I think we agree that the majority are economic migrants, so the issue is mainly about them. You have acknowledged that the 2 million figure is not factual; from the information I have given above, the problem is about one-tenth that size. So it might help if the asylum claims could be dealt with among 30 countries rather than about 3. Or maybe not; I am mainly discussing the merits of your own idea to have this enclave in Libya. Agreed that there are institutional and systematic problems in poor countries, but to change them would probably require invasion and taking over their governments. Until that happens, we can give aid, though we must be selective in the aid we give, we give it to those who most need it. Instead of giving aid direct to governments, we might provide money to a village, where the people don't have enough water, so that they can dig a deep well. If institutional and systematic situations mean that girls are denied education, it is legitimate to give aid to provide education specifically for girls. If one of the major problems of a society is a rising population, it could be beneficial to give aid to girls who, it is widely believed, will tend to defer having children. Because the way the UN operates is mostly through agencies that have been set up to help with acknowledged problems. The UNHCR is an agency that is there to manage aid specifically for refugees. The UN securty council makes decisions to send armed forces in situations of armed conflict (or where there has been armed conflict). These circumstances do not apply here. I suspect that the idea of Europeans setting up an enclave in Africa might not go down well with many nations in the UN. As far as I can tell, there is no government of Libya that is both elected and internationally recognised. There is no one government that rules effectively the whole of Libya. So the question remains, who is the land bought from? That reminds me of the "it will be over by Christmas" kind of remark. No I don't think that. I think Congress is loathe to provide any more funds to the UN. We've heard all this kind of talk before. You imagine that it will be a like a movie where the square-jawed Westerners with their big shiny weapons will kick the butts of the A-rabs and quickly solve any problems. I have given examples from recent history where it was not that simple (yes the terrain was different, but what matters is the nutters that live there, not a million miles from your proposed enclave). I suspect it won't be quite the "turkey shoot" you imagine. I dispute that! Look up the financial difficulties Europe is having now. You haven't given any indication as to how much this scheme would cost.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Apr 26, 2015 13:04:35 GMT 1
No, let's not. As ever with statistics, you can pick and choose which numbers happen to agree with your prejudices as you wish. I prefer to try to understand what's going on.
The Med crossing is and always will be the minority route of migration into Europe: far more will always enter through Greece, across the Black Sea, and into Iberia through the Atlantic. According to the International Organisation for Migration African migration into Europe was in the first half of the noughties over 400,000 a year; by 2006 this was at a million a year. In the intervening ten years there has been no official estimates published, for what can only be reasons of political sensitivity, but if anyone believes that the figure has not greatly increased in recent years they must have been living with Mongolian plainsmen in a yurt.
Then, as I say, you should make yourself clearer. Presumably then your demands that Northern Europe share the burden of Spain, Italy and Greece was to do with a more equable share of the cost of deportation, rather than what those southern countries, and the EU immigration minister, and the UN refugee program, have been demanding.
I agree that it's effectively impossible to differentiate between economic and political migrants, and that, ultimately, the issue is or should be moot. I take it as a given that if you're unlucky enough to have been born into almost any country in Africa, or the Middle East with the exception of Israel, or any Muslim country, there will be any number of reasons that you'd be a lot safer living in Western Europe, and any number of ways that you would be in imminent threat for your political/religious/sexual beliefs or actions.
No, I haven't. As usual, you are seriously confused about what the word "fact" means. I would say it's a near certainty that it's a fact that African and Middle Eastern immigration into Europe is now running at two million a year. If true, this would be a fact whether anyone stated or estimated it or not.
The information you gave referred to a separate and by definition much smaller problem. It was about one-tenth the size in the early 90s.
If you wish to grant migrants asylum. But no one in their right minds should wish to. Those that do, I would suggest, should be offered the opportunity to act on their largesse - hey should be given the opportunity to offer any migrant they wish to so adopt a stipend of fifty quid or so a week from their no doubt public salaries, and a spare room or two to live in until they're settled and employed enough to choose to move on into the wider society they're so willing to jeopardise.
Or Egypt, or Tunisia, or Algeria - anywhere on the old Barbary Coast, in fact. Europe and the US solved this problem the last time, in 1803, by blowing the pirates out of the water and blockading their ports. Before it comes to that again, I'm suggesting a more humane response.
Perhaps, but that's not possible, and it's not really our direct responsibility. We can however help them see what needs to be done. And what needs to be done is fairly simple and very cheap.
I repeat, it's not really our direct responsibility. In fact, I would say that such Bountiful largesse is exarcerbating the problem. It makes you feel better, no doubt, but does it help those poor people? I doubt it. On the other hand, it certainly helps maintain the despots of those coutnries comfortably in power.
Yeah, well, I don't see what's stopping you doing that already, frankly. There are any number of charities begging you for your money every 15 minutes on telly to do exactly that sort of thing - according to their PR at least. They don't mention their executive staff on a quarter million a year salaries, but never mind that quibble. What I'm more interested in is a solution. An essential aspect to any such is understanding what the problem is. Why, at root, do you feel the need to dig a well in a village? Why are the people in that village not digging the well themselves? Are they stupid? Stupefied? Why do they feel it's better to walk a mile or two a day to get their water, when they could get together and in a day's collective effort dig a well? I suggest the reason is very clear: no one knows who would control such a well. Whose land it would be dug on.
You're talking about Muslim countries, presumably. My response is: let them collapse through their own in-built deficiencies. Sooner or later the people will realise they have to change their ideas. I don't want to help such medieval regimes survive.
Widely belived by whom? Women know how to defer having childen - they have done since the dawn of civilisation. There were, reputedly, a few very isolated African and Amazonian tribes in the 30s who had not figured out where babies come from - if there are any such still extant, I'd be more inclined to leave them well alone: such tiny isolated enclaves will certainly not be doing any wider ecological harm. Third World women have as many children as they can because they have no other form of security, no other capital. They have assets, but they can't transform them into useful capital; so they have children, to increase their economic power. If you want to halt the popoulation explosion you have to interrupt that basic economic arithmetic. Teaching them how to add up or who the Old Testament prophets were or how many slaves Mohammed had won;t help that situation in the slightest.
You haven't twigged this is what the problem is?
Yes, they do. You're quibbling desperately.
Like who? All of the nations permanently on the security council have long-established enclaves of their own. There is nothing objectionable about the idea of making a protected homeland for regugees - the UN have been in that business since its inception.
A quibble again - not nationally elected, perhaps, but certainly internationally recognised.
As I said - irrelevant. Why this should bother you about Libya but not the dozens of other coutries in the world that this applies to, and has always applied to, is a mystery. It doesn;t bother you about Palestine, as we all know. You think the Ukraine should be suspended from the UN? Burma, the Congo, Peru, Afghanistan, China?
The internationally recognised government of Libya. The authority that has the power to sign papers and make treaties according to international law. The people who send ambassadors, and have a seat in the UN.
Well, I can't say that surprises me. The Germans in Flanders were remarkably like a few hundred peasants attacking you across a desert in pick-up trucks, you're right. I bow to your superior military genius.
Jeez Louise! Will you just read, for once? It's Europe's problem - Europe pays.
Yeah? Kuwait, you mean?
I imagine there wouldn't be any problems. Unlike you, evidently, I don't think A-rabs are ignorant suicidal morons. No one commands their men to take on an Apache gunship in a Toyota technical, and if they do, problem solved.
No you haven't - merely another delusion. You're referring to the Great War, presumably. I'm sorry to inform you that there are significant difference between that conflict and any dispute that might arise in the Saharn desert.
There are no nutters living in those desert regions, which is why I specified them. There are no nutters that could invade those regions. They'd be spotted within ten minutes and swiftly despatched. No one wants a turkey shoot, but that's exactly what it would be.
Donlt bother to respond to this, please. It's really not worth arguing about.
I dispute that![/quote]
You dispute everything, madame, but nowhere do you provide any reasonable argumentation by which you do so. You merely claim you could, but choose not to, because you don't wanty to waste anyone's time. Tell me: how is any disinterested observer to distinguish such an inscruatble fount of wisdom from a sulking petulant child?
Look up the EU aid budget. Look up the overseas aid budgets of the EU members.
To buy or lease with property rights a chunk of useless desert? No idea. A hundred billion euros or so should secure it, I would have thought. That would leave plenty over for the EU to start development. Bot, of course, you're going to "disagree", as you call it. See if you can find an authoritative comment on the BBCNews website to clinch the matter.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Apr 26, 2015 15:25:35 GMT 1
The rest of the EU already takes responsibility for the problem. Germany and the UK in particular pay for it. The response suggested from the bien pensant is for the North to take in asylum seekers - as they also do already, incidentally. Most of the immigrants into Spain, Italy, and Greece have on desire or intention of staying there - they merely want to pass through, to Germany, Sweden, and mostly the UK. And they're naturally allowed to do so.
Huh? Set up a syatem whereby if you manage to arrive in Sicily or the Canaries you get transported to Hamburg or Munich or London and set up with housing and employment and welfare provision? This is a discouragement?
Take a little time to explain what you maen, woman. Debate. Don't just say "I disagree". Then we might know what you mean.
From the standard Guardianista's default solution to everything of shovelling a load of taxpayers' money at any problem and "educate, educate, educate."
I disagree.
What difficulties? The ones you've pointed out that I've already covered, perchance?
Oh, ffs! They're already set up to help refugees, and militarily defend international conflict zones!
Never mind, forget it, if that's the aspergic difficulty troubling you. Alternatively, the EU can set up its own defence force specifically for this purpose - or grant Italy, or Britain, or Germany, the rotating task of defending such a refugee nation. It really doesn;t matter - obviously, the UN is the natural solution, because the institutional mechanisms for such a defence already exists. Either way, the EU would end up paying: what colour hats the force wears is a minor quibble, I would have thought.
Processing? To what end? Deported to where?
I don't always - it's just some of your more barmy questions don't warrant or deserve answers.
Look it up again, then. Try to understand the difference between an "invasion" by the USA and a UN international force mandated for a very specific purpose (in this case, to provide international aid in a famine.) If you don;t ackowledge any such difference, I repeat, some of your assertions are simply too barmy to bother with.
You were the one who likened the situation to that in Iraq.[/quote]
Huh?
|
|
|
Post by fascinating on May 3, 2015 9:48:23 GMT 1
There are a load of questionable assertions there, made without evidence. Germany and the UK are giving some help, but the great amount of responsibility is being borne by the littoral nations of the Mediterranean, and it is being suggested that they cannot cope, and need more help.
I didn't suggest doing that. I was responding directly to your actual sentence "In other words - don't let's try and solve the problem: let's encourage it and make it a lot worse instead.".
I merely stated that I disagree that we should encourage the problem and make it a lot worse. What is there to explain?
Ignoring your journalistic nonsense, suffice to say that your original statement about what I am supposed to believe, is incorrect.
Fine. I will continue to criticise your ideas without necessarily offering alternative solutions.
Good. Only the EU can be expected to provide the funds and armed forces that would be needed. I think it might be a good idea for your idea to be implemented as you specify and the EU to take responsibility for it.
Surely you are aware that some processing needs to be done of these people to establish their identity, nationality, whether they are asylum seekers etc. For those not entitled to asylum they should be deported back to their home country.
Let's remember what specifically we are talking about in this instance. I mentioned what happened in Somalia when the US invaded. You (sneeringly of course) asserted I was wrong. So I naturally asked you to tell me what really did happen. You responded by asking silly questions. Let's just stop wasting time shall we: you haven't got a CLUE what really happened in Somalia during the US invasion.
[/quote]
What's this "huh?". You said "here's nothing simpler than a military operation in a desert. You remember how many days it took the US to wipe out Saddam's entire army? It's a turkey shoot. "
|
|
|
Post by fascinating on May 3, 2015 10:56:05 GMT 1
Groan! You stated that you weren't making any claim to fact. And here you are implying (absurdlY) that the numbers aren't important, it is what is going on that is important. But you are still incapable of acknowledging that your claim regarding the numbers was wrong. I think you were mistaken about what Mr Sakur said. You have presented no evidence of what you say the Organisation for Migration African migration into Europe said, and anyway you have taken their (alleged) number from 9 years ago and doubled it.
The number is not, in fact, 2 million.
Well it's firstly to share the cost of patrolling the seas and picking up the boatloads of migrants, then the help with the cost of the initial caring for the migrants until they are well enough to be deported (or kept as asylum seekers). Then there is the issue of accepting a share of these asylum seekers into our own country.
I don't agree with that. It is up to the asylum seeker to prove that he will be persecuted if sent back to the home country. It's no good someone from Nigeria just saying "Well I would feel a lot safer in Europe". There are about 100 million (?) people living in Nigeria, most of them not in fear of persecution. The applicant has to give specific reasons why he cannot live with reasonable safety anywhere in his home country.
Without giving any evidence for that figure, I would say that it is not a fact. You stated before that you were not making any claim to fact.
Rubbish. Go back and read the link I provided.
I thought your mantra was "It's the law". I thought that a country receiving persons who claim asylum are bound by law to act on the asylum claims, they cannot just deport them.
You are right, it is not, legally, our responsibility at all. We are talking about independent (= not dependent) countries, so they cannot demand that we help them. The only reason we would give aid is on grounds of compassion. It has been shown to be of help, but you don't actually care whether it helps or not, do you?
Being right-wing, you are fixated on the idea that everything can be solved with the proper implementation of property rights. I also believe that property rights are essential to the functioning of the free market (such as it is) society that we benefit from living in. However I think there are many factors in explaining why some remain in poverty. The whole question of why some are rich and others so poor is a huge one (or more accurately, the question is small and simple, it's the answer that has to be huge).
In nature, the great majority of animals are in "poverty" in the sense that they are continually working to get the basic necessities of life, which are scarce. Typically they suffer from diseases or predation and don't live very long. Humans arose into the same situation, until simple technologies, eg digging wells so that they would have enough water, or building a fence to keep out lions, made their lives a little better, but not by much; by our standards they were still materially very poor. It was the introduction of technology, based on scientific understanding, about 250 years ago (mainly in Britain) that enabled the huge exponential increase in material goods that are so crucial to our well-being. This technology requires knowledge and skills to create, in short, education. Education requires funds, and to obtain funds require that a stable political environment is in place to organise the collection and distribution of funds correctly. There are also the cultural aspects; hopefully there will be no cultural blocks to education (eg it's not for girls, government ministers are entitled to cream off half the education budget for themselves).
So the broadest explanation of why there are rich and poor is that humans, as with other animals, have all been poor for thousands of years, the rich countries became that way through technological development, leaving the poorer countries behind. Some of the poor countries are remaining behind because of lack of education, which is caused by those in power not allocating funds correctly.
(to be continued).
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on May 10, 2015 9:03:07 GMT 1
Like what?
From the EU. Who funds the EU? Not Club Med. The problem in the first place has been created by the EU.
And that was responding directly to your suggestion.
You're claiming this response was a misunderstanding of what you suggested. Explain yourself. The help you're demanding from the North is evidently not the help that is being demanded by the Med countries and the UN. So what do you mean?
No it's not. That's exactly what you've claimed you believe.
Good - when are you going to start?
That's what I said, you fool! When are you going to start your criticism of my ideas?
That is the idea. For it to be remotely practicable, the international defence force would be the UN. Obviously. The EU would pay for it, the force would be European. The authority would be the UN, under its already existing Charter: there would be nothing novel or even unusual in such an arrangement, and I can think of no possible reason for the UN to object. Your far-Left anti-colonial fantasies have nothing to do with it.
Surely you are aware that the vast majority of them are from conflict zones or countries where they are in danger of being persecuted. They're from Africa and the Middle East. Therefore, they are legally entitled to asylum. None of these two million people a year are being deported anywhere - there's nowhere to deport them to, even if they are denied asylum, so legally they cannot be deported.
You are wrong. Such a politically twisted distortion of history deserves to be sneered at.
I told you to look it up. Don't waste my and everyone else's time with your grotesque ignorance, madame - educate yourself. I'm not here to be your first grade teacher.
There was no "US invasion", you fatuous ideologue. There was a small detachment of Marines - less than there were in Lebanon - tasked with enabling the safe distribution of UN food in a famine.
It means: wtf are you fantasising about now?
On the road from Kuwait - in a desert. "Iraq" means Basra, Baghdad, Mosel, Tikrit. It's urban conflict, against a multi-tentacled insurgency. What is your comparison with this proposal???
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on May 10, 2015 10:39:45 GMT 1
So? That doesn't mean it isn't a fact.
Whether it's a million and a half - which it most certainly is - or over two million, which it probably is, is not important. It was already the problem we're discussing when it was the 450,000 recorded as fact in in the early noughties, and the million a year recorded as fact the last time such figures were released in 2006. It's a problem even if you're woeful misunderstanding were true that it only concerns those who are trying to cross the Med from Libya. It's the problem that's important.
It wasn't wrong. Why on earth should it be wrong? Since 2006 most of sub-Saharan Africa has fallen into internecine conflict. Somalia and Eritrea has grown immeasurably worse. Millions of refugees are pouring out of Syria. There are hundreds of thousands of refugees from Ghana, Sierra Leone, the Gold Coast, Guinea, all the way down to Congo. There are many thousands of previous migrant workers in Libya, Tunisia and Egypt desperate to get out since the Arab Spring clampdown. Half of Nigeria, Mali and Chad has Boko Haram running around chopping people's limbs off, and the government forces trying to resist them aren't much better. Of course the numbers have gone up steeply since ten years ago.
No I'm not, and nor was he - some do estimate it to be now two million a year, including myself.
You're not the Judge in a court case, madame. You're merely an irritating nitpicker on a messageboard. If you want "evidence", look it up.
I have extrapolated the rising curve, from 450,000 to 1,000,000 in five years, over the following ten years, in the absence of any conceivable reason that such an extrapolation is not valid. On the contrary, there is every reason to suppose that that steady increase will have accelerated, so that the actual figure should be very much more than two million.
In your totally unsubstantiated opinion, for which you have not given a scrap of evidence or argumentation.
Already happens. The EU pays.
No one is going to get deported - a handful, perhaps.
So all your stupid blather about "I didn't suggest such a thing" was typical squirming bullshit.
You're not a moslem, or a lesbian, or a political activist, I surmise. Did you know that the Pope is a Catholic?
No, it's not. It's up to the Home Office to prove that he won't be.
Yes, it is.
Perhaps - that still leaves 80 million of them who are. Justifiably.
He's a Muslim. He's a Christian. He's a Jew. He's an Atheist. He has daughters. He has sons. He has a wife. He doesn't agree with Boko Haram. He doesn't agree with the Nigerian government. He doesn't agree with the oil compnaies exploiting the delta; he doesn't agree that all the money goes to one tribe rather than his; people like him have been shot, or imprisoned, or mutilated - it happened in the village next to mine, didn't you read the news whitey?
Your ungrounded opinion, entirely devoid of evidence or rational plausibility.
I stated I was not making a factual claim about that particular number, merely reporting that it has been claimed, so I had no requirement to offer evidence for it. Your difficulty in comprehending English or Logic once again.
Why? Was it saying something different to the information you quoted? If so, why didn't you quote that instead of making such a fool of yourself?
My mantra? No - simply a refutation of your ludicrous complaint. The law can always be changed, of course - you recommend changing it so that the problem is made very much worse, by making it very much more attractive for migrants to try to get across the Med; I recommend changing it so that there's no point in such an attempt.
You are right, it is not, legally, our responsibility at all.[/quote]
I didn't say that. Legally we have a responsibility to give 0.7% of our GDP as overseas aid. No, more than that in fact - 0.7% of GNI.
What?! I have no idea what irrelevant nitpicking tangent you've gone off on now. What "dependent countries"? Grenada, are you talking about? Still confusing it with Somalia, are you?
I have no clue what you're blabbering on about, frankly. Of course we give on "grounds of compassion", amongst other very much more influential purposes. And of course it "helps" - some of it, anyway, in some ways - how could 20 billion or so not help someone, somewhere? That's not the issue. The issue is: how should this be best spent, and on whom, and with what effect? If some girls get a bit of eduaction in Pakistan, that's very comforting no doubt; but if it means the government of Pakistan don't have to do it themselves, so that they have more money to spend on battlefield nuclear weapons to threaten India with - not so comforting, I would suggest.
Being right-wing[/quote]
I'm not in the least right-wing, you presumptious twit. I'm a libertarian, neither left nor right. In fact, given that this country has en masse moved appreciably to the right in the past twenty years, I'm more on the left side of the spectrum than the very small degree that I used to be. I'm more right-wing than you, that's all, because you're a template Guardianista, complete with ready-made manufactured opinions courtesy of Polly Toynbee.
Not "everything". It's merely the sine qua non if you want to create a society that is prosperous and is able to honour principles of social justice.
Perhaps, but none so important or fundamental.
That's your standard Guardianista opinion. Mine is directly opposed to it. The other difference is that I can articulate what the answer is, and you cannot, but merely sigh about it and, no doubt, blame the Tories.
Your potted Guardian History of Civilisation depends on a definition of "poverty" and "wealth" which misses the point entirely.
It's the broadest explanation, and, unsurprisingly, it's also completely wrong.
|
|