Immigrants dying in the Mediterranean

[cuttsie]

It is indeed quintessentially human nature for the 'have nots' to want to join the 'haves' and share their lot. However, it is equally quintessentially human for the 'haves' to try and protect their lot from the 'have nots'. Most people want tighter immigration controls to stop 'have nots' coming here and the reason is quintessential human greed and and selfishness rather than xenophobia.

 

I note your point earlier about how we (the West) are responsible for unleashing the madness that migrants now flee. This is true but we didn't create the madness itself - which is a product of their cultures - and we shouldn't therefore feel oblige to pay the full price for what is happening. I don't blame people for trying to migrate to the West but I still don't want them here and the only price that I'm willing to pay for our 'responsibility' is the policing of the Med and returning of migrants.

It is the have nots in Libya that are taking the money from other have nots and then sending them on unseaworthy boats across the Med.

Their own people are responsable.

[ukdobby]

Whats happened over the last few years to make all these people want to come to Europe,has it just happened?

[L00b]

Most people want tighter immigration controls to stop 'have nots' coming here and the reason is quintessential human greed and selfishness rather than xenophobia.

These reasons are not readily dissociable one from the other at all. The discourse from the right-er quarters is pretty consistent regardless of whether the topic is Med-crossing refugees or Channel-crossing legit EUs or illegals: draw up the walls.

I note your point earlier about how we (the West) are responsible for unleashing the madness that migrants now flee. This is true but we didn't create the madness itself - which is a product of their cultures - and we shouldn't therefore feel oblige to pay the full price for what is happening. I don't blame people for trying to migrate to the West but I still don't want them here and the only price that I'm willing to pay for our 'responsibility' is the policing of the Med and returning of migrants.

It's common knowledge that the West's intelligence services originally did, by and large, even if by accident. Predictably, the dogs slipped their leash across the Middle East, exactly like they had done previously in Afghanistan, post-USSR intervention. Predictably, now there's a serious problem of rabies across the Middle East, and it's spreading south to Central and Western Africa.

[Harrystottle]

In the end it comes down to numbers. There are millions upon millions of people living in poor countries. Either you think it is absolutely fine for them all to have the right to move to richer countries or you don't.

 

Most people would imo say that they don't have that right. So you have to stop them.

 

Or you can listen to the BBC playing hearts and flowers on a tiny violin and say come one, come all.

 

Compassion for the poor sods drowning in the Med is one thing, but you have to be realistic. We don't have the room, we don't have the jobs for all the people that want to come.

[Zamo]

These reasons are not readily dissociable one from the other at all. The discourse from the right-er quarters is pretty consistent regardless of whether the topic is Med-crossing refugees or Channel-crossing legit EUs or illegals: draw up the walls.

 

That doesn't change the fact that wanting to draw up the walls to allow the screening of who comes in, is not driven by xenophobia. For something to be a phobia the fear behind it must be irrational. It is not irrational for the 'haves' to fear that sharing their lot with the 'have nots' will make them poorer because it is indisputably true.

 

It's common knowledge that the West's intelligence services originally did, by and large, even if by accident. Predictably, the dogs slipped their leash across the Middle East, exactly like they had done previously in Afghanistan, post-USSR intervention. Predictably, now there's a serious problem of rabies across the Middle East, and it's spreading south to Central and Western Africa.

 

I don't dispute what you say but I would still argue that the underlying problem is the tribal nature of their cultures and religion. We aren't responsible for either of those.

[Frederick1]

Millions of people voted for hitler. Does that mean they were right too?

 

No, but it means they had their opinions!

 

---------- Post added 22-04-2015 at 12:12 ----------

 

It is the have nots in Libya that are taking the money from other have nots and then sending them on unseaworthy boats across the Med.

Their own people are responsable.

 

Strangely enough, most of these people are NOT Lybians, they're Somalians, Eritranians, Nigerians, etc.

[geared]

Whats happened over the last few years to make all these people want to come to Europe,has it just happened?

 

It's easier to do now, previously any boat carrying that many illegal migrants would have been stopped by the Libyan Navy, sent back to port and a bunch of people arrested.

 

Now there's no-one to stop them, so they cram as many people on a boat as possible and send it away - then get another boat and continue the process.

 

The smugglers are making tens of thousands per boat.

[loraward]

Whats happened over the last few years to make all these people want to come to Europe,has it just happened?

 

According to the Associated Press, quoting European officials and citing a pertinent EU document, information obtained from migrants rescued at sea "confirms that social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter are widely used to share information on how to enter the EU illegally."

[L00b]

That doesn't change the fact that wanting to draw up the walls to allow the screening of who comes in, is not driven by xenophobia.

That's not a fact, Zamo, it's an opinion.

For something to be a phobia the fear behind it must be irrational.

Nope, just that the fear or dislike be disproportional to the actual danger posed. Semantics, anyhow.

It is not irrational for the 'haves' to fear that sharing their lot with the 'have nots' will make them poorer because it is indisputably true.

In the UK context alone, since 2004 (a non-limitative but representative example, as I can't be @rsed checking over a longer time period or EU-wide (but fill your boots)), immigration stats courtesy of Migration Watch (to make sure the picture is as bleakly pro-UKIP as possible ) and personal wealth statistics courtesy of the ONS (see Figure 6, use linked Excel spreadsheet) disagree with you: over 200k migrants per year average, net wealth per household (logically including longer-term migrant households over time) up 4.1% per year average.

 

So, the statistical facts are that, since 2004, (i) mass immigration into the UK occurs at an average rate of 200k per year and rising, and (ii) the wealth of the average UK household has increased at an average rate of 4.1% year on year over the same time period.

 

Accordingly, I can just as well (and legitimately) infer from the above that the 'haves' have nothing to fear about sharing their lot with the 'have nots'.

I don't dispute what you say but I would still argue that the underlying problem is the tribal nature of their cultures and religion. We aren't responsible for either of those.

I accept that, as another facet of the overall problem that needs to be solved if immigration as discussed in this thread is to be stemmed. Edited April 22, 2015 by L00b

[loraward]

That's not a fact, Zamo, it's an opinion.

Nope, just that the fear or dislike be disproportional to the actual danger posed. Semantics, anyhow.

In the UK context alone, since 2004 (a non-limitative but representative example, as I can't be @rsed checking over a longer time period or EU-wide (but fill your boots)), immigration stats courtesy of Migration Watch (to make sure the picture is as bleakly pro-UKIP as possible ) and personal wealth statistics courtesy of the ONS (see Figure 6, use linked Excel spreadsheet) disagree with you: over 200k migrants per year average, net wealth per household (logically including longer-term migrant households over time) up 4.1% per year average.

 

So, the statistical facts are that (i) mass immigration into the UK occurs at a rate of per year and (ii) the wealth of the average UK household has increased year on year over the same time period.

 

I can just as legitimately infer from the above that the 'haves' have nothing to fear about sharing their lot with the 'have nots'.

I accept that, as another facet of the overall problem that needs to be solved if immigration as discussed in this thread is to be stemmed.

 

The housing bubble was the cause of increased wealth, although immigration played its part in causing that bubble it isn't a good thing. Claiming that people are wealthy just because their house as doubled in value is nonsense. The average figure is also very likley skewed by Britain's richest whom have increase their wealth by 'phenomenal' £69bn

Edited April 22, 2015 by loraward