Italy turns away ship of 600 illegal migrants

[Eclius]

Well they were quite willing to pay a human trafficker criminal to help them violate international immigration law, so they're already proved willing to break the law once.

It's one thing to hope that bad things won't happen and they magically will all be accepted and thankful, but the world doesn't run on magical thinking and hopes and dreams.

As I said before, crossing an imaginary line created for arbitrary jurisdiction reasons with out a special permission slip is a crime that hurts no one.

The reasons why that line is there are purely human. Crossing that line doesn't hurt anyone.

Never said that it does run on hopes and dreams, but I did say that they are innocent until proven guilty. A right western society was built on.

So unless you have proof beyond assuming that they are going to to evil bad things when they get to Italy, then they are doing no harm.

Show me proof that these specific 600 people are here on nefarious reasons or intentions.

Well, when it comes down to "basic human decency", also keep in mind that Italy's own domestic poverty rate is increasing throughout the years. And frankly, as I said to Herp, the resources under a nation's possession is limited, frankly, Italian government did the right thing, and should look into improving the living condition for domestic ppl instead.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... mic-slumps

That's no excuse for not helping people.

Resources are always limited. Doesn't mean we shouldn't help others.

Once again, as Thermodolia and I said yesterday, regardless of which nation you're in, you should start with domestic charity first. I believe both of us have repeated this multiple times yesterday

[Ifreann]

Nonetheless, I'm interested to hear your reasoning.

But you're arguing that foreigners don't matter and shouldn't be helped. And Italians are foreigners to you. Shouldn't you care as little for what happens to Italy as what happens to the people on the Aquarius?

I'm saying, in the PERSPECTIVE OF ITALIANS they should not accept migrants due to economic reasons. But outside that, why would I personally care about whatever happens to Italy?

Consistent, at least.

Nonetheless, I'm interested to hear your reasoning.

Because I happens to come across this thread while I was wondering aimlessly in General channel? You're going off topic here, and I don't appreciate the counter-productivity from you constantly asking me why I am here.

I meant your reasoning about why a nation should only use their resources on their own citizens.

[Eclius]

I meant your reasoning about why a nation should only use their resources on their own citizens.

As Thermodolia and I said multiple times yesterday, because there are domestic issues on hand. Up at this point, Italy does not have the spare money to help migrants (not just those 600 ppl, all of the migrants) giving that they are having economic issues. Please do not make me repeat myself multiple times

[Alinghi Federal-Democratic Republic]

As European and Italian, I'm find too difficlt to take a position on issue.

A side, we can left entry witout any control, and illegal, and I find tha acutally the EU didn't do enough to help the country in this crisis (and
I'm saying as a ultra-eurofederalist who wnat to see a Federation of European states, and I want that Europe will be united in this theme, I'd want a common border police with a common rules about immigration ad asylium, the rules probably will be not so restrictive but not so permissive).

In the other side, I try to imagine to be one of migrant, because he/she is a person, that doing noting wrong. You can't say that a person will be a criminal only because he/she is a migrant, innocent until proven guilty, a basilar principle of a civil and democratic society, and most important a single migrant is an individual above be part of a social or ethnic group with own particularities, history, and way of thinking what defer from other people of the same social or ethnic group

[Ifreann]

I meant your reasoning about why a nation should only use their resources on their own citizens.

I'm not even going to bother answering that question. Because once again, no offense, but that's simple logic.

As I said, I'm interested in hearing your reasoning. You might say that your logic is simple, but the world quite clearly does not work that way. Most, if not all countries do spend money on non-citizens in one way or another, or have committed sincerely to do so in various circumstances. A large majority of countries, including Italy, are party to the Convention for the Safety Of Life At Sea. Why is the whole world ignoring your supposedly simple logic?

[Eclius]

As European and Italian, I'm find too difficlt to take a position on issue.

A side, we can left entry witout any control, and illegal, and I find tha acutally the EU didn't do enough to help the country in this crisis (and
I'm saying as a ultra-eurofederalist who wnat to see a Federation of European states, and I want that Europe will be united in this theme, I'd want a common border police with a common rules about immigration ad asylium, the rules probably will be not so restrictive but not so permissive).

In the other side, I try to imagine to be one of migrant, because he/she is a person, that doing noting wrong. You can't say that a person will be a criminal only because he/she is a migrant, innocent until proven guilty, a basilar principle of a civil and democratic society, and most important a single migrant is an individual above be part of a social or ethnic group with own particularities, history, and way of thinking what defer from other people of the same social or ethnic group

As I've mentioned, a lot of those people are from sub-saharan Africa, they are not eligible for the same level of protection as ppl. from Syria

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

That's no excuse for not helping people.

That's why we wanna help the people of the nation.

Also, immigration isn't just crossing an imaginary line; or it is, but brings real problems - cultural alienation, wage descent, ghettoization, militancy....

And why stop there at an arbitrary line when we can help even more? Sure, we can't help everyone. Doesn't give us the excuse of not trying.

All of these hypothetical things could happen, but whats 100% sure to happen is that those people get help.

[Petrolheadia]

That's why we wanna help the people of the nation.

Also, immigration isn't just crossing an imaginary line; or it is, but brings real problems - cultural alienation, wage descent, ghettoization, militancy....

And why stop there at an arbitrary line when we can help even more?

To help those inside a country even better.

[Eclius]

I'm not even going to bother answering that question. Because once again, no offense, but that's simple logic.

As I said, I'm interested in hearing your reasoning. You might say that your logic is simple, but the world quite clearly does not work that way. Most, if not all countries do spend money on non-citizens in one way or another, or have committed sincerely to do so in various circumstances. A large majority of countries, including Italy, are party to the Convention for the Safety Of Life At Sea. Why is the whole world ignoring your supposedly simple logic?

They're helping poor countries out of "sincerity" they're helping them to extend their political influence. And as aforementioned, not every nation can afford to do that, you can't expect a nation like Italy to give away foreign aid money in billions and billions. In terms of Convention for the Safety Of Life At Sea, it's a treaty that sets minimum safety standard for commercial ships, it did not say you have to protect economic migrants.

[Eclius]

And why stop there at an arbitrary line when we can help even more?

To help those inside a country even better.

That's what Thermodolia and I repeated multiple times yesterday. Up at this point, I don't even want to participate in this server anyone, it's very tiresome to having to constantly repeat what I said

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

As I said before, crossing an imaginary line created for arbitrary jurisdiction reasons with out a special permission slip is a crime that hurts no one.

The reasons why that line is there are purely human. Crossing that line doesn't hurt anyone.

Never said that it does run on hopes and dreams, but I did say that they are innocent until proven guilty. A right western society was built on.

So unless you have proof beyond assuming that they are going to to evil bad things when they get to Italy, then they are doing no harm.

Show me proof that these specific 600 people are here on nefarious reasons or intentions.



That's no excuse for not helping people.

Resources are always limited. Doesn't mean we shouldn't help others.

Once again, as Thermodolia and I said yesterday, regardless of which nation you're in, you should start with domestic charity first. I believe both of us have repeated this multiple times yesterday

And as I have repeatably said, the two are not mutually exclusive. To think so is logicaly wrong. Give to the Red Cross, they help both.

Or split the donations between the two. Every little bit helps.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

And why stop there at an arbitrary line when we can help even more?

To help those inside a country even better.

They are not mutually exclusive, you can do both.

[Eclius]

I'm saying, in the PERSPECTIVE OF ITALIANS they should not accept migrants due to economic reasons. But outside that, why would I personally care about whatever happens to Italy?

Consistent, at least.

No offense, but this tells me you cannot seem to understand what ppl are trying to say.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

To help those inside a country even better.

That's what Thermodolia and I repeated multiple times yesterday. Up at this point, I don't even want to participate in this server anyone, it's very tiresome to having to constantly repeat what I said

I'm getting tired of saying your making a false dilemma.

[Eclius]

Once again, as Thermodolia and I said yesterday, regardless of which nation you're in, you should start with domestic charity first. I believe both of us have repeated this multiple times yesterday

And as I have repeatably said, the two are not mutually exclusive. To think so is logicaly wrong. Give to the Red Cross, they help both.

Or split the donations between the two. Every little bit helps.

Or, I could not split the donation and give all to a domestic charity or non-profitable research institutions like Canadian Cancer Society like I've been doing.

[Petrolheadia]

That's what Thermodolia and I repeated multiple times yesterday. Up at this point, I don't even want to participate in this server anyone, it's very tiresome to having to constantly repeat what I said

I'm getting tired of saying your making a false dilemma.

We didn't say "help our own or help the refugees", we said "we could do both, but the former is far more important".

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

And as I have repeatably said, the two are not mutually exclusive. To think so is logicaly wrong. Give to the Red Cross, they help both.

Or split the donations between the two. Every little bit helps.

Or, I could not split the donation and give all to a domestic charity or non-profitable research institutions like Canadian Cancer Society like I've been doing.

Then you are forcing a false dilemma.

You can spend your money however you want to, thats not my business. If I choose and lots of other people to choose to help people not in there own nation, it's our right to choose.

[Eclius]

I'm getting tired of saying your making a false dilemma.

We didn't say "help our own or help the refugees", we said "we could do both, but the former is far more important".

Exactly, which is why, don't spend too much money on migrants until your nation's poverty rate is about to reach 0

[Petrolheadia]

Or, I could not split the donation and give all to a domestic charity or non-profitable research institutions like Canadian Cancer Society like I've been doing.

Then you are forcing a false dilemma.

Since when is "spend 100% of our freely distributable resources" a false dilemma answer?

It's on the extreme, but isn't one of two choices.

[Eclius]

Or, I could not split the donation and give all to a domestic charity or non-profitable research institutions like Canadian Cancer Society like I've been doing.

Then you are forcing a false dilemma.

You can spend your money however you want to, thats not my business. If I choose and lots of other people to choose to help people not in there own nation, it's our right to choose.

It's not a false dilemma, help your own citizens until the poverty issue is resolved, then extend your political influence by foreign aids. I'm saying, rather than spending money on both, resolve one issue at a time for better efficiency.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

I'm getting tired of saying your making a false dilemma.

We didn't say "help our own or help the refugees", we said "we could do both, but the former is far more important".

Both are equal in importance. Both deal with people's lives. Life is equal no mater where they are.

[Fahran]

I'm getting tired of saying your making a false dilemma.

Let me ask another question. What is the purpose of borders and immigration policies? At what times, under what conditions, and for what reasons should a state allow a group of people or an individual to immigrate or emigrate? Thus far we haven't answered any of these questions in a concrete way. We've appealed vaguely to native interests, to equality, to freedom of movement, etc. but we haven't gotten to the root of the philosophical differences as of yet.

Both are equal in importance. Both deal with people's lives. Life is equal no mater where they are.

Is Osama Bin Laden's life equal to yours? What about Hitler's life? Should the Italian government treat you and Osama Bin Laden the same?

[Gospel Power]

We didn't say "help our own or help the refugees", we said "we could do both, but the former is far more important".

Both are equal in importance. Both deal with people's lives. Life is equal no mater where they are.

So they don't need to risk their lifes and try to enter Europe with those boats, they can stay in their countries

[Eclius]

We didn't say "help our own or help the refugees", we said "we could do both, but the former is far more important".

Both are equal in importance. Both deal with people's lives. Life is equal no mater where they are.

So lemme ask you a question. You have say $10, 000 on hand, one of your parents is sick, and need $10, 000 for surgery, while there's some migrant in Europe who needs $5000. Would you split the money to migrant so your parent can no longer afford surgery, or would you ignore the migrant so your parent can afford a life-saving surgery (I know health care is free in Canada, but pretend it's not)

[Fahran]

Both are equal in importance. Both deal with people's lives. Life is equal no mater where they are.

So lemme ask you a question. You have say $10, 000 on hand, one of your parents is sick, and need $10, 000 for surgery, while there's some migrant in Europe who needs $5000. Would you split the money to migrant so your parent can no longer afford surgery, or would you ignore the migrant so your parent can afford a life-saving surgery (I know health care is free in Canada, but pretend it's not)

All lives are equal before G-d, but men and women are not G-d. It's no more wrong for me to favor a poor American in my neighborhood over a poor Salvadorian across the the border than it is for me to favor my grandfather over another elderly person in need.