Italy turns away ship of 600 illegal migrants

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

*cue music*
And congratulations! We have the first case of Goodwins law in this thread! You win a big invisible cookie!

Except that my example is drawing attention to how silly your principle is. I'm not literally comparing economic migrants to Hitler. That'd be silly. I'm telling you that not even you think all people are equally worthwhile.

Except you are comparing me to Hitler and Osama bin Laden in terms of how valuable life is.

Let me make something very clear:

Fuck IDPOL, every single human life is equal in it being priceless.I don't care who you are or are what you are or what you have done, you do not deserve to get your life taken away. You are treated equal under the law. If you break that law, your life stays intact, your freedom doesn't.

This applies for every single human life out there.

TL:DR You are equal. End of story.


Btw the last time Hitler was in Italy they liked him.

[Eclius]

Up at this point, I don't even want to argue anymore, this is dragging on forever, not going anywhere and is pointless. For the one final time, charity begins at home, deal with domestic issues first.

Refugees in Italy are a domestic Italian issue.

---

How many boats do you think that Europe has taken over the last years?

A lot.

It's their fault, nobody asked them to cross a dangerous sea and, the best thing of all, believe that they would be well received in a nation that is done with receiving so many refugees that generate a permanent drain on the society.

If Italy could help them and didn't and they died then their deaths would quite obviously be Italy's fault.

---

If they're economic migrants, as many of them are, and not at risk of starvation, nobody. They should stay in their own countries. If they're refugees, countries with a similar culture that are capable of supporting them without difficulty. It makes more sense for someone from the Sahel region to go to Nigeria than for them to go to Tunisia or Algeria than to go to Italy...

Fascinating thing to hear from a European person(probably) living in North America, who adheres to a Middle Eastern religion. Do you think your ancestors did something wrong by not staying in Europe, or the Levant, or wherever they came from? Or maybe it's only refugees that must stay within their "cultural region" but the rest of us a free to migrate hither and yon.

It's NOT a domestic issue! Those people aren't even Italian citizens.

[Dylar]

Refugees in Italy are a domestic Italian issue.

---

A lot.


If Italy could help them and didn't and they died then their deaths would quite obviously be Italy's fault.

---

Fascinating thing to hear from a European person(probably) living in North America, who adheres to a Middle Eastern religion. Do you think your ancestors did something wrong by not staying in Europe, or the Levant, or wherever they came from? Or maybe it's only refugees that must stay within their "cultural region" but the rest of us a free to migrate hither and yon.

It's NOT a domestic issue! Those people aren't even Italian citizens.

But they are located within the nation of Italy, right? Therefore, domestic.

[Great Minarchistan]

It's NOT a domestic issue! Those people aren't even Italian citizens.

But they are located within the nation of Italy, right? Therefore, domestic.

So if I go to your house, enter it and stay inside even if you don't want you are forced to finance my living because I'm your issue?

[Fahran]

Fascinating thing to hear from a European person(probably) living in North America, who adheres to a Middle Eastern religion.

I'm not wholly European actually. My ancestors have roots in Israel and, more recently, Morocco, Russia, Germany, Mexico, and the United States. In all of those cases, they initially immigrated with the tacit consent of local governments and then experienced persecution as those governments had Antisemitic flare-ups. There's a definitive difference between economic migrants and refugees from war and genocide. Some of my ancestors were the one; some the other. The economic migrants among my ancestors had not inalienable right to settle anywhere beyond where they were born without government consent.

Do you think your ancestors did something wrong by not staying in Europe, or the Levant, or wherever they came from?

Not at all. I don't think economic migrants or refugees are doing anything wrong either, so...

Or maybe it's only refugees that must stay within their "cultural region" but the rest of us a free to migrate hither and yon.

Again, not at all. My point is that nations are only obligated to take certain sorts of refugees by basic morality. They have no obligation to prioritize economic migrants when that wouldn't serve the interests of their people or wouldn't further their political objectives. It has nothing to do with it being morally right or wrong to emigrate and immigrate.

[Ifreann]

If it's in a country's political interests to help other countries then you're going to need a lot more than "It's simple logic" to argue that they should act contrary to their interests.

But Italy does give aid to foreign countries, and accept refugees, and help ships in distress, even if they're not Italian. You know, excepting this incident. If your logic is so simple, how did these conventions even come about?

The Aquarius is a ship.

At sea.

And the people aboard her are alive.

Ok, for the last time, you did not understand my arguments at all. I'm saying, Italy made the right choice because it's in economic crisis and they ALREADY spent soo much on migrants and foreign aids up at this point!

But you've been saying this whole time that countries shouldn't spend anything on foreigners, only on their own citizens, and you insist that your reasoning is simple but you won't explain it.

If it's in a country's political interests to help other countries then you're going to need a lot more than "It's simple logic" to argue that they should act contrary to their interests.

Because, countries with some spare money and a growing economy, can give away foreign aid in tons if it fits their international political interest and it's not against their domestic interest because their economy is growing, they have surplus and they are not having an increase in poverty rate. For the one last time, please put effort in trying to understand people's arguments

You're just saying what you think countries should do, you aren't giving any reasoning why. Why should they only spend money on foreign aid if they have solved every domestic issue? What is the reason?

---

Refugees in Italy are a domestic Italian issue.

---

A lot.


If Italy could help them and didn't and they died then their deaths would quite obviously be Italy's fault.

---

Fascinating thing to hear from a European person(probably) living in North America, who adheres to a Middle Eastern religion. Do you think your ancestors did something wrong by not staying in Europe, or the Levant, or wherever they came from? Or maybe it's only refugees that must stay within their "cultural region" but the rest of us a free to migrate hither and yon.

It's NOT a domestic issue! Those people aren't even Italian citizens.

If they're in Italy they are obviously a domestic Italian issue.

---

But they are located within the nation of Italy, right? Therefore, domestic.

So if I go to your house...

Italy isn't someone's house.

[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

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

Not so easy to do Syrian ok, and other no, An example, if a asylum seeker is homsesual, in some sub sahrain countries and Middle East countries the homosexual are deserved the death penality or other punshments, if they are homsexual the nation must give political asylium (in according of ar 10 comma 3 of Italian Constitution). In pakistan there are anti blashemous law, that the punsichment is the death, the bad things is then someone accuse you to be blasphemous, the accused people must demostrate to not be blasphemous, and in some case who are accused of blasphemy are killed by extremist before the tribunal pronuncation (info. asylium seeker arrived in Italy for this reason, but the request was denied. The italian officials say that he wasn't at risk of life, the destiny of this person is unlnow), and other limitless cases that the art 10 comma 3 of Italian Constitution.
Saying that I don't say that the country must keep the open border without any control, but I want to demostrate that is extremely difficult issue to handle, where aren't white or black, but an limitless shades of grey. It must worse actions and punishment to smugglers, they are the problems to fight no to migrants itself.

[Great Minarchistan]

Italy isn't someone's house.

You are right, it's a nation of some 55 million legal citizens and taxpayers, that are seeing their money go down through the drain because hundreds of thousands of refugees want to be babysit by the nanny state. 75% of which will likely not contribute to the society over the following years.

[Fahran]

Except you are comparing me to Hitler and Osama bin Laden in terms of how valuable life is.

That's not what Godwin's Law usually entails, and you're stretching the definition.

Let me make something very clear:

Alright.

Fuck IDPOL, every single human life is equal in it being priceless.I don't care who you are or are what you are or what you have done, you do not deserve to get your life taken away. You are treated equal under the law. If you break that law, your life stays intact, your freedom doesn't.

That's a debatable contention at best, and it side-steps the point I've made. Unless you're Emmanuel Kant and have no friends, instead preferring a universal disposition to friendliness over such prejudices, you don't actually believe that people are equal. You don't treat people equally in your own life. You give some preferential treatment and that's not abnormal. I'm not attempting to devalue the lives of migrants or refugees. I actually believe that the latter have a right to asylum. My point is that governments don't have to treat non-citizens the same as citizens as an incontrovertible rule.

This applies for every single human life out there.

This is about immigration, not about the right to life.

TL:DR You are equal. End of story.

Without qualification? No. No, I'm not.

Btw the last time Hitler was in Italy they liked him.

(Image)

Oh, I'm aware. They even deported a couple thousand of my people to the villainous little toad.

[Ifreann]

Fascinating thing to hear from a European person(probably) living in North America, who adheres to a Middle Eastern religion.

I'm not wholly European actually. My ancestors have roots in Israel and, more recently, Morocco, Russia, Germany, Mexico, and the United States. In all of those cases, they initially immigrated with the tacit consent of local governments and then experienced persecution as those governments had Antisemitic flare-ups. There's a definitive difference between economic migrants and refugees from war and genocide.

Do you think your ancestors did something wrong by not staying in Europe, or the Levant, or wherever they came from?

Not at all. I don't think economic migrants or refugees are doing anything wrong either, so...

Or maybe it's only refugees that must stay within their "cultural region" but the rest of us a free to migrate hither and yon.

Again, not at all. My point is that nations are only obligated to take certain sorts of refugees by basic morality. They have no obligation to prioritize economic migrants when that wouldn't serve the interests of their people or wouldn't further their political objectives. It has nothing to do with it being morally right or wrong to emigrate and immigrate.

So why are you saying that refugees from the Sahel should stay in the Sahel?

And this whole "economic migrants" thing is plainly a false narrative. People who don't qualify for refugee status or the like obviously aren't allowed to stay in whatever country they've migrated to. No one is saying they should be. Well, not many people. Certainly none in this thread.

---

Italy isn't someone's house.

You are right, it's a nation of some 55 million legal citizens and taxpayers, that are seeing their money go down through the drain because hundreds of thousands of refugees want to be babysit by the nanny state. 75% of which will likely not contribute to the society over the following years.

If they're so upset they'll elect a government that'll pull them out of every relevant treaty and convention and close the borders.

Or maybe they're not as outraged as internet commentators and they'll just elect a government that'll throw a little tantrum to get the EU to do more to help them with all the refugees.

[Eclius]

Ok, for the last time, you did not understand my arguments at all. I'm saying, Italy made the right choice because it's in economic crisis and they ALREADY spent soo much on migrants and foreign aids up at this point!

But you've been saying this whole time that countries shouldn't spend anything on foreigners, only on their own citizens, and you insist that your reasoning is simple but you won't explain it.

Because, countries with some spare money and a growing economy, can give away foreign aid in tons if it fits their international political interest and it's not against their domestic interest because their economy is growing, they have surplus and they are not having an increase in poverty rate. For the one last time, please put effort in trying to understand people's arguments

You're just saying what you think countries should do, you aren't giving any reasoning why. Why should they only spend money on foreign aid if they have solved every domestic issue? What is the reason?

---

It's NOT a domestic issue! Those people aren't even Italian citizens.

If they're in Italy they are obviously a domestic Italian issue.

---

So if I go to your house...

Italy isn't someone's house.

Ok, I'm not even gonna bother explaining again, this is way too tiresome, you clearly didn't understand my arguments, and you're constantly asking for clarification on something where you shouldn't have to. No offense, maybe try to improve your reading comprehension levels

[Eclius]

No offense, but if this was a debate, Herp's gonna win almost effortlessly with this argument being presented to the judges and audiences. I'll leave for you to figure out why

Explain. Please tell me why economic migrants should instantly be given consideration just because they're less wealthy?

It's a false association!

[Fahran]

So why are you saying that refugees from the Sahel should stay in the Sahel?

That depends on whether they're capable of surviving or not. If not, they should more correctly be categorized as refugees from an environmental disaster and spread across Africa and Europe in countries capable of accommodating them. If they can survive, then they can of course try to immigrate but no country is obligated to take them by moral necessity.

And this whole "economic migrants" thing is plainly a false narrative.

Except that it very much isn't. Most of the immigrants to the United States from Latin America are motivated almost exclusively by economic concerns, my mother's family among them.

People who don't qualify for refugee status or the like obviously aren't allowed to stay in whatever country they've migrated to. No one is saying they should be. Well, not many people. Certainly none in this thread.

Some appear to be suggesting it implicitly with assertions that all people are equal and that national borders are imaginary lines with no legitimacy. Again, I actually think that refugees from genocide, war, natural disaster, and persecution should receive asylum. The question then is this. From whom?

[Great Minarchistan]

If they're so upset they'll elect a government that'll pull them out of every relevant treaty and convention and close the borders.

Or maybe they're not as outraged as internet commentators and they'll just elect a government that'll throw a little tantrum to get the EU to do more to help them with all the refugees.

Or maybe you are wrong and I should remind you that M5S is gaining momentum and that Berlusconi is once again popular in Italian politics.

[Fahran]

It's a false association!

Not really given that the people mentioned in that particular line of discussion were "Africans" as a hegemonic group. Herp's assertion was "like they have it any better" than Syrian refugees. A lot of Africans have is better than Syrian refugees. Probably most of them actually. The continent has issues, but most people aren't being bombed by the Russians or tortured at present.

[Eclius]

It's a false association!

Not really given that the people mentioned in that particular line of discussion were "Africans" as a hegemonic group. Herp's assertion was "like they have it any better" than Syrian refugees. A lot of Africans have is better than Syrian refugees. Probably most of them actually. The continent has issues, but most people aren't being bombed by the Russians or tortured at present.

I am leaving this thread for a while....I think this is the time that Herp and I both mutually agree that the statement you made was a false association

[Fahran]

I am leaving this thread for a while....I think this is the time that Herp and I both mutually agree that the statement you made was a false association

And you're both incorrect. Herp accused me of invoking Godwin's Law. I never implied that anyone was like Hitler. I actually implied the exact opposite and then elaborated that not all people were seen as equal in the eyes of government - this being an extreme example of it. You then accused me of making a false equivalency when I pointed out that not all Africans are at risk of death at the moment and are thus not comparable to Syrian refugees.

[Claorica]

I'm (not) sorry for crushing these (illegal, may I remind you) immigrants' dreams.

There is an entire system they can apply for citizenship or asylum, and drifting across the Mediterranean on a flimsy dinghy with unattended children and pregnant women is not part of said system.

Most of them don't even come from war-torn countries!

You're not wrong on the bottom point. But, you still have that collective "Immigrants that did not apply to the system are not humans anymore, therefore they don't matter, fuck them." mentality. Applying for asylum requires cash. One thing that many of these migrants do not have. It takes less to be smuggled than to apply for citizenship.

And when you break the law, you accept the consequences. Italy is well within their rights not to allow people who won't even try a legal avenue passage into their country.

[Imperial Esplanade]

But they are located within the nation of Italy, right? Therefore, domestic.

So if I go to your house, enter it and stay inside even if you don't want you are forced to finance my living because I'm your issue?

I would think it's rather obvious that the laws are different between being in someone's house and being in someone's country.

[Wolflanden]

Beside the guilt feel (moral) of not taking these people, some of whom are really in fact desperate for a better live. I find that Italy as a sovereign country of it own and thus can do whatever it believe is right within it own border and that include refusing to grant entry whomever it feel like to.
If the Italian people voted this new government (who is anti immigrant) then we already see what their mood are toward the thing. They don't want it anymore, they are sick of it. It is their country anyway, they pay taxes and they have a saying in how it should run. If they say no then well, who are we to say they can't do so in their own country?

[Ifreann]

So why are you saying that refugees from the Sahel should stay in the Sahel?

That depends on whether they're capable of surviving or not. If not, they should more correctly be categorized as refugees from an environmental disaster and spread across Africa and Europe in countries capable of accommodating them. If they can survive, then they can of course try to immigrate but no country is obligated to take them by moral necessity.

And this whole "economic migrants" thing is plainly a false narrative.

Except that it very much isn't. Most of the immigrants to the United States from Latin America are motivated almost exclusively by economic concerns, my mother's family among them.

What I'm talking about is the insistence of right wing xenophobes on calling people like those 629 on the Aquarius "economic migrants". This is meant to delegitimise their requests for asylum and create a narrative that they are all just coming to steal jobs and/or leech welfare. This is obviously silly. People ridiculous enough to risk their lives crossing the Mediterranean just to get a job are few and far between, and aren't likely to be granted asylum.

People who don't qualify for refugee status or the like obviously aren't allowed to stay in whatever country they've migrated to. No one is saying they should be. Well, not many people. Certainly none in this thread.

Some appear to be suggesting it implicitly with assertions that all people are equal and that national borders are imaginary lines with no legitimacy. Again, I actually think that refugees from genocide, war, foreign disaster, and persecution should receive asylum. The question then is this. From whom?

From whomever can help them, I would say.

---

If they're so upset they'll elect a government that'll pull them out of every relevant treaty and convention and close the borders.

Or maybe they're not as outraged as internet commentators and they'll just elect a government that'll throw a little tantrum to get the EU to do more to help them with all the refugees.

Or maybe you are wrong and I should remind you that M5S is gaining momentum and that Berlusconi is once again popular in Italian politics.

I wouldn't claim to know anything about Italian politics.

[Ifreann]

You're not wrong on the bottom point. But, you still have that collective "Immigrants that did not apply to the system are not humans anymore, therefore they don't matter, fuck them." mentality. Applying for asylum requires cash. One thing that many of these migrants do not have. It takes less to be smuggled than to apply for citizenship.

And when you break the law, you accept the consequences. Italy is well within their rights not to allow people who won't even try a legal avenue passage into their country.

Countries don't have rights.

[Great Minarchistan]

So if I go to your house, enter it and stay inside even if you don't want you are forced to finance my living because I'm your issue?

I would think it's rather obvious that the laws are different between being in someone's house and being in someone's country.

No not really, under both cases the person that entered your house or your country without legalization or consent is subject to deportation. Rightfully so.

[Fahran]

What I'm talking about is the insistence of right wing xenophobes on calling people like those 629 on the Aquarius "economic migrants".

I'm not much of a xenophobe by any means, though I'm admittedly right-wing. As I've stated, people from regions affected by environmental/natural disasters are genuine refugees. In regard to handling them though, I can sympathize with the perspective of some Italians who might want to transfer them to places like Germany, Poland, Nigeria, or Tunis where they could just as easily survive. That said, until laws and measures are put into place to formalize that, people fleeing such disasters should be taken in by the first country they reach.

This is meant to delegitimise their requests for asylum and create a narrative that they are all just coming to steal jobs and/or leech welfare.

That's not really how I'd characterize economic migrants. They're goal is to make their life and their families lives better by providing for them. They aren't setting out to hurt anyone, and it's a natural, worthwhile impulse. It's just that local governments aren't obligated to allow them to immigrate or work.

This is obviously silly. People ridiculous enough to risk their lives crossing the Mediterranean just to get a job are few and far between, and aren't likely to be granted asylum.

It does make me wonder what exactly is going on in the more prosperous cities of Tunisia and Algeria that thousands of immigrants are fleeing even further north. I suspect that the local governments aren't giving them asylum or are treating them poorly.

[Cappuccina]

Rescue ships? They couldn’t possibly let those poor people on land with a hot meal?

No. Once you do that it's, "why not give them a home". Does no one understand the concept of legal immigration?

And when you break the law, you accept the consequences. Italy is well within their rights not to allow people who won't even try a legal avenue passage into their country.

Countries don't have rights.

Actually, they do. There's international law for a reason.