Illegal immigration in Europe

[ThePretenders]

As you know already, Europe is experiencing a huge illegal migration problem (not as bad as America) from third world countries in Africa (mainly) and Asia, entering through Spain, Malta and Italy by crossing the Mediterranean Sea. Does the responsibility lie with the European countries and what should they do?

History tells us that Europe colonised nations and appropriated their wealth, leaving their subjects destitute. Furthermore, the European powers drew up arbitrary borders, splitting tribes and joining enemy tribes together, causing political stability. To make matters worse, farming subsidies in Europe prevent African primary good from entering the European market because of tariffs and dumping of goods in Africa destroy local production because of low prices from excess supply. This destroys many third world economies that are based on agriculture and cause citizens to seek better opportunities in Europe.

Should Europe be obliged to rectify the wrongs by building infrastructure and strengthening local institutions, so people won't be tempted to emigrate because Europe can't build a fortress and the bodies will keeping on washing up on shorelines. You can't ignore the problems that have been created because it will come to your doorstep.

What's your opinion on the matter?

[zambota]

I'm sure everything else will fall into place by itself if you just keep looking after number one.

[Der-Lowe]

At 8/25/08 06:35 PM, ThePretenders wrote: What's your opinion on the matter?

I don't believe Europe does have a direct responsibility for Africa's current state, although that is clearly a matter of discussion. However, I do believe that it is in Europe's best interests to help the African nations develop, so it should aid them either way. I am aware that the EU already does this, yet the aid is minimal. I am a strong opposer of agricultural subsidies, I believe in free trade (most of the times), and this is a clear obstruction for the growth of underdeveloped and developing countries' growth.
I say that it is in Europe's bests interests to do so, for no law will effectively counter a social movement that is the migration from poor to wealthy countries, it is an economic law old as economics itself: prices tend to balance plus/minus transport costs. If Europeans don't want to see their wages lowered, they will have to have a smart solution to the problem, not Ancient times' solution like building walls. I am greatly shocked to see Europe do not understand this reality.

[fli]

It's reverse colonization, bab-bay...

[cellardoor6]

At 8/25/08 07:38 PM, fli wrote: It's reverse colonization, bab-bay...

I guess by that logic, we in the west have the right to violently resist it.

[Luxury-Yacht]

At 8/25/08 08:04 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 8/25/08 07:38 PM, fli wrote: It's reverse colonization, bab-bay...

I guess by that logic, we in the west have the right to violently resist it.

It's not colonization. The goal is to move people into an area to improve their lives, not to use the areas as pools of resources and cheap human labor in the name of the motherland.

[fli]

At 8/25/08 08:04 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: I guess by that logic, we in the west have the right to violently resist it.

Tell me something new...

[HogWashSoup]

At 8/25/08 06:35 PM, ThePretenders wrote: What's your opinion on the matter?

I say we need to colonize mars as soon as possible.

[fli]

At 8/25/08 09:06 PM, HogWashSoup wrote: I say we need to colonize mars as soon as possible.

What will the martian aliens call us?
"Illegal Aliens?"

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 8/25/08 10:25 PM, fli wrote:

At 8/25/08 09:06 PM, HogWashSoup wrote:

What will the martian aliens call us?
"Illegal Aliens?"

They won't be able to call us anything, they'll either not exist or be dead.

One or the other.

And for Europe, just like any other country, you have laws and your job is to enforce those laws.
Deport them back to where they came from, or make them swim or send them to Eastern Europe whatever.

[Der-Lowe]

At 8/25/08 11:12 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

At 8/25/08 10:25 PM, fli wrote:

At 8/25/08 09:06 PM, HogWashSoup wrote:

What will the martian aliens call us?
"Illegal Aliens?"

I lol'ed

They won't be able to call us anything, they'll either not exist or be dead.

One or the other.

Or there's life in it, but not developed enough to have any conscience.
Very similar to the Earth's situation.

And for Europe, just like any other country, you have laws

Not really, that's what the EU is talking about.

and your job is to enforce those laws.
Deport them back to where they came from, or make them swim or send them to Eastern Europe whatever.

Yes, because enforcing the law brutally has always worked; look at East Germany!

[tony4moroney]

At 8/25/08 06:40 PM, zambota wrote: I'm sure everything else will fall into place by itself if you just keep looking after number one.

I agree with this comment. Look after number one and I'm sure it'll all work out. I don't think there's anything immoral in pushing back illegal immgirants and looking out for the interests of your citizens first. That's what a government is elected to do. Enough of this "We have enough wealth, let's share it around" because the only thing you'll end up sharing is misery (lol Oprah).

Ignoring illegal immigration is a condonation of the behavior and promotes more to do so. Illegal immigrants bring with them a wealth of problems such as and not limited to lack of work skills - which means that they need to survive on government grant or rely on more creative methods of income such as drug or arms trafficking. Sure, not all do and most are hardworking but that doesn't mean this problem doesn't exist. There's also the alienation involved due to an inability to speak the language and being unfamiliar with customs and cultural differences. So what happens is you end up having 'ethnic enclaves' and as a result, minority gangs emerge.

I also don't like immigration as a means of solving 3rd world problems. It's a band aid solution. You can only take in so many refugees.

[ThePretenders]

At 8/25/08 07:12 PM, Der-Lowe wrote: I don't believe Europe does have a direct responsibility for Africa's current state, although that is clearly a matter of discussion.

They contributed to the mess, so they should clean it up.

However, I do believe that it is in Europe's best interests to help the African nations develop, so it should aid them either way. I am aware that the EU already does this, yet the aid is minimal.

Most of the aid goes into corrupt officials, so the effectiveness is minimal.

I am a strong opposer of agricultural subsidies, I believe in free trade (most of the times), and this is a clear obstruction for the growth of underdeveloped and developing countries' growth.

CAP is terribly inefficient because half of the EU budget is spent on 5% of the population. Consumers have to pay higher than market prices and taxpayers pay for storage. If kills competition in Africa because trade is distorted towards the EU.

I say that it is in Europe's bests interests to do so, for no law will effectively counter a social movement that is the migration from poor to wealthy countries, it is an economic law old as economics itself: prices tend to balance plus/minus transport costs. If Europeans don't want to see their wages lowered, they will have to have a smart solution to the problem, not Ancient times' solution like building walls. I am greatly shocked to see Europe do not understand this reality.

You can stop illegal immigration by building walls because it's going to end up like the Maginot line and illegals will enter through the Slovakian border with the Ukraine (they have done that before). There needs to be a new approach on illegal immigration, focusing on the causes and how European countries can alleviate it by pursuing free trade with African nations (abolish subsidies, direct investment into local projects, by passing governments) because there is nothing stopping African men from sailing to the Canary Islands because of the dire situation in their countries.

[Der-Lowe]

At 8/26/08 12:01 PM, tony4moroney wrote:

At 8/25/08 06:40 PM, zambota wrote: I'm sure everything else will fall into place by itself if you just keep looking after number one.

I agree with this comment. Look after number one and I'm sure it'll all work out. I don't think there's anything immoral in pushing back illegal immgirants and looking out for the interests of your citizens first.

I believe there is something immoral in not helping people, and let them die.
I believe that humans have the right to live, no matter where they were born. But of course, I'm quite the vanguardist, citing declarations from the beginning of the 19th century, that were only taken by the erm, well, totality of nation, and were the principles that founded the United States.
Not to mention that the US is a nation based on immigration, since I don't think the Natives are the majority.

That's what a government is elected to do. Enough of this "We have enough wealth, let's share it around" because the only thing you'll end up sharing is misery (lol Oprah).

Ignoring illegal immigration is a condonation of the behavior and promotes more to do so. Illegal immigrants bring with them a wealth of problems such as and not limited to lack of work skills - which means that they need to survive on government grant or rely on more creative methods of income such as drug or arms trafficking.

yeah, they sometimes work, but 50% do drugs, 49% steal, and 99% live on MAH TAXPAYER MOENYZZZ!!!
I DON'T HAVE TO PAY FOR OTHER HUMAN BEING'S DREAMS, GO BACK TO THE SHITHOLE WHERE YOU CAME FROM, SUB-HUMANS.
*ahem*
"I believe it goes against the interest of my nation"

Sure, not all do and most are hardworking but that doesn't mean this problem doesn't exist. There's also the alienation involved due to an inability to speak the language and being unfamiliar with customs and cultural differences. So what happens is you end up having 'ethnic enclaves' and as a result, minority gangs emerge.

That is, if you don't handle them well. Nuclear energy can get out of hand as well, yet we still use it.
Argentina has received more immigrants than the US proportionally; in 1914, more than 50% of the population was foreign, and yet there was no subculture, free universal mandatory education unified the nation.

I also don't like immigration as a means of solving 3rd world problems. It's a band aid solution. You can only take in so many refugees.

Nobody has said that, we're talking solving 3rd world problems to solve illegal immigration.
What's a band aid is building stupid walls and trying to enforce laws against world trends.
You can't outlaw globalization.

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 8/26/08 09:26 AM, Der-Lowe wrote:

At 8/25/08 11:12 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

At 8/25/08 10:25 PM, fli wrote:

At 8/25/08 09:06 PM, HogWashSoup wrote:

Yes, because enforcing the law brutally has always worked; look at East Germany!

It's the punishment that deters crime, but the likelyhood that the law will be enforced.

If you a law and it is not enforced to it's full legal potential, whats the point of having the law. Any transgression of the said law is a blight upon society and a corruption of the legal system.

And to be fair, East Germany didn't enforce the law brutality 100% of the time. The fall of the wall and the actions that happened around it would prove that.

[Der-Lowe]

At 8/26/08 09:08 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

Yes, because enforcing the law brutally has always worked; look at East Germany!

It's the punishment that deters crime, but the likelyhood that the law will be enforced.

If you a law and it is not enforced to it's full legal potential, whats the point of having the law. Any transgression of the said law is a blight upon society and a corruption of the legal system.

While your statement is clearly disputable, what I say that that law should be derogated, for it is impossible to enforce it.
And ridiculous laws have a greater negative effect on the system, to my mind.

And to be fair, East Germany didn't enforce the law brutality 100% of the time. The fall of the wall and the actions that happened around it would prove that.

Mortified Penguins, maybe the greatest admirer of Adam Smith in the BBS, defending communist dictatorships?
The Apocalypse is near.

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 8/26/08 09:29 PM, Der-Lowe wrote:

At 8/26/08 09:08 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

While your statement is clearly disputable, what I say that that law should be derogated, for it is impossible to enforce it.
And ridiculous laws have a greater negative effect on the system, to my mind.

I quite agree that negative and ridiculus laws do have the negative effect on the society as a whole. But if thier is a system set up where one can change those laws in a democratic and fair practice, and where those laws reflect the will of the people, then change of those laws should be taken in a legal and democratic way.

And if there is no system to do that, well that a whole other topic.

Mortified Penguins, maybe the greatest admirer of Adam Smith in the BBS, defending communist dictatorships?
The Apocalypse is near.

Not so much defending, the simple action of putting the wall up was idiocy, just setting the record straight somewhat.