Comment by despera | Hacker News Reader

Comment by despera | Hacker News Reader

EU and each european country are responsible for the deaths of thousands refugees and migrants in Mediterranean sea and many more rot in concentration camps.

The EU has financed walls (yes the same EU that makes fun of Trump) like the one at Evros river at greek-turkish borders, a place that could be used as a safe passage, away from risky sea smuggling.

While supposedly it's illegal to return migrants back to countries that could risk their life, still the EU made a deal with Turkey to do exactly that.

Same wise they paying the Libya to keep refugees and migrants in awful concentration camps away from the EU, yes the same Libya that is under civil war is considered by EU a safe country. In fact a few days ago such a concentration camp was bombed and many lost their lives.

EU's Frontex and local forces keep pushing back the boats with refugees, something that's totally and universally illegal.

It is high time to stop this immunity that EU enjoys to the public talk, childhood's end has arrived long ago for that particular organization.

These migrants have to stay somewhere(in a EU country), be fed and taken care of for a long time. Is you or your country willing to do that? It seems that Frontex does a good job at stopping shaky boats taking dangerous journeys, thus less people die so I'm not sure why this bothers you. Securing the border seems a sensible thing to do especially after the terrorist attacks, however as far as I'm aware once the people reach the border they are treated humanly(i.e not put in cages, separated from children etc).

People who come here for economic benefits should be returned(unless they have skills that can bring a positive contribution).

Everyone is responsible for its own life especially when the risk is known.

I think i was pretty clear right from the beginning. "EU and each european country"

As for the rest of it how sensible closed borders policies are i will rephrase old Smullyan, it's only sensible to your satisfaction and to the satisfaction of those who share the same right-wing values, but without hearing the argument of why this is a sensible policy i can assure you that it carries not the slightest conviction to the people of the left.

Open borders and free, safe passage.

>> open borders, safe passage

Safe passage to where? Bringing people in is the easy thing to do, taking care of them and keeping the same standards of living for the "natives" is not so easy. I'm all on board welcoming as many people as possible as long as there is a plan for them once they get here. Nobody provided a such plan.

We've seen what happens with open borders: countries that welcomed massive numbers of migrants found themselves unable to coup and started looking at their neighbours to distribute them. Good plan, right? That's what I call "responsibility".

>> i can assure you that it carries not the slightest conviction to the people of the left.

Yeah sure, until their benefits are hit or when they see migrants doing better than them in their own country. Tell that to the people who voted Brexit and UKIP and keep in mind they voted against "european migrants" who made a net positive contribution to the economy.

My point is that people change their stance on "open borders" when the reality hits(i.e they no longer get access to benefits, get mugged by a migrant, loose their low skilled job to a cheaper migrant etc).

Uhm, those countries that got "some" amount of migrants which wasn't massive (only Jordan has more than 600k refugees) and certainly they weren't welcomed despite the rhetoric by EU (i mean they are welcome AFTER they survived and weren't drowned?), they NEVER tried to integrate migrants and refugees. At the entry countries most of them simply thrown in concentration camps financed by EU, later on they were getting returned back to Turkey, Libya etc.

Now of course there was a plan about distributing some migrants BUT let me remind you that those quota NEVER achieved, most european countries never received the amount of refugees they were "obligated" to.

The distribution plan wasn't because refugees gathered for example here in Greece and they wanted to stay here, not at all, most of them wanted to leave the country. It was only a passage for them to other countries. Many people had family waiting for them. What happened? Walls were raised. Borders were closed and Greece almost kicked out of schengen (informally it was suspended). Obviously the government was forced to accept the EU plan about keeping the migrants in concentration camps and distribute some people around the europe (that again never really happened other than a small extend). Later on the EU-Turkey deal happened.

Nowdays that xenophobic, anti-immigration feelings are in rise you can hear that plain and simple even by moderate politicians that when syrian war is over refugees are out of here.

In other words, there never was an open borders and integration policy that failed. It is the same fascist policy by EU that getting people killed or rot in prison.

Most of them had no family in the country seeking asylum. If they had family members there they could apply for visa at any embassy in the world and most likely won't arrive by boat. Truth is they were looking for better conditions.

>> Uhm, those countries that got "some" amount of migrants which wasn't massive (only Jordan has more than 600k refugees)

Germany got about 1.5 million migrants. The question is what is the plan? Most of the EU governments dodged the question and thus the reason people voted far right. In Germany they have tried to integrate them[1] but the truth is that not all of them integrate and of course all this integration comes with a cost. Now keep in mind that not all the countries are run like Germany and even Germany has found itself overwhelmed by the task thus asking for "solidarity" from the other member states. Greece can't manage its own unemployment let alone train, educate and integrate migrants.

I think you confuse refugee camps with concentration camps which are entirely different things. There is no need to dramatise it any further.

>> In other words, there never was an open border...

There was an open border policy but it didn't work[1]. It proved that letting people in freely won't end the migration issue, it only makes it worse. I would even say this open border policy is the reason why migration from Africa through mediterranean sea intensified and we see so many drowned now.

>> It is the same fascist policy by EU that getting people killed or rot in prison.

I think it's just not fair to say that. You can see anti-immigration feelings all over the world where you have mass immigration. I don't even mention the leader of the free world(U.S). Even in Turkey, Istanbul which is closer culturally with the migrants they started deporting illegal immigrants with the exception of Syrians(due the EU agreement). Truth is that I don't see why anyone would want to integrate millions of unskilled immigrants from conflict zones. Some of them don't even want to integrate. We have a responsibility to offer food and shelter but not to make them european citizens. There is a different path for that(i.e skills based visa).

[0] https://www.thelocal.de/20181214/germany-integrating-migrant...

[1] https://www.latimes.com/world/europe/la-fg-germany-merkel-re...

I think you really mix things up, refugees, migrants, numbers. I think you just hiding behind that excuse for an integration plan for something that has happened before again and again even to countries with pretty much no infrastructure.

>> Greece can't manage its own unemployment let alone train, educate and integrate migrants.

It's funny you saying that because Greece is a good example of open borders back to 90s and the influx of hundreds thousand of migrants from Albania. Was there any plan? Absolutely nothing. There were tensions and racist attacks but in perspective they did have a positive effect to the greek economy that wasn't back then any better than it is now. And they did integrate to society.

>>I would even say this open border policy is the reason why migration from Africa through mediterranean sea intensified and we see so many drowned now.

That's exactly what right wingers are saying. And makes absolutely no sense. Offer to those people safe and guaranteed passage and they will not be drowned, won't be killed, won't be raped on their way to wherever they want to go. Why do people have to make this complicated?

"As mood sours, Syrians report forced deportations from Turkey" https://www.reuters.com/article/us-turkey-syrians/as-mood-so...

"Greek Coast Guard caught on video pushing a boat full of refugees back to Turkey" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1k2THtF9h6M

"EU border force Frontex implicated in migrant abuse" https://www.dw.com/en/eu-border-force-frontex-implicated-in-...

https://twitter.com/_sophiamaier/status/1151484044095496192

Why don't you clear up these numbers? I think you are a denier and simply refuse to see the other side of the coin. Even refuse to accept that Europe has faced a massive immigration issue. Turkey got almost 4 million refugees. Were not the EU agreement these people would be heading towards Europe.

The issue it's not really complicated. You just have to admit that massive immigration has some social and economic costs. Maybe not for the wealthy but surely for the leas fortunate "natives". Right wing wins because of deniers like you who can't provide a compromise solution. "Let them all in and we see afterwards how we handle it" doesn't put people at ease. Not to mention the security risk.

UNHCR - 2018 report [1]

"During 2018, the refugee population in Germany continued to increase, numbering 1,063,800 at the end of the year. More than half were from Syria (532,100), while other countries of origin included iraq (136,500), Afghanistan (126,000), eritrea (55,300), the islamic Republic of iran (41,200), Turkey (24,000), Somalia (23,600), Serbia and Kosovo (S/ReS/1244 (1999)) (9,200), the Russian Federation (8,100), Pakistan (7,500) and nigeria (6,400)."

Do you see anything weird in those data? 24.000 turkish people have been granted asylum by Germany. The same country that EU acknowledge as a safe place for refugees to return them back. I think that speaks a lot about EU's totally despicable deal with Turkey that has been criticized again and again by so many organizations. [2] [3]

Sadly, we always return back to Smullyan. Whatever i show or tell you won't change your mind about how the little way of life of natives must be protected over human rights of others.

I only hope that pro-europeans, left or right, stop ridicule themselves by criticizing Trump's ICE while they are responsible for far worse atrocities.

Same pig, different color.

[1] https://www.unhcr.org/5d08d7ee7.pdf

[2] https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/06/20/eu-dont-send-syrians-bac...

[3] https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2016/03/eu-turkey-ref...

>> 24.000 turkish people have been granted asylum by Germany. The same country that EU acknowledge as a safe place for refugees to return them back. I think that speaks a lot about EU's totally despicable deal with Turkey that has been criticized again and again by so many organizations.

I think you deliberately ignore the details for these asylum seekers. We all know that after the failed coup Erdogan started to persecute political opponents. Does this mean is an unsafe country for syrian refugees? Maybe you should ask yourself why the west supported the military coup(media included) in the first place?

There are 50-70 million refugees over the world. How many should Europe take to be considered a good protector of human rights? Should we go all in? Let them settle in and see how we handle it afterwards?

> it's only sensible to your satisfaction and to the satisfaction of those who share the same right-wing values, but without hearing the argument of why this is a sensible policy i can assure you that it carries not the slightest conviction to the people of the left.

And since we all live in open, participative democracies here in the EU, you are absolutely free to elect left wing parties that defend your views, while the other people are free to elect right wing parties thet defend theirs. In the end, the position assumed in the EU, will be determined by the outcome of that democratic process.

What you are not entitled to do of course, is to impose the views of the minority of the population uppon the majority with the argument that the minority holds the "morally correct view".

Of course, i don't have any illusions about how democratic EU is, we just saw it how democratically EC president elected (through a closed auction).

Anyway, i'm mostly referring to the people of the left when i'm saying that they have nothing to gain out of this reactionary silence about the massive human rights violations in EU.

It's obvious that the parties chose by the majority are drowning people in Mediterranean sea.

> Of course, i don't have any illusions about how democratic EU is, we just saw it how democratically EC president elected (through a closed auction).

The EC is elected by a voting by your elected representatives in the European Parliament. In a representative democracy (which is basically how it works every democratic nation in the planet) you are not supposed to vote for every decision taken, you vote for a representative and those representatives then pass resolutions observing a majority. This is why it is called a "representative democracy".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_democracy

> reactionary silence about the massive human rights violations in EU

Well, that the EU is engaging in a "massive human rights violations" is clearly a position held by the reactionary left, that is not shared by the majority of the population.

What can i tell you, back to EU elections i'm pretty sure i watched a debate on TV with a bunch of politicians arguing why each one of them must be the new EC president. Somehow no one of those people turned to be the president.

Do you by any chance have any wikipedia link explaining that?

https://youtu.be/He1srJG18T4

That was quite a bad move indeed. I personally watched the debates as well and was quite disappointed to see a totally different "winner". Still the solution was a compromise and this is what really defines the EU. I'm not sure how much the televised campaign mattered as the head of EC was voted by the European Parliament not by people back home but yeah more transparency would be welcome.

Now let's review another twist of democracy. How is that a "remainer"(May) become the person to deliver the victory of the "leave" campaign? There wasn't much televised campaign either if I recall correctly.

Would a direct election of the EC make EU more democratic? Should the UK elect the PM that way as well? Not many voted for Boris either, right?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com