People that get smuggled across the Mediterranean on a dinghy are a very special case and bear the main responsibility for their fates.
If the EU wants to keep migrants from Africa out, fine, but letting hundreds of people drown each year in order so send a message is not acceptable, ethically or legally.
For the record the EU has an obligation to look into asylum claims made in the EU and reject or accept them as applicable. On the other hand, it turns out many are approved even if not valid and the EU is barely able to deport anyone, illegal migrant or not. Basically whoever gets into the EU has a good chance to stay there, even if they don't have that right, so it's no wonder the EU is trying to deter more people from coming because this is putting immense stress especially on Western European societies and causing conflicts.
EU countries (and I think all countries) have a separate obligation to rescue people in distress at sea. The fact that someone is drowning in the middle of the Mediterranean is not a concern of the EU, as crass as that may sound - one rescues whoever is in trouble near one's ship. Still the EU is going above and beyond and is also sponsoring rescue missions that fish people out of the sea. Obviously not everyone makes it.
The concern with Frontex investing into planes and drones rather than boats is seen as a strategy to control the border without needing to help the migrants.
One other point that is mentioned is the „coast guard“ of Libya which Frontex allegedly cooperates with. That coast guard is accused of either not responding, or if they respond to torture and rape rescued people.
One final problem, that even if one were to have proof of those atrocities, it is really hard to sue Frontex for misconduct, because you have to sue them to what’s equivalent of the EUs Supreme Court.
The first would be to set up ships to help them cross, which obviously isn't going to happen.
So now smugglers and human traffickers have had field days (and years) smuggling people into Europe. All at an extreme cost: migrants are paying through their noses, getting abused along the route and they are drowning in the Mediterranean.
All so Europeans can feel good about helping them instead of starting a massive campaign to inform everyone that:
- immigrants will be flown right back
- money saved will be used to help them where they re (ha ha, not going to happen with the politicians we vote for, but this is what I wish they would do)
Let me be clear: I want to help those people. I'll happily see my taxes raised almost as much as I can bear to see it happen.
We don't talk much about religion here but since this account isn't linked to my identity I'll admit my motives here: I believe in an afterlife, "heaven" to be more precise, and I believe that enjoying life here while not caring about others is a rather effective way to make myself ineligible for that.
However moving everyone to Europe isn't sustainable way of fixing everyones problem, so for now I try to cut my luxuries and spend them on things that can help:
- giving people in developing countries work
- supporting Amnesty International (yes, I'm conflicted about this as they support the migration scam but I love their work in other areas)
- spreading the gospel so more people might start to think like I outline above, hopefully creating a positive feedback loop.
I am not familiar with all the wrongdoings that Frontex allgedly participates in, nor am I particularly interested in that topic. If they're doing illegal things, there should be no problems suing them, supreme courts or not.
There's one thing that I'd like to address though: you said that Frontex wants to control the border(s) without helping migrants. The latter is not part of the mandate of any border protection agency that I know of, so it's no wonder they won't want to invest money into it.
Or if you are from the far east?
Please enlighten me.
Oh wait either you go through turkey where we don't even know whats happening with these people or you get pushed back on the Mediterranean sea by frontex.
yeah sounds super lax to me...
Yes you can apply for a visa but try that without any papers...
Or if someone gangs have taken away your passport and other ID documents...
Or someone comes to your home and threatens you that if you don't fight for them they will kill your family...
yeah apply for a visa... which can take years... <irony> good comment! </irony>
To legally claim asylum in a schengen state which has no external border to non-schengen states you literally have to fall out of the sky or travel into the country on a tourist visa.
Guess what happens in the moment a crisis breaks out like it happened in Syria? Yes right, all the wealthy northern european states do not give out tourist visas anymore.
They can however apply for refugee status in the closest refugee camp outside of Syria, usually in Turkey.
Sure you can go to turkey - where you have no chance to legalize your status in mid- or long term. Where your children are not allowed to go to school.
A constitution doesn't allow for blanket emigration.
There is always paper work involved to justify and motivate the request as well as quotas.
Countries can't afford to house and feed limitless amounts off refugees.
Again, seeking asylum and immigration are two very different processes. When seeking asylum, you don't get to pick the countries; first safe is it.
Part of the problem is that refugees and migrants mixes at the borders. EU is also terrible at managing refugees, mostly due to not being able to agree to distribute the refuges equally across the member states. Of cause that would provoke some people, because apparently Slovakia or Bulgaria isn't better than living in a war zone, but Sweden and Germany is.
There is a large Vietnamese community in these countries, well, since the Vietnam War. They are obviously non-white and they are not discriminated in any way. Do you know why? Because they are working hard, they encourage their kids to get good education, they don't abuse the social system and they don't get involved in petty crime. These things result in the majority population not having predominantly negative experience with them.
Then there the Roma minority, which behaves in exact opposite way. This is not problem only in Czechia and Slovakia; the experience is same in the entire Eastern and South Europe, for exactly the same reason.
So obviously it is not race problem. It is behavioral problem, other people not liking being abused and being careful about that. If you want to solve it, start on your end.
Vietnamese are tolerated because they are perceived to work hard. That is racism, and it still leads to negative outcomes - for example dating a Vietnamese is often considered bad, people are still trying to not have children in the same classes as Vietnamese children, Vietnamese medical professionals are avoided, white people are preferred for flat rentals, etc; your ignorance doesn't mean they're not discriminated. The fact that people here don't even distinguish between Vietnamese and other Asian nationalities speaks for itself too.
The story of Romani people is also way more complex than you make it out, start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romani_people_in_Czechoslovaki...
BTW one would think that the petty crimes the Romani people are associated with would be more acceptable than large scale drug dealing associated with the Vietnamese - but who would look for logic in racism.
Arabs are perceived negatively because they're associated with Islam, which is associated with terrorism - even though the only terrorist attack that ever happened around here was carried out by a white supremacist. Many Arabs are Christians or atheists but that doesn't stop people from immediately labelling them as terrorists and ostracizing them from services, jobs, flat rentals, etc based on their skin color. Women in a hijab or burka are often attacked, as if every Arab woman had bombs under her clothing. Tell me please, what did they do to justify this, and how should they "start on their end", and why?
Racism is so bad here (CZ, SK, PL, ...) that it has its place in the parliament and senate.
The biggest problem are not the rural-living low income racists, but people like you who spread (normalizing it) how they're so tolerant and thus not racist - the truth is that even if you thought about a person positively based on their race it's still racism. More generally, as long as people think about individuals in terms of groups connected by bodily features, place of birth, etc there will be a problem - and there is a huge problem in Slovakia, not just racism but nationalism too (please tell me how Ukrainians are good only for manual labor...).
I am white, the only thing to do on my end is reducing the racist attitude of other white people. It's funny that you spoke about abuse in that same sentence, btw.
That's not racism. That's being careful, based on past experiences. You are welcome the make improvements to the current experiences, but blaming them for racism will push things exactly the opposite way.
> is really bad place for Arabs.
Do not conflate faith and race either. This area is not suitable for Muslims, and you can thank Ottoman empire for that. See that string of castles in Slovakian mountains? Same story. They have really bad historical experience with them.
But not everything is just bad and people are not keeping in their shells. During 80s, the Eastern bloc countries has sent many thousands of experts to build up the infrastructure in some (at the time friendly) Arab and ME countries. During these years, the relations improved significantly, it was relatively safe for white people to be in these countries.
Now that went down the drain.
> for example dating a Vietnamese is often considered bad, people are still trying to not have children in the same classes as Vietnamese children, Vietnamese medical professionals are avoided, white people are preferred for flat rentals, etc; your ignorance doesn't mean they're not discriminated.
Vietnamese children in the same class are usually the better students in the class; you must mistake that for something else. Vietnamese community has different problem, called "banana" - yellow outside, white inside - i.e. they integrate too well. Just like the Greeks did ;)
> The fact that people here don't even distinguish between Vietnamese and other Asian nationalities speaks for itself too.
It doesn't; one race usually cannot distinguish minor differences on other races. For example, Asians cannot distinguish person of Czech, Italian or Swedish descent, but that is trivial for other whites. Same thing from other side of the table.
> The story of Romani people is also way more complex than you make it out,
I know it is not trivial, and it will stay that way, while there are activists making good money while "they are trying to help". For now, the only improvements were made by those Roma members, who integrated with majority community. Yes, it is difficult for them to sever connections to community that is dragging them down, I know. So it remains resource drain for years to come without any result.
> BTW one would think that the petty crimes the Romani people are associated with would be more acceptable than large scale drug dealing associated with the Vietnamese - but who would look for logic in racism.
Employ the logic then: most people won't be aware of drug dealing, but they will notice very well, when they are on the receiving end of petty crime.
> Arabs are perceived negatively because they're associated with Islam,
True
> which is associated with terrorism
False. Terrorism is West's problem, not East's. For now.
It is more related to historical experiences, when Ottomans tried to conquer them. Another thing is the problems they brought to Western Europe. Establishing no-go zones, enforcing Sharia or having political and social demands that the majority population has to fulfill for them are not acceptable, it is just continuing the expansion using other means. So they get the picture: don't let them in, there won't be any problems then.
> Many Arabs are Christians or atheists but that doesn't stop people from immediately labelling them as terrorists and ostracizing them from services, jobs, flat rentals, etc based on their skin color. Women in a hijab or burka are often attacked, as if every Arab woman had bombs under her clothing.
Not in these countries, though. Despite urban legends and manufactured problems, that activists tried to push to show how these people are "racist".
> should they "start on their end", and why?
How do you think would people in Arabic country react to traditionally dressed christian woman? What would happen to her? (I do have stories...)
So if you want to be treated certain way, make sure do you as you preach. Behave in your country to foreigners the same way, as you want be treated abroad. This is not one-way street.
> Racism is so bad here (CZ, SK, PL, ...) that it has its place in the parliament and senate.
Conflating conservative parties who want to preserve their cultural identity with racism is pushing it too far.
> The biggest problem are not the rural-living low income racists, but people like you who spread (normalizing it) how they're so tolerant and thus not racist
I see liberal youngster with purely academic knowledge, without much practical experience there. No, your passive-aggresive blaming won't get you far.
> More generally, as long as people think about individuals in terms of groups connected by bodily features, place of birth, etc there will be a problem
You may want to deny it, but shared culture does have an impact on behavior. For example, Arabs are one of these cultures, who highly values theirs. It is their right to do so, and I don't see any reason why other cultures should be denied the same. We want to treat them equally, right?
> not just racism but nationalism too (please tell me how Ukrainians are good only for manual labor...).
Ukrainians have it very difficult in general, not just in CZ/SK/PL. They come to EU countries, because they have more opportunities there than in their home country. So do Serbs. (For other readers: these two nationalities are abused by multinationals, who bus them into manufacturing plants located in eastern-EU countries. They get the advantage of cheap workforce from poor countries, while having the plants inside EU jurisdiction). I don't see what the CZ/SK/PL citizens have to do with this, except being pissed of by having their wages pushed down even further by wage dumping.
> I am white, the only thing to do on my end is reducing the racist attitude of other white people.
I suggest spending some time in Asia, Middle East/Magreb and Latin America to be able to compare and contrast how racist the white people in CZ/SK/PL really are.
Many places in ME are often significantly Christian so it's no wonder they don't react to traditionally dressed women in any way, of course it varies by place though, it's true there are places where being Christian is bad. What this tells me is that your standard of behavior is countries with non-free theocratic governments, that's what you compare Slovakia with? Lol. One would think that a free democratic country would never lessen itself to this. Slovakia has a lot of growing up to do, pointing fingers and saying "they're bad too" is not a grown up thing to do (sarcastically remarking "and they kill niggers in America" is how we make fun of this attitude here).
> Not in these countries, though. Despite urban legends and manufactured problems, that activists tried to push to show how these people are "racist".
Don't lie, I've seen it personally multiple times in Prague, Bratislava, Hradec Kralove, and many other towns - even if I was just visiting it was rather easy to see a scene like that, don't tell me I was so lucky I was there the ONE TIME it happened.
> so it's no wonder they want to go to Germany or somewhere else where they won't be attacked.
They want to go to Germany, because the welfare in Germany is higher than average wage in EE. That's it. They get more money, easier.
> you spew bullshit
Nice and thoughtful rebuttal of my points. Where did you learn to discuss like that?
> As these places are often significantly Christian
Some of them. Others are not. I've yet to see a budhist attack a christian. Or vice-versa.
That's because they are not and never were treat to each other.
> What this tells me is that your standard of behavior is countries with non-free theocratic governments,
Like, for example, Arab countries? Which of them are not theocratic?
Even if some of them in the past dared not to be (like some of the regimes of 80's), movements like Muslim Brotherhood appeared. Can you point out similar movements in other religions or nations? Appearance of such movements means, that the issue is not even the governments, but goes much deeper.
> free democratic country would never lessen itself to this.
Free democratic does not mean stupid.
The fact that someone lost their papers or had them stolen is their problem. The EU isn't responsible for solving everyone's problem, in fact the political conflicts within the EU are mainly caused by EU countries pretending that they can.
Most of Europe indeed has very progressive law regarding the asylum, but very hypocritical enforcement practice - you can get a refuge or at least a permission to stay for a prolonged time once you get across the border (even "illegally"), but a lot of people are going to try to stop you from doing that.
So basically what Frontex does is protecting Europe from legal obligations that Europe voluntary committed to. What's even more dangerous, it's not under control of any single European government, so control over it by human rights activists and through political means is complicated.
Of course there's a lot of people trying to stop them, because what those migrants are doing is not according to the spirit of the asylum laws and it's threatening to seriously harm the social harmony of the countries receiving them. A significant number of EU citizens do not want migration from outside of the EU, unless the EU benefits (highly-educated specialists, etc) and those people integrate into their host countries. This conflict has been smouldering within Western Europe in particular for many years and I have the feeling that tensions have been rising strongly in the past years.
While you are there, you can of course ask different countries to grant you immigration visa, but then you don't do that as refugee anymore, since you have been already granted protection in the first safe country.
So no, Frontex is not protecting Europe from legal obligations; it is protecting Europe from abusing and misrepresenting them by activists.
This is way too broad to be useful
Many aren't even persecuted, just poor, lacking education and desperate.
Go to an EU country ambassy and ask a visa like anyone. If rejected, get the hint and don’t come.
People who claim there are not legal ways are ignorant or deceptive.