×
top 200 commentsshow all 329

[–]frodosdream 933 points934 points  (181 children)

No other country has the right to condemn Italy at this point unless they have taken in as many unwanted migrants themselves. Italy has given above and beyond.

[–]Laotzeiscool 22 points23 points  (4 children)

Europe should help each other stopping migrants from coming, help sending unwanted migrants back and help building asylum camps in Africa.

They should not fight amongst each other about the distribution of unwanted migrants while ignoring the cause of the problem which will just get bigger and bigger.

[–]masterOfLetecia 7 points8 points  (2 children)

Well, if Africa is such an unwanted place to live in, maybe it should be ruled by Europe again, those resources sure as fuck would come in handy.

[–]Artex3 0 points1 point  (1 child)

No because that would make the situation Europe's problem, and we surely don't want that to happen.

[–]masterOfLetecia 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But by investing there and improving their quality of life they would probably rather stay in their home countries. I think we should start with education, not general useless education, but technical education, how to be a mechanic, how to be a farmer, how to be a nurse, no point into forcing western education upon them, just teach the basics, it's better and cheaper and you can train a huge number of people to farm, invest in some second hand machinery from Europe, maybe by creating programs for European farmers to buy new equipment for cheaper turning in their old equipment, there are so many ways we can help them, it's ridiculous we just leave them to rot. The Chinese probably will have more influence over Africa because they are investing huge amounts of money into getting infrastructure there to extract mineral resources.

[–]Mirewen15 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Over saturation of countries trying to help is only spreading the problem out. Displacement is not a solution, there is only so much that can be done without actively solving the core problem.

[–]Carbon60TH 35 points36 points  (15 children)

Just pass them on to Macron. He backs the all migrant policy for all countries.

[–]fernguts 26 points27 points  (2 children)

Good thing the boats can't reach Canada, or Trudeau would be there to welcome them himself.

[–]Zlatan4Ever 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Yes, Italy can't take this anymore. There is a reason they deny the boat to land.

[–]athotisathotisathot 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Some could argue that this creates incentives which are even harmful, because people who would otherwise be able to play a vital role in improving the situation in their own countries, are now given an incentive to move to Europe to take their chances there instead. And because they know that they will be taken care of by the social nets that are present there, they are even more motivated to do so.

As should be clear by now, most of these refugees aren't women or children, but men. Men who could otherwise play their part in fixing the problems at home. But when everyone only has this desire to reach the promised land of Europe, this clearly won't happen.

[–]beauregrd 352 points353 points  (20 children)

Good for Italy. Can’t let themselves be guilted into taking people they don’t want

[–]Dcajunpimp 57 points58 points  (17 children)

Italian Interior Minister Matteo Salvini has indicated that the ship may not dock in Italy and that Malta should take it in. Last week, he refused to allow the Aquarius, a ship that picked up hundreds of people, to dock. It eventually went to Spain.

So is Salvini suggesting Malta because Malta is complaining that Italy wont allow the boat in?

Also I know people were complaining about the Aquarius not being allowed to dock in Italy. But all I really heard was that it would then be going to Spain. Why werent other Southern European nations either volunteering, or getting complaints for not allowing the boat to dock? Not saying they should or shouldn't but didn't the Aquarius have to sail past other countries like France to go from Italy to Spain?

[–]Wingardienleviosah 106 points107 points  (8 children)

The biggest question of all is why France didn't allow it to port considering it was a French NGO that was running the Aquarius. The gall of the french government in attempting to claim the moral high ground on Italy in that debacle while simultaneously denying the ship access to french ports is mind blowing. And Macron doubled down on it today saying Italy should be punished for denying ships port. If I was Salvini I would direct all maritime traffic from Libya strait to Marseille. The conversation would be over in a week and French borders would be closed.

[–]nfstern 7 points8 points  (0 children)

I posted something similar in regards to a post about the first boat Italy refused.

[–]Zanis45 11 points12 points  (4 children)

Tinfoil hat time. Right now Italy has a right wing government that isn't aligned with the EU right now. France might be playing politics sending the boat to Italy instead of France.

[–]McBunnes 4 points5 points  (2 children)

What would be the point of that?

[–]spyd3rweb 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The migrant problem is what is fueling the popularity of these right wing movements. The EU leadership is digging its own grave.

[–]FredBangedDaphne 50 points51 points  (2 children)

True. Why not France. They welcome the refugees so they should take them all. They can build more bulletproof glass around their tourist attractions.

[–]Fastardz 9 points10 points  (1 child)

Our elite welcomes them, but we'd be better without them. Send them back to where they come from

[–]mastertheillusion 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Welcoming them out of failed policy guilt that triggered problems elsewhere is more like it.

These problems are getting worse and climate change is driving people out of the hot nations.

[–]squngy 1 point2 points  (2 children)

didn't the Aquarius have to sail past other countries like France to go from Italy to Spain?

No?
Have you not seen a map of Europe?

Most of those ships are coming from Tunisia and Libya to the very south of Italy.
From there going to Spain is faster and safer than going to France ( though not by a huge amount, Greece would be even closer though ).

[–]Dcajunpimp 0 points1 point  (1 child)

But I wasn't asking about all the ships leaving. I was asking about the Aquarius which rescued people out of the Mediterranean near Italy. Marseille, Monoco, and Barcelona arent as far west of Sicily or Malta, as Valencia is. Yes they are farther north. But according to accounts Ive seen they sailed past Corsica on their way to Valencia. Which according to maps put them as far north as Barcelona meaning they had to sail farther west and back to the south to get to Valencia.

Not to mention, if they did go between Sardenia and Corsica, Marseille and Monoco look like they would have been closer than Barcelona or Valencia on maps at least at that point.

[–]squngy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I have to say I know nothing about Aquarius.

It is possible there simply aren't suitable facilities for handling immigrants in those other places, I guess, since they are more out of the way for most immigrant ships.

[–]sopadurso 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We could but then Salvini would just pull the same stunt with another boat. We have lots of vacancies for refugees, the camps are slow to send them, maybe he could actually implement some policies instead of going the media rounds.

[–]Tommer_nl 82 points83 points  (23 children)

I fully agree with most of the comments here. Italy has done quite a lot for immigrants already with little to no help from other European countries. This issue is going on for several years already. Europe just doesnt seem te care enough. If we did care more, a solution would have been provided years ago. Sad to know that probably hundreds more have to die before we really start to work together on proper immigration policy in all European countries.

[–]FarawayFairways 27 points28 points  (11 children)

This issue is going on for several years already. Europe just doesnt seem te care enough.

You can argue over the semantics of "care enough", but Europe has extensive overseas aid budgets (as do member states independently) which they're trying to use to create better economic conditions in the countries of origin. It isn't really working though (which is hardly surprising). These countries are never going to achieve the same level of economic strength that Europe has taken centuries to build up in the time scale required

[–]whisperedzen 17 points18 points  (4 children)

It doesn't have to take centuries for a country to develop, like the South Korean case proves.
Yet I still don't see the context of Africa as the right one for that to happen.

[–]potpourris 2 points3 points  (5 children)

The West, disguised as aid, has actually been in economical war against African nations since the 60s. Europe and the USA have been economically destroying them. We're forcing them to do stuff we would never accept in our countries.

  • You think they wanted our second hand clothing, bikes or shoes? They were forced to accept it and it destroyed their industries (for example, Kenya had half a million people working in the textile industry producing typical Kenyan clothing in 1980, by 1990 they were only 20'000; and the Kenyan population started looking like homeless people).

  • What about cheap subsidized Western food? Nope again, African countries don't want it. But we force them to take it. Thus aborting their green revolution and agribusinesses. They virtually have no agribusinesses because of that. 70% of Africans still work in subsistence farming (small family farms on small plots of land) simply because African food is too expensive compared to "free" food.

  • What about schools, education, job training, roads and other infrastructures, etc.? Since the 1980s the IMF and the World Bank, under the threats of military interventions, made sure that African nations stop investing in those programs, privatize and sell them off to foreign corporations. Look it up it's called structural adjustment program aka "austerity on steroids". It's catastrophic.

If you want to know more, start with "Dead Aid" by Dambisa Moyo

edit: wording

[–]alyssas 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Good post. One of the arguments made for Brexit is that once we left the EU, Britain would be free to do a trade deal with Kenya and the rest. It would be win-win as we'd be buying their agricultural produce (stuff we can't produce ourselves) and they'd be able to get their agricultural industry going because they'd have a real customer.

[–]Kihr 4 points5 points  (3 children)

It is almost like self - reliance is better than handouts. I am against this type of aid, except perhaps after a natural disaster.

[–]potpourris 1 point2 points  (2 children)

Indeed. Aid after a natural disaster is actually called humanitarian aid. And it's a very short term, emergency intervention. It's conceived as a buffer so that the local government can have time to implement long term intervention.

It is almost like self - reliance is better than handouts

In the West, nobody's disputing that fact. Every country knows that their industries should be protected. But also, governments and economists perfectly know how to weaken foreign countries.

Western corporations and private interest groups have always disguised their wars on Africans, and other regions of the world. It's very sad but perfectly normal, otherwise Western population and their powerful institutions would never agree to the destruction and exploitation of foreign people.

Here are some of them:

  • "Christianization to save their souls". This way they had the powerful support of the Church, the population, and the government. Armies of missionaries were dispatched in the name of kings and queens. Those kings and queens represent God on earth, so you have to obey their laws or else real armies were dispatched to crush you.

  • with "civilizing them so they can progress", and also the red scare. You were crushed if you were not a "democracy".

  • since the 70s, it's all about long-term aid in Africa. But nobody's telling how aid is being used to control local governments and bend them to the will of their donors. Few are talking about how chronic aid has actually destroyed Africa. And the few countries that refuse aid, end up in big trouble (assassinations, sanctions, etc.)

We don't even need to talk about self-reliance. Just look at the basic rules of capitalism and economic. They all say you should avoid long term aid, and instead protect your key industries and markets until they're strong enough to compete internationally.

That's what Korea, Japan, Taiwan, China and Singapore did.

[–]Kihr 1 point2 points  (1 child)

I don't know enough about the history of Africa, I have little knowledge about it. The saying "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" may apply here. I don't think everyone is intending harm. I think the same issue applies here in the US regarding handouts as they end up crushing self-reliance. Temporary help is one thing, but long term help can perpetuate generational poverty, though education plays a role as well.

Either way, I think I will try and find some books on Africa.

[–]potpourris 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That's a good point. Thanks.

[–]Tuatha-an 19 points20 points  (3 children)

Europe just doesnt seem te care enough.

Why is it Europe's responsibility?

[–]oCerebuso 1 point2 points  (2 children)

The EU dumps excess agricultural products into Africa whilst also imposing large tarrifs on processed foods.

So drives down the price farmers can charge on raw produce whilst making it unprofitable to sell processed products like coffee and chocolate.

[–]fourredfruitstea 18 points19 points  (0 children)

Don't give them food? You're evil, causing them to die. Give them food? Still evil. Free trade? You're evil, causing them to die. Lack of free trade? Still evil.

[–]Blupster 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Tell me WHY ? Why must Italy's problem be my problem? are we one country no we are not we are in a union nothing more that does not mean all your problems are mine. We already did enough and most migrants run to Northern Europe as fast as they can.

[–]dcovenant 17 points18 points  (10 children)

ITaly is Europe but Europe don’t regulate migrants travel . France blocks at Ventimiglia board , Austria at Brenner board . Migrants are travelling into Europe i think they Will move out from ITaly . Greece and ITaly need help into the Mediteranean sea with a regulation different from the existent one , Dublin contract if I ‘m not wrong .

[–]Logitech0 40 points41 points  (8 children)

The BIG problem is those accords consider only the "refugees", and in Italy the refugees are only 10% of the immigrants arriving from the sea... in this moment the illegal immigrants are between 500/700k.

[–]OliverSparrow 17 points18 points  (1 child)

The European establishment has a world view that does not permit it to say what is patently obvious to politicians in the Mediterranean and Balkan countries, which is that their populations have had enough of migration. Perhaps they should not feel this, but they do and they are selecting governments who voice this opinion.

This leads to the current unfortunate situation. "Europe" gives out signals that it will accept migrants and so they come, often at great cost and personal privation. The result exacerbates internal political tensions in Europe itself. Plainly, though, Europe cannot take everyone who want to come to it any more than can America or Singapore. Equaly plainly, there are many horrible situations in the world that people want to flee. Those two facts do not admit to any comfortable situation, but the wealthy nations need to come to a new consensus on how to manage the situation.

[–]Sirpoppalot 8 points9 points  (0 children)

The more people come, the more right wing votes will build, more right wing governments will pop up.

The “left” in general has to respond with a reasonable solution, or they will lose the entire EU to the right.

And we know what that looks like.

[–]autotldr 12 points13 points  (0 children)

This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 67%. (I'm a bot)


A ship carrying more than 200 migrants is being blocked from entering Italian waters, the second time in two weeks that a new government in Rome has turned away a vessel carrying people rescued from drowning in the Mediterranean.

German rescue organisation Sea-Eye responded to the news on its Twitter feed, saying: "220 people die within three days and Matteo Salvini is talking about 'human flesh.' #horrific."

The new Italian government has intensified existing Italian complaints that the country is taking in more than its fair share of refugees thanks to the number of people fleeing Africa by boat in recent months, many of them heading to Italy, one of the closest points in Europe to their starting point in Libya.


Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Italian#1 people#2 Salvini#3 new#4 more#5

[–]OfEthicsAndStouts 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don't know if anyone can inform me on the matter since it's not mentioned in the article. What happens to the migrants when they are "taken in" by Italy? Are they put in some kind of temporary camps while they can be processed? And what happens then? Are officials trying to send them back to their countries of origin?

[–]familiarwobble 7 points8 points  (0 children)

good it's not up to italy to take them on, it's up to these countries to resolve their issues, with the help one of the biggest world evils, the usa because they are a primary causation in many situations

[–]alfredsbrown 4 points5 points  (10 children)

This is such a controversial issue. Sure you don't want to be responsible for these people without adequate support, but at the same time, can you imagine being one of the sailors having to turn them away?!

[–]BrainSlurper 39 points40 points  (7 children)

No, but I could imagine wanting to take them safely back to Northern Africa and then having numerous international policies stand in the way