5 ms·

The Desperate Journey of a Trafficked Girl

34 points by pmcpinto 10y ago

Oxitendwe 10y ago
Blatant propaganda in favor of third-world immigration to first-world countries. Missing of course, is the argument that their problems are our problems, and that massive immigration is good for the citizens of European countries themselves. >“If not for Italy, I promise, there would be civil war in Nigeria,” a migrant told me. So the rulers of Nigeria can do as they please, knowing that all of the dissenters are simply going to leave? Isn't that rather unfair to the rest of the Nigerians? Thank god they have these nice European countries to flee to, otherwise they'd be forced to actually try to fix the place they came from. >In 2010, he demanded that Europe pay him five billion euros per year; otherwise, he said, Libya could send so many migrants that “tomorrow Europe might no longer be European.” I hope I'm not the only one who thinks it's beyond pathetic that European countries have to pay other countries to protect their own borders. Why can't they just send them back? They have no moral obligation to accept these people. There is no refugee crisis, or migration crisis. There's only a crisis of European governments being too afraid (or too apathetic) to stand up for their own citizens.
- tim333 10y ago
  That's not the slant I got from the article. Writing about Nigerian gangs running prostitution rackets is not what you do to persuade people that mass immigration from there is the answer. I wonder if tech could help with the problems. If you had greater clarity on who was doing what to whom it could help the authorities.
- aaron695 10y ago
  > They have no moral obligation to accept these people. What right do you or any other person or entity have to restrict the movement of other homo-sapiens?
  - DarkKomunalec 10y ago
    Because your country is your home. People have a right to communally decide who they let in.
    - crusty 10y ago
      > Because your country is your home. Who says? Have you been hiding the rulebook to the game of Life: Spaceship Earth this whole time? It's threads like these that remind me HN is not a different collection of voices. It's the same mix of A-holes with a higher average net worths and grander visions of themselves. Root commenter: "Apathetic"? Suggesting a government is apathetic for its distinct efforts to not be apathetic towards others in need is rich... and a special kind of horrible.
      - DarkKomunalec 10y ago
        > Who says? Who says it's not? Don't the people living in a country have a right to decide what to do with it?
        aaron695 10y ago
        No, they don't. You can't just arbitrarily say huge chunks of planet are off limits because the people who fell out of a vagina there say so. You can enforce it with guns and an ongoing culture as we see with the current state of things, but that doesn't make it moral.
  - kbart 10y ago
    So, your home is always unlocked, door opened and anyone can simply walk in as they please?
tremorBacon 10y ago
Part of the world used to buy slaves from another part of the world, and a war was fought to halt the buying part. It doesn't seem like the selling part of the world has stopped selling. Wars aren't like they used to be though, and probably can't stop this sort of thing anymore. AK-47's and pick-up trucks create fluid conflicts that have no clear start or finish. So what settles the score in a lawless country? What stops irrational violence in its tracks?
- x1798DE 10y ago
  > Part of the world used to buy slaves from another part of the world, and a war was fought to halt the buying part. Do you mean the US civil war? The importation of African slaves was banned in the US well before the civil war was fought. This was much less controversial than ownership of slaves because it served as a protectionist measure for current slave owners (who, by then, had their own supply of American born slaves). See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_Prohibiting_Importation_of_Slaves https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_Prohibiting_Importation_of...

34 points by pmcpinto 10y ago

Blatant propaganda in favor of third-world immigration to first-world countries. Missing of course, is the argument that their problems are our problems, and that massive immigration is good for the citizens of European countries themselves. >“If not for Italy, I promise, there would be civil war in Nigeria,” a migrant told me. So the rulers of Nigeria can do as they please, knowing that all of the dissenters are simply going to leave? Isn't that rather unfair to the rest of the Nigerians? Thank god they have these nice European countries to flee to, otherwise they'd be forced to actually try to fix the place they came from. >In 2010, he demanded that Europe pay him five billion euros per year; otherwise, he said, Libya could send so many migrants that “tomorrow Europe might no longer be European.” I hope I'm not the only one who thinks it's beyond pathetic that European countries have to pay other countries to protect their own borders. Why can't they just send them back? They have no moral obligation to accept these people. There is no refugee crisis, or migration crisis. There's only a crisis of European governments being too afraid (or too apathetic) to stand up for their own citizens.

tim333 10y ago
That's not the slant I got from the article. Writing about Nigerian gangs running prostitution rackets is not what you do to persuade people that mass immigration from there is the answer. I wonder if tech could help with the problems. If you had greater clarity on who was doing what to whom it could help the authorities.
aaron695 10y ago
> They have no moral obligation to accept these people. What right do you or any other person or entity have to restrict the movement of other homo-sapiens?
- DarkKomunalec 10y ago
  Because your country is your home. People have a right to communally decide who they let in.
  - crusty 10y ago
    > Because your country is your home. Who says? Have you been hiding the rulebook to the game of Life: Spaceship Earth this whole time? It's threads like these that remind me HN is not a different collection of voices. It's the same mix of A-holes with a higher average net worths and grander visions of themselves. Root commenter: "Apathetic"? Suggesting a government is apathetic for its distinct efforts to not be apathetic towards others in need is rich... and a special kind of horrible.
    - DarkKomunalec 10y ago
      > Who says? Who says it's not? Don't the people living in a country have a right to decide what to do with it?
      - aaron695 10y ago
        No, they don't. You can't just arbitrarily say huge chunks of planet are off limits because the people who fell out of a vagina there say so. You can enforce it with guns and an ongoing culture as we see with the current state of things, but that doesn't make it moral.
- kbart 10y ago
  So, your home is always unlocked, door opened and anyone can simply walk in as they please?

tremorBacon 10y ago

Part of the world used to buy slaves from another part of the world, and a war was fought to halt the buying part. It doesn't seem like the selling part of the world has stopped selling. Wars aren't like they used to be though, and probably can't stop this sort of thing anymore. AK-47's and pick-up trucks create fluid conflicts that have no clear start or finish. So what settles the score in a lawless country? What stops irrational violence in its tracks?

x1798DE 10y ago
> Part of the world used to buy slaves from another part of the world, and a war was fought to halt the buying part. Do you mean the US civil war? The importation of African slaves was banned in the US well before the civil war was fought. This was much less controversial than ownership of slaves because it served as a protectionist measure for current slave owners (who, by then, had their own supply of American born slaves). See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_Prohibiting_Importation_of_Slaves https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_Prohibiting_Importation_of...