10 ms·

"Experts condemn move to aerial surveillance as an abrogation of ‘responsibility to save lives’" The EU does not have a duty to just let in anyone who shows up

"Experts condemn move to aerial surveillance as an abrogation of ‘responsibility to save lives’" The EU does not have a duty to just let in anyone who shows up. It's morally irresponsible to encourage people to make the dangerous trek to pay smugglers who put them on inflated crafts unable to make the journey that depend on them getting picked up by the coast guard. As Australia's example shows, the way to stop drownings is to give no benefits to taking the journey.

sneak 7y ago
Another way to stop drownings is to go and pick people up with rescue boats. There is no disadvantage to allowing them to enter the EU.
- devit 7y ago
  There is a disadvantage if it turns out that these people make on average a negative contribution to the economy (i.e. if the aid they need and damage they cause via crimes is higher than the surplus created by them aiding others, and producing useful labor, good and services), which would mean that they make the people already there worse off and worser off the more of them are allowed to enter. I'm not sure whether they are a positive or negative contribution, and this also depends on how good the accepting state is at integration and education.
- literallycancer 7y ago
  People without work permits are either dependent on government support or contribute to worsening working conditions for everyone by working illegally. More resources have to be spent to make them productive. In the best case, taking in random people off the boats is still worse than a capability based immigration policy that encourages people with qualification to immigrate safely.
- baud147258 7y ago
  Or they could bring them back to their port of departure on the South of the Mediterranean, so they can try to enter legally. (or better not at all.)
unethical_ban 7y ago
It is a lot more complex than you make it seem. Your position can be rephrased as "It is better to let refugees drown in the Mediterranean than think Europe might welcome more of them." I agree - it is likely over the long term that the more dangerous and hopeless the journey, the fewer might attempt it. So now, we pit the "moral responsibility" to Europe to minimize population growth via immigration vs. the moral responsibility to save the lives of those in your backyard who have risked it to get there. OR the EU could make/force an agreement that Libya/Algeria/Morocco take back migrants recovered in the Mediterranean.
- orbifold 7y ago
  It certainly didn’t help that the US, France, Italy and the UK deliberately destabilized some of these countries (Libya in particular)
  - wtdata 7y ago
    This is the new version of Western Exceptionalism: Everything - bad - that happens in the world, is always fault of Europe or the US. The people that live in those countries, the warlords they support, the wars they fight, the human atrocities they commit, their ethnically motivated conflicts, are never their fault, we are supposed to treat them as infants when it comes to all the shortcomings of their actions.
    - thefounder 7y ago
      To keep it short, if you don't want migrants think twice before starting a war(i.e is it worth it? What after we win?) or just stop pretending you care about human rights(i.e people dying of hunger, abuse etc) even if you are indirectly responsible. I agree with you that many countries had flawed leadership to begin with it's not really the case with many others(i.e much of the middle east). Removing the government of another country by military force and destroying the social and physical infrastructure is the direct reason for the current situation. Arming various extremist groups does not help either. As we know Al-Qaeda was armed and trained by the U.S in the first place. Why did US invade Iraq? We know it's for the oil now but at least it should have had the decency to provide security/safety transition to a democracy in exchange for their resources. Not to mention that US vets their leaders/administration. They are not infants but have little choice in the face of the world's most powerful country/countries.
xwdv 7y ago
I wonder who the “experts” condemning this are, and what they are experts in. I’m an expert, and I support the decision.
- codezero 7y ago
  Who are you and what are you an expert in? The article cites: Gabriele Iacovino as the expert. His bio via google translate https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&nv=1&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=auto&sp=nmt4&tl=en&u=https://www.cesi-italia.org/staff/2/gabriele-iacovino&xid=17259,15700021,15700186,15700191,15700256,15700259,15700262,15700265&usg=ALkJrhjRvSjZYM_428-SNpsZ6f7Zp2eHlw https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&...
- keanzu 7y ago
  Experts are people who, by agreeing with the writers premise, have demonstrated their knowledge and expertise. You are definitely not an expert; at least not inasmuch as the term is used in this article by this writer.

sneak 7y ago

Another way to stop drownings is to go and pick people up with rescue boats. There is no disadvantage to allowing them to enter the EU.

devit 7y ago
There is a disadvantage if it turns out that these people make on average a negative contribution to the economy (i.e. if the aid they need and damage they cause via crimes is higher than the surplus created by them aiding others, and producing useful labor, good and services), which would mean that they make the people already there worse off and worser off the more of them are allowed to enter. I'm not sure whether they are a positive or negative contribution, and this also depends on how good the accepting state is at integration and education.
literallycancer 7y ago
People without work permits are either dependent on government support or contribute to worsening working conditions for everyone by working illegally. More resources have to be spent to make them productive. In the best case, taking in random people off the boats is still worse than a capability based immigration policy that encourages people with qualification to immigrate safely.
baud147258 7y ago
Or they could bring them back to their port of departure on the South of the Mediterranean, so they can try to enter legally. (or better not at all.)

unethical_ban 7y ago

It is a lot more complex than you make it seem. Your position can be rephrased as "It is better to let refugees drown in the Mediterranean than think Europe might welcome more of them." I agree - it is likely over the long term that the more dangerous and hopeless the journey, the fewer might attempt it. So now, we pit the "moral responsibility" to Europe to minimize population growth via immigration vs. the moral responsibility to save the lives of those in your backyard who have risked it to get there. OR the EU could make/force an agreement that Libya/Algeria/Morocco take back migrants recovered in the Mediterranean.

orbifold 7y ago
It certainly didn’t help that the US, France, Italy and the UK deliberately destabilized some of these countries (Libya in particular)
- wtdata 7y ago
  This is the new version of Western Exceptionalism: Everything - bad - that happens in the world, is always fault of Europe or the US. The people that live in those countries, the warlords they support, the wars they fight, the human atrocities they commit, their ethnically motivated conflicts, are never their fault, we are supposed to treat them as infants when it comes to all the shortcomings of their actions.
  - thefounder 7y ago
    To keep it short, if you don't want migrants think twice before starting a war(i.e is it worth it? What after we win?) or just stop pretending you care about human rights(i.e people dying of hunger, abuse etc) even if you are indirectly responsible. I agree with you that many countries had flawed leadership to begin with it's not really the case with many others(i.e much of the middle east). Removing the government of another country by military force and destroying the social and physical infrastructure is the direct reason for the current situation. Arming various extremist groups does not help either. As we know Al-Qaeda was armed and trained by the U.S in the first place. Why did US invade Iraq? We know it's for the oil now but at least it should have had the decency to provide security/safety transition to a democracy in exchange for their resources. Not to mention that US vets their leaders/administration. They are not infants but have little choice in the face of the world's most powerful country/countries.

xwdv 7y ago

I wonder who the “experts” condemning this are, and what they are experts in. I’m an expert, and I support the decision.

codezero 7y ago
Who are you and what are you an expert in? The article cites: Gabriele Iacovino as the expert. His bio via google translate https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&nv=1&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=auto&sp=nmt4&tl=en&u=https://www.cesi-italia.org/staff/2/gabriele-iacovino&xid=17259,15700021,15700186,15700191,15700256,15700259,15700262,15700265&usg=ALkJrhjRvSjZYM_428-SNpsZ6f7Zp2eHlw https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&...
keanzu 7y ago
Experts are people who, by agreeing with the writers premise, have demonstrated their knowledge and expertise. You are definitely not an expert; at least not inasmuch as the term is used in this article by this writer.