Italy struggling to cope with influx of African illegal immigrant boats

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/04/20/eu-leaders-called-to-summit-as-more-boats-sink-in-mediterranean/

Leaders of European nations called to summit as more boats sink in Mediterranean


http://media.breitbart.com/media/2015/04/Migrants-on-boat-640x372.jpg



Distress calls have been received from at least two more boats in the Mediterranean carrying migrants, with reports of 20 further fatalities, including children. The Italian coast guard is believed to be asking commercial vessels in the area to respond to the calls as it does not have the resources to do so itself. Meanwhile in Luxembourg, ministers from the EU Member States are meeting to discuss what can be done.

The International Organisation for Migration received a call at its offices in Rome this morning advising it of two further shipwrecks taking place in the Mediterranean, following the sinking of a ship over the weekend which is believed to have caused around 700 fatalities.

“The caller said that there are over 300 people on his boat and it is already sinking, Joel Millman, a spokesman for the IOM Rome office, told Sky News (http://news.sky.com/story/1468591/distress-call-from-sinking-migrant-boat-in-med). “He has reported fatalities, 20 at least.” His colleague Federico Soda added that the coastguard had been contacted but “they do not have the assets to conduct these rescues right now. The weekend incident has tied up a lot of resources. The coast guard will probably try to redirect commercial ships to the area.”

One of the boats is an inflatable life raft. Both are floating near each other off the coast of Libya in international waters. A third boat carrying migrants has run aground off the Greek island of Rhodes. Video footage shows passengers jumping off the stricken vessel and swimming ashore as the coast guard helps them to safety. A child wearing a life jacket is lifted onto dry land. But a man, woman and baby have all been pulled from the water after drowning.

As bodies continue to wash ashore in Malta from the disaster over the weekend (http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/04/19/over-700-african-migrants-feared-dead-in-catastrophic-sea-disaster/), ministers have begun to convene in Luxembourg to discuss possible responses to the crisis. Foreign ministers were due to meet routinely today to discuss Libya and Yemen; they are now being joined by interior ministers for the member states to address the question of migration by sea specifically.

Back in the UK, Prime Minister David Cameron has blamed the traffickers for the scenes, calling for stronger action in the Mediterranean and more aid spending in the middle east and Africa to stabilise turbulent countries.

“These are very dark days for Europe,” he said. “It really is horrific, the scenes that we have all witnessed on our television screens, the loss of life, and we should put the blame squarely at the appalling human traffickers who are the ones managing and promoting and selling this trade in human life, this trade in human death, that we now need to do everything we can to try and stop.

“I believe what’s necessary is a comprehensive approach. We have got to deal with the instability in the countries concerned, we have got to go after the human traffickers and criminals that are running this trade.

“We have got to make sure that there is an element of search and rescue, but that can only be one part of this.

“We should use all the resources that we have, including for instance our aid budget, which can play a role in trying to stabilise countries and stop people from travelling.

“In terms of where people are coming from, it’s striking they are coming from all over Africa and other parts of the Middle East.

“But I think the comprehensive approach, using everything that we’ve got, starting with this meeting today in Europe, is what is required, and Britain of course can play a role in helping to deliver all of these decisions.”

Yesterday Ukip’s leader Nigel Farage blamed Mr Cameron himself for destabilising Libya in the first place, telling the BBC “It was the European response that caused this problem in the first place. The fanaticism of Sarkozy and Cameron to bomb Libya. They have completely destabilized Libya, to turn it into a country with much savagery, to turn it into a place where for Christians the place is now virtually impossible. We ought to be honest and say we have directly caused this problem.”

This is a growing problem and the Italian Republic is literally being swamped. And it's a Europe-wide issue so it needs co-operation.

Here's my proposal, and based on what the Abbott Ministry of Australia did when they had this problem.

1) Have Italy set up holding centres on the Tunisian (preferable) or Libyan coast for any caught.
2) If boats are found out to sea, tow the boat back to Libya and repeat this for as long as it takes.
3) Under no circumstances should any of them be allowed to stay on Italian soil.

Great Britain could help with this in that it'd be great training for the Royal Navy off the coast of Gibraltar and the Cyrus base and so we also don't run the risk of these undesirables coming to Britain through the ridiculous EU open borders (as long as we're under such a scheme for now). In Australia they ignored the hand wringers including the Labor Party who wanted to let them all stay and towed them to either an island or Papua New Guinea.

Not only have the boats stopped and Australia doesn't have to accept these people into the country, it has also stopped the deaths as they've now got the message and know that it isn't worth trying to reach Australia as they have no hope what so ever of attaining stay/asylum.

Thoughts?

[GommeInc]

"Undesirables" makes it sounds like they're vile, disease ridden or dangerous. Not a good choice of word there :P

That said, it seems reasonable to build centres in Libya to support these asylum seekers and the matter should be an EU matter taken seriously. Italy was doing a good job before the EU took over, but the EU should have done the same or a better job than the Italians as it shouldn't be their burden to bare.

I think it's a shame that Libya, Syria et al are in such a mess that this is the only resort for many of these people and that crossing is not safe at all.

[FlyingJesus]

So horrible that people are living in such conditions that they find this risk preferable to their current lives :( I think although obviously you can't just tell people that once they've made it they can stay and well done on the top effort put in, it shouldn't necessarily be the immigrants themselves who are targeted here - it is the traffickers who are firstly making all of this possible and secondly carrying out these tasks in such unsafe ways. Cracking down on the criminal gangs running the ships and making it so that the profit for them outweighs the risks is the more necessary action and would do more to halt the situation rather than accepting that it's going to keep happening at this rate and paying out for the return journey so they can all try again the next week

[Firehorse]

The EU/UK/US governments shouldn't have interfered with Gaddafi, Assad, Hussein; this wouldn't be happening otherwise.

In every case their respective countries would have remained better off and without such a scale of bloodshed.

Our government defends its own actions which were part of the cause of this.

I have to say I agree with Nigel Farage on this issue: we should have kept our nose out of it and should in future keep our nose out of other countries' domestic affairs. We don't welcome other countries' governments criticising the way we go about our lives so why should ours criticise (and attack) others when they're not posing a threat to us?

[AgnesIO]

Terming them as 'undesirables' really shows you up for what you are, Dan.

Whilst it is obviously hugely problematic, it isn't the migrants you need to prevent - you need to hunt for the smugglers that are making literally MILLIONS OF DOLLARS from this dangerous, sickening route. If the migrants are fearing for their lives, they will keep trying to get these boats; when are you going to learn that? They won't care if it takes 4,000 attempts. The smugglers will keep going until you eliminate them.

---

Hashterix, I know you struggle to contend with this, but we are all human beings; when one human being is guilty of slaughtering hundreds of thousands of others, I see nothing wrong with trying to eliminate them (a la Hussein).

[-:Undertaker:-]

Terming them as 'undesirables' really shows you up for what you are, Dan.

They are undesirable.

We don't want them.
We don't know who they are.
We don't know if they are criminals.
We don't know what diseases they are carrying.

In any case, I was referring more so to this http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/muslim-migrants-accused-of-throwing-christians-overboard-during-row-on-boat-from-libya-to-italy-10184025.html


Italian police have arrested a group of Muslim migrants who allegedly threw 12 Christians overboard in a religious hate-fuelled mass murder while crossing the Mediterranean. The 15 arrested people were on a boat from Libya crammed with more than 100 people by human traffickers.

Coming over to Italy and then on to wherever. How great.


Whilst it is obviously hugely problematic, it isn't the migrants you need to prevent - you need to hunt for the smugglers that are making literally MILLIONS OF DOLLARS from this dangerous, sickening route. If the migrants are fearing for their lives, they will keep trying to get these boats; when are you going to learn that? They won't care if it takes 4,000 attempts. The smugglers will keep going until you eliminate them.

If security services can get hold of the smugglers, then sure. But the smugglers are being paid by the migrants, if you make it clear that none of them have a hope in hell of staying in Italy or elsewhere and will be immediately towed back to the African continent then you will stop the incentive for them to come just as Australia has done so.


Hashterix, I know you struggle to contend with this, but we are all human beings; when one human being is guilty of slaughtering hundreds of thousands of others, I see nothing wrong with trying to eliminate them (a la Hussein).

Can we stop with the "we are all human beings" new age waffle? It sounds lovely but doesn't mean a thing. Let's deal in reality.

You've said here that you supported removing Gaddafi, yet now in his place and in the places of the Ba'athist regimes in Iraq and Syria you now have hardline Islamists running what is left of the country which is one thousand times worse than what was there before. How many failed foreign policy wars and coups will it take for liberal interventionalists like yourself to wake up and realise you've made a mess of virtually everything you've touched? Who can honestly sit here and argue that Libya is better off without Gaddafi or Iraq without Hussein?

It's like with the hardline Shah of Iran being replaced with the evil Mullahs. Would you be for removing King Salman of Saudi Arabia?

[Firehorse]

Hashterix, I know you struggle to contend with this, but we are all human beings; when one human being is guilty of slaughtering hundreds of thousands of others, I see nothing wrong with trying to eliminate them (a la Hussein).

Saddam Hussein was convicted of murdering 148 people 24 years earlier in retaliation for an attempt to assassinate him. 148 people is NOTHING compared to the numbers killed once Saddam was removed from power. 10x as many people are dying daily just from drowning almost 10 years later let alone the slaughter being carried out by groups like ISIS who have power thanks to the demise of leaders such as Hussein.

Like cutting one's nose to spite one's face.

[AgnesIO]

They are undesirable.

We don't want them.
We don't know who they are.
We don't know if they are criminals.
We don't know what diseases they are carrying.

In any case, I was referring more so to this http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/muslim-migrants-accused-of-throwing-christians-overboard-during-row-on-boat-from-libya-to-italy-10184025.html



Coming over to Italy and then on to wherever. How great.



If security services can get hold of the smugglers, then sure. But the smugglers are being paid by the migrants, if you make it clear that none of them have a hope in hell of staying in Italy or elsewhere and will be immediately towed back to the African continent then you will stop the incentive for them to come just as Australia has done so.



Can we stop with the "we are all human beings" new age waffle? It sounds lovely but doesn't mean a thing. Let's deal in reality.

You've said here that you supported removing Gaddafi, yet now in his place and in the places of the Ba'athist regimes in Iraq and Syria you now have hardline Islamists running what is left of the country which is one thousand times worse than what was there before. How many failed foreign policy wars and coups will it take for liberal interventionalists like yourself to wake up and realise you've made a mess of virtually everything you've touched? Who can honestly sit here and argue that Libya is better off without Gaddafi or Iraq without Hussein?

It's like with the hardline Shah of Iran being replaced with the evil Mullahs. Would you be for removing King Salman of Saudi Arabia?

Sorry Dan, but you and I have very, very, very different ideas on the world as one. I know you live in a small little world where you like to pretend that you are very, very different to every other person on earth, but sadly, you are not. Virtually all human beings want the same things in life, the world isn't against you Dan; it's time you realised that. Yeah, Australia has done an incredible job at preventing humans fleeing for their lifes, this TED Talk shows that. (http://www.ted.com/talks/barat_ali_batoor_my_desperate_journey_with_a_human _smuggler)

The migrants pay the smugglers as they feel they have no other choice. None. Life or death. I can tell you right now if I was ever in the situation where I thought I was 100% going to die unless I used all my savings to get on a boat where I have a 70% chance of dying, I'd be on that boat before you could say 'stop'.


Saddam Hussein was convicted of murdering 148 people 24 years earlier in retaliation for an attempt to assassinate him. 148 people is NOTHING compared to the numbers killed once Saddam was removed from power. 10x as many people are dying daily just from drowning almost 10 years later let alone the slaughter being carried out by groups like ISIS who have power thanks to the demise of leaders such as Hussein.

Like cutting one's nose to spite one's face.

If you believe Saddam Hussein only murdered 148 people in his entire time as leader then you will believe anything.

[Firehorse]

If you believe Saddam Hussein only murdered 148 people in his entire time as leader then you will believe anything.

That is the real statistic upon which he was charged and sentenced to death.

His regime killed more, but nowhere near the current level of slaughter being carried out by ISIS. In Syria alone ISIS have slaughtered in a year what Hussein's regime did in 15.

Do you know the number of migrants crossing the med every week at the moment? It's approximately 10,000. Do you know how many of them drown? A significant number.

Clearly if so many people are migrating now that were not migrating previously is serves as very strong evidence that the situation is worse now than it was under the felled leaders.

Replacing Saddam Hussein with ISIS is like replacing a beehive with a wasp hive.

[AgnesIO]

That is the real statistic upon which he was charged and sentenced to death.

His regime killed more, but nowhere near the current level of slaughter being carried out by ISIS. In Syria alone ISIS have slaughtered in a year what Hussein's regime did in 15.

Do you know the number of migrants crossing the med every week at the moment? It's approximately 10,000. Do you know how many of them drown? A significant number.

Clearly if so many people are migrating now that were not migrating previously is serves as very strong evidence that the situation is worse now than it was under the felled leaders.

Replacing Saddam Hussein with ISIS is like replacing a beehive with a wasp hive.

His regime killed more. Glad you agree that Hussein is responsible for more than 148 people.

I know that the number crossing is huge, and don't think I am suggesting that the current situation is good. It is terrible. However, the problem here is the smugglers.

The reason thousands are crossing now is because of the change in weather. The number always increases when the weather improves - it isn't just that their situation happens to have got significantly worse in April 2015. Of course, it has worsened over the rise of ISIS - but ISIS has not risen because of Obama, Cameron and Hollande.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott has stepped in.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3048375/If-want-stop-migrants-crossing-Mediterranean-don-t-let-asylum-seekers-set-foot-land-Australian-Prime-Minister-urges-EU-adopt-tough-policies-proved-success.html

'If you want to stop migrants crossing the Mediterranean, don't let them set foot on land': Australian PM urges EU to adopt their tough policies... which HAVE proved a success


http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/04/21/09/27C2041900000578-3048375-image-a-13_1429603276455.jpg



Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott has urged the EU to introduce tough measures to stop desperate migrants attempting to make the perilous sea voyage from North Africa to Europe. Mr Abbott, whose conservative government introduced a military-led operation to turn back boats carrying asylum-seekers before they reach Australia, said it was the only way to stop deaths.

While Mr Abbott's controversial policy has proved successful, with the nation going nearly 18 months with virtually no asylum-seeker boat arrivals and no reported deaths at sea, human rights advocates say it violates Australia's international obligations. His comments came after a fishing vessel crammed with migrants capsized off the coast of Libya in the early hours of Sunday morning, leaving up to 900 dead, and as EU foreign and interior ministers met in Luxembourg to discuss ways to stem the flood of people trying to reach Europe.


Outlining his views on preventing the deaths of migrants in the Mediterranean Sea, Mr Abbott told reporters: 'We have got hundreds, maybe thousands of people drowning in the attempts to get from Africa to Europe.' The 'only way you can stop the deaths is in fact to stop the boats', he added. The Australian Prime Minister's own hard-lines policy on migrants are highly controversial, with navy ships intercepting boats and turning them back to where they transited from, mostly Indonesia.

If the migrants' countries of origin cannot be established, those on board are sent to offshore processing camps in the Pacific islands of Papua New Guinea and Nauru. Before the policy was introduced, boats were arriving almost daily with hundreds of people drowning en route. But over the past 18 months there have been virtually no asylum-seeker boat arrivals and no reported deaths at sea. 'We must resolve to stop this terrible problem and the only way you can stop the deaths is to stop the people-smuggling trade,' Mr Abbott said. 'That's why it is so urgent that the countries of Europe adopt very strong policies that will end the people-smuggling trade across the Mediterranean,' he added.




He's right.


Sorry Dan, but you and I have very, very, very different ideas on the world as one. I know you live in a small little world where you like to pretend that you are very, very different to every other person on earth, but sadly, you are not. Virtually all human beings want the same things in life, the world isn't against you Dan; it's time you realised that. Yeah, Australia has done an incredible job at preventing humans fleeing for their lifes, this TED Talk shows that. (http://www.ted.com/talks/barat_ali_batoor_my_desperate_journey_with_a_human _smuggler)

So Australia and Italy should accept all of these people? Is that what you are arguing?


The migrants pay the smugglers as they feel they have no other choice. None. Life or death. I can tell you right now if I was ever in the situation where I thought I was 100% going to die unless I used all my savings to get on a boat where I have a 70% chance of dying, I'd be on that boat before you could say 'stop'.

But the reality is, no matter what the migrants may feel or want, it isn't up to them. The Italian Republic belongs to the Italian people, not migrants from Chad or southern Africa. The fact is that thousands crossing isn't acceptable and whilst we continue to go soft on them, as Australia once did, the numbers trying to get over are only going to increase which will simply increase the death toll.

Do you agree with an Australian style response (as above) as I do to this?


The reason thousands are crossing now is because of the change in weather. The number always increases when the weather improves - it isn't just that their situation happens to have got significantly worse in April 2015. Of course, it has worsened over the rise of ISIS - but ISIS has not risen because of Obama, Cameron and Hollande.

Islamic State would not exist had the Saddam Hussein regime been not overthrown and Assad weakened.

When you and others support toppling these regimes, do you not ask yourselves as to what will replace them?

[AgnesIO]

Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott has stepped in.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3048375/If-want-stop-migrants-crossing-Mediterranean-don-t-let-asylum-seekers-set-foot-land-Australian-Prime-Minister-urges-EU-adopt-tough-policies-proved-success.html

'If you want to stop migrants crossing the Mediterranean, don't let them set foot on land': Australian PM urges EU to adopt their tough policies... which HAVE proved a success


http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/04/21/09/27C2041900000578-3048375-image-a-13_1429603276455.jpg






He's right.



So Australia and Italy should accept all of these people? Is that what you are arguing?



But the reality is, no matter what the migrants may feel or want, it isn't up to them. The Italian Republic belongs to the Italian people, not migrants from Chad or southern Africa. The fact is that thousands crossing isn't acceptable and whilst we continue to go soft on them, as Australia once did, the numbers trying to get over are only going to increase which will simply increase the death toll.

Do you agree with an Australian style response (as above) as I do to this?



Islamic State would not exist had the Saddam Hussein regime been not overthrown and Assad weakened.

When you and others support toppling these regimes, do you not ask yourselves as to what will replace them?

No, I do not think that the Australian's or Italian's should just accept everyone. I just think you - and others - need to just show one tiny ounce of sympathy towards people who are truly desperate with no idea where their lives are heading. The people you - and others - should be looking to target and destroy are the gangs running these operations (and becoming extremely rich out of it) - not the people running for their lives.

Islamic State would exist. How big it would have become is obviously very debatable, but these people haven't come from no where.

[Firehorse]

No, I do not think that the Australian's or Italian's should just accept everyone. I just think you - and others - need to just show one tiny ounce of sympathy towards people who are truly desperate with no idea where their lives are heading. The people you - and others - should be looking to target and destroy are the gangs running these operations (and becoming extremely rich out of it) - not the people running for their lives.

Islamic State would exist. How big it would have become is obviously very debatable, but these people haven't come from no where.

You're making no sense whatsoever. Islamic State would not exist if the Arab Spring had not taken place, the group rose out of opportunity through government destabilisation.

Yes, they're humans, so they can be shown sympathy through aid provided via the UN. There are many places where there is safety; Europe is a soft target where they believe they'll make more money and therefore it is a preferred destination, which although granted you cannot blame individuals for, you can blame the system for allowing it.

Morocco is a safe country, Tunisia is a safe country, Saudi Arabia is a safe country, the UAE is a safe country, Kuwait is a safe country, Qatar is a safe country, Egypt is a safe country, Algeria is a safe country - yet they're not migrating to those countries.

The Geneva conventions state that those fleeing conflict must seek asylum in the first safe country they come to. European countries are not the first safe destinations.

Once you've reached a safe country you're an asylum seeker, once you go further than that safe country without going through the correct legal processes you are by all means an illegal migrant.

Recognise that these migrants are not simply fleeing war, but taking advantage of the opportunity granted by their displacement to end up not in a nearby safe country, but to migrate to another continent altogether for perceived financial gain.

[Kardan]

Hashterix; it's all fair and well to say that 'this wouldn't have happened if we took part in illegal wars' etc. but sadly that can't be changed now and it won't solve the issue.

Action needs to be taken because the current situation is not good for anyone involved. I agree though that if I was in the same situation as the people involved, I'd also be on the boats.

[-:Undertaker:-]

No, I do not think that the Australian's or Italian's should just accept everyone. I just think you - and others - need to just show one tiny ounce of sympathy towards people who are truly desperate with no idea where their lives are heading. The people you - and others - should be looking to target and destroy are the gangs running these operations (and becoming extremely rich out of it) - not the people running for their lives.

Islamic State would exist. How big it would have become is obviously very debatable, but these people haven't come from no where.

Yeah yeah Mr Compassionate... but what you don't seem to realise is that unless you stop the flow of people coming on these boats by making it clear that they will not be provided asylum or stay in these countries then the numbers will continue to grow and there will be more deaths.

So who is the one who is really being compassionate? It isn't you.


@Hashterix (http://www.habboxforum.com/member.php?u=37222); it's all fair and well to say that 'this wouldn't have happened if we took part in illegal wars' etc. but sadly that can't be changed now and it won't solve the issue.

Well yes it is fair to say that and keep saying it because the people who keep ordering these ridiculous foreign adventures and destabising the likes of the Assad Government in Syria are still in positions of power and they haven't been punished for it.

[AgnesIO]

Yeah yeah Mr Compassionate... but what you don't seem to realise is that unless you stop the flow of people coming on these boats by making it clear that they will not be provided asylum or stay in these countries then the numbers will continue to grow and there will be more deaths.

So who is the one who is really being compassionate? It isn't you.



Well yes it is fair to say that and keep saying it because the people who keep ordering these ridiculous foreign adventures and destabising the likes of the Assad Government in Syria are still in positions of power and they haven't been punished for it.

Wait, you think if you stopped some arriving that more wouldn't keep trying? What is so difficult to understand? It is go or risk death. These people are told that they will have a better life over in Europe. You can sell a lot to an uneducated person pretty easily. All of these deaths and people are still taking the risk; fools like you saying 'please don't come' is not going to stop them if the serious risk of death isn't.

- - - Updated - - -


You're making no sense whatsoever. Islamic State would not exist if the Arab Spring had not taken place, the group rose out of opportunity through government destabilisation.

Yes, they're humans, so they can be shown sympathy through aid provided via the UN. There are many places where there is safety; Europe is a soft target where they believe they'll make more money and therefore it is a preferred destination, which although granted you cannot blame individuals for, you can blame the system for allowing it.

Morocco is a safe country, Tunisia is a safe country, Saudi Arabia is a safe country, the UAE is a safe country, Kuwait is a safe country, Qatar is a safe country, Egypt is a safe country, Algeria is a safe country - yet they're not migrating to those countries.

The Geneva conventions state that those fleeing conflict must seek asylum in the first safe country they come to. European countries are not the first safe destinations.

Once you've reached a safe country you're an asylum seeker, once you go further than that safe country without going through the correct legal processes you are by all means an illegal migrant.

Recognise that these migrants are not simply fleeing war, but taking advantage of the opportunity granted by their displacement to end up not in a nearby safe country, but to migrate to another continent altogether for perceived financial gain.

Looks like Nigel Farage disagrees with you. http://www.itv.com/news/2015-04-20/nigel-farage-tells-itv-news-i-would-happily-accept-christian-refugees-into-britain/

[Firehorse]

I agree though that if I was in the same situation as the people involved, I'd also be on the boats.

Your funeral, I wouldn't be on one of those boats; many other safer options.



Looks like Nigel Farage disagrees with you. http://www.itv.com/news/2015-04-20/nigel-farage-tells-itv-news-i-would-happily-accept-christian-refugees-into-britain/

Nothing wrong with a pre-determined quota of refugees, and you're only reading what you want to read without fully comprehending what he's saying. He's talking about how Christians in Libya are now finding themselves in a very difficult position due to the hostility from Muslims. Maybe you didn't do Geography in school but all the surrounding countries are Muslim countries.

Nigel's statement came following the news of Muslims killing Christians on one of these illegal vessels bound for Europe: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-32337725

You're using his quote entirely out of context.

[AgnesIO]

Your funeral, I wouldn't be on one of those boats; many other safer options.



Nothing wrong with a pre-determined quota of refugees, and you're only reading what you want to read without fully comprehending what he's saying. He's talking about how Christians in Libya are now finding themselves in a very difficult position due to the hostility from Muslims. Maybe you didn't do Geography in school but all the surrounding countries are Muslim countries.

Nigel's statement came following the news of Muslims killing Christians on one of these illegal vessels bound for Europe: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-32337725

You're using his quote entirely out of context.

OH OF COURSE, I FORGOT ALL THE COUNTRIES BETWEEN THE UK AND AFRICA ARE MUSLIM. SILLY ME.

[Firehorse]

OH OF COURSE, I FORGOT ALL THE COUNTRIES BETWEEN THE UK AND AFRICA ARE MUSLIM. SILLY ME.

Like I said: predetermined quota. If you take in refugees having flown them from the country they are fleeing you have control over the numbers and can determine the resources required. If they just rock up on your doorstep in the tens of thousands every week then you simply cannot plan for it and are not best placed to help them.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Wait, you think if you stopped some arriving that more wouldn't keep trying? What is so difficult to understand? It is go or risk death. These people are told that they will have a better life over in Europe. You can sell a lot to an uneducated person pretty easily. All of these deaths and people are still taking the risk; fools like you saying 'please don't come' is not going to stop them if the serious risk of death isn't.

I'm not asking them to not come, I am saying make it clear that attempting to come here will be fruitless like Australia did. These people spend thousands trying to get here, and if zero migrants are accepted into Italy then it will be clear that it is fruitless and the smugglers will then have no or less demand than presently.

If you don't do what Australia did then the numbers will keep increasing, leading to more deaths. Is that what we want?

[GommeInc]

Ship them to America or Britain. It's their fault for letting what happened to Syria and other countries happen in the first place.

[Earthquake]

Why not use some boats, load them all up on there and send them all back?

[-:Undertaker:-]

Ship them to America or Britain. It's their fault for letting what happened to Syria and other countries happen in the first place.

Or more specifically (and fair on the rest of us) 10 Downing Street, Primrose Hill, Islington and Witney.

[GommeInc]

Or more specifically (and fair on the rest of us) 10 Downing Street, Primrose Hill, Islington and Witney.
I'm sure there's plenty of space for these victims of Western intervention :P The White House garden is rather sizable too :P

[FlyingJesus]

Watching Labyrinth, maybe Italy should take some cues from Bowie's kingdom