Italy struggling to cope with influx of African illegal immigrant boats

[-:Undertaker:-]

Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott has stepped in.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...d-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

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.

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/arti...d-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

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; 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/n...-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?