How to close the Mediterranean route for mass migration

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Catfish

Yes, i wrote in a provoking tone to make some people think.
And yes, not all problems are, or were, caused by "The West".
But partially, 'we' still are responsible.

- The colonial efforts of most "Empires did not go down well with the invaded countries, i think we can accept that?

- That they came out of this situation as colonies is not necessarily the goodwill of their former rulling empire, but of a lot of struggle – even in India. That some behaved in awful ways and killing lots of their own people along the line, yes. Some learned from us how to do this efficiently.

- When the continent of Africa was divided between those empires, namely England, France, Belgium, Germany, there were artificial borders "erected", straight lines parting ethnicities and constructing "nations" now consisting of different tribes, religions, and opinions. In former times an ethnicity just moved and changed the region it lived in, for better food, evading war, or religious quarrels.

The ruling elite of such new artificial "nation" may consist of a tribe that hates another lower-ranked tribe, and wages war against it. So they flee (=immigrant problem of neighbouring "nation" and so forth), or they are being killed. Civil war, as we just saw in Rwanda, but it is going on in a lot of those "nations".

No doubt, Africa has problems, and aggression and warlords have existed before the colonial clash.
However how belgian king Leopold managed his personal colonies by killing appx. 40,000,000 africans in the process, or how Mr. Rhodes ran his "Rhodesia" (lmao) has forever shaped Africa. Not that most people here even know about it. There are still a lot of files of colonial times stored away from the public e.g. in England, to "not upset the population"



No doubt. Some will indeed flee before attackers and jump into boats for their dear life, but the major portion plans it, and moves illegally, by our standards.

What makes a living person illegal? You are born in Rwanda or Sudan, and have no papers (due to those artificial borders and the ruling elite tribe not giving you an identity card, because you are of another tribe and they do not like you). Then some Saudis decide to arrest, or kill you, or make you a slave, so you choose to run away. But.. no papers. (see artificial borders, rivaling tribes and elites etc.). Read some books written by Eric Ambler, this 'having papers or not' is a red line connecting all his books, explaining how this world works pretty well.

Again, i agree. The EU being an exception is most probably because of felt guilt and the troubled past (at least Germany of course), but also last not least for the EU's values and publicly declared humanity. And despite all the immigration talk, overall this would be something to be proud of.
It does not work with those masses though, so we have to adapt, yes.

It seems a lot of especially African children are suffering because of our parents' mistakes. But yes, migration has an impact on host nations.

Not wanting to defend colonialism, but quite some of the countries in africa and Asia that were under for example British administration for some time, today would not be where they are - and I mean that positively - without remains of British cultural and administrative and logistical influence to be felt until today. Railway system, legal systems, education systems, basic rules of democracy, rules of parliamentarism, the basis laid for a bourgoise social middle class, a "Bildungsbürgertum"... Iran on my mind, India...


And where is the outcry about Neo-colonialism and abusing other people's resources if we let their clever heads come to us so that they are not available in their homeplaces to help building them up? What is this different to exploiting another country's weakness to get its ores, gas, minerals and other natural resources?


Finally, and I said this before, "illegal humans". No human is illegal per se, that is just not imaginable, the terminology makes no sense and is used for rhetoric overkill only, as a combat phrase. What can be illegal however is the status a person has in an established administrative system, society and state. The stay in or on other people's property must know a difference between legal and illegal, else the whole concept of private property makes no sense anymore and every stranger can storm your residence and demand you to let him live there and be given free access. The native local population of a place is the owner of that place, they turned it into that by investing time, generations of work and fight and suffering and building into it. Foreigners that stay there without the residents' permission, are illegally staying there. To then enforce their removal is both perfectly legal and perfectly moral. End of message.


Just saying.