What are your thoughts on the matter? — Patulia

Who are the asylum seekers?

This has become a problem in many countries. What is not always so clear is how much the problem is created by the influx of immigrants and how much is created by those who do not like immigrants. Sweden, for example, has generally been tolerant of immigration but is now facing problems because of the number of immigrants who do not work and cannot contribute their share of the high tax rates.

Who are the asylum seekers? — frank

It's a person who flees their home country, gets to another country and applies for asylum, which is the right to have international protection

It's a person who flees their home country, gets to another country and applies for asylum, which is the right to have international protection — Patulia

But who are they? Where do they come from?

What is the government's official reason for limiting immigration?

There's a good Politico article on it.

Here

Oh, sorry I didn't understand what you were asking. Basically they are immigrants who come mainly from Libia, where there is a civil war. The government is limiting immigration because they think immigrants are invading our country and that most of the people who come to Italy do not actually come for humanitarian reasons. Also, Salvini wants to put "Italians first" and he wants to keep them safe from all the foreigner criminals who "invade" Italy.

Italy has a history if being over crowded and having a tenuous economy. So a desire to limit immigration is understandable.

On the other hand, nationalists need legitimate problems to legitimize themselves. In the light of fear, they look strong.

What does the pope say?

Basically they are immigrants who come mainly from Libia, where there is a civil war. — Patulia

I remember French fighter jets bombing Khadaffi's troops in order to make sure that the rebellion would succeed. It is not that I particularly liked Khadaffi, but shouldn't France take in these immigrants instead of Italy?

What does the pope say? — frank

He says governments should build bridges not walls. However if Italy cannot welcome, cannot integrate, cannot provide the right services to those who arrive, politicians have the duty and the right ask other European countries to do so.

However if Italy cannot welcome, cannot integrate, cannot provide the right services to those who arrive, politicians have the duty and the right ask other European countries to do so. — Patulia

That's true.

I wouldn't let a stranger stay in my home, not to mention a stranger whose ideas about the world conflict fundamentally with mine and who wishes to stay forever. No country should ever be forced to take in immigrants. Period.

Matteo Salvini — Patulia

Sounds like someone who needs to make a personal display of himself, appealing to other "men" - it never seems to be women - who covertly would like to make a similar display of themselves. It is infantile. And it is dangerous. Sooner or or not much later, the jackboots who knocked on their doors will come and knock on yours.

The question is, under a government of laws, when is it clear that law has become broken. Arguably at the first crack, the first time someone does something wrong in the name of the law. Nor can the law justify anything. Those who neither remember Nuremberg nor know what it means need to do some research. Some actions are just plain a crime, and it doesn't matter who told who to do what.

No country — Tzeentch

Some history, please. What, exactly, do you understand by the word "country," and where did you get that idea, and what do you imagine is the history of the idea that you have?

https://orientalreview.org/2017/11/25/westphalian-foundations-modern-international-relations-global-politics-global-security/

I wouldn't let a stranger stay in my home — Tzeentch

This is a faulty analogy. Your country is made up of strangers, many of whom you may not want in your home.

I think this should sound familiar to you since you posted it on your about page:

"And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not." - John 1:5

In this time of darkness we need more comprehension of the light. Yes? Forget the theology for a moment and comprehend the human message. Many immigrants are in desperate need. What they don't need is locked doors. When a flood comes locked doors will not keep you dry. When the winds blow off your roof locked doors will not keep you safe. Comprehend it not?

No country should ever be forced to take in immigrants. — Tzeentch

You're right. But immigrants still arrive, and they arrive by sea on half-wrecked boats. The Ngo have the duty to save them, and this duty is indipendent from the laws of the single states. They also have the duty to bring them to the safest, closest port. So they cannot be brought back to Libia, since we can all agree on the fact that it's not a safe place and that the immigrants would be imprisoned under inhuman conditions. The closest port is Lampedusa's (Sicily), but since Salvini wants all the ports in Italy to stay closed to immigrants, this year many Ngo boats have waited to dock in Lampedusa's Port for weeks, because, according to the Government, they should have chosen another port, for example Malta's. Salvini has all the right to regulate immigration here in Italy, but the thing is he has no plan when it comes to actually dealing with this delicate issue. Also, the only thing he seems to care about right now are the Ngo boats that carry immigrants and draw the media's attention. In Lampedusa, immigrants on small boats arrive every day, without being noticed by the authorities. It's up to the islanders to help them or not. He should just stop doing useless propaganda and think about actual problems: our population is getting older and older, our economy is slowly sinking, the South of the country has been devastated by corruption and no one knows anymore what meritocracy is.

This is a faulty analogy. Your country is made up of strangers, many of whom you may not want in your home. — Fooloso4

There's nothing faulty about my analogy.

If you wish to make no distinction between your countrymen and the type of immigrant that is invading Europe, that's your prerogative. I do make that distinction.

I think this should sound familiar to you since you posted it on your about page:

"And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not." - John 1:5

In this time of darkness we need more comprehension of the light. Yes? Forget the theology for a moment and comprehend the human message. Many immigrants are in desperate need. What they don't need is locked doors. When a flood comes locked doors will not keep you dry. When the winds blow off your roof locked doors will not keep you safe. Comprehend it not? — Fooloso4

That is not how I interpret that quote at all.

But since we're on the topic of preaching, how many immigrants and homeless people have you let into your house so far, dear Judas?

Well, what do you want to hear from me?

I think all illegal immigrants should be returned to where they came from, and any action or legislation towards that goal is positive. Any action or legislation that undermines that goal, including human trafficking under the guise of philanthropy by NGOs, is negative.

So what should countries do? Like they always have done: enforce their borders and send anyone back who doesn't belong there. So called "NGOs" who are trying to smuggle people in should be jailed.

There's nothing faulty about my analogy. — Tzeentch

Do you know everyone in your country? No strangers? Do you allow all of them in your home? Do you have as much say in who enters your neighbor's house as your own?

But since we're on the topic of preaching, how many immigrants and homeless people have you let into your house so far, dear Judas? — Tzeentch

My house is not my country. I am in favor of allowing those who seek asylum to go through an expedient process and a path to citizenship. I am also in favor of international cooperation to spread the burden. As I pointed out in an earlier post immigration can be a problem when the numbers are high. I am also in favor of helping people in their own country if possible before they are forced to leave.

I am sure that wherever you live if the situation became dire and you were forced to leave you would find a different song to sing.

That is not how I interpret that quote at all. — Tzeentch

The quote does not stand alone. It is part of Jesus' message which says: "Lock your doors lest those in need who seek food and shelter invade your country", or something like that. Or maybe nothing like that.

The only practical solution is to treat the cause of displacement by economic improvement and political stability in the countries of origin. Of course the developed nations are not doing nearly enough of that and so exacerbating the conditions which give rise to these waves of displaced people, which is only fanned by the xenophobia of demagogues such as Trump for their own political ends.

That said, I do understand the difficulty of having to accommodate millions of non-citizens, although I also think we haven’t seen the worst by a long way. When climate change and food and water shortages really start to bite in a decade or two there may be billions seeking refuge, not just the tens of millions we see today.

There is a kind of osmosis involved as when a nation that respects human rights receives a citizen from a nation that does not (like Eritrea), then it violates the rights of that citizen to return them to their country of origin. And unfortunately there is no easy solution to that problem.

Do you know everyone in your country? No strangers? Do you allow all of them in your home? Do you have as much say in who enters your neighbor's house as your own? — Fooloso4

I don't have to. You're missing the point of the analogy.

Countrymen are to a country, like family is to a home.

Immigrants are to a country, like a stranger is to a home.

Notice the word like, implying likeness and not sameness.


You're interchanging the terms, turning it into something like,

Countrymen are to a country, like a stranger is to a home.

This makes no sense, and it is not what I wrote.

I am in favor of allowing those who seek asylum to go through an expedient process and a path to citizenship. I am also in favor of international cooperation to spread the burden. As I pointed out in an earlier post immigration can be a problem when the numbers are high. I am also in favor of helping people in their own country if possible before they are forced to leave. — Fooloso4

Excuses to justify inaction.

Words and "being in favor of things" serve as nothing but social self-gratification if such gospel is never translated into action. Don't you see the inherent hypocrisy in preaching about how other people should accept total strangers to negatively impact their lives, while at the same time these preachers don't carry any of the negative consequences and squander every opportunity to help their fellow man?

If one wishes to be a saint, there's plenty of people that need help. They're all around. Homeless people, drug-addicts, isolated elders, depressed people, I could go on. One could be actually helping these people through action. So why does one choose words? Because words make one feel fuzzy whilst not having to do anything.

You're asking others to make a sacrifice that you demonstrate not to be willing to make yourself.

I am sure that wherever you live if the situation became dire and you were forced to leave you would find a different song to sing. — Fooloso4

Doubtful. Many people stay behind in the countries from which people are supposedly "forced" to leave. The truth is, a multitude more people die yearly in car accidents in the US than in the hostilities in most of these conflicts combined.

But, if I were to hypothetically be forced to leave, I would find a refuge where I hold some ties to its inhabitants in terms of language and culture, and where I can contribute to their society to earn my keep, rather than become a leech on a successful system.

These people don't just want safety. They want free stuff. And they don't just want free stuff. They want the most free stuff. This is evidenced by the numerous safe countries they pass through on their way to the country with the highest social benefits.

Or maybe nothing like that. — Fooloso4

This.

I feel for Italians. I hope the crisis ends soon. I saw that Doctors Without Borders is involved.

The truth is, a multitude more people die yearly in car accidents in the US than in the hostilities in most of these conflicts combined. — Tzeentch

And should this be something to be proud of? People are dying, everywhere, in this very second. It's not some sort of competition in which there is a winner. People shouldn't die only because someone made the poor choice to drink and drive, just like people shouldn't suffer because they were born in a country in which there is a war.

Many people stay behind in the countries from which people are supposedly "forced" to leave — Tzeentch

What you are describing as a choice is absolutely not one. It's like saying: you can choose whether you want to go to hell or you prefer following a certain doctrine. It's not a that hard of a choice, isn't it?

This is just the beginning. Liberals, internationalists, and Christians are going to be sorely tested as political and economic based migration is dwarfed by climate based migration. As equatorial and tropical regions along with low-lying areas generally become uninhabitable, expect armed militias in your region setting up roadblocks to prevent the hordes of dreadful lowlanders retreating to our sacred hills and mountains. Nationalism will fragment into parochialism. Meanwhile...

https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/07/11/too-many-africans/?fbclid=IwAR2cioCg5SfpuoPJcS6sYsdWS_RYJJ2y9s1Rn5rRJF2-0zpgCKrhK2z2PLE

The people you're talking about will be gathered at the west coast. They won't cross the Sahara to get to Libya, so Italy won't be the closest port.

Greenland will take them (the ones who don't die an incredibly horrible, hellish, death of violence, disease, and starvation, vomiting out their insides from plague to have their eyeballs picked out by African vultures in the blazing sun.)

Countrymen are to a country, like family is to a home.

Immigrants are to a country, like a stranger is to a home.

Notice the word like, implying likeness and not sameness. — Tzeentch

And do you regard your countrymen like family? By this I mean not simply as a matter of drawing lines between "us and them" but as you treat members of your family is opposed to the strangers most of your countryman are.

Excuses to justify inaction. — Tzeentch

Not at all. The question is whether to prevent immigration or manage immigration. By your analogy I am allowing strangers into my home.

Don't you see the inherent hypocrisy in preaching about how other people should accept total strangers to negatively impact their lives, while at the same time these preachers don't carry any of the negative consequences and squander every opportunity to help their fellow man? — Tzeentch

If those who live in a country allow immigrants into their country then it potentially impacts their lives. It is not squandering every opportunity to help their fellow man, it is by their actions helping their fellow man.

If one wishes to be a saint ... — Tzeentch

My interest here is in having a rational discussion about a very serious problem, not hyperbole, sweeping generalizations, and mischaracterizations. The funny, or maybe not so funny, thing is that everything you say has been said in places like the United States throughout its history whenever there has been a large influx of immigrants - Irish, Italians, Chinese, Jews ...

Like it or not the world is changing any unless you are extremely wealthy you are not going to be able to hide from it behind locked doors.

And do you regard your countrymen like family? — Fooloso4

In certain aspects, yes. That's the point of an analogy.

If those who live in a country allow immigrants into their country then it potentially impacts their lives. It is not squandering every opportunity to help their fellow man, it is by their actions helping their fellow man. — Fooloso4

This is nonsense. Loud words, naive idealism and paying taxes does not equal, in any way, helping one's fellow man. They are excuses for inaction. Your argument is based on the idea that one should help one's fellow man? Then why are you not spending your free time helping those in need? Why do you need to crusade for a foreign cause with which you will likely never been in real contact? Why are foreigners more important to you than the people you can actually directly help in your vicinity?

Because words are easy, actions are hard.

The funny, or maybe not so funny, thing is that everything you say has been said in places like the United States throughout its history whenever there has been a large influx of immigrants - Irish, Italians, Chinese, Jews ... — Fooloso4

I don't know about the United States, but where I come from we have always welcomed hard-working immigrants who had an intention of integrating and a sense of gratitude towards the communities they wished to become a part of.
Most immigrants from Africa and the Middle-East do not share those qualities. They have no prospects for work, have pre-historic ideas about what a society should look like and rather than integrate they seek segregation, creating further breeding grounds for extremism and radicalism.
This parallel you are drawing between different waves of immigration is not funny. It's ridiculous.

The only practical solution is to treat the cause of displacement by economic improvement and political stability in the countries of origin. — Wayfarer

This is just the beginning. Liberals, internationalists, and Christians are going to be sorely tested as political and economic based migration is dwarfed by climate based migration. — unenlightened

Amen to both, with this addition: everyone and everything is going to be sorely tested. And in the western hemisphere, I think it may be time for a home-based Monroe Doctrine. That is, the destination countries, probably US, Canada, even Mexico, say to the countries that are the sources of most of the immigration, a) get your houses in order or we will put them in order, and b) if you put your houses in order and keep them in order, we will help you do that.

Until now, there has always been enough so that people could at least hope and dream of "getting theirs." But now, not. The long age of the consolidation of wealth, however defined, in the hands of the few at the expense of the many, is ending - except for the shooting at people who have not or will not get the message. People have lived on this planet without really worrying about basic capacity - budgeting resources - because in theory at least it has always seemed there would be, should be, enough, or at least a justification for hope. But not now. we're into an era when the basic resources of the planet have to be budgeted. And for a species that has never before operated on that basis, it will be painful.

The forces of history have periodically and routinely destroyed generations. We're in the entry phases of such an era. Perhaps not unique in the combination of population, climate, and political factors, but certainly on scale. We adapt and bend, or fight and most die. There comes a time when sharing as charity as the right thing to do, becomes the only reasonable thing to do. You set a place at your table for the stranger, or the sheer pressure of his need destroys your table.

All of this was clearly foreseen even just after WWII. A lot of things were clearly foreseen, and denied by people who were - and are - selling something.

You've joined the bunch of fluff balls pretending to be badasses in how well we face reality.

So far I'm winning.

Thank you for the reference. My point was merely that the modern notion of country and nation is just that, modern. And we in all our sensibilities are far older, with far older senses. We may enjoy the fancy uniform, boots and leather belts and our own gun given us, our flag and the spirit that nationalism engenders, but properly those are means and not ends. As ends they have always meant ultimate self-destruction.

Our older, oldest, sense is probably family, group,and tribe. Within, the slow perfection of the sense of the good and the right held out against a harsh, indifferent world. The family has got large and the world small. The only "against" for which there is any room, is against ourselves. We have become so large there is only one self; the other has become us. Charity sublated into pure self-interest; greed and individual self-interest, suicide.

Depending on the yield of the explosives used, our new era may last from a few minutes to a century or two. Within that time frame, something has got to, and will, give way.

.

I'll engage with this, but what are you talking about?