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

We aren't in a position to do anything about future disasters. All we can do is give some money to Sea Watch or whatever and go listen to Hans Zimmer's Aurora.

...unless one of us wants to swim out into the Mediterranean and be one more burden on the rescue operation that has no port. That might help.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

What are your thoughts on the matter? — Patulia

I'm not in favor of immigration restrictions aside from screening for wanted criminals or people with known terrorism associations.

And I'm a free speech absolutist, so I have a problem with suspending the teacher, too.

Clearly the only sensible answer is, as @Tzeentch, would have it, to lock your doors and pretend that it is still 1919.

But of course we can no longer sustain that fantasy.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Part of the deal of being a 'sovereign nation' is the right to control one's national borders. Nations have the right and the obligation to guard their borders and decide who they will allow into their country and who they not allow in. Just because you CAN get around border controls doesn't mean you SHOULD get around border controls.

NGOs of a particular variety take the view that individuals have the right to go wherever they want to go. Providing emergency assistance to, and advocating for people who want to live somewhere other than where they are citizens is the reason d'être of some NGOs. They are entirely focused on the dire straits people have gotten themselves into by getting on a leaking boat and heading for distant shores.

The NGOs who bring the sinking boat to port are pretty much done with the refugees at that point. It becomes somebody else's problem then, like Italy, France, Spain, or... whoever. A few million people from Central America and Mexico decide they would rather live in the USA, at least for a while, and our immigrant NGOs want everyone to celebrate. Admit them all! Of course!!!

Free movement of people anywhere they want to go, and the obligation of nations to accept all comers is what we call "an unfunded mandate". An example of an unfunded mandate is when city governments are ordered by the federal government to do something (maybe build new housing for all the poor people) but no funds are provided to pay for the mandated action.

Human Rights agencies tell nations what they should do about migration, but they don't provide any funds to do it, nor do they take into account the wishes of the citizens in the sovereign country.

Even if it was the case that every migrant was a saintly martyr of oppression, sovereign countries would still have the right to say, "Sorry; no, you can't come here."

Certainly the movement of people on the planet is going to get much, much worse as time goes on. Global warming guarantees that, even if the predations of corrupt governments didn't. As it happens, they both guarantee an abundant supply of refugees. I do not know what the solution for this problem is.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Well, yes, we do have a lot of problems in the South, that's what I was saying. I am Sicilian and the stereotypes foreigners have about us do not make me happy at all. I emigrated to the North of Italy because it was hard for my mother to find a job in the South, since if you don't have a friend or a relative recommending you, you have no hopes at all (that's the lack of meritocracy I was talking about). And yes, we gave birth to the Mafia, but it's very unfair to label all Sicilians as criminals. Finally, about Plato, he chose Syracuse to test his ideal form of State, so I don't think we were so bad after all (Don't hate me if I have used a harsh tone, I just hate when they attack Sicily. People have said really bad things to me because of my origins - they often asked me if I was capable to speak Italian, for example. It's nothing personal).

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

I apologize for tim.

There's no need to apologize, really!

Not a question to argue, but as to your view: you may have noticed a news item from Florida about a public school principal who explained that instruction on the Holocaust was conditioned on, had to be conditioned on, sensitivity to parents who did not "believe in the Holocaust - implying (strongly) that the Holocaust was a matter of belief/opinion and not of fact. He's suspended, and maybe by now fired. If you're the superintendent of schools in that city, what do you do with him? — tim wood

(a) Tell him that he's welcome to express his opinion,

(b) Tell him that I agree with him that epistemologically, it's always a matter of believing one thing or another, though belief isn't contrasted with facts--facts are what we have beliefs about,

(c) Explain that regardless of his opinion, his school, just like all the other schools, is required to teach about the Holocaust in history class, regardless of whether he or any parents believe that the Holocaust occurred or not. The point of teaching things in school isn't to kowtow to beliefs that parents might have. If they don't agree with something, that's their problem.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

For me, it's not about nationalism, an "us or them" or whatever hostile connotations are popularly ascribed to an anti-illegal immigration stance.

It's about these people not having anything to contribute to the society they seek to join. They do not speak the language, they do not have any education, they do not share the society's common values. On top of that, they negatively impact the lives of those in whose vicinity they set up camp. Crime, harassment, a general sense of insecurity. Finally, this isn't at all free. It costs boatloads of cash to provide them with "basic needs", like IPhones and Nike shoes.

It's absurd to welcome this human deadweight into societies.

Should we help refugees? Sure, I guess. Again, I believe there's plenty of people to help within any given country's borders (the homeless, the isolated, the elderly, etc), so I do not see why philanthropy must necessarily be aimed at foreigners. But if one is convinced refugees must be helped, help them in or near whatever country they fled.

It's not like all this naive idealism is without risk, either. Right-wing parties are steadily on the rise in all of Europe. A direct result of the inability of the European Union to find an effective course of action with regards to the refugee crisis. One can only hope that governments can and will keep their angry populations in check.

Clearly the only sensible answer is, as Tzeentch, would have it, to lock your doors and pretend that it is still 1919.

But of course we can no longer sustain that fantasy. — Fooloso4

Every sensible country in the world controls their borders and gets to decide who comes in and who doesn't. The only countries with open borders are those being forced by the European Union's inability to act, or are failed states. Your suggestion that open borders are the norm and "the way forward" are groundless. And profoundly naive. As right-wing parties are on the rise all over Europe in direct response to the EU's failure, the only fantasy that is proving unsustainable is the fantasy held by the left about multiculturalism.

I'd like to change my analogy from earlier. Open border policy and uncontrolled immigration aren't the equivalent of letting strangers into your home. It's the equivalent of removing all the locks from your doors and putting a sign out front saying "Free stuff".