Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The point isn't keeping the borders guarded, the point is that there are hundreds of thousands of people coming by boats and there are no other options but to take them onboard (unless you want to sink them).
The UN have denied the right to invade Libya, the stupidity of France and the UK has destroyed Libya as a sovereign state and the coward attitude towards IS in Syria and Libya has created an enormous problem.
Since most expenses has been sustained by Italy and by our Navy without much help by this "Union", I find rather questionable that now European countries refuse to take their burden, are we supposed to receive all immigrants by ourselves?
It's obvious that I deplore this continuous arrival of unwanted immigrants who flood into Europe but, I ask again, what are we supposed to do?
To sink them? Unfortunately I doubt this is an acceptable solution for most people.
You can thank France and UK for their intervention in Libya in 2011 and now you can thank the UN and the EU for preventing any military moves against Libya.
To this, you can add that Italy is a complete mess of incompetent leaders and ridiculous leadership with no real ideas about how to handle the situation.
Tell me then. Why can't Italy keep its border guarded?
Lack of support from other member states, technical difficulties, the illegality of push backs, various international treaties.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KuuKulgur
Why should other countries chip in when your own inability to guard your border comes to bite you in the butt?
They should chip in, if they want Italy to stop sending refugees to Germany, France and the UK.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KuuKulgur
Chaos and disarray caused by the amount of migrants benefits which "layer" of the society?
A fair distribution of refugees over all the member states would minimize negative effects. Estonia proposed to take 150 to 200 refugees a year. That's basically nothing. Yet everybody up there seems to complain.
The point isn't keeping the borders guarded, the point is that there are hundreds of thousands of people coming by boats and there are no other options but to take them onboard (unless you want to sink them).
The UN have denied the right to invade Libya, the stupidity of France and the UK has destroyed Libya as a sovereign state and the coward attitude towards IS in Syria and Libya has created an enormous problem.
Since most expenses has been sustained by Italy and by our Navy without much help by this "Union", I find rather questionable that now European countries refuse to take their burden, are we supposed to receive all immigrants by ourselves?
It's obvious that I deplore this continuous arrival of unwanted immigrants who flood into Europe but, I ask again, what are we supposed to do?
To sink them? Unfortunately I doubt this is an acceptable solution for most people.
You can thank France and UK for their intervention in Libya in 2011 and now you can thank the UN and the EU for preventing any military moves against Libya.
To this, you can add that Italy is a complete mess of incompetent leaders and ridiculous leadership with no real ideas about how to handle the situation.
Lack of support from other member states, technical difficulties, the illegality of push backs, various international treaties.
Partly yes, absurd laws and also the inability of the government to deal with them.
Quote:
They should chip in, if they want Italy to stop sending refugees to Germany, France and the UK.
And collectively support human trafficking, a la keep sending them to us, we distribute them across Iuurop? This is just the begging of countless waves where countries are supposed to chip in. Europe just can't be the orphanage of the world where all the miserable can be stuffed into.
Quote:
A fair distribution of refugees over all the member states would minimize negative effects. Estonia proposed to take 150 to 200 refugees a year. That's basically nothing. Yet everybody up there seems to complain.
You know, some countries all not that wealthy to decorate themselves with migrants + pay for the mañana way of life of the Greeks. 1900 and 150-200 migrants a year are about the same percentage of the population of Austria and Estonia, add that Austria is much wealthier and has higher % Austrians of the total population.
And collectively support human trafficking, a la keep sending them to us, we distribute them across Iuurop? This is just the begging of countless waves where countries are supposed to chip in. Europe just can't be the orphanage of the world where all the miserable can be stuffed into.
To be honest, the illegality of push-backs and the relevant norms of maritime law make a lot of sense. The only thing that's kinda ****ed up is Dublin. I doubt, though, that a reform of Dublin would please you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KuuKulgur
You know, some countries all not that wealthy to decorate themselves with migrants + pay for the mañana way of life of the Greeks. 1900 and 150-200 migrants a year are about the same percentage of the population of Austria and Estonia, add that Austria is much wealthier and has higher % Austrians of the total population.
Incorrect. According to this Estonia had 73 asylum seekers per million natives. with an additional 200 it would be at 207. Austria has 2076 per million. And believe me, you don't notice them at all here.
And while Austria is indeed wealthier, we have a higher percentage of foreigners living here in total. By far.
migrants are supposed to seek refuge/asylum in the first safe country they come to, seeing where most of them are coming from, that certainly isn't France or the UK.
migrants are supposed to seek refuge/asylum in the first safe country they come to, seeing where most of them are coming from, that certainly isn't France or the UK.
While this is true, you can't expect Italy, Greece or Hungary to take thousands of refugees per year, with other countries not chiming in. That's just delusional. Dublin should be reformed right now.
You can thank France and UK for their intervention in Libya in 2011 and now you can thank the UN and the EU for preventing any military moves against Libya.
Italy was one of the main players in the intervention in Libya. Stop blaming France and the UK, you were there with them.
Location: Northern Ireland and temporarily England
7,668 posts, read 5,262,503 times
Reputation: 1392
Quote:
Originally Posted by viribusunitis
Lack of support from other member states, technical difficulties, the illegality of push backs, various international treaties.
They should chip in, if they want Italy to stop sending refugees to Germany, France and the UK.
A fair distribution of refugees over all the member states would minimize negative effects. Estonia proposed to take 150 to 200 refugees a year. That's basically nothing. Yet everybody up there seems to complain.
What? The UK isn't accepting refugees we're not in the Schengen.
"The idea of using quotas to resettle those who have made it to Europe has caused controversy in some EU states.
The UK government says that it will not take part in such a system.
France, Spain, Hungary, Slovakia and Estonia have also all voiced concerns, and a final decision will be taken by EU governments after a vote by MEPs.
Denmark has the right to opt out of the plan while Ireland and the UK can decide whether they wish to opt in."
Italy was one of the main players in the intervention in Libya. Stop blaming France and the UK, you were there with them.
Still, does not mean France should leave Italy alone to deal with the migrants
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The UK isn't accepting refugees we're not in the Schengen.
