Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Calidovi]

I'm cool with accepting more immigrants to America as long as they're legal.  Trying to compete with illegal off-the-books labor makes people turn to racism and "conservative" anti-immigrant policies, even though it's the conservatives doing the illegal hiring.  It's a masterful scheme.  (The labor is done for far under minimum wage, see, making it impossible to compete with)

Hell I even resent illegal immigrants for voluntarily supporting the scheme.  It's directly hurt me and mine.  We'd be better off if they were deported, the criminals.  But I support pardoning and a path to citizenship because inclusiveness and multiculturalism makes America strong.  Even though it's more competition for young job seekers who are already here.  Just... make it a fair competition by granting citizenship.  Or deportation.  The status quo is a neocon wet dream.

IIRC there's a trend that more jobs are going to require master's degrees soon, and the people that can access these qualifications are either intelligent or wealthy. As evidenced by the treachery these people had to go to escape their circumstances, it's obvious that they weren't fortunate in their life and probably have neither due to a poor education. The border-immigrant problem should be different in the near future assuming these trends continue, which imaginably they should.

The status quo is a neocon wet dream.

Then may we dream on.

[SirQuiamus]

Europe is already destroying their boats. You don't need to kill them to destroy their business, though it certainly helps. Gurkhas are overkill.
...
Between survey ships, drones, informants and the vast security bureaus of Russia, Britain, USA, France and the rest of Yurop - well for certain their ships are fucked, and finding them will be one step ahead. Who knows, could give incentive to Western nations to finish what they started in Libya. European ships already patrol Libyan coasts (just for security reasons), countering human trafficking goes hand in hand.

...and now the smugglers are resorting to rubber boats, oil barrel rafts, and salvaged wreckages of Phoenician warships. We certainly need more rescue operations and active patrolling to stop people from drowning (that's the priority), but trigger-happy military raids would be nothing but an expedient stop-gap measure that wouldn't help in the long run. From a humanitarian perspective, the immediate problem is that the southern coast of the Mediterranean is flooded with displaced people in unlivable circumstances who are desperate to get across by any means, and as long as more of them keep flocking to the shore, there'll be a market for horribly unethical smuggling operations.

Thing is, the boat business is just the final link in a very long and disorganized chain of smuggling that cannot be shut down simply by cutting off the other end. Daesh may have their finger in the pie, but there are no terrist criminal masterminds controlling the entire operation, just a long line of shady bastards who get their cut and pass the buck to the next guy. Even without a single floating vessel available on the coast, the smugglers in the inland countries would still keep schlepping people north with empty promises of luxury cruises and worker visas – why should they give a shit about what happens to "the cargo" in the receiving country?

The way I see it, there are only two possible "solutions" to the humanitarian crisis: Take the people in, or recolonize the African continent to pacify all conflicts and stop the wave of migration. It's no wonder that many Europeans choose the third option of going "LA LA LA" whenever the word "humanitarian" is mentioned.

EDIT: The suggestion of having processing centers in North Africa is a very good one, but even that plan requires that the people have somewhere to go after they've been "processed." It all boils down to a choice between taking them in or making their home countries safer, and unfortunately the latter is just not happening.

[Helgoland]

EDIT: The suggestion of having processing centers in North Africa is a very good one, but even that plan requires that the people have somewhere to go after they've been "processed." It all boils down to a choice between taking them in or making their home countries safer, and unfortunately the latter is just not happening.

I would've pitched building processing centers across Africa, to spare refugees the journey north - but for some reason that idea is even less well-liked.

But yeah: Re-colonization (under a different name) would probably be the more thorough solution.

[Loud Whispers]

Europe is already destroying their boats. You don't need to kill them to destroy their business, though it certainly helps. Gurkhas are overkill.
...
Between survey ships, drones, informants and the vast security bureaus of Russia, Britain, USA, France and the rest of Yurop - well for certain their ships are fucked, and finding them will be one step ahead. Who knows, could give incentive to Western nations to finish what they started in Libya. European ships already patrol Libyan coasts (just for security reasons), countering human trafficking goes hand in hand.

...and now the smugglers are resorting to rubber boats, oil barrel rafts, and salvaged wreckages of Phoenician warships. We certainly need more rescue operations and active patrolling to stop people from drowning (that's the priority), but trigger-happy military raids would be nothing but an expedient stop-gap measure that wouldn't help in the long run. From a humanitarian perspective, the immediate problem is that the southern coast of the Mediterranean is flooded with displaced people in unlivable circumstances who are desperate to get across by any means, and as long as more of them keep flocking to the shore, there'll be a market for horribly unethical smuggling operations.
Thing is, the boat business is just the final link in a very long and disorganized chain of smuggling that cannot be shut down simply by cutting off the other end. Daesh may have their finger in the pie, but there are no terrist criminal masterminds controlling the entire operation, just a long line of shady bastards who get their cut and pass the buck to the next guy. Even without a single floating vessel available on the coast, the smugglers in the inland countries would still keep schlepping people north with empty promises of luxury cruises and worker visas – why should they give a shit about what happens to "the cargo" in the receiving country?

That is why they must die, or at least have their operations disrupted to the point of ineffectuality, impracticality or improfitability. European nations already are drawing up plans to seize/destroy more ships, fuel depots and smugglers themselves. The smugglers themselves don't get their ships back even if they successfully land in Europe, they are already resorting to dingy dinghies - destroying their boats before they've even set sail is going to fuck their capabilities over sideways. At the same time yes cutting off the other end is going to work, from Britain to Sicily the police have been working tirelessly to catch European gangs working in tandem with the North African ones.

The way I see it, there are only two possible "solutions" to the humanitarian crisis: Take the people in, or recolonize the African continent to pacify all conflicts and stop the wave of migration. It's no wonder that many Europeans choose the third option of going "LA LA LA" whenever the word "humanitarian" is mentioned.

At a time where Britain is cutting the services given to Britons, British foreign aid expenditure has increased. The EU has not been idle either. The solutions you suggest are not independent courses of actions, humanitarian missions must continue, military missions must continue and border control must be re-enforced.

EDIT: The suggestion of having processing centers in North Africa is a very good one, but even that plan requires that the people have somewhere to go after they've been "processed." It all boils down to a choice between taking them in or making their home countries safer, and unfortunately the latter is just not happening.

They go to Europe if they're an asylum seeker, they go to the boats or home if they're looking for money. And the latter is happening, it's just not succeeding because islamic militiants are resilient. It's like complaining about how Afghanistan is still not safe; wasn't the response from the American public to just withdraw and give up because it was too much cost for too little benefit? Certainly not for lack of trying.

But yeah: Re-colonization (under a different name) would probably be the more thorough solution.

And so the EU expands

[LordSlowpoke]

...honestly?

fuck it, let's recolonize africa/the middle east

they'd be coming to us anyway, let's reverse the trend and come to them drang nach suden all like

[Loud Whispers]

Tbh I'm not sure how Europol thread over into progressive thread, so I'm just going to leave some Jewish literature:

This essay is bad and I should feel bad.

I should feel bad because I made exactly the mistake I am trying to warn everyone else about, and it wasn’t until I was almost done that I noticed.
http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything-except-the-outgroup/

Personally my friends are an epileptic rainbow of politics, races and cultures so I wouldn't really be able to tell either way; the only people I tend to avoid are those with californian accents or blue/green/red hair

[Helgoland]

drang nach suden all like

Is that a reference? Because if it is, I don't get it at all.

[LordSlowpoke]

drang nach suden all like

Is that a reference? Because if it is, I don't get it at all.

just google drang nach osten, man

come on

[Calidovi]

drang nach suden all like

Is that a reference? Because if it is, I don't get it at all.

just google drang nach osten, man

come on

I've always felt that the Dutch and Italians, not as much Germany, would be more inclined for North African conquest.

[Helgoland]

just google drang nach osten, man

come on

Fuck, I could've thought of that. I tried googleing 'drang nach sudan' and unsurprisingly found nothing.

[SirQuiamus]

...
But yeah: Re-colonization (under a different name) would probably be the more thorough solution.

[Helgoland]

I wasn't. We should have a poll - the idea is fairly popular around here, if I remember correctly.

[SirQuiamus]

I wasn't. We should have a poll - the idea is fairly popular around here, if I remember correctly.

I think the current European consensus is something like: "We've tried that one already – let's leave the second round to China."

At a time where Britain is cutting the services given to Britons, British foreign aid expenditure has increased. The EU has not been idle either. The solutions you suggest are not independent courses of actions, humanitarian missions must continue, military missions must continue and border control must be re-enforced.

Hooray for Britonland, then. (Except for that part about cutting services given to Britons.)

Meanwhile in Failand, True Finns are all about "helping refugees in their home countries *simper simper smirk*" while their politicians are slashing foreign aid to bits and setting the pieces on fire and stomping on them like fucking lunatics. And naturally they're also slashing social security at the same time, but hey, that's only fair to those poor third-world buggers.

[Helgoland]

I wasn't. We should have a poll - the idea is fairly popular around here, if I remember correctly.

I think the current European consensus is something like: "We've tried that one already – let's leave the second round to China."

I meant this forum... Also, nobody says that we'd have to have the same priorities as last time.

[Grim Portent]

I wasn't. We should have a poll - the idea is fairly popular around here, if I remember correctly.

I think the current European consensus is something like: "We've tried that one already – let's leave the second round to China."

I meant this forum... Also, nobody says that we'd have to have the same priorities as last time.

If I was going to come up with a long term plan involving colonial shenanigans in Africa I'd probably be looking to counteract desertification where possible, improve the local agricultural and educational system as a priority, and disrupt criminal activities like diamond wars (probably best stopped by causing a crash in the diamond market by removing the artificial scarcity of them), maybe root out militant groups and try to reform them into legitimate political factions. If done well it could result in a decently stable society with good grounds for meeting basic necessities with a potential to become industrial later.

Would take 20+ years I dare say, but it took decades to get Europe fixed up after the World Wars, so it's not as if it's impossible. Of questionable moral and ethical standing, but possible.