It’s easy to polarize with such a headline/picture. Reality is way more nuanced than this:
Migrants are in fact being saved from shipwrecks, it is (sadly) in the news every week or so. The main problem is that these migrants don’t have communication devices with them to signal emergencies, unlike the submarine. The boat on the surface alarmed emergency services when they lost connection with the sub, starting the rescue operation. It is difficult to rescue a boat of migrants, when you don’t even know that they are in danger in the first place.
Secondly, the harsh reality is that most migrants try to enter a country illegally. Which by definition, is a huge risk on their part. The rich people on the sub were not doing anything illegal. However, in both cases, the people in or on the boat accepted the risks involved in their endeavor.
… Of course it is? We have things like taxation and social safety nets that allow a society to function. Never mind the simple fact that some places are stressed for resources as it is. That’s not to say it can’t be done better, but it’s naive to think it’s “simple”. Never mind that simple doesn’t necessarily mean easy…
I’m having a difficult time thinking of any form of society where people don’t pool at least some portion of their surplus to help the group as a whole (and lift those up who have a deficit). Are you saying that shouldn’t be a thing?
IMO, those are very different situations, with slavery their freedom was taken. Most of the migrants (not refugees) are free, they are simply in search for a better life. Which is understandable, don’t get me wrong. But the picture that is painted is too bright, people hop on a boat to “paradise” and are promised a life of riches. The reality is, this is not the situation they will find themselves in. Even if we were to allow them into the country, they would still live poor lives. Sure some will succeed, but most of them don’t have the foundational knowledge/skills/command of the language of the country to get a job and find a place to live.
Meanwhile, looking at my own country The Netherlands, we see that natives are also struggling for housing. My generation is basically fucked, young families cannot buy nor rent a home to start their family in. This will impact The Netherlands for years/decades to come, it will be reflected in birth rate and future workforce. Allowing other people in the country now would be catastrophic.
On the other hand, recently there was an article about an approach by French farmers which I like. They sourced Moroccan workers, that could work in France for a couple months (IIRC max stay was 3 months), during this time, the workers would receive fair pay. After the work permit ends, the workers have to go back to Morocco. Then they are only allowed to go back to work in France after a period of time, with a new workers permit.
The key benefit is that workers bring the money back home, benefitting Morocco financially, and France with workforce. Most of this work by the farmers is seasonal anyway.
Right, but if you want to stop school shootings with gun control and are also left wing enough to want zero borders, how will gun control be possible if crazies can just go and get their guns from places where its legal to get them. Am I fascist for pointing out an obvious contradiction?
It’s easy to polarize with such a headline/picture. Reality is way more nuanced than this:
Migrants are in fact being saved from shipwrecks, it is (sadly) in the news every week or so. The main problem is that these migrants don’t have communication devices with them to signal emergencies, unlike the submarine. The boat on the surface alarmed emergency services when they lost connection with the sub, starting the rescue operation. It is difficult to rescue a boat of migrants, when you don’t even know that they are in danger in the first place.
Secondly, the harsh reality is that most migrants try to enter a country illegally. Which by definition, is a huge risk on their part. The rich people on the sub were not doing anything illegal. However, in both cases, the people in or on the boat accepted the risks involved in their endeavor.
@Ronno the problem is making the natural human right of migration illegal in the first place.
deleted by creator
@Banana no, it’s not.
deleted by creator
… Of course it is? We have things like taxation and social safety nets that allow a society to function. Never mind the simple fact that some places are stressed for resources as it is. That’s not to say it can’t be done better, but it’s naive to think it’s “simple”. Never mind that simple doesn’t necessarily mean easy…
@usualsuspect191
There, I fixed it for ya 😉
I’m having a difficult time thinking of any form of society where people don’t pool at least some portion of their surplus to help the group as a whole (and lift those up who have a deficit). Are you saying that shouldn’t be a thing?
Yes it is, where will we house these migrants?
deleted by creator
IMO, those are very different situations, with slavery their freedom was taken. Most of the migrants (not refugees) are free, they are simply in search for a better life. Which is understandable, don’t get me wrong. But the picture that is painted is too bright, people hop on a boat to “paradise” and are promised a life of riches. The reality is, this is not the situation they will find themselves in. Even if we were to allow them into the country, they would still live poor lives. Sure some will succeed, but most of them don’t have the foundational knowledge/skills/command of the language of the country to get a job and find a place to live.
Meanwhile, looking at my own country The Netherlands, we see that natives are also struggling for housing. My generation is basically fucked, young families cannot buy nor rent a home to start their family in. This will impact The Netherlands for years/decades to come, it will be reflected in birth rate and future workforce. Allowing other people in the country now would be catastrophic.
On the other hand, recently there was an article about an approach by French farmers which I like. They sourced Moroccan workers, that could work in France for a couple months (IIRC max stay was 3 months), during this time, the workers would receive fair pay. After the work permit ends, the workers have to go back to Morocco. Then they are only allowed to go back to work in France after a period of time, with a new workers permit.
The key benefit is that workers bring the money back home, benefitting Morocco financially, and France with workforce. Most of this work by the farmers is seasonal anyway.
deleted by creator
How are you going to continue to enforce gun control in your country if there are zero borders?
deleted by creator
If you don’t stop people from crossing it, how do you check what they are carrying? How do you prevent guns from moving across a border in that case?
deleted by creator
@gun @fu hey lemmy get the fascists off your instance
deleted by creator
@fu way to focus on exactly what I wasn’t talking about
deleted by creator
Right, but if you want to stop school shootings with gun control and are also left wing enough to want zero borders, how will gun control be possible if crazies can just go and get their guns from places where its legal to get them. Am I fascist for pointing out an obvious contradiction?
WTF said anything about wanting gun control?
I did. It’s just a random example to argue what @Banana@feddit.it was saying about reality being more complicated.
deleted by creator
Great. Doesn’t mean you get to just outright murder them.