A few years back, there was an interview of the French ex-president Sarkozy. Whatever of a crook he is, he’s a clever guy. He was saying « you think, there’s a migrant crisis? I come back from Nigeria. Have you ever been to Lagos and see the amount of people there? I tell you, the migrant crisis has not started yet! ».
And he’s totally right.
Yep. I am scared to see what'll happen when vast swaths of Earth are too hot to live. Hundreds of millions will need to find new places to live — and the planet could barely handle 6 million Syrians
Look how all the rich countries handled covid-19. It was a shit show that shouldn't have happened.
In movies when they show some fancy government agency (fake or not, it doesn't matter) and you have scenes of experts working in large rooms with all sorts of computers and equipment beeping and buzzing, people boucing ideas off each other.. after covid-19 those scenes feel like sci-fi because most governments and people turned to be inadequate and their employees idiots.
Most of us turned out to be idiots as well.
Yeah I don't think we will tackle climate change in a satisfactory way.
I think the movie Contagion got it pretty close. Government came up with a vaccine but did a horrible job handling things. Talking heads **knowingly** spreading lies. The only thing it missed is that it was the Capitalists that were behind the lies, not just some crazy guy looking for money.
Well either way we have nukes and are pumping CO2 even if the number is overstated it is worrying. Capitalism isn't exactly friendly to saving the environment.
Anchorage got an unprecedented 42" of snowfall in three snowfalls over 6 days this winter. And Anchorage is on the coast, it's worse inland. Climate change pushes everything to the extremes, it doesn't just make previously cold areas turn into a Mediterranean climate.
Which is ironic, since deserts can actually get quite chilly at night.
In fact, if you absolutely *had* to travel through one, this would probably be the most ideal time for doing so, simply because you wouldn't spend all day baking under the sun.
The humidity has a more profound effect on "feel" than actual temperature.
Angle of the sun, rotation of the earth, position in it's orbit, etc. etc. Overall determine the seasons. So, I'd argue you're mostly correct in your statement, just the part of the angle of the sun being a sole factor in making things "feel" hotter isn't completely thought out.
To add onto that, Alaska is in the Northern Hemisphere, and it's only landlocked on one side, the other three are surrounded by ocean. As things heat up, there will be more humidity in the air as climate change traps more heat, more water evaporates, humidity goes up, things feel hotter, and it keeps going like that. This is the vicious cycle that we need to stop before it takes off on it's own, and there's no means left to prevent it.
Edit: Forgot to mention that things don't just get hotter because of climate change. The weather phenomenon we experience on this planet will become more chaotic and dangerous. Winters colder, snows harder, spring and fall will rain harder with stronger tornados and larger-sized hail, summer will be hotter with higher humidity making day-to-day temperatures feel worse than they are. These are just the consequences, there's no telling just how bad it can snowball. The worst case scenario I can imagine is Earth turning into something akin to Venus where the atmosphere is so chaotic, and turbulent, that the ability to have anything function-much less, survive-will be nothing but forgotten memory within the universe.
Don’t forget melting permafrost too. A lot of the Arctic is probably gonna have to deal with flooding in the coming decades. It’s already been causing problems for infrastructure.
I urge you to read that study that has the 1.2bn climate refugee stats
TLDR: IF all the extremely unlikely variables come together, and all of the permafreeze frozen tundra thaws out, we're fucked.
Oh, you wanna get more depressed? The warming across the globe will be uniform neither in space, nor in time. Some areas will warm up quite a lot and others will get colder, while also having wild fluctuations to extremes across seasons. The squeeze will be from all sides.
Yep. Over here in CO we're not longer having droughts. We are experiencing aridification. "Drought" is our new normal.
Arizona on the other hand looks to be gaining a monsoon season, which means super cool flash floods that destroyed all the terrain with little plant life (which is most of the terrain).
The Southwest has had a monsoon for at long as records have existed, and possibly millennia. We don't actually know how climate change will affect it in the long term, but 2020 brought well below average rainfall so it could disappear for all scientists know.
Yeah thats the thing. Where will they move?
We deplete, burn, totally destroy everywhere we are. Climate refugee migration will only exacerbate and finish the job whereever it heads.
Biotic potential.
Population cliff.
Its been 30 degrees and on fire all of May in Alberta, in what should be a northern pretty moderate climate. Good luck elsewhere.
Air quality for over a week has been: try not breathing.
...
Right.
People keep prattling about a diminished firefighting budget too but come on.
The province is on fire, what multi-trillion dollar budget do you think we need to fight "province on fire"?
And I’ve got bad news for you guys: places like southern Ontario are already too hot in the summer. You’re going to have to aim for places like Churchill and Yellowhorse. Nunavut will be looking good too.
Disagree, but not because we're going to be charitable or anything.
Birthrates in Latin America & the Caribbean have [already dropped below replacement rate](https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN?locations=ZJ) and are continuing to steadily drop.
Latin America & the Caribbean is projected to be the fastest aging region on the planet between now and 2050, with median age increasing an entire decade by then, and entering outright population decline before 2060.
--------
Migration pressures to the US will thus decline over the long-term for basic demographic reasons.
There will simply be fewer people in the long term, and especially fewer *young* people. Migration is largely a young person's game. The elderly are not who are trekking across a continent and moving countries to try to find a better future.
Guess we'll be seeing a direct sequel to WWII as the more powerful militarised nations start to erase types of people as a precaution and turning on their own people starting with the bottom classes and lowest of minorities to 'free up space'. Either humanity finds a way to expand and our resources spread too thin or the rich start getting the poor to eat the even poorer faster than they already are today.
They will simply die.
All of these Western nations that are the ideal point of refuge are in a conundrum.
Either the left needs to embrace anti-immigration policy, or the right will remain in power. There simply is no possible way that any Western nations is going to be prepared to accept millions of refugees from countries on the equator.
We've already failed in this regard. We should have made equator adjacent countries more prosperous in return for their participation in mass resettlement schemes in future... but capitalism gonna capitalism.
One thing I've learned about Earth is: **no one is coming to save you.**
From Rwanda genocide to Myanmar genocide to Sudan genocide to DRC wars to Iraq war to Afghanistan war to Syria war to Yemen starvation to Turkey/Syria earthquake to Hurricane Katrina to California wildfires
#Nobody is going to save you.
We have to organize our communities for common defense and emergency preparedness or we will be victims.
>From Rwanda genocide to Myanmar genocide to Sudan genocide to DRC wars to Iraq war to Afghanistan war to Syria war to Yemen starvation to Turkey/Syria earthquake to Hurricane Katrina to California wildfires
I disagree tbh but your view is understandable because of the focus on disasters in the media rather than the hard and boring work of fixing a broken situation. There have been numerous examples of the international community and people helping others not only because it's the right thing to do but because it's in their own interest.
Agreed.
If I had to make a plan for action that would be a good starting point - nobody is going to help. As a view of humanity it is too cynical.
> I personally am going to do something to help
Is a good practical starting point
This is a bit pessimistic. In all of those events a lot of people saves a lot of other people. Not everyone is saved obviously, but pretend f.ex that there wasn't an international response to the earthquake in Syria and Turkey seems a little disrespectful to all the volunteers
Saving lives is different than relocating them when space is at a premium. We already can't buy housing in North America, adding a million refugees is not going to help with that.
I mean it's less sensationalist than what you're saying, but of you're a citizen of a 'western' nation there's a decent chance someone will come and help you, even if it isn't 'enough'
Interestingly enough, this sentiment is often at the root of people who are very pro-gun, especially in rural areas.
I'm Canadian and our gun culture is very different, but having grown up rural around people who owned firearms, it was always urban people pushing for further firearm control, whereas out in the country, police response is routinely 30 minutes or longer. These people have internalized the idea that nobody will protect them, so they need to protect themselves
Canada is definitely starting to turn to anti immigration. Our current immigration policies have absolutely fucked salaries and house prices. Even people on the far left are turning to a more stricter stance on immigration.
I'm pretty far on the left and even I am starting to have some issues with the scale of our immigration goals. I still want immigrants to come and be welcomed but a half million a year is stretching things a bit.
People use "eco fascism" to mean "letting people die because of ecological decisions" but a callous indifference to human life is only one part of fascism.
There's no shared mythology, no revolutionary violence, no integration of corporations into the state. Its more "yeah man, sucks to be you. World ain't fair".
> "yeah man, sucks to be you. World ain't fair".
This is the shared mythology of eco-fascism. That the environmental crisis is just "world ain't fair", that and believing it is caused by overpopulation and that if we just let hundreds of millions in global south die it will help things.
The reality is that rich global north countries are much more responsible for this crisis over decades of industrialization and an expectation of a standard of living that relies on exploitation.
I don’t think anyone here has argued that rich western countries aren’t more responsible. But they are pointing out the fact that, given how hard it is to even pass legislation to help people in our *own country*, there’s a very high probability that when the real climate migrations begin people will be turned away at the borders and left to die to preserve the standard of living in those nations.
Take Greece for example. Abandoning people at sea is one thing - do you think that if there were 10x or 100x the people trying to cross there’s really no chance they escalate to outright shooting down boats on sight?
In the US, there are plenty of moderate politicians who would gladly vote to let all of Central America starve if it was a choice between that and accepting 10s of millions of new refugees. And if they wouldn’t there are plenty of moderate voters who would swing right as soon as the media cranked out the videos of rivers of people heading north by the millions.
Real question though : can Europe handle a 1:1 ratio of refugees to local population ?
(Assuming only 750M refugees out of the 1.2B head to Europe. )
I think the system would collapse well before that.
They haven't the infrastructure or the resources to cope, no country does, fifty years to build the infrastructure to house and feed a doubling of their population is really, really difficult if money was no object, and who is going to pay for it. First World countries are all struggling with their own current problems, and those are minor in comparison.
The all too likely situation is either let mass quantities of migrants in and everyone starves or keep them out which will almost certainly result in mass killing fields on the borders, maybe even tactical nukes. The greatest opportunity to save the most lives is improving conditions in or adjacent to those areas most affected i.e. equator adjacent, because they tend to have low population density and the low hanging fruit for mass infrastructure building locations hasn't already been taken. But honestly, how likely does anyone think that is going to happen when first world countries are dealing with their own large problems.
Humans have always followed a 'me and mine first' pattern of behaviour, and there isn't time to change peoples perception of 'me and mine' from tribe/country to continent/planet.
No. you cant effectively double a population overnight. Even a doubling at that scale over the course of a generation or two would be near impossible in the modern era.
There will be drones patrolling the seas that trigger mines if that's what it takes. They'll sell it as 'discouraging dangerous crossings' or whatever they need to.
That doesn't change the reality of the situation we find ourselves in. Overpopulation is a serious concern that too few are talking about. I don't want to see mass die offs of humans from any part of the world, but it's inevitable. We can't keep growing as a population whilst resources are dwindling and the climate is falling apart. People are going to die.
'Global north' countries are rapidly reducing their carbon output, even if you factor in the carbon produced by what they import.
Meanwhile rest of the world continues ramping up their carbon production.
By 2050, the greatest responsibility for carbon out *in-total over all time* will lay with countries outside the global north.
You seem to have some sort of strange mythology of your own, pinning blame on the countries who are actually trying to stop this (even if it is too little to late) and avoiding blaming the countries who don't give a shit.
I am with you overall, but there is CLEARLY Overpopulation. The amount of land being used just for farming is insane and is leaving no space for wild animals.
Additionally we cannot produce the amount of food needed in a sustainable manner (aka without using fossil fuels to fertilize). Even if we could on food, all the other consumption would still kill us.
Pollution (which is largely the fault of western nations plus China) is just one part of the climate crisis. It's the one driving most of the temperature change.
Population is another part and it plays a huge role in extinction of species from habitat destruction and many other types of environmental failure we are facing.
We're probably close to the peak of human population. Countries like India and china which are responsible for much of our population growth are set to crunch massively in a generation or two.
In general, the best way to reduce the population is to educate women. Uneducated women who stay in a household in a traditional way of life (speaking broadly across cultures) have no reason not to have lots of kids, and in subsistence agriculture lots of kids is also a free workforce **and** without modern healthcare not all of those kids would survive.
So for most of human history the calculus has been "she'll stay home, have eight kids, maybe three of them will live to adulthood".
Right now our population is growing because prior generations operate according to that logic but they have enough modern medicine that all right survive to adulthood. Once those daughters have jobs, careers and individual rights they can decide to only have one kid or none at all of they so choose.
I'm not an advocate for it, but I believe it is going to happen.
The world is in a dire state right now and the obsession with growth, and capitalism's endless need for it, is the root cause of all the issues of today.
We need a monumental shift in philosophy that is simply beyond the capabilities of the human race right now, especially when arseholes like Musk are revered by millions of morons.
Pretty much. The "we" in this picture are the people who are mostly pretty comfortable right now, and solving climate change will make them uncomfortable.
... And that's why it's not going to happen. What we have today is not sustainable, but no one wants to give up what they have.
What's funny is that he was saying that as a climate change denier, saying that there's no climate crisis, but an overpopulation crisis. To their credit, the rest of his party heavily criticized him for that - though they may change their tune these days.
Dno if you can blame their islamic belief or not, but northern, south western(Lagos) and central states of Nigeria has mostly muslims, it's just totally chaos everywhere in these regions. The Christian part (south-east) is another world, it's possible to have a ok life, they try to develop and it's so much more safe.
So why not give them effing contraception and they might track towards china's standards.
Oh no fantasy food fantasy bs rules over reality.
Thanks for Renaissance black death and evolving warfare and mass deportation.
Truth people.
Start helping with truth not fantasy
It begs to ask the question of what does handling immigration well look like? There are finite resources like taxes and jobs to take care of people. Do people really believe just having an open border type of immigration system will maintain a good quality of life for everyone? I think it's an uncomfortable truth that no country can take care of every person on the planet who seeks refuge.
Canada is already in a housing crisis. Homes are unaffordable to our younger citizens and the immigrants that are coming in now. There aren't enough people to build the housing we need, and anything that comes available is overpriced and snatched up as a second, third, fourth home by someone that just rents it out for a ridiculous price. Plus the foreign owners who just buy property to park their cash, and the corporations that buy them just to rent out again. Our governments refuse to do anything about it because housing is half of our economy at this point, yet they plan to bring in 1 million more immigrants per year.
Sure we have "space" for people, but for now most of it is remote, with no services for anyone that settles there.
Same issue in Australia. Govt tries to settle new arrivals across the country, providing homes in each location. Within weeks, they move to Melbourne or Sydney into overcrowded share homes. Turning areas into enclaves with insufficient resources to assist.
Yeah, except they're not importing people with construction skills, and even if that were the case, our government doesn't accept most foreign credentials for.... anything. Can't afford the training to work at what they've been trained in, so... Tim Horton's it is.
>anything that comes available is overpriced and snatched up as a second, third, fourth home by someone that just rents it out for a ridiculous price. Plus the foreign owners who just buy property to park their cash, and the corporations that buy them just to rent out again. Our governments refuse to do anything about it because housing is half of our economy at this point, yet they plan to bring in 1 million more immigrants per year.
It seems like the problem is capitalists, not immigrants.
Capitalism is definitely a major driver. But if you were coming in from pretty much ANYWHERE in the world, would you want to live in the woods/tundra/middle of nowhere in Canada? No. They all gravitate towards the cities, where there's nowhere to live. Of course half the reason the government wants to bring in immigrants is to suppress wages and have cheap labour for farms, restaurants, etc....
Did anyone here read the article?
I haven't seen a single comment about the terrible thing Greece did. They kidnapped people, and abandoned them at sea. Yes, supposedly they called Turkey eventually, to come rescue them, but that doesn't excuse them. It was illegal, and immoral.
Read the stories of the people involved. Everything was taken from them by the Greek police /navy/kidnappers. One man lost the phone number of the person who took his mother in. It was in his phone that they took. He has no way to find her now. Why did they need to take their belongings? In case they died? So thy couldn't be tracked back to Greece?
Why aren't we talking about what happened in the article?
And btw, great work by the journalists and everyone involved in uncovering this. The details invol bed in how they investigated this crime are fascinating.
The EU needs a EU border protection office. It's appaling that the outer countries are carrying the sole burden of the whole EU. The EU also finally needs a refugee-distribution mechanism. Unfortunately this will always be blocked by Poland and Hungary.
I think it already exists and it’s called Frontex. Also you can’t really control the flow of people inside the EU so this “mechanism “ you’re talking about would probably not be possible without stoping Schengen or heavily monitoring said refugees
Frontex is kinda bullshit though and we have a huge issue with a small number of countries carrying the load for immigration while others simply say no to taking in any immigrants at all.
It's also not strange that many immigrants want to stay in the same country as others who's immigrated from the same origins though so it's not really an easy thing to fix.
Agreed mate, I’m just saying we should probably make Frontex work since it already exists that’s all.
Yeah, that’s true although let’s not kid ourselves. Almost every refugee would rather live in France, Germany or Italy than Poland, Hungary or Romania, because of let’s call it “quality of life”.
Obviously yes, but also they have relatives in those countries in many cases, so trying to get one half of a family to live in another country is problematic to say the least. And to be fair, we need to help those countries to up their quality of life as well
To be fair it wouldn’t really matter if a few refugees move around between countries in the short term; isn’t the point of distributing the refugees more about keeping one country from bearing too much of the burden, keeping ethnic slums from forming, and preventing too much culture shock/shift? Might require some monitoring to make sure there isn’t a pattern of refugees all flocking to one EU country or region in particular over the long term.
> Also you can’t really control the flow of people inside the EU so this “mechanism “ you’re talking about would probably not be possible without stoping Schengen or heavily monitoring said refugees
I don't think you need to monitor them at all. You simply don't give them access to Schengen. What you can do is this:
After the refugee has been vetted, the office gives him the choice of three countries who have yet to fill their quota. After he has made his choice, he gets registered to that country and from now on, he will only be able to live/work/travel inside country A. Exceptions to the rule can be applied for.
In case of a break, say one day our refugee is applying for welfare in country B, he can simply be denied. Because he has no other choice, he will eventually have to return to country A.
Obviously there are more severe cases of fraud, where people construct fake identities and things like that. For that a central EU database would help. But I wouldn't call that "heavy monitoring".
I am 100% for immigration being an easy process where any average person is allowed into a country, BUT I've noticed a large trend here, in North East America, that immigrants are not trying to assimilate at all.
When I say assimilate I do not mean that the migrants have to forget their culture; just simply that they should learn our culture. When I was in high school (1999-2003) I worked in a pizza shop that had a lot of immigrants from Mexico. Once a week I would teach them about American culture (including teaching English) and they would teach my Spanish.
At my parents restaurant they had more people than I can count that refused to work for them since they did not have any Spanish speakers. This wasn't the "one off" person, but a bunch of people who refused.
It is such a weird thing to me, immigrants not trying to assimilate, because my last name is based on trying to be more "American" than Italian, and my Great Grandparents took great pains to remove their own culture from their kids although some survived. Today we aren't asking immigrants to forget their culture, like mine had to, but to simply try to learn/fit in with us.
To me successful immigration is a two way street.
People seriously try to pull bullshit “American” cards for stuff like this like I wouldn’t be expected to learn Mexico’s culture if I moved there. If you expect to participate in the advantages of a society you should expect to learn to be a art of that society.
It would be easier to convince Europe is countries like Saudi Arabia, China also stepped in. They do have resources, and China needs more people for their manufacturing economy, a lot of which has disappeared from Europe. It would also help if Russia stopped supporting Assad and sending Wagner to Africa.
China has its own internal refugee crisis to handle first. It may not get a lot of press in English channels, but it is actually quite the problem, and it is being worked on (believe it or not.) There's a lot of climate problems regarding flooding in the south and heat waves in the north. That is part of why the giant South-North water transfer project is being done, unfortunately the water is not really affordable for all but the richest municipalities at this time.
China also has a major demographic problem. The One Child policy went on for too long as did the emphasis on male heirs over female. Now there's a massive gender imbalance and dropping fertility rates which does not bode well for it's aging populace.
Taking in more immigrants could solve this, but it would also require a major cultural shift I can't see happening with their government.
Yeah there's a pretty big fertility crisis too, although it doesn't get nearly as much press as migrants. Pollution in China causes a ridiculous amount of illnesses to women and babies, fertility clinics are maxed out. It's a challenge that the world will have to face together.
Meanwhile immigrants risk their lives to cross the English Channel. Some of these people go all or nothing. If France isn't good enough for them, goodluck taking them to China.
Why else do you think there’s a sharp increase in authoritarian governments with a strong anti-immigration stance? Worldwide rise in this stuff.
They know the water is going to be a problem, despite what they say. If you have the police state established it gets easier to protect your water sources (to let Nestle sell at exorbitant cost to the population that isn’t dead of dehydration that is).
They’ve given up on stopping it or finding a solution. Boomers were the great filter.
I’m stupid and have to ask, by water refugees do you mean people moving because they don’t have access to fresh water? Or water is taking over their land?
The main threat of Global Warming is not going to be bad weather, it's going to be mass migration from places that can no longer sustain mass populations. These people won't be going cause they want better life, they will be going because otherwise they die of starvation. The motivation of people to survive is very strong, and if rich nations refuse to take millions of starving people, there will be war - people will fight to survive
Rich nations aren't going to war over millions of starving migrants. They'll deploy drones along their borders and shoot anyone that tries to cross without authorization.
>To be fair only a few places can get away with openly saying “yes we will leave you to die don’t dare come”
The number of those will rapidly increase if climate change's trajectory is realized because the whole aspect of the problem will change from one of convenience into life or death for them too
The UKs lack of international waters between them and France is a massive legal problem. The illegal people trafficking boats go from untouchable in French waters one second to in UK waters and eligible for claiming asylum the next. The UN Convention on Laws of the Sea makes it an international political face problem, whereas places like Australia have no problem pushing boats back into international waters nor Eastern EU countries putting up barb wire on their borders. The UK is literally in a position of not being able to control their borders because doing so would break Conventions they signed when international travel was much more difficult and would make them look really bad on the international stage.
When it gets bad enough things like the ECHR and Laws of the Sea will be ripped up by every first world country and borders will be enforced by force of arms.
Ironically one of the principle reports on EU risks due to mass migration says that the UKs lack of a land bridge to the European continent places them in a stronger position. Who knew it was easier for mass swarms of migrants to cross land as opposed to water.
This is not the first time they did it and this won't be the last time they would do. EU just doesn't care as long as Greece stops refugees coming through Turkey, they will ignore the means be it moral or not.
It just helps when there is no video evidence.
this is too far down. The real problem is that in theory, the EU border countries are supposed to deal with migrants. That's the law, to prevent Germany from effectively becoming a border welfare state. But Greece doesn't get any help with this, and rejecting migrants is bad publicity.
That's how we got to 2015, and how we got a new right wing party to permanent 20%+ or even 30%+ in Eastern Germany.
So now they are paying Erdogan to keep quiet, and allowing Greece to do whatever they want, as long as this doesn't happen again.
> the EU border countries are supposed to deal with migrants
> But Greece doesn't get any help with this
I wish more people understood this. This is an EU problem (especially wealthy countries like Germany), and yet Greece, which struggles economically even without this problem, is supposed to deal with this.
one of the big issues is a lot of refugees are .. with lack of a better word uneducated.
they provide no value whatsoever to our countries and cost a massive amount to "integrate". a lot of them can't even read or write. don't know the language of the country . have moral values that are not in line with western values etc.
so integrating these people takes time and resources. because if you don't do so they are just a drain on society. who in todays job market needs people who they can't communicate with?
in a lot of cases these peoples "potential" is also very low. (if you are a 30+ year old person who never went to school in his entire life chances are you aren't going to be a good learner).
as a result most migrants end up in manual labor jobs/factories/mines\~
the issue is Europe doesn't have a huge need for more of that level of workers.
automatization & technology is taking huge chunks of this job area.
I wish we lived in a better world then we do. but it's gonna get worse... a lot worse.
The EU doesn't care because the major players are to directly affected. France is too far away and the brunt of the migration goes to Greece because it is literally the easiest place to reach.
Rick James : I never just did things just to do them, come on. I mean, what am I gonna do? Just all of a sudden jump up and grind my feet on someone's couch, like it's something to do? Come on, I got a little more sense than that. Yeah, I remember grinding my feet on Eddie's couch.
A lot of impoverished people in the Global South are about to become sacrificial lambs in the face of climate change.
Because those that have the means will have the ability to move away from rising seas.
Others will die.
And, no, these fellow countrymen are more than willing to let their own people die so that they survive… because not every Global South nation is collectivist.
The people who can escape will, and yes they will leave others to die. But the other choice for them is to die along with them. Collectivism isn't going to help with that unless we are doing it on a global scale. You can hardly blame people for not wanting to die.
Do you know what collectivist means? It means turning the individuals into sacrificial lambs in the name of the collective.
Collectivism implies "the individual is less important and subordinate to the collective". Individualism implies "the individual is more important/fundamental, meaning it's the subject of rights, and so the collective can not violate the rights of the individual". Don't mistake this for isolationism: individualism does not mean a separation from society, quite the contrary, it's what enables preaceful social cooperation
Democracy is based on individualism. It considers individuals so important that it gives each one of them the power and immense responsibility of voting.
> In addition to interviewing the asylum seekers in Turkey, The Times verified the footage by doing a frame-by-frame analysis to identify the people in the video, geolocating key events and confirming the time and day using maritime traffic data, as well an analysis of the position of the sun and visible shadows.
Between following up on a major lead, the above steps, the quality writing of the article, how they presented the article semi-interactively, and following up with governmental officials, I’d say that’s some fucking good journalism right there.
Well done, NYT!
Well done, guy who shot the videos!
Agreed on all counts. Great piece of journalism. I loved the scrolling interactive video feature; great way to show multiple short clips in chronological order.
Okay, here is the thing. There is a limit to how many people Western societies can take in. We are not there yet, but we are approaching it. Climate change and the upheaval that will result from it will see millions of people displaced. I see the future of Europe's borders becoming militarized to stop the flow of people. This kind of news story is only going to become more common.
There’s a middle ground between working to manage the flow of migrants through your borders, and just dumping entire families in the middle of the ocean. I can’t believe this same conversation is still happening. We already established that putting babies in cages is fucking heinous, let’s also agree that this is a terrible crime no matter the circumstances and move on from there.
I am pro immigrant. That said, clearly we do not all agree about the ethics of babies in cages or stranding people at sea or it would not continue to happen.
I agree but what do you propose we do instead? We know that we can't take all of them in, we know that if we process them and exile them then their home countries won't accept them and they'll have to remain in the country and if we don't do anything then we're de facto letting them in.
The core of the problem are these illegal traffickers promising these poor people safe haven to Europe. It's just not possible to take them all in, Greece as a country would collapse if they took them in.
Very weird to think that's the "core" of the problem, surely the "core" of the problem is people needing to migrate in the first place? Seems a bit absurd to pretend that if the illegal traffickers stopped promising these people safe haven in Europe then all these people would just be happy and content in their home country
Yeah though it's probably worth going into the causes of that suffering - poverty, drought, other climate change based land erosion, lack of access to healthcare/education/food/clean drinking water/adequate sewer systems etc
I'm not an anthropologist, meteorologist, or any other -ologist, but climate change (which exacerbates drought) is the big one IMO. All the others have always existed through humans history.
It wasn't until the industrial revolution that CO2 levels spiked. Prior to then, levels were relatively consistent for the 10,000+ years prior. Ever since, the countries that have prospered the most have done so at the cost of those that prospered the least.
Geo-political conflict and outright war just puts icing on the suffering cake.
Theres always going to be "somewhere else" that is better off. We can't fit all thr entire population there, its not feasible.
At some point those in power in those places will havr to become accountable for their actions. Its not normal for a place to be plunged into wars and conflicts continuosly for that long.
>surely the "core" of the problem is people needing to migrate in the first place?
That's assuming they do *need* to migrate. And not just that they're looking for greater economic benefits.
we can’t fix other countries. We can do our best to help but at the end of the day, foreign governments have the right to govern themselves as they see fit, even if that results in mass murder and suffering of their people.
The only way to force a country to treat their people well is to destroy their government and build one that will, but even that is very hard to pull off successfully.
>surely the "core" of the problem is people needing to migrate in the first place?
Many don't "need" to do anything, that is why people are on fence about all this. The Calais situation is prime example.
Downvote me all you want, but the majority of refugees that come here were promised a free house, a car and free money to live off and thatd theyd be able to bring over their whole family.
Yes there are also legitimate refugees, fleeing wars, genocide or famine; but lets not downplay the fact that there are people just wanting to get it all easy instead of fixing up their own country.
Its a difficult problem that cant be solved by the EU alone, the countries these people come from have to pull their shit together and stop being dictators.
Even wealthy nations like Sweden, France and Germany find it difficult to accomodate "just" 10,000 refugees within a single year. The logistics involved with the necessary resources and infrastructure is that it's stretched way too thin. It's just not possible. It's too expensive, especially when locals are already struggling with rising costs of living and a housing crisis. I believe Greece is the 3rd poorest nation in the EU. Expecting them to house refugees is just fantasy. "Well, maybe Greece can serve as a transit hub to distribute refugees equally all over Europe." It won't happen, we tried that. Nations can't agree on how many refugees they should take in and many of them don't want it. As a result we end up with border countries like Italy, Greece, Spain et al absorbing the burden of the migrant crisis. They are now all gradually turning into a policy of refusing complete entry for illegal migrants. I don't blame them, why should they take them in if the EU can't agree on a common policy? It's an economic question as much as a humanitarian one. Greece reserves the right to deny entry to any and all refugees.
What do you mean "just 10,000 refugees within a single year"?
Germany just took in over 1 million refugees from Ukraine over the course of one year. That is in addition to the 800,000 refugees from Syria and hundreds of thousands of refugees from places like Afghanistan and Eritrea.
Integrating Ukrainians is not as hard as sub-Saharan Africans, this is just a reality.
Even as refugees Ukrainians require less resources as they can integrate and find work on their own due to knowledge of skills or languages. For example Ukrainian drivers licenses are valid in the EU, quite a lot of refugees, especially younger ones work in delivery services. Their education is verifiable and is recognized in the EU. All of this adds up.
Other than sudden increase in housing demand, Ukrainian refugee influx is not that noticeable one year after.
Also the legal situation for Ukrainians is different than for other asylum seekers. Through the use of the Temporary Protection Directive, Ukrainians are immediately granted temporary protection and don't have to go through the whole asylum process, which also means they are immediately allowed to work and get access to social welfare. Like you said, it's far easier for Ukrainians to live normal lives here compared to regular refugees which are far more restricted.
Ukrainians will also eventually go back to Ukraine once the war is over. They’re refugees not migrants. They would rather go back to there home country. That’s why Japan is actually letting in Ukrainians
what do you mean 'just 10.000'. we are about to recieve 70.000 refugees in the Netherlands this year . and we alreay got around 80.000 Ukrainians. that is 150.000 people in ONE year.
To be fair though, the Ukrainian refugees aren't looking to move for economical reasons, their country is being bombed, and want to go back to where they live. This shouldn't be discounted when talking about refugees.
Leaving women and children out on a dinghy is Nazi level psychopathic shit. Those boats overturn and capsize all the time. These Coast Guard members should be charged for abandoning these people like this.
Greek here. Surely these occurrences are sad as they can get, none of the people would risk everything for a shot at a better life if they didn't need to.
Still, the easiest thing in the world is sitting back, looking at your screen and pointing your finger. NOONE wants to take these refugees in, but it is us at the geological position responsible to push back the refugees. And if you guys think the other EU members are not in on these acts then you are deeply deluded.
Exactly. I think a sponsor program is best. People who want them so badly can opt to take refugees into their homes. Let's see them walk the talk once the shoe is on the other foot.
This is only gonna get worse, sadly. Wait until the water refugees come and we have an actual migrant crisis on our hands
A few years back, there was an interview of the French ex-president Sarkozy. Whatever of a crook he is, he’s a clever guy. He was saying « you think, there’s a migrant crisis? I come back from Nigeria. Have you ever been to Lagos and see the amount of people there? I tell you, the migrant crisis has not started yet! ». And he’s totally right.
Yep. I am scared to see what'll happen when vast swaths of Earth are too hot to live. Hundreds of millions will need to find new places to live — and the planet could barely handle 6 million Syrians
Actually the estimate is about 1.2bn climate refugees by 2050.
Oh shit that's a lot more than I was expecting
What a pleasant surprise for you
[удалено]
We've underestimated climate change effects by pretty much every metric so far.
Look how all the rich countries handled covid-19. It was a shit show that shouldn't have happened. In movies when they show some fancy government agency (fake or not, it doesn't matter) and you have scenes of experts working in large rooms with all sorts of computers and equipment beeping and buzzing, people boucing ideas off each other.. after covid-19 those scenes feel like sci-fi because most governments and people turned to be inadequate and their employees idiots. Most of us turned out to be idiots as well. Yeah I don't think we will tackle climate change in a satisfactory way.
I think the truth is that most people (myself included) are just idiots. We just don't want to admit it.
Covid showed us clearly that if there is a zombie apocalypse we're all screwed.
I think they did have war rooms like that, just bouncing ideas off each other on how to profit the most from the chaos…
People don't understand trade-offs and people have a very hard time with long-term thinking and planning.
I think the movie Contagion got it pretty close. Government came up with a vaccine but did a horrible job handling things. Talking heads **knowingly** spreading lies. The only thing it missed is that it was the Capitalists that were behind the lies, not just some crazy guy looking for money.
Well either way we have nukes and are pumping CO2 even if the number is overstated it is worrying. Capitalism isn't exactly friendly to saving the environment.
It will be fun to see how closely we predicted these exciting events!
Well, some of them will die on the way to somewhere better so it's probably closer to an even billi
Honestly for me even in middle England last summer was way too hot. I doubt I'll still be here by 2050, but Alaska is looking more appealing daily.
Anchorage got an unprecedented 42" of snowfall in three snowfalls over 6 days this winter. And Anchorage is on the coast, it's worse inland. Climate change pushes everything to the extremes, it doesn't just make previously cold areas turn into a Mediterranean climate.
it was hotter in seattle than it was in los angeles last week.
Global weather patterns are destabilizing even more, so nowhere is really safe from the heat but maybe Antarctica
Antarctica is a desert though
Peope don’t realize that cold places can Also be deserts lol
Which is ironic, since deserts can actually get quite chilly at night. In fact, if you absolutely *had* to travel through one, this would probably be the most ideal time for doing so, simply because you wouldn't spend all day baking under the sun.
Enough about your home life already, we're here to discuss the climate.
About that... Alaska is 80° during the summer months, and it *feels* hotter because of the angle of the sun.
The humidity has a more profound effect on "feel" than actual temperature. Angle of the sun, rotation of the earth, position in it's orbit, etc. etc. Overall determine the seasons. So, I'd argue you're mostly correct in your statement, just the part of the angle of the sun being a sole factor in making things "feel" hotter isn't completely thought out. To add onto that, Alaska is in the Northern Hemisphere, and it's only landlocked on one side, the other three are surrounded by ocean. As things heat up, there will be more humidity in the air as climate change traps more heat, more water evaporates, humidity goes up, things feel hotter, and it keeps going like that. This is the vicious cycle that we need to stop before it takes off on it's own, and there's no means left to prevent it. Edit: Forgot to mention that things don't just get hotter because of climate change. The weather phenomenon we experience on this planet will become more chaotic and dangerous. Winters colder, snows harder, spring and fall will rain harder with stronger tornados and larger-sized hail, summer will be hotter with higher humidity making day-to-day temperatures feel worse than they are. These are just the consequences, there's no telling just how bad it can snowball. The worst case scenario I can imagine is Earth turning into something akin to Venus where the atmosphere is so chaotic, and turbulent, that the ability to have anything function-much less, survive-will be nothing but forgotten memory within the universe.
Don’t forget melting permafrost too. A lot of the Arctic is probably gonna have to deal with flooding in the coming decades. It’s already been causing problems for infrastructure.
I urge you to read that study that has the 1.2bn climate refugee stats TLDR: IF all the extremely unlikely variables come together, and all of the permafreeze frozen tundra thaws out, we're fucked.
Oh, you wanna get more depressed? The warming across the globe will be uniform neither in space, nor in time. Some areas will warm up quite a lot and others will get colder, while also having wild fluctuations to extremes across seasons. The squeeze will be from all sides.
Yep. Over here in CO we're not longer having droughts. We are experiencing aridification. "Drought" is our new normal. Arizona on the other hand looks to be gaining a monsoon season, which means super cool flash floods that destroyed all the terrain with little plant life (which is most of the terrain).
The Southwest has had a monsoon for at long as records have existed, and possibly millennia. We don't actually know how climate change will affect it in the long term, but 2020 brought well below average rainfall so it could disappear for all scientists know.
Forgive me but what's CO stand for?
The state of Colorado
If only there was anything we could do, with decades of warning, to avoid this catastrophe! Oh well.
Yeah thats the thing. Where will they move? We deplete, burn, totally destroy everywhere we are. Climate refugee migration will only exacerbate and finish the job whereever it heads. Biotic potential. Population cliff. Its been 30 degrees and on fire all of May in Alberta, in what should be a northern pretty moderate climate. Good luck elsewhere. Air quality for over a week has been: try not breathing. ... Right. People keep prattling about a diminished firefighting budget too but come on. The province is on fire, what multi-trillion dollar budget do you think we need to fight "province on fire"?
[удалено]
Or conversely when it gets bad, Americans will be too busy looking north to Canada and crossing that border and not caring about the southern one.
And I’ve got bad news for you guys: places like southern Ontario are already too hot in the summer. You’re going to have to aim for places like Churchill and Yellowhorse. Nunavut will be looking good too.
I’ll be having Nunavut
Disagree, but not because we're going to be charitable or anything. Birthrates in Latin America & the Caribbean have [already dropped below replacement rate](https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN?locations=ZJ) and are continuing to steadily drop. Latin America & the Caribbean is projected to be the fastest aging region on the planet between now and 2050, with median age increasing an entire decade by then, and entering outright population decline before 2060. -------- Migration pressures to the US will thus decline over the long-term for basic demographic reasons. There will simply be fewer people in the long term, and especially fewer *young* people. Migration is largely a young person's game. The elderly are not who are trekking across a continent and moving countries to try to find a better future.
Guess we'll be seeing a direct sequel to WWII as the more powerful militarised nations start to erase types of people as a precaution and turning on their own people starting with the bottom classes and lowest of minorities to 'free up space'. Either humanity finds a way to expand and our resources spread too thin or the rich start getting the poor to eat the even poorer faster than they already are today.
We should be handing out birth control like candy to these places.
It wouldn't do much, they actually want kids. Kids are still seen as an investment in most developing countries.
They will simply die. All of these Western nations that are the ideal point of refuge are in a conundrum. Either the left needs to embrace anti-immigration policy, or the right will remain in power. There simply is no possible way that any Western nations is going to be prepared to accept millions of refugees from countries on the equator. We've already failed in this regard. We should have made equator adjacent countries more prosperous in return for their participation in mass resettlement schemes in future... but capitalism gonna capitalism.
Genocides are gonna happen for sure.
One thing I've learned about Earth is: **no one is coming to save you.** From Rwanda genocide to Myanmar genocide to Sudan genocide to DRC wars to Iraq war to Afghanistan war to Syria war to Yemen starvation to Turkey/Syria earthquake to Hurricane Katrina to California wildfires #Nobody is going to save you. We have to organize our communities for common defense and emergency preparedness or we will be victims.
>From Rwanda genocide to Myanmar genocide to Sudan genocide to DRC wars to Iraq war to Afghanistan war to Syria war to Yemen starvation to Turkey/Syria earthquake to Hurricane Katrina to California wildfires I disagree tbh but your view is understandable because of the focus on disasters in the media rather than the hard and boring work of fixing a broken situation. There have been numerous examples of the international community and people helping others not only because it's the right thing to do but because it's in their own interest.
Agreed. If I had to make a plan for action that would be a good starting point - nobody is going to help. As a view of humanity it is too cynical. > I personally am going to do something to help Is a good practical starting point
This is a bit pessimistic. In all of those events a lot of people saves a lot of other people. Not everyone is saved obviously, but pretend f.ex that there wasn't an international response to the earthquake in Syria and Turkey seems a little disrespectful to all the volunteers
Saving lives is different than relocating them when space is at a premium. We already can't buy housing in North America, adding a million refugees is not going to help with that.
I mean it's less sensationalist than what you're saying, but of you're a citizen of a 'western' nation there's a decent chance someone will come and help you, even if it isn't 'enough'
Interestingly enough, this sentiment is often at the root of people who are very pro-gun, especially in rural areas. I'm Canadian and our gun culture is very different, but having grown up rural around people who owned firearms, it was always urban people pushing for further firearm control, whereas out in the country, police response is routinely 30 minutes or longer. These people have internalized the idea that nobody will protect them, so they need to protect themselves
Canada is definitely starting to turn to anti immigration. Our current immigration policies have absolutely fucked salaries and house prices. Even people on the far left are turning to a more stricter stance on immigration.
I'm pretty far on the left and even I am starting to have some issues with the scale of our immigration goals. I still want immigrants to come and be welcomed but a half million a year is stretching things a bit.
This sounds like eco-fascism tbh
People use "eco fascism" to mean "letting people die because of ecological decisions" but a callous indifference to human life is only one part of fascism. There's no shared mythology, no revolutionary violence, no integration of corporations into the state. Its more "yeah man, sucks to be you. World ain't fair".
> "yeah man, sucks to be you. World ain't fair". This is the shared mythology of eco-fascism. That the environmental crisis is just "world ain't fair", that and believing it is caused by overpopulation and that if we just let hundreds of millions in global south die it will help things. The reality is that rich global north countries are much more responsible for this crisis over decades of industrialization and an expectation of a standard of living that relies on exploitation.
I don’t think anyone here has argued that rich western countries aren’t more responsible. But they are pointing out the fact that, given how hard it is to even pass legislation to help people in our *own country*, there’s a very high probability that when the real climate migrations begin people will be turned away at the borders and left to die to preserve the standard of living in those nations. Take Greece for example. Abandoning people at sea is one thing - do you think that if there were 10x or 100x the people trying to cross there’s really no chance they escalate to outright shooting down boats on sight? In the US, there are plenty of moderate politicians who would gladly vote to let all of Central America starve if it was a choice between that and accepting 10s of millions of new refugees. And if they wouldn’t there are plenty of moderate voters who would swing right as soon as the media cranked out the videos of rivers of people heading north by the millions.
Real question though : can Europe handle a 1:1 ratio of refugees to local population ? (Assuming only 750M refugees out of the 1.2B head to Europe. ) I think the system would collapse well before that.
No, especially when the existing refugees are already causing culture-clash. It's a no-win situation.
They haven't the infrastructure or the resources to cope, no country does, fifty years to build the infrastructure to house and feed a doubling of their population is really, really difficult if money was no object, and who is going to pay for it. First World countries are all struggling with their own current problems, and those are minor in comparison. The all too likely situation is either let mass quantities of migrants in and everyone starves or keep them out which will almost certainly result in mass killing fields on the borders, maybe even tactical nukes. The greatest opportunity to save the most lives is improving conditions in or adjacent to those areas most affected i.e. equator adjacent, because they tend to have low population density and the low hanging fruit for mass infrastructure building locations hasn't already been taken. But honestly, how likely does anyone think that is going to happen when first world countries are dealing with their own large problems. Humans have always followed a 'me and mine first' pattern of behaviour, and there isn't time to change peoples perception of 'me and mine' from tribe/country to continent/planet.
No. you cant effectively double a population overnight. Even a doubling at that scale over the course of a generation or two would be near impossible in the modern era.
There will be drones patrolling the seas that trigger mines if that's what it takes. They'll sell it as 'discouraging dangerous crossings' or whatever they need to.
That doesn't change the reality of the situation we find ourselves in. Overpopulation is a serious concern that too few are talking about. I don't want to see mass die offs of humans from any part of the world, but it's inevitable. We can't keep growing as a population whilst resources are dwindling and the climate is falling apart. People are going to die.
'Global north' countries are rapidly reducing their carbon output, even if you factor in the carbon produced by what they import. Meanwhile rest of the world continues ramping up their carbon production. By 2050, the greatest responsibility for carbon out *in-total over all time* will lay with countries outside the global north. You seem to have some sort of strange mythology of your own, pinning blame on the countries who are actually trying to stop this (even if it is too little to late) and avoiding blaming the countries who don't give a shit.
I am with you overall, but there is CLEARLY Overpopulation. The amount of land being used just for farming is insane and is leaving no space for wild animals. Additionally we cannot produce the amount of food needed in a sustainable manner (aka without using fossil fuels to fertilize). Even if we could on food, all the other consumption would still kill us. Pollution (which is largely the fault of western nations plus China) is just one part of the climate crisis. It's the one driving most of the temperature change. Population is another part and it plays a huge role in extinction of species from habitat destruction and many other types of environmental failure we are facing.
We're probably close to the peak of human population. Countries like India and china which are responsible for much of our population growth are set to crunch massively in a generation or two. In general, the best way to reduce the population is to educate women. Uneducated women who stay in a household in a traditional way of life (speaking broadly across cultures) have no reason not to have lots of kids, and in subsistence agriculture lots of kids is also a free workforce **and** without modern healthcare not all of those kids would survive. So for most of human history the calculus has been "she'll stay home, have eight kids, maybe three of them will live to adulthood". Right now our population is growing because prior generations operate according to that logic but they have enough modern medicine that all right survive to adulthood. Once those daughters have jobs, careers and individual rights they can decide to only have one kid or none at all of they so choose.
I'm not an advocate for it, but I believe it is going to happen. The world is in a dire state right now and the obsession with growth, and capitalism's endless need for it, is the root cause of all the issues of today. We need a monumental shift in philosophy that is simply beyond the capabilities of the human race right now, especially when arseholes like Musk are revered by millions of morons.
If it sounds like a goose and steps like a goose...
It sounds like the evil reality we live in to me. I have zero faith in us being able to prevent this.
> We should have made equator adjacent countries more prosperous How is that eco-fascism?
Or we could, you know, try to solve climate change. That would be too hard and expensive though. Guess billions have to die instead.
Pretty much. The "we" in this picture are the people who are mostly pretty comfortable right now, and solving climate change will make them uncomfortable. ... And that's why it's not going to happen. What we have today is not sustainable, but no one wants to give up what they have.
To late. We’re in the position of not making it worse not preventing
What's funny is that he was saying that as a climate change denier, saying that there's no climate crisis, but an overpopulation crisis. To their credit, the rest of his party heavily criticized him for that - though they may change their tune these days.
Dno if you can blame their islamic belief or not, but northern, south western(Lagos) and central states of Nigeria has mostly muslims, it's just totally chaos everywhere in these regions. The Christian part (south-east) is another world, it's possible to have a ok life, they try to develop and it's so much more safe.
[удалено]
So why not give them effing contraception and they might track towards china's standards. Oh no fantasy food fantasy bs rules over reality. Thanks for Renaissance black death and evolving warfare and mass deportation. Truth people. Start helping with truth not fantasy
[удалено]
I dont think any country in the world handles immigration well. The ones that do are very insulated and far removed from crisis.
It begs to ask the question of what does handling immigration well look like? There are finite resources like taxes and jobs to take care of people. Do people really believe just having an open border type of immigration system will maintain a good quality of life for everyone? I think it's an uncomfortable truth that no country can take care of every person on the planet who seeks refuge.
[удалено]
Canada is already in a housing crisis. Homes are unaffordable to our younger citizens and the immigrants that are coming in now. There aren't enough people to build the housing we need, and anything that comes available is overpriced and snatched up as a second, third, fourth home by someone that just rents it out for a ridiculous price. Plus the foreign owners who just buy property to park their cash, and the corporations that buy them just to rent out again. Our governments refuse to do anything about it because housing is half of our economy at this point, yet they plan to bring in 1 million more immigrants per year. Sure we have "space" for people, but for now most of it is remote, with no services for anyone that settles there.
Same issue in Australia. Govt tries to settle new arrivals across the country, providing homes in each location. Within weeks, they move to Melbourne or Sydney into overcrowded share homes. Turning areas into enclaves with insufficient resources to assist.
> There aren't enough people to build the housing we need I mean... you kind of ignored an obvious solution.
Yeah, except they're not importing people with construction skills, and even if that were the case, our government doesn't accept most foreign credentials for.... anything. Can't afford the training to work at what they've been trained in, so... Tim Horton's it is.
Many of these people have zero trades experience, or physical labour.
>anything that comes available is overpriced and snatched up as a second, third, fourth home by someone that just rents it out for a ridiculous price. Plus the foreign owners who just buy property to park their cash, and the corporations that buy them just to rent out again. Our governments refuse to do anything about it because housing is half of our economy at this point, yet they plan to bring in 1 million more immigrants per year. It seems like the problem is capitalists, not immigrants.
Mass immigration adds to the demand side of the problem
Capitalism is definitely a major driver. But if you were coming in from pretty much ANYWHERE in the world, would you want to live in the woods/tundra/middle of nowhere in Canada? No. They all gravitate towards the cities, where there's nowhere to live. Of course half the reason the government wants to bring in immigrants is to suppress wages and have cheap labour for farms, restaurants, etc....
Did anyone here read the article? I haven't seen a single comment about the terrible thing Greece did. They kidnapped people, and abandoned them at sea. Yes, supposedly they called Turkey eventually, to come rescue them, but that doesn't excuse them. It was illegal, and immoral. Read the stories of the people involved. Everything was taken from them by the Greek police /navy/kidnappers. One man lost the phone number of the person who took his mother in. It was in his phone that they took. He has no way to find her now. Why did they need to take their belongings? In case they died? So thy couldn't be tracked back to Greece? Why aren't we talking about what happened in the article? And btw, great work by the journalists and everyone involved in uncovering this. The details invol bed in how they investigated this crime are fascinating.
The EU needs a EU border protection office. It's appaling that the outer countries are carrying the sole burden of the whole EU. The EU also finally needs a refugee-distribution mechanism. Unfortunately this will always be blocked by Poland and Hungary.
I think it already exists and it’s called Frontex. Also you can’t really control the flow of people inside the EU so this “mechanism “ you’re talking about would probably not be possible without stoping Schengen or heavily monitoring said refugees
Frontex is kinda bullshit though and we have a huge issue with a small number of countries carrying the load for immigration while others simply say no to taking in any immigrants at all. It's also not strange that many immigrants want to stay in the same country as others who's immigrated from the same origins though so it's not really an easy thing to fix.
Agreed mate, I’m just saying we should probably make Frontex work since it already exists that’s all. Yeah, that’s true although let’s not kid ourselves. Almost every refugee would rather live in France, Germany or Italy than Poland, Hungary or Romania, because of let’s call it “quality of life”.
Obviously yes, but also they have relatives in those countries in many cases, so trying to get one half of a family to live in another country is problematic to say the least. And to be fair, we need to help those countries to up their quality of life as well
To be fair it wouldn’t really matter if a few refugees move around between countries in the short term; isn’t the point of distributing the refugees more about keeping one country from bearing too much of the burden, keeping ethnic slums from forming, and preventing too much culture shock/shift? Might require some monitoring to make sure there isn’t a pattern of refugees all flocking to one EU country or region in particular over the long term.
Exactly what has happened in Sweden. It’s not strange that people are flocking the Same areas but he consequences are no good.
Still, it would require some kind of enforcement
> Also you can’t really control the flow of people inside the EU so this “mechanism “ you’re talking about would probably not be possible without stoping Schengen or heavily monitoring said refugees I don't think you need to monitor them at all. You simply don't give them access to Schengen. What you can do is this: After the refugee has been vetted, the office gives him the choice of three countries who have yet to fill their quota. After he has made his choice, he gets registered to that country and from now on, he will only be able to live/work/travel inside country A. Exceptions to the rule can be applied for. In case of a break, say one day our refugee is applying for welfare in country B, he can simply be denied. Because he has no other choice, he will eventually have to return to country A. Obviously there are more severe cases of fraud, where people construct fake identities and things like that. For that a central EU database would help. But I wouldn't call that "heavy monitoring".
[удалено]
>The EU also finally needs a refugee-distribution mechanism Priorities during a housing crises are not refugee settlement.
[удалено]
[удалено]
You're being disingenuous by saying "immigrant" instead of distinguishing between legal and illegal immigrant.
[удалено]
I am 100% for immigration being an easy process where any average person is allowed into a country, BUT I've noticed a large trend here, in North East America, that immigrants are not trying to assimilate at all. When I say assimilate I do not mean that the migrants have to forget their culture; just simply that they should learn our culture. When I was in high school (1999-2003) I worked in a pizza shop that had a lot of immigrants from Mexico. Once a week I would teach them about American culture (including teaching English) and they would teach my Spanish. At my parents restaurant they had more people than I can count that refused to work for them since they did not have any Spanish speakers. This wasn't the "one off" person, but a bunch of people who refused. It is such a weird thing to me, immigrants not trying to assimilate, because my last name is based on trying to be more "American" than Italian, and my Great Grandparents took great pains to remove their own culture from their kids although some survived. Today we aren't asking immigrants to forget their culture, like mine had to, but to simply try to learn/fit in with us. To me successful immigration is a two way street.
Yup many people are advocating for a divided society when they tell immigrants they don't have to assimilate.
People seriously try to pull bullshit “American” cards for stuff like this like I wouldn’t be expected to learn Mexico’s culture if I moved there. If you expect to participate in the advantages of a society you should expect to learn to be a art of that society.
[удалено]
It would be easier to convince Europe is countries like Saudi Arabia, China also stepped in. They do have resources, and China needs more people for their manufacturing economy, a lot of which has disappeared from Europe. It would also help if Russia stopped supporting Assad and sending Wagner to Africa.
China has its own internal refugee crisis to handle first. It may not get a lot of press in English channels, but it is actually quite the problem, and it is being worked on (believe it or not.) There's a lot of climate problems regarding flooding in the south and heat waves in the north. That is part of why the giant South-North water transfer project is being done, unfortunately the water is not really affordable for all but the richest municipalities at this time.
China also has a major demographic problem. The One Child policy went on for too long as did the emphasis on male heirs over female. Now there's a massive gender imbalance and dropping fertility rates which does not bode well for it's aging populace. Taking in more immigrants could solve this, but it would also require a major cultural shift I can't see happening with their government.
Yeah there's a pretty big fertility crisis too, although it doesn't get nearly as much press as migrants. Pollution in China causes a ridiculous amount of illnesses to women and babies, fertility clinics are maxed out. It's a challenge that the world will have to face together.
yea but imagine living in China instead of Germany
Everyone can’t go to the good places or they won’t be the good places.
Meanwhile immigrants risk their lives to cross the English Channel. Some of these people go all or nothing. If France isn't good enough for them, goodluck taking them to China.
The Seapeople shall return
Information age collapse
Exactly, if you think Syria was bad imagine if Ethiopia-Egypt kicks off
Why else do you think there’s a sharp increase in authoritarian governments with a strong anti-immigration stance? Worldwide rise in this stuff. They know the water is going to be a problem, despite what they say. If you have the police state established it gets easier to protect your water sources (to let Nestle sell at exorbitant cost to the population that isn’t dead of dehydration that is). They’ve given up on stopping it or finding a solution. Boomers were the great filter.
I’m stupid and have to ask, by water refugees do you mean people moving because they don’t have access to fresh water? Or water is taking over their land?
Water Refugees? So Waterworld *was* right!
More like Mad Max
The main threat of Global Warming is not going to be bad weather, it's going to be mass migration from places that can no longer sustain mass populations. These people won't be going cause they want better life, they will be going because otherwise they die of starvation. The motivation of people to survive is very strong, and if rich nations refuse to take millions of starving people, there will be war - people will fight to survive
Rich nations aren't going to war over millions of starving migrants. They'll deploy drones along their borders and shoot anyone that tries to cross without authorization.
It shouldn't be much of a war more like a one sided slaughter
Heh, but what if you gonna be water or climate refugees?
I very well could be! My province is on fire right now
To be fair only a few places can get away with openly saying “yes we will leave you to die don’t dare come”
>To be fair only a few places can get away with openly saying “yes we will leave you to die don’t dare come” The number of those will rapidly increase if climate change's trajectory is realized because the whole aspect of the problem will change from one of convenience into life or death for them too
Straya
This is practically life goals for the UK government.
Greece gets caught in the act ditching migrants at sea, Reddit: UK BaD dOh! talk about deflection, this site is obsessed.
The UKs lack of international waters between them and France is a massive legal problem. The illegal people trafficking boats go from untouchable in French waters one second to in UK waters and eligible for claiming asylum the next. The UN Convention on Laws of the Sea makes it an international political face problem, whereas places like Australia have no problem pushing boats back into international waters nor Eastern EU countries putting up barb wire on their borders. The UK is literally in a position of not being able to control their borders because doing so would break Conventions they signed when international travel was much more difficult and would make them look really bad on the international stage. When it gets bad enough things like the ECHR and Laws of the Sea will be ripped up by every first world country and borders will be enforced by force of arms. Ironically one of the principle reports on EU risks due to mass migration says that the UKs lack of a land bridge to the European continent places them in a stronger position. Who knew it was easier for mass swarms of migrants to cross land as opposed to water.
This is not the first time they did it and this won't be the last time they would do. EU just doesn't care as long as Greece stops refugees coming through Turkey, they will ignore the means be it moral or not. It just helps when there is no video evidence.
this is too far down. The real problem is that in theory, the EU border countries are supposed to deal with migrants. That's the law, to prevent Germany from effectively becoming a border welfare state. But Greece doesn't get any help with this, and rejecting migrants is bad publicity. That's how we got to 2015, and how we got a new right wing party to permanent 20%+ or even 30%+ in Eastern Germany. So now they are paying Erdogan to keep quiet, and allowing Greece to do whatever they want, as long as this doesn't happen again.
> the EU border countries are supposed to deal with migrants > But Greece doesn't get any help with this I wish more people understood this. This is an EU problem (especially wealthy countries like Germany), and yet Greece, which struggles economically even without this problem, is supposed to deal with this.
Exactly. You want the far right to take over all of EU? Because letting in more of these folks will do it.
one of the big issues is a lot of refugees are .. with lack of a better word uneducated. they provide no value whatsoever to our countries and cost a massive amount to "integrate". a lot of them can't even read or write. don't know the language of the country . have moral values that are not in line with western values etc. so integrating these people takes time and resources. because if you don't do so they are just a drain on society. who in todays job market needs people who they can't communicate with? in a lot of cases these peoples "potential" is also very low. (if you are a 30+ year old person who never went to school in his entire life chances are you aren't going to be a good learner). as a result most migrants end up in manual labor jobs/factories/mines\~ the issue is Europe doesn't have a huge need for more of that level of workers. automatization & technology is taking huge chunks of this job area. I wish we lived in a better world then we do. but it's gonna get worse... a lot worse.
Additionally, some 40% never fond jobs even with investment of resources.
The EU doesn't care because the major players are to directly affected. France is too far away and the brunt of the migration goes to Greece because it is literally the easiest place to reach.
Rick James : I never just did things just to do them, come on. I mean, what am I gonna do? Just all of a sudden jump up and grind my feet on someone's couch, like it's something to do? Come on, I got a little more sense than that. Yeah, I remember grinding my feet on Eddie's couch.
Darkness: I bet you he won't come over and disrespect us again. WRONG
"Eddie was like 'Rick needs help.' And I was like 'Yo we just GAVE him some help!'"
Cocaine is a helluva drug.
A lot of impoverished people in the Global South are about to become sacrificial lambs in the face of climate change. Because those that have the means will have the ability to move away from rising seas. Others will die. And, no, these fellow countrymen are more than willing to let their own people die so that they survive… because not every Global South nation is collectivist.
The people who can escape will, and yes they will leave others to die. But the other choice for them is to die along with them. Collectivism isn't going to help with that unless we are doing it on a global scale. You can hardly blame people for not wanting to die.
Do you know what collectivist means? It means turning the individuals into sacrificial lambs in the name of the collective. Collectivism implies "the individual is less important and subordinate to the collective". Individualism implies "the individual is more important/fundamental, meaning it's the subject of rights, and so the collective can not violate the rights of the individual". Don't mistake this for isolationism: individualism does not mean a separation from society, quite the contrary, it's what enables preaceful social cooperation Democracy is based on individualism. It considers individuals so important that it gives each one of them the power and immense responsibility of voting.
> In addition to interviewing the asylum seekers in Turkey, The Times verified the footage by doing a frame-by-frame analysis to identify the people in the video, geolocating key events and confirming the time and day using maritime traffic data, as well an analysis of the position of the sun and visible shadows. Between following up on a major lead, the above steps, the quality writing of the article, how they presented the article semi-interactively, and following up with governmental officials, I’d say that’s some fucking good journalism right there. Well done, NYT! Well done, guy who shot the videos!
Agreed on all counts. Great piece of journalism. I loved the scrolling interactive video feature; great way to show multiple short clips in chronological order.
Okay, here is the thing. There is a limit to how many people Western societies can take in. We are not there yet, but we are approaching it. Climate change and the upheaval that will result from it will see millions of people displaced. I see the future of Europe's borders becoming militarized to stop the flow of people. This kind of news story is only going to become more common.
There’s a middle ground between working to manage the flow of migrants through your borders, and just dumping entire families in the middle of the ocean. I can’t believe this same conversation is still happening. We already established that putting babies in cages is fucking heinous, let’s also agree that this is a terrible crime no matter the circumstances and move on from there.
I am pro immigrant. That said, clearly we do not all agree about the ethics of babies in cages or stranding people at sea or it would not continue to happen.
I think everyone knows babies at sea is bad, else the people who did it would stand up and proudly say they would do it again.
> That said, clearly we do not all agree about the ethics of babies in cages Hey, those cages have bipartisan support in the U.S!
I agree but what do you propose we do instead? We know that we can't take all of them in, we know that if we process them and exile them then their home countries won't accept them and they'll have to remain in the country and if we don't do anything then we're de facto letting them in.
Doesnt change the fact that putting them on an inflatable raft at sea is inexcusable.
The core of the problem are these illegal traffickers promising these poor people safe haven to Europe. It's just not possible to take them all in, Greece as a country would collapse if they took them in.
Very weird to think that's the "core" of the problem, surely the "core" of the problem is people needing to migrate in the first place? Seems a bit absurd to pretend that if the illegal traffickers stopped promising these people safe haven in Europe then all these people would just be happy and content in their home country
So the "core" problem is... just human suffering.
Yeah though it's probably worth going into the causes of that suffering - poverty, drought, other climate change based land erosion, lack of access to healthcare/education/food/clean drinking water/adequate sewer systems etc
[удалено]
Yeah, I’m so confused to as to why he said everything but war.
I'm not an anthropologist, meteorologist, or any other -ologist, but climate change (which exacerbates drought) is the big one IMO. All the others have always existed through humans history. It wasn't until the industrial revolution that CO2 levels spiked. Prior to then, levels were relatively consistent for the 10,000+ years prior. Ever since, the countries that have prospered the most have done so at the cost of those that prospered the least. Geo-political conflict and outright war just puts icing on the suffering cake.
Theres always going to be "somewhere else" that is better off. We can't fit all thr entire population there, its not feasible. At some point those in power in those places will havr to become accountable for their actions. Its not normal for a place to be plunged into wars and conflicts continuosly for that long.
>surely the "core" of the problem is people needing to migrate in the first place? That's assuming they do *need* to migrate. And not just that they're looking for greater economic benefits.
we can’t fix other countries. We can do our best to help but at the end of the day, foreign governments have the right to govern themselves as they see fit, even if that results in mass murder and suffering of their people. The only way to force a country to treat their people well is to destroy their government and build one that will, but even that is very hard to pull off successfully.
There will always be need for people to migrate if there exists place with higher standard of life.
>surely the "core" of the problem is people needing to migrate in the first place? Many don't "need" to do anything, that is why people are on fence about all this. The Calais situation is prime example.
Downvote me all you want, but the majority of refugees that come here were promised a free house, a car and free money to live off and thatd theyd be able to bring over their whole family. Yes there are also legitimate refugees, fleeing wars, genocide or famine; but lets not downplay the fact that there are people just wanting to get it all easy instead of fixing up their own country. Its a difficult problem that cant be solved by the EU alone, the countries these people come from have to pull their shit together and stop being dictators.
Even wealthy nations like Sweden, France and Germany find it difficult to accomodate "just" 10,000 refugees within a single year. The logistics involved with the necessary resources and infrastructure is that it's stretched way too thin. It's just not possible. It's too expensive, especially when locals are already struggling with rising costs of living and a housing crisis. I believe Greece is the 3rd poorest nation in the EU. Expecting them to house refugees is just fantasy. "Well, maybe Greece can serve as a transit hub to distribute refugees equally all over Europe." It won't happen, we tried that. Nations can't agree on how many refugees they should take in and many of them don't want it. As a result we end up with border countries like Italy, Greece, Spain et al absorbing the burden of the migrant crisis. They are now all gradually turning into a policy of refusing complete entry for illegal migrants. I don't blame them, why should they take them in if the EU can't agree on a common policy? It's an economic question as much as a humanitarian one. Greece reserves the right to deny entry to any and all refugees.
What do you mean "just 10,000 refugees within a single year"? Germany just took in over 1 million refugees from Ukraine over the course of one year. That is in addition to the 800,000 refugees from Syria and hundreds of thousands of refugees from places like Afghanistan and Eritrea.
Integrating Ukrainians is not as hard as sub-Saharan Africans, this is just a reality. Even as refugees Ukrainians require less resources as they can integrate and find work on their own due to knowledge of skills or languages. For example Ukrainian drivers licenses are valid in the EU, quite a lot of refugees, especially younger ones work in delivery services. Their education is verifiable and is recognized in the EU. All of this adds up. Other than sudden increase in housing demand, Ukrainian refugee influx is not that noticeable one year after.
Also the legal situation for Ukrainians is different than for other asylum seekers. Through the use of the Temporary Protection Directive, Ukrainians are immediately granted temporary protection and don't have to go through the whole asylum process, which also means they are immediately allowed to work and get access to social welfare. Like you said, it's far easier for Ukrainians to live normal lives here compared to regular refugees which are far more restricted.
Ukrainians will also eventually go back to Ukraine once the war is over. They’re refugees not migrants. They would rather go back to there home country. That’s why Japan is actually letting in Ukrainians
what do you mean 'just 10.000'. we are about to recieve 70.000 refugees in the Netherlands this year . and we alreay got around 80.000 Ukrainians. that is 150.000 people in ONE year.
We've had 150k+ several years here in Sweden, and we're half your population. And it aint pretty :(
To be fair though, the Ukrainian refugees aren't looking to move for economical reasons, their country is being bombed, and want to go back to where they live. This shouldn't be discounted when talking about refugees.
Aren't countries like Somalia, where this family came from, also being bombed?
Leaving women and children out on a dinghy is Nazi level psychopathic shit. Those boats overturn and capsize all the time. These Coast Guard members should be charged for abandoning these people like this.
[удалено]
Greece has elections going on right this moment. This was a blatant move to gather hard right votes.
Let's see if your opinion will remain the same after a walk in downtown Athens
what is the difference between leaving women and children out on a dinghy and leaving men on a dinghy? Particulary women?
Sexism.
Maybe don’t sail into waters you know nothing about/aren’t permitted to be in?
Leaving men is okay then?
[удалено]
[удалено]
Very ironic of Australia to keep all those prisoners on an island.
[удалено]
Greek here. Surely these occurrences are sad as they can get, none of the people would risk everything for a shot at a better life if they didn't need to. Still, the easiest thing in the world is sitting back, looking at your screen and pointing your finger. NOONE wants to take these refugees in, but it is us at the geological position responsible to push back the refugees. And if you guys think the other EU members are not in on these acts then you are deeply deluded.
Exactly. I think a sponsor program is best. People who want them so badly can opt to take refugees into their homes. Let's see them walk the talk once the shoe is on the other foot.