It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Hundreds of refugees feared dead off Lampedusa

page: 2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 5 2013 @ 03:14 PM


If people stayed home and worked to FIX IT....we wouldn't have displacement of people by the millions on all but one continent on our planet .

This! Mass immigration isn't working, and it's not helping the poor souls still stuck in the country their coward countrymen left. Instead of risking their lives on the open seas for a potential personal gain, risk your life trying to right the wrongs of your own country.

I'm all for aiding people in need, but I've long since realized that immigration isn't help. It's just a band-aid on a festering wound. I'm rather well traveled, currently I'm living in Scandinavia. In the few years I've been here, I've seen small towns turn into literal hell holes because immigrants flood into them and refuse to adapt and turn these communities into a smaller version of what they left. Malmø in Sweden is an excellent example. Malmø's Muslim Influence

Also, these small European countries do not have the resources to continually take in refugees and immigrants. Doesn't matter how you try to play it off, doesn't matter how politically incorrect you say all this is, it's still the truth.

Instead of relying on a failed immigration plan, let's start working on something that does work. I'd like to see the Western countries set up schools and train police officers in these countries. I'd like to see Euro governments working hard with the governments of the countries we're helping. Give them incentives to help sway them to allow us to help them. This way, we'd be helping create a better future for all of them. Unlike now, where we unfairly pick and choose a very small amount of people to help.

posted on Oct, 5 2013 @ 03:19 PM
reply to post by TrueBrit

It is not my fault you do not wish to interact fully with the historical elements of this issue.

There's nothing wrong with my historical knowledge.

Try me.

posted on Oct, 5 2013 @ 03:26 PM
reply to post by Scorchio

It is a tragedy, but it doesn't have to be that way. I think that this is one of the greater tragedies, that all of this could be avoided. The UN fails every day to do the job for which it was intended, and rather than step into the breach, and lend assistance to these people, many folk allow their governments to turn them against immigrant populations.

And make no mistake, it suits governments in Europe no end, to have a scape goat for the ills which befall the nations of which it is comprised. Victims made victims again. It is a cycle which I have seen played out through the pages of post slavery history time after time, on every continent.

posted on Oct, 5 2013 @ 03:30 PM
reply to post by CJCrawley

For some peculiar reason, the globalists want to fill western countries to overflowing with human cargo from the third world.

It goes deeper and wider than any 'TPTB', IMO and I wish for the European nations and Southern European in particular, it were that easy. It would be that easy to solve too, if that were the case.

The problem starting in their home countries is more than figurative though and that's a fact my geo- course last year brought to light with some very enlightening investigative journalist vids we all saw during the course.

The degree of immigration forced north out of Africa into Europe by people buying the fantasy promises of great jobs, better lives and wonderful futures find prostitution, drugs and all kinds of other hells from organized crime, upon arriving epidemic. That has to figure into quite a bit of it.

Then of course where Middle East immigration is concerned I do sometimes have to wonder if that's deliberate and outright combative in nature. In many areas of the Middle East, they think with a 6th century mindset and are happy for that. 6th century immigration was used as a tool to overtake other nations slowly but relentlessly. It worked sometimes, too.

posted on Oct, 5 2013 @ 03:33 PM
reply to post by CJCrawley

Well clearly there is something very wrong with your historical knowledge, if you believe that Britons always vilified outsiders, no matter wether they came in peace or not.

posted on Oct, 5 2013 @ 08:55 PM
reply to post by Auricom

(Not really directed at you specifically, more all people who think we can stop immigration, it's just what you were saying about the immigrants being cowards got my mind working so I clicked reply)

I have worked with immigrants and EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM has lived on the bread line in this country and sent nearly everything they earned back home. The people coming over here (often at risk of their lives) to provide for their families and ensure a better life for their children are not cowards, not in the slightest. If you don't even understand that disparity of wages (and a lack of skilled/willing labor in the west) is the cause of most migration I'm really wondering why you think people come over?

Now thats not to say that every immigrant is a hard working boon to society, we live in the real world, they're people, and some people are dicks - but those who come here to work are a credit to their country and ours.

We're rich and successful in the west because we industrialized first, stripped the mineral wealth of poorer countries and enslaved their inhabitants - no problem there, that's life, luckily you and I lucked out and were born in the west. But to get all upset when they want to live and work here (whilst at the same time meddling in their sovereign affairs and claiming we live in a global free market economy) is childish in the extreme.

Globalisation (and western nations reaping the benefits thereof) means that immigration is a fact of life, we're moving toward a global culture - and that means everyone has to change not just the immigrants.
If you don't like it, there's a couple of places holding out, I hear North Korea is nice this time of year.

If we want to solve the problem of Mass Immigration and stop senseless deaths we need to legitimise it!
No more vast profits for the people smugglers, safer for those making the trip - and we could control where they come in. Trying to stop mass immigration is what doesn't work - as clearly shown by this incident, attempting to stop it will never work so long as its so massively in peoples interests to come here.

Australia turns boats of immigrants back or leaves them to sink off its coast and die - doesn't help them in the slightest. By contrast the USA had wide open immigration in its hayday and was much stronger for it, or more recently post war Britain was saved by workers from the common wealth coming to work here.

We need to face it is a fact of life and act accordingly, if we do that we would have FAR MORE control over who comes in and where they end up - especially if it were done across the EU.
edit on 5-10-2013 by MaxSteiner because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 5 2013 @ 09:21 PM

reply to post by TrueBrit

It is not my fault you do not wish to interact fully with the historical elements of this issue.

There's nothing wrong with my historical knowledge.

Try me.

Saying you don't remember mass immigration happening before 20 years ago really does imply there are some holes in your historical knowledge...

posted on Oct, 5 2013 @ 09:37 PM
Let's please keep discussion focused on the topic, and not one another.

If anyone is unsure as to why that is important, please send me a private message, and I'll be happy to explain.


posted on Oct, 5 2013 @ 11:07 PM


reply to post by TrueBrit

It is not my fault you do not wish to interact fully with the historical elements of this issue.

There's nothing wrong with my historical knowledge.

Try me.

Saying you don't remember mass immigration happening before 20 years ago really does imply there are some holes in your historical knowledge...

Mass immigration to European countries has been going on since at least the end of WW2, though it was very light until quite recently (I remember in the early 70s that Britain actually had a negative net migration - more people leaving than coming in. A little different from today, I fancy).

When I say "very light", I only mean in comparison to now. There was a substantial Indian/Pakistani presence in the 60s, which grew dramatically from the 70s on.

What I don't recall is boatloads of desperate Africans sailing across the Med to Europe, or stowaways on trains, planes, and ships, or international people-smuggling rings, or camps in northern France of people determined to get into Britain.

All that seems to have happened in the last 20 or so years. But that's just my impression and I stand to be corrected.

posted on Oct, 5 2013 @ 11:53 PM


No Fence is able to stop this Process!

That I agree with. No fence or border guard will stop people from running from problems at home to bring them to entirely new places and, in short order, recreate what they left.

If people stayed home and worked to FIX IT....we wouldn't have displacement of people by the millions on all but one continent on our planet ...and find a way to make that one livable, we'll have boat people showing up in McMurdo's little parlor too.

This is an excellent statement. However, perhaps fences/borders are the problem. They are man made and not natural. If the borders are natural (rivers etc.) and people could still come and go as they please, then they would probably go to where the grass is always green -- thus encouraging their local ruler to keep green grass inside their lands, or lose the person.

I do agree with your point on finding new places to recreate the problems they left behind, it seems to be a Western theme (look how the problems moved from East to West in the USA.)

If people stayed home to fix the problem, it would mean they would have to be more organized and effective than the leaders in power. In today's world I don't see the current power structure(s) to let go and try to have a willing and open mind to make changes that make sense for the planet and its inhabitants instead of money/power.

In this case I can understand why hundreds of Somalians and Eritreans would load onto a boat to leave their ravaged African lands and head to Italy - a land ravaged by less violent forms of corruption. Borders or not, people will always go to where they feel less oppressed and can have a chance of a better lifestyle.

The article notes Ban Ki-Moon saying (probably empty):

he hoped the tragedy would be a "spur to action" toward creating "more channels for safe and orderly migration."

However, now that most countries are experiencing an economic decline (money dependencies), people are not so open minded about others coming to their regions and present more competition for money. I don't see too much political will on the side of migrants, and in cases like the USA, not much effort to truly fix anything.

posted on Oct, 6 2013 @ 12:44 AM
I tried to make a warning thread about this
back in July of 2013.

It only ran for one day, and dropped out of discussion.
Here is a repost of the opening post...

It specifically mentions Lampedusa.


What if tens of thousands fled to your country. Yearly.

What if tens of thousands of people fled into your country yearly. Crossing a southern boarder, with the hope of a better life in a better country. What would you do.

Would you use the country just south of you to "detain" them? Have the leader of that country keep it all quiet so that your modern western civilization can go on shopping at the mall? Maybe occasionally pressure the leader to treat the refugees better, even sending tons of money.

I'm talking about Europe and Libya.

Let's look at a time line... here is 2008

Libya - Amnesty International Report 2008

Refugees, asylum-seekers and migrants continued to be ill-treated in detention, but the government failed to address the legacy of past gross human rights violations.


In the early days of what grew into the Libyan uprising, Muammar el-Qaddafi summoned European Union ministers to Tripoli and issued an ultimatum: Stop supporting the protesters, or I'll suspend cooperation on migration and Europe will be facing a human flood of from North Africa.

Harvard Belfer Center
Using Refugees as weapons

... And now ... this article is from today.

One of the first things he did upon his arrival on the Island of Lampedusa, Pope Francis laid a wreath in the waters in memory of the tens of thousands of migrants who have died trying to reach Europe in unsafe and overcrowded boats.

Vatican News
"To die of hope"

So what seems to have been going on is that for decades Qaddafi was catching and "handling" swarms of refugees from Africa. People from Sub Saharan Africa no less. People who had walked across countries and entire deserts. And now that he is gone, no one is doing anything to stop them. Like the occasional swarms that Americans have seen from Cuba in the past, there is a non stop wave of people fleeing Africa, trying to cross the Mediterranean, for a better life in Europe.

Never mind, Katy Perry lawsuit!
gotta go read up.
/end sarcasm



Original thread July 8th, 2013
What if tens of thousands fled to your country yearly.
edit on 6-10-2013 by mikegrouchy because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 6 2013 @ 04:35 AM
It is tragic that so many lost their lives.

I do not know how it works in this part of the world. I do know how it works in Australia.

We, the masses are told that these people are refugees ... insert big sob story here ..... who only make $20.00 per month back at home ...... insert more sob story.

The truth is, that for a refugee family to get to the shores of Australia takes enormous resources. Typically they fly from their home country to somewhere like Germany, then onto Hong Kong and the last leg is to Indonesia where they then pay typically $10K per person for the boat trip. Why is the boat trip so expensive, because the boat is destroyed by Australia if it does not sink. To further complicate matters, these refugees throw their passports and other paperwork into the sea.

These people are not refugees. The countries they come from are poor. How does one get to fly around the world with a whole family and then afford the boat trip. The only way for them to do this is if they were involved in businesses that have big profits like, weapons, drugs and human trafficking. Refugees .... I think not.

I am sick and tired of hearing the sob stories. 'Oh, he was a goat herder.' No he was not.

Then if they get in, they want to change our society and turn it into the big mess they left. No thanks.

If you want to immigrate, get in line like everyone else. The fact is that as long as Africa keeps up with its population explosion there will always be this problem. Let them solve their own problems.


posted on Oct, 6 2013 @ 07:05 AM
reply to post by pheonix358

Um just a few question/points Phoenix - you're surely aware that a refugee is a different thing to an illegal immigrant? (it doesn't sound like you do in that post but I guess you were making a point).
A refugee, as the name implies, is seeking refuge, often for political reasons, often coming from countries which have been adversely affected by the actions of your and my countries. It doesn't matter how much they earn - in some cases a refugee can seek sanctuary having significant wealth - like Jews fleeing Germany during WW2 - the way you are going on it sounds like you'd turn them back!
Any individual seeking refugee from Iraq, Iran, Libya, Afghanistan or Syria is one that our countries are obligated to accept, because we have meddled in their affairs, attempted or actually imposed regime change and publicly denounced their governments as repressive and dangerous.

I'm interested what are your feelings about SIEV X? That was a boat full of legitimate refugees from countries we in the west continue to meddle with (by bombing and enforcing illegal regime change), which most commentators believe the Australian PM allowed to sink, it's over a decade and it's still contentious.

Australia is a huge country formed by mass immigration not all that long ago, so to me it seems a bit rich to take such a violent non immigration stance (hell up till '73 the immigration process awarded points for being white!), or to be so offended by people retaining their culture.
(Surely if you really felt that way all white immigrants would be living as aborigines?)

Personally I'm in favour of mass immigration, but I can see why people would be against it. But people taking such a hypocritical stand against legitimate asylum seekers seems completely wrong to me.
edit on 6-10-2013 by MaxSteiner because: tightening it up a bit

posted on Oct, 6 2013 @ 07:34 AM
I wonder if another point may not also be valid to add here. The world is, of course, ranked in levels of development. 1st, 2nd, 3rd world and so on. I didn't realize it went below 3rd world until spending some quality time with a Missionary out of North/Central Africa in 2011, but I learned a lot from that special lady. It's amazing to me how much some give for the benefit of others...but I digress....

If first world nations like the United States, Britain and others rise...the world, generally speaking, rises as well. not all couple hundred nations, of course. That's stupid to suggest (before someone does as a correction) however, there is no benefit to seeing the 1st world powers fall.

Uncontrolled immigration from 3rd-5th world nations IS bringing down the 1st world nations. Now to those already at the bottom...I can see how this is of no concern at best and a source of amusement most likely. They have nothing to lose. For a couple billion other people around the world who aren't struggling just to live?

Well....over-running 1st world nations by completely unskilled people, unprepared and unable to make it in London or New York or even a small town in Switzerland ...after coming from places were education and human decency are punch lines to a joke? That'll just bring all 1st world nations down closer to the bottom.

I know that tickles some people's sense of irony and cosmic justice ...but a few 100's of millions of people, whose lives get markedly worse for it happening, would likely disagree with the amusement. Violently, I'd imagine. In fact, they are starting to ...around the world.

posted on Oct, 6 2013 @ 07:48 AM
Transport is dangerous. Boats sink, planes crash and car accidents are a major cause of death in most nations. Considering the amount of people travelling to Europe in boat and the quality of the boats often used by people smugglers this was bound to happen. It's hardly Italy's fault though as the nations where these people boarded these vessels are beyond their jurisdiction and they have no control over safety regulations in these nations. There was also no departure and arrival plans given to Italian authorities that could have helped make them aware of the situation and respond to it. That said, I doubt the people smugglers would adhere to any safety regulations that were in place regardless of their nation of departure.
edit on 6-10-2013 by Strakha because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 6 2013 @ 08:06 AM
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

If a few hundred million don't like it, there's billions that do. You cannot get rich as a nation through globalization and not expect immigration - they're poor and dependent on our services because for instance - there's no way local steel manufacturers can compete with the subsidised US steel being shipped in and there's no point growing crops because subsidised US and Chinese crops have flooded your market. Oh and even if you did have something you could sell to the developed nations they just wack a tariff on it to protect local manufacture. But if you try the same you get the same treatment that drove Mugabe off the deep end... At present supermarkets are buying up vast strips of land in poor countries to grow crops that will never be sold in the country they are grown.
As the truism says - if you can't beat them join them.

I think I have a different view because I happen to live in a town which has been targeted by heavy immigration for the past 50 years - they send excess London population down here and we aren't talking about poor people eager to work, originally it was to clear out some ghettos in London for redevelopment, these days its mental patients that its cheaper to care for down here, criminals who have been denied social housing and, well the dregs - they pay our council a premium for taking them of London Boroughs hands (including a lot of pedophiles sadly). In the 90's we were sent the majority of asylum seekers from Eastern Europe to be housed in custom built hotels - until someone burned one of them down, now they put them in social housing - we are literally the end of the line in the UK and things tend to flow downwards.
Given the choice between asylum seekers and immigrants or the dregs off London I know which I prefer - and I know which wave increased the crime rate more too.

Now if what you were saying was true my town would be on an endless downward spiral and we'd have no culture or identity having been subsumed by the endless non native immigration. But it's not.
Things aren't ideal obviously, but I heard all of this rhetoric growing up, and the fact of the matter is, it doesn't work like that. You get a generation of ghettoisation, and the next is integrated. You might not believe that, but if you speak to the children of immigrants you would be hard pushed to tell me these kids haven't integrated fully into our society and their kids will too.

When I look at my home town today it's hard to believe that how far it's come, I haven't seen a burned out car in 25 years for instance (you used to see A LOT when I was a kid!), most of the shops are filled, the town center is rammed every day - and we haven't even had a full generation yet, I'm optimistic for the future.
edit on 6-10-2013 by MaxSteiner because: no real excuse

posted on Oct, 6 2013 @ 08:25 AM
reply to post by pheonix358

We, the masses are told that these people are refugees ... insert big sob story here

Yes, the old refugee sob story thing (we're more likely to let them in if we feel sorry for them).

All these terrible things going on in the world that all these poor people are escaping from...never seemed to happen beyond about 20 years ago though. Funny that.

Oh, do you get the 'economic migrants' over there? You know, those diligent foreigners whose sole purpose in life is to find gainful employment and contribute to your country's economy? That's another one.

Do you ever get fed the line that your own countrymen are lazy and there are a ton of perfectly good jobs going begging that only the 'hard-working immigrants' will do? Another one.

Then if they get in, they want to change our society and turn it into the big mess they left. No thanks.

Yep. Bang on the money.

Australia and New Zealand seem to be the only places left that are still quite difficult to migrate to unless you can contribute something positive. In Britain, all you have to do is turn up.

Having said that, I was quite shocked, when I visited Australia 10 years ago, to find a large Japanese presence in Sydney.

I had to chuckle when I caught a taxi from Sydney airport; the driver was Asian (ie Pakistani/Indian) and originally from Manchester, UK. We recognised each other!
edit on 6-10-2013 by CJCrawley because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 6 2013 @ 08:33 AM
reply to post by MaxSteiner

Well, first, we have a bit of a hard time debating at times because you carry a venom to your take on a topic that just instantly triggers a defensive reaction in me...given my nation is often the topic of the venom.

Having said that, it's important to really note one point you make here. It's both valid and, in my opinion, wrong.

Now if what you were saying was true my town would be on an endless downward spiral and we'd have no culture or identity having been subsumed by the endless non native immigration. But it's not.
Things aren't ideal obviously, but I heard all of this rhetoric growing up, and the fact of the matter is, it doesn't work like that. You get a generation of ghettoisation, and the next is integrated. You might not believe that, but if you speak to the children of immigrants you would be hard pushed to tell me these kids haven't integrated fully into our society and their kids will too.

Unskilled immigrants coming in an uncontrolled flow do lead to a downward spiral unless they're landing in communities that started as unskilled to begin with. Ghetto is a word with almost hateful connotation to some people so I try to avoid using it, but it's accurate enough in how you use it there.

The thing is, it's a downward trend but not spiral and it's where that argument stops making sense. It's not going to spiral down until suburbs of London or Paris look just like villages in Algeria, for instance. That's kinda silly to believe, even if the overall concept is still valid.

The unskilled poverty coming up from Africa will mesh and blend with the largely well educated, skilled Middle to Upper-Middle class of Europe (We may all laugh at that class description but ask the immigrants ...and I may be underestimating how Westerners are viewed by those coming out of grinding poverty). The blending will necessarily prevent falling all the way down to what they came from .....but the "New Normal" of finding natural balance to the new influx isn't pretty for the people who STARTED in the better standard of life.

The thing is... While first world nations exist in good health? There IS still someone who COULD help those other nations and do help in many ways all the time now. When the 1st world nations have been brought down to 2nd and 3rd world levels in some of the important ways? We can all wallow in the mud together as the line for 911 will have been cut, for lack of anyone on the other end to answer.

No one in the world benefits from the major powers falling...which, to no small measure, is happening as a result of the tsunami of unskilled flooding skill dependent economies. Just my belief on it.

posted on Oct, 6 2013 @ 08:36 AM
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

Just putting this in before I edit and make a proper reply - Second World Nation refers to communist countries, so a first world country generally doesn't become one via immigration.

posted on Oct, 6 2013 @ 08:50 AM
reply to post by MaxSteiner

I'm using the ranking of world nations in terms of socioeconomic situation, and not political system. I know how it applies but there is also the way it's applied in the public and accepted for additional context. Hence... my use.

1st, 3rd and ...well...real poverty at painfully grinding below really what most matter. It's been a lot of years since I've heard 2nd specifically referred to as a class outside a classroom example. Thanks for the clarification on that though.

<< 1    3  4 >>

log in