Italy: 10,000 migrants rescued from Mediterranean in 48 hours

I just can't think that saving 10,000 people is bad news. If you saw a boatload of people drowning, and you had the option of either saving them or letting them die, which would you do? I just don't think saving drowning people's lives is the problem here. I think it's good. It's the housing them in European countries which is the problem. If we didn't open our borders in the first place, only a very few would try to come to Europe via the Med, and far less would die, but its not the saving them from drowning which in itself has lead them to try and make the crossing, its not the saving them which is the problem. The problem is opening our borders to them, but while this problem persists, I'd still rather save them than just sit back while they perish.

It depends on what is done with them after they are saved. If they are taken back to Africa, that is a different argument.

Let me ask you, would you save 10,000 people from drowning if it meant the collapse of European civilisation and the deaths that collapse would lead to?

European civilisation is not going to collapse. Calm down. It'll be fine

It depends on what is done with them after they are saved. If they are taken back to Africa, that is a different argument.

Let me ask you, would you save 10,000 people from drowning if it meant the collapse of European civilisation and the deaths that collapse would lead to?

I wouldn't, but that's besides the point, because as I say, the act of saving them isn't the problem. It's the housing them in European countries, and having open borders to entice them in. There is nothing contradictory about being happy that they are saved, while being unhappy that they are allowed to cross through open European borders unchecked. The two things are separate. If the latter thing changed and the borders stopped being wide open to them, I would be happy about the few that still tried to cross being saved, and if it didn't change I'm still going to be happy, because it's a seperate issue.

So as of today, with the ridiculous open borders, knowing that if saved they will be taken to Europe and let go to do whatever they want, and in the knowledge that saving them encourages more people to take the risky journey (of which some are certain to die), in the knowledge that some will be rapists, murderers etc., some will be terrorists, some will be petty criminals, many of them will have no desire to integrate, with no way of determining who is who and what % of the boat people are criminals in their home nations and what % are not, do you support saving them?

Yes I support saving them, but I don't support the seperate matter of housing them in Europe. If push came to shove, I'd still be happier to hear that they have been saved and that a European country housed them, instead of leaving them to drown, but I would definitely rather that they were saved and taken to more appropriate regions. The few that we save from drowning are a tiny minority of those that make it to Europe, I doubt tens of thousands entering the whole of Europe will do much. It is the hundreds of thousands settling into individual countries which is so dangerous, and likely to cause very isolated communities. Saving those that are drowning barely affects whether those millions of migrants will continue to pour into Europe; it is the open door policies that entice them, not the saving of lives.

I just can't think that saving 10,000 people is bad news.

Almost all of them?

So you're willing to accept a large group of people with completely different backgrounds, culture and general way of life, which will most definitely be infested by people who have no business in assimilating to western culture but to bring death terror and destruction because most of the people coming are decent people?


Absolute nonsense.

I'm ok with them being saved from drowning, but what I don't understand is why they are brought to Italy after having made 15 miles off the Libyan coast. It only encourages more to try. If they had been brought back to Libya, it would have discouraged the others.

yep, given that we have been doing exactly the same for more than 100 years and it has proven to be useful to our economy

also given that very few of them want to bring 'death terror' apart from the terrorists who are exploiting the situation

its only a problem when the far-right anti-immigration supporters start alienating them and force them to isolate themselves from society, but after that you whinge about them not integrating

You're not making any sense.


The immigration crisis Europe is currently facing is reaching numbers that we have never seen before, and the fact that you admitted that there will be some terrorists in the amount of them coming in, what you claim is due to isolation and not religious motivation, but yet still support their migration is absolute madness.

there is no realistic solution to deport/stop them without implementing some excessively expensive or politically unviable procedures.

I don't support the migration at all, but we have a scenario where people are practically swimming across the Med to get here, there is no realistic solution to deport/stop them without implementing some excessively expensive or politically unviable procedures.

Instead, we should be dealing with it instead of whinging about all the problems they're causing, because evidently that only contributes to potential radicalisation.

Let me ask you, would you save 10,000 people from drowning if it meant the collapse of European civilisation and the deaths that collapse would lead to?

you talk about it being unsustainable, tell me, how sustainable is it to let innocent refugees die just because you think they cause problems when our own native population causes the exact same problems at a more massive rate

I just can't think that saving 10,000 people is bad news. If you saw a boatload of people drowning, and you had the option of either saving them or letting them die, which would you do? I just don't think saving drowning people's lives is the problem here. I think it's good. It's the housing them in European countries which is the problem. If we didn't open our borders in the first place, only a very few would try to come to Europe via the Med, and far less would die, but its not the saving them from drowning which in itself has lead them to try and make the crossing, its not the saving them which is the problem. The problem is opening our borders to them, but while this problem persists, I'd still rather save them than just sit back while they perish.

I don't accept that premise that that is what will happen if you accept the 10,000 people.

Last I checked the estimates were in the millions, not the tens of thousands

Posted from TSR Mobile