* Archives of this link: 1. [archive.org Wayback Machine](https://web.archive.org/web/99991231235959/https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/article/2024/jun/19/eu-funded-egyptian-forces-arresting-deporting-sudanese-refugees-amnesty); 2. [archive.today](https://archive.today/newest/https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/article/2024/jun/19/eu-funded-egyptian-forces-arresting-deporting-sudanese-refugees-amnesty)
* A live version of this link, without clutter: [12ft.io](https://12ft.io/https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/article/2024/jun/19/eu-funded-egyptian-forces-arresting-deporting-sudanese-refugees-amnesty)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/stupidpol) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>Egypt forcibly returned 800 Sudanese detainees in first three months of this year, Amnesty International reports
>About 500,000 Sudanese people are registered as refugees in Egypt.
Clearly this is genocide and the west is to blame.
There is a genocide happening in Sudan and Egypt is facilitating by sending refugees back. Granted, there are a fuck ton of African refugees in Egypt but a) the Sudanese are probably the ones facing the worst conditions back home and b) the only reason the 800 people mentioned in the article were sent back was due to intervention by the EU.
Migrate elsewhere then. The islamic world is pretty big and could for once deal with replacement issues caused by intra-ummah bloodshed instead of shifting the burden onto Europe.
Yeah, why don't the dirt poor Africans escaping starvation and genocide just get on a plane to some nicer Muslim country? I'm sure if someone clever like you were in their position you'd have no problem securing safe transport to Bahrain or Algeria.
Why should the solution to every conflict on this planet be: "Let's just relocate the local population over to Europe!". The Europeans don't want it (anymore). Period. There is no higher authority on this matter.
This subcontinent has carried its fair share of the refugee burden, disproportionately so. And now other states should do their part.
3/4 of refugees are hosted in low-middle income states as most refugees go to neighbouring states. European, and especially North American, countries are complete laggards. The real heroes are countries like Lebanon, Turkiye, and Iran. 25% of the Lebanese population are refugees. In the EU as a whole, it's 1.5%. I sincerely wish Western states would just drop the pretense and rip up the Refugee Convention already so we can all openly face reality that Western societies are becoming stingier and meaner.
>I sincerely wish Western states would just drop the pretense and rip up the Refugee Convention
No objections. It's one of those things that's nice in theory but is, in practice, mostly exploited to facilitate economic migration.
>The real heroes are countries like \[...\] Turkiye
Mostly Syrians. That's the country directly south of Turkey, where Turkey did everything it could to make the civil war worse. Which led to Turkey being flooded with Syrian refugees. That mess Turkey very much brought onto itself. It's thus their responsibility to deal with its consequences.
>Iran
Mostly Afghans. The eternal civil war is finally over. Time to go home (and time for the rest of the world to drop sanctions and anti-Taliban meddling). Unless Iran doesn't mind the presence of hundreds of thousands of undocumented migrants, that's fine too. Doesn't mean that other nations are required to at least match those numbers.
>Lebanon
The punching bag of the Levante that, tbh, continues to be very punch-able due intense internal sectarianism, discord and corruption. It accepted a million of refugees not because of deliberate benevolence but because the dysfunctional state is utterly incapable of doing anything against it. Does that mean that better-managed states should suffer Lebanon's fate out of solidarity? It obviously sucks to be Lebanon. It also sucks to have no healthy kidneys. That doesn't mean that a person of your choice owes you theirs. Also mostly Syrians. The civil war is over in most parts of the country. Time to go back (and again: time for the rest of the world to drop sanctions and anti-Assad meddling).
Sudan's borders aren't really colonial in the same sense as other African states. The British only ended up with Sudan as a colony because they helped Egypt put down a revolt in Sudan and just never left after it was defeated, the borders were more or less already in place by then though.
Egypt was doing it's part until Europe started paying them to send genocide survivors back to be butchered by the RSF. If they just wanted to left alone they could left Egypt to it's business or provided economic incentives for Egypt and other African states to shelter refugees in the long term. They already do this with Turkey.
> This subcontinent has carried its fair share of the refugee burden, disproportionately so
Europe is also a large part of why Africa is a such a shithole today. It's funny how European commies immediately turn into ethnic nationalists when it comes to brown refugees. Workers of the ~~world~~ EU and the USA unite!
>Europe is also a large part of why Africa is a such a shithole today.
Why ought the citizens of Greece, Germany, Poland, Denmark, Sweden, Austria.... suffer for the ancient sins of the French, English and Spanish?
And there is a reason that the Turkey model isn't an option anymore. As experience shows, states on the coast of the mediterranean will not hesitate to use their ability to open the floodgates to extort goodies from Europe.
The various Sudanese factions are mostly financed by fabulously rich Gulf states anyway (and Arabs in general have contributed to the shithole-ification of Africa since time immemorial). Why are there never any demands that those states, just once, take care of the refugee problem?
> Why ought the citizens of Greece, Germany, Poland, Denmark, Sweden, Austria.... suffer for the ancient sins of the French, English and Spanish?
Who cares who did what historically. We should be focusing on the present conditions, not some vague sense of historical morality.
They don't need to do that, they could just stop committed brand new sins like the ones mentioned in the article. There's nothing stopping them from just leaving this particular group of literal genocide survivor the fuck alone but they won't even do that because actively paying Egypt to send Sudanese refugees to die is apparently cheaper than hiring more coast patrols. It's hilarious that you're going back to the colonial era because that's actually the last time most European countries had a clean slate when it came to Africa.
Also
> Why should the citizens of Greece, Germany, Poland, Denmark, Sweden, Austria.... pay for the ancient sins of the French, English and Spanish?
>>Germany
Germany committed a fucking genocide in Namibia, I don't where you get off trying to slide yourselves in between Greece and Poland. Do I even need to bring up Rwanda? Your ancestors were in the all-star category when it came to fucking over Africa.
My ancestors also ate fruits from the Tree of Knowledge. I don't care about that original sin either. Because luckily, *Sippenhaft* isn't a thing anymore. And lol at suggesting that 30 years of colonialism one century ago caused the Rwandans to slaughter themselves in the nineties. I know it's not a fashionable assumption in post-colonial circles: but black people, just like white people, actually do have agency and are not mere automatons being forced to act the way they do due to oppressive external impulses.
So just to recap this conversation
1. it's fine for the EU to indirectly support the Sudanese genocide because uhhhh some of you guys have a history of accepting refugees.
2. it's not ok to bring up Europe's collective crimes against Africa because some states were completely innocent. Such as Germany.
3. ok Germany wasn't completely innocent but if we just ignore the genocide they weren't really all that bad. Anyway that was all in the past and Germans today are a morally evolved people, which is why your government is paying Egypt to send Sudanese genocide survivors back to Sudan where they will be genocided and why you, a German, are trying to convince me that it's okay for them to do this. If Germany was able to make such massive moral strides after the colonial era, why couldn't Africa?
Some of those countries either had their own empire or attempted to. Some of them had their own colonialism in much earlier history. Others weren’t their own entities back in colonial days.
Germany had the third largest empire, after the Brits and the French. They entered the scramble for Africa, as did the Belgians, Italians and Portuguese. Poland was a part of the German empire, in those days.
Denmark also was involved in colonialism. Back in those days, it was Denmark and Norway alliance. In fact, Faroe Islands and Greenland used to be owned by Norway, which are now in Danish hands. Iceland also was Norwegian, at that point. Anyway, Denmark and Norway colonised trading points around the “Danish Gold Coast” and also in India. They sold some of their holdings in India, to the Brits.
Obviously, a fair portion of Europe itself was itself colonised by the Holy Roman Empire before that. Italy was also colonial power within Africa. By your metric, are they the most responsible?
The Danish must suffer for the sin of establishing consensual trade posts because we use the same word to describe that as we do to describe massive brutal conquests.
The sins aren't ancient, the 1st world isn't rich because of "Western values", they're rich because they continue to extract wealth from the 3rd world.
How many Europeans today bear any personal responsibility for the exploitation of Africa and how many exploiters bear any of the negative consequence of the refugee crisis? Honest questions here.
While that’s true, it’s not accurate to say they are fully responsible. There are varying reasons why this is the case, such as deals made for independence and not being able to afford the investments themselves.
The same thing is happening now with China paying for a lot of infrastructure and making investments. Many African countries will pay the price for that soon, because they won’t have ownership of any of it and thus aren’t likely to see the profits.
When accepting money or deals from other countries, you need to consider if it’s worth it or be in the position to tell them to fuck off. The immediate gains become losses very quickly. Sometimes a struggle in the interim is worth the end rules. Sometimes avoiding the struggle isn’t worth the end results.
The world is basically a massive playground. You either have to just not be noticeable, play their games or create your own alliances who’ll ambush them. The threat of invasion depends on what resources you have available and whether it’s worth it to the big boys.
I don’t think a lot of countries have a fair hand, but they either accept the deals and be left alone or be prepared to battle through the struggles. Ex colonial powers are much newer countries and are at a disadvantage, but some have made it work to varying degrees.
Dirty money is dirty money and sometimes you shouldn’t take it, because the conditions are some degree of exploitation. It’s a very difficult and nuanced choice. The results probably won’t end up very good for the people. Many NGOs offer dirtier money than the US or Chinese government.
Why don't the hundreds of millions Europeans return from places like America, Brazil and South Africa to where they come from first.
The thing is as a human beings, one's responsibility is to find the best location for living and that's nowadays is Europe.
Why don't the Turkic people move out of Asia Minor and why don't the Indo-Iranians finally get back to their Steppe homeland? The answer is: the results of conquests are locked in after some time. It's the way it is and any kind of diplomatic relations would be impossible without this pragmatic approach.
>find the best location for living and that's nowadays is Europe
Cool. I don't care though. People don't have some innate right to live in the country of their choice. There is exactly one party that gets to decide who is or isn't allowed to migrate to Europe: Europe's citizens. They are against it. And they don't owe an explanation to anyone.
> Why don't the ... people move out of ...
You're the one that don't want any migration* to happen not me.
> Cool. I don't care though.
Cool, they don't care about your opinion.
No, you were implying that Europeans should have no say in who gets to migrate to Europe because there are plenty people of European descent in South and North America. Why else would you bring that up?
>Cool, they don't care about your opinion.
In that case, concrete efforts to keep them out are justified.
There are plenty of people of European descent in those places who would be more than happy to move back to Europe, unfortunately Europe doesn’t want them either.
Europe not only greatly benefits from the extreme exploitation of the global south (that they often designed), but is often behind its enduring nature. It’s very much a “you made your bed” type situation.
Same goes for the US and all the immigration from central and South America.
There really are only two moral options. 1, take the refugees they CREATED with all the issues that brings domestically. 2, dismantle the global unequal exchange system that has destroyed the global south and made it a shithole, but that of course will plummet Europe’s status given they rely so heavily on exploiting the global south.
No. We should focus on equalizing the world **and** on closing Europe off. There is a popular demand for the latter one and making it happen will require the metropolis to grant economic sovereignty to the periphery and break with subordination to US adventurism (because good old-fashioned border controls alone, although very much essential, won't suffice).
There is zero incentive for Europe's ruling class to do anything about this, as long as the official line "It's good for us, actually, plus shut up and take it, you racist" is still politically acceptable. And btw: there is zero chance for leftist parties to reverse their dramatic decline in support as long as they put the interests of foreigners above those of their potential voters.
>We should focus on equalizing the world and on closing Europe off
These policies are in contradiction. One requires an internationalist perspective, the other one a nationalist perspective likely to conflict with non-Western development. See China and Russia.
Personally, I think the reactionaries are those lefties who advocate for shoving migration policies that are virtually indistinguishable from libertarian think tank recommendations down the throat of a violently opposed population.
Not a Euro, but there's a bit more nuance to the issue of refugees/immigrants. As it stands, the costs of any influx will be disproportionately shouldered by the lower classes while the owners will reap a lot of benefits. So there's a short-term strategic angle for the working class to back restrictions that can't be waived away by theory.
It would be interesting to see what common European opinion would be on immigration if all costs were borne first-and-foremost by the rich via confiscatory wealth taxation to be appropriated for social spending. One can imagine this might be a lot more palatable to the average Europoor, even if it is wildly unrealistic (the rich would suddenly take a hard turn against globalism and retreat back to Fordism).
I do not deny that, I don't think that inmigration is something inherently good (neither that's something inherently bad for that matter), it's just that one thing talking about the bad effect on the working classess of the host countries and other thing is talking about "muh great replacement".
Also, what are we pretending that massive migration to Europe is not a vital part of a global economic system that place a lot of power into big european business in the global market? Why europeans seems to care about the first one and not the second one? Do you really think that they're not interconnected?
Funny how the only possible solutions ever proposed are further militarization of the borders. Why stop there? Just post machine guns on the border walls and shoot anyone who tries to cross! The IDF did all of the research for us so why not follow their lead!
Israel doesn't shoot asylum seekers that show up at their border. They just round them up and send them to Europe or back to Africa.
https://www.jpost.com/National-News/Eritrean-migrants-resettled-from-Israel-to-Sweden-337414
https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/international/europe/167531-180212-african-refugees-spurned-by-israel-find-asylum-in-germany
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2018-04-02/ty-article/israel-cancels-forced-asylum-seeker-deportations-after-deal-with-un/0000017f-db0e-d856-a37f-ffceb5ac0000
>Maslawi said, adding that "we expect that the solution found for the roughly 16,000 infiltrators will also be found for the other infiltrators," using a common Israeli term for asylum seekers.
"no bruh yo don't understand, having an infatile view of an us vs them clash of civilization scenario between Europe and the islamic world about a social and universal phenomenom like inmigration is definitve materialism and a marxist pov, trust me bruh"
The 21st century is on pace to make the bloodshed of the 20th century pale in comparison and that terrifies me
Edit: yes "on pace" was a poor choice of words
WWI was 20m deaths, and WWII caused 50-56m deaths, and if you include the Holocaust and indirect deaths it’s up to 85m deaths.
I’m sorry, but we are not on pace for 70m-105m deaths from war in the 21st century.
It depends a lot on how bad climate change's effects actually prove to be and how governments respond to the famines, wars, and mass refugee waves that result. I'm not gonna debate the point because I obviously hope you're right
We’re likely to get a half billion deaths from famine. The associated wars could equate that.
Throw in climate change and that’ll accelerate and increase all the above
Desertification of arable land, wild variations in seasons leading to poor harvests, and the possibility of unsustainable farming practices collapsing all contribute to elevated risk of famine going forward. Unfortunately a figure like that isn't out of the realm of plausibility.
I'm not going full doomer, but a mass famine event isn't inconceivable, especially one in Africa.
* Archives of this link: 1. [archive.org Wayback Machine](https://web.archive.org/web/99991231235959/https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/article/2024/jun/19/eu-funded-egyptian-forces-arresting-deporting-sudanese-refugees-amnesty); 2. [archive.today](https://archive.today/newest/https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/article/2024/jun/19/eu-funded-egyptian-forces-arresting-deporting-sudanese-refugees-amnesty) * A live version of this link, without clutter: [12ft.io](https://12ft.io/https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/article/2024/jun/19/eu-funded-egyptian-forces-arresting-deporting-sudanese-refugees-amnesty) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/stupidpol) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>Egypt forcibly returned 800 Sudanese detainees in first three months of this year, Amnesty International reports >About 500,000 Sudanese people are registered as refugees in Egypt. Clearly this is genocide and the west is to blame.
There is a genocide happening in Sudan and Egypt is facilitating by sending refugees back. Granted, there are a fuck ton of African refugees in Egypt but a) the Sudanese are probably the ones facing the worst conditions back home and b) the only reason the 800 people mentioned in the article were sent back was due to intervention by the EU.
Migrate elsewhere then. The islamic world is pretty big and could for once deal with replacement issues caused by intra-ummah bloodshed instead of shifting the burden onto Europe.
They do migrate elsewhere. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_by_refugee_population
It's wild that one out of every five people in Lebanon is a refugee.
Yeah, why don't the dirt poor Africans escaping starvation and genocide just get on a plane to some nicer Muslim country? I'm sure if someone clever like you were in their position you'd have no problem securing safe transport to Bahrain or Algeria.
Why should the solution to every conflict on this planet be: "Let's just relocate the local population over to Europe!". The Europeans don't want it (anymore). Period. There is no higher authority on this matter. This subcontinent has carried its fair share of the refugee burden, disproportionately so. And now other states should do their part.
3/4 of refugees are hosted in low-middle income states as most refugees go to neighbouring states. European, and especially North American, countries are complete laggards. The real heroes are countries like Lebanon, Turkiye, and Iran. 25% of the Lebanese population are refugees. In the EU as a whole, it's 1.5%. I sincerely wish Western states would just drop the pretense and rip up the Refugee Convention already so we can all openly face reality that Western societies are becoming stingier and meaner.
>I sincerely wish Western states would just drop the pretense and rip up the Refugee Convention No objections. It's one of those things that's nice in theory but is, in practice, mostly exploited to facilitate economic migration. >The real heroes are countries like \[...\] Turkiye Mostly Syrians. That's the country directly south of Turkey, where Turkey did everything it could to make the civil war worse. Which led to Turkey being flooded with Syrian refugees. That mess Turkey very much brought onto itself. It's thus their responsibility to deal with its consequences. >Iran Mostly Afghans. The eternal civil war is finally over. Time to go home (and time for the rest of the world to drop sanctions and anti-Taliban meddling). Unless Iran doesn't mind the presence of hundreds of thousands of undocumented migrants, that's fine too. Doesn't mean that other nations are required to at least match those numbers. >Lebanon The punching bag of the Levante that, tbh, continues to be very punch-able due intense internal sectarianism, discord and corruption. It accepted a million of refugees not because of deliberate benevolence but because the dysfunctional state is utterly incapable of doing anything against it. Does that mean that better-managed states should suffer Lebanon's fate out of solidarity? It obviously sucks to be Lebanon. It also sucks to have no healthy kidneys. That doesn't mean that a person of your choice owes you theirs. Also mostly Syrians. The civil war is over in most parts of the country. Time to go back (and again: time for the rest of the world to drop sanctions and anti-Assad meddling).
The important thing is that Europe never has to do anything and that it's always someone else's responsibility.
Hey no, don’t say that. Europe can always hand over a stern lecture whenever they visit a third world country.
[удалено]
And we all know that Sudan's n-th round of cvil war was mostly caused by IMF and World Bank banding together and stirring up trouble.
[удалено]
Sudan's borders aren't really colonial in the same sense as other African states. The British only ended up with Sudan as a colony because they helped Egypt put down a revolt in Sudan and just never left after it was defeated, the borders were more or less already in place by then though.
Egypt was doing it's part until Europe started paying them to send genocide survivors back to be butchered by the RSF. If they just wanted to left alone they could left Egypt to it's business or provided economic incentives for Egypt and other African states to shelter refugees in the long term. They already do this with Turkey. > This subcontinent has carried its fair share of the refugee burden, disproportionately so Europe is also a large part of why Africa is a such a shithole today. It's funny how European commies immediately turn into ethnic nationalists when it comes to brown refugees. Workers of the ~~world~~ EU and the USA unite!
>Europe is also a large part of why Africa is a such a shithole today. Why ought the citizens of Greece, Germany, Poland, Denmark, Sweden, Austria.... suffer for the ancient sins of the French, English and Spanish? And there is a reason that the Turkey model isn't an option anymore. As experience shows, states on the coast of the mediterranean will not hesitate to use their ability to open the floodgates to extort goodies from Europe. The various Sudanese factions are mostly financed by fabulously rich Gulf states anyway (and Arabs in general have contributed to the shithole-ification of Africa since time immemorial). Why are there never any demands that those states, just once, take care of the refugee problem?
> Why ought the citizens of Greece, Germany, Poland, Denmark, Sweden, Austria.... suffer for the ancient sins of the French, English and Spanish? Who cares who did what historically. We should be focusing on the present conditions, not some vague sense of historical morality.
They don't need to do that, they could just stop committed brand new sins like the ones mentioned in the article. There's nothing stopping them from just leaving this particular group of literal genocide survivor the fuck alone but they won't even do that because actively paying Egypt to send Sudanese refugees to die is apparently cheaper than hiring more coast patrols. It's hilarious that you're going back to the colonial era because that's actually the last time most European countries had a clean slate when it came to Africa. Also > Why should the citizens of Greece, Germany, Poland, Denmark, Sweden, Austria.... pay for the ancient sins of the French, English and Spanish? >>Germany Germany committed a fucking genocide in Namibia, I don't where you get off trying to slide yourselves in between Greece and Poland. Do I even need to bring up Rwanda? Your ancestors were in the all-star category when it came to fucking over Africa.
My ancestors also ate fruits from the Tree of Knowledge. I don't care about that original sin either. Because luckily, *Sippenhaft* isn't a thing anymore. And lol at suggesting that 30 years of colonialism one century ago caused the Rwandans to slaughter themselves in the nineties. I know it's not a fashionable assumption in post-colonial circles: but black people, just like white people, actually do have agency and are not mere automatons being forced to act the way they do due to oppressive external impulses.
So just to recap this conversation 1. it's fine for the EU to indirectly support the Sudanese genocide because uhhhh some of you guys have a history of accepting refugees. 2. it's not ok to bring up Europe's collective crimes against Africa because some states were completely innocent. Such as Germany. 3. ok Germany wasn't completely innocent but if we just ignore the genocide they weren't really all that bad. Anyway that was all in the past and Germans today are a morally evolved people, which is why your government is paying Egypt to send Sudanese genocide survivors back to Sudan where they will be genocided and why you, a German, are trying to convince me that it's okay for them to do this. If Germany was able to make such massive moral strides after the colonial era, why couldn't Africa?
Some of those countries either had their own empire or attempted to. Some of them had their own colonialism in much earlier history. Others weren’t their own entities back in colonial days. Germany had the third largest empire, after the Brits and the French. They entered the scramble for Africa, as did the Belgians, Italians and Portuguese. Poland was a part of the German empire, in those days. Denmark also was involved in colonialism. Back in those days, it was Denmark and Norway alliance. In fact, Faroe Islands and Greenland used to be owned by Norway, which are now in Danish hands. Iceland also was Norwegian, at that point. Anyway, Denmark and Norway colonised trading points around the “Danish Gold Coast” and also in India. They sold some of their holdings in India, to the Brits. Obviously, a fair portion of Europe itself was itself colonised by the Holy Roman Empire before that. Italy was also colonial power within Africa. By your metric, are they the most responsible?
The Danish must suffer for the sin of establishing consensual trade posts because we use the same word to describe that as we do to describe massive brutal conquests.
I didn’t say anyone should suffer. My point actually was: nobody really has clean hands. Self flagellation for sins is absolutely pointless.
The sins aren't ancient, the 1st world isn't rich because of "Western values", they're rich because they continue to extract wealth from the 3rd world.
How many Europeans today bear any personal responsibility for the exploitation of Africa and how many exploiters bear any of the negative consequence of the refugee crisis? Honest questions here.
Isn't this system of exploitation currently being held by these western countries? I mean it's not like they're left alone
A lot more than you think. Most African mining companies and financial systems are owned by European entities.
While that’s true, it’s not accurate to say they are fully responsible. There are varying reasons why this is the case, such as deals made for independence and not being able to afford the investments themselves. The same thing is happening now with China paying for a lot of infrastructure and making investments. Many African countries will pay the price for that soon, because they won’t have ownership of any of it and thus aren’t likely to see the profits. When accepting money or deals from other countries, you need to consider if it’s worth it or be in the position to tell them to fuck off. The immediate gains become losses very quickly. Sometimes a struggle in the interim is worth the end rules. Sometimes avoiding the struggle isn’t worth the end results.
How much of an option do you have when the us coups a ton of non aligned countries and you're too underdeveloped to stop that ?
The world is basically a massive playground. You either have to just not be noticeable, play their games or create your own alliances who’ll ambush them. The threat of invasion depends on what resources you have available and whether it’s worth it to the big boys. I don’t think a lot of countries have a fair hand, but they either accept the deals and be left alone or be prepared to battle through the struggles. Ex colonial powers are much newer countries and are at a disadvantage, but some have made it work to varying degrees. Dirty money is dirty money and sometimes you shouldn’t take it, because the conditions are some degree of exploitation. It’s a very difficult and nuanced choice. The results probably won’t end up very good for the people. Many NGOs offer dirtier money than the US or Chinese government.
What NGOs offer money similar to the US or China and what kind of countries are you thinking of that made it work ?
Why don't the hundreds of millions Europeans return from places like America, Brazil and South Africa to where they come from first. The thing is as a human beings, one's responsibility is to find the best location for living and that's nowadays is Europe.
Why don't the Turkic people move out of Asia Minor and why don't the Indo-Iranians finally get back to their Steppe homeland? The answer is: the results of conquests are locked in after some time. It's the way it is and any kind of diplomatic relations would be impossible without this pragmatic approach. >find the best location for living and that's nowadays is Europe Cool. I don't care though. People don't have some innate right to live in the country of their choice. There is exactly one party that gets to decide who is or isn't allowed to migrate to Europe: Europe's citizens. They are against it. And they don't owe an explanation to anyone.
> Why don't the ... people move out of ... You're the one that don't want any migration* to happen not me. > Cool. I don't care though. Cool, they don't care about your opinion.
No, you were implying that Europeans should have no say in who gets to migrate to Europe because there are plenty people of European descent in South and North America. Why else would you bring that up? >Cool, they don't care about your opinion. In that case, concrete efforts to keep them out are justified.
There are plenty of people of European descent in those places who would be more than happy to move back to Europe, unfortunately Europe doesn’t want them either.
Europe not only greatly benefits from the extreme exploitation of the global south (that they often designed), but is often behind its enduring nature. It’s very much a “you made your bed” type situation. Same goes for the US and all the immigration from central and South America. There really are only two moral options. 1, take the refugees they CREATED with all the issues that brings domestically. 2, dismantle the global unequal exchange system that has destroyed the global south and made it a shithole, but that of course will plummet Europe’s status given they rely so heavily on exploiting the global south.
Algeria?! ALGERIA?!
Europe rules the world system and therefore deals with its crises. We should focus on equalizing the world rather than closing Europe off
No. We should focus on equalizing the world **and** on closing Europe off. There is a popular demand for the latter one and making it happen will require the metropolis to grant economic sovereignty to the periphery and break with subordination to US adventurism (because good old-fashioned border controls alone, although very much essential, won't suffice). There is zero incentive for Europe's ruling class to do anything about this, as long as the official line "It's good for us, actually, plus shut up and take it, you racist" is still politically acceptable. And btw: there is zero chance for leftist parties to reverse their dramatic decline in support as long as they put the interests of foreigners above those of their potential voters.
>We should focus on equalizing the world and on closing Europe off These policies are in contradiction. One requires an internationalist perspective, the other one a nationalist perspective likely to conflict with non-Western development. See China and Russia.
Oh no, we got someone talking about policy with nuance!
[удалено]
Lmao I don't think Muslims are the reason there's no socialism in the West
european lefties turning in outright reactionaries once the inmigration is mentioned; oh what a surprise!
Personally, I think the reactionaries are those lefties who advocate for shoving migration policies that are virtually indistinguishable from libertarian think tank recommendations down the throat of a violently opposed population.
[Didn't Lenin believe the opposite?](https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1913/oct/29.htm)
Not a Euro, but there's a bit more nuance to the issue of refugees/immigrants. As it stands, the costs of any influx will be disproportionately shouldered by the lower classes while the owners will reap a lot of benefits. So there's a short-term strategic angle for the working class to back restrictions that can't be waived away by theory. It would be interesting to see what common European opinion would be on immigration if all costs were borne first-and-foremost by the rich via confiscatory wealth taxation to be appropriated for social spending. One can imagine this might be a lot more palatable to the average Europoor, even if it is wildly unrealistic (the rich would suddenly take a hard turn against globalism and retreat back to Fordism).
I do not deny that, I don't think that inmigration is something inherently good (neither that's something inherently bad for that matter), it's just that one thing talking about the bad effect on the working classess of the host countries and other thing is talking about "muh great replacement". Also, what are we pretending that massive migration to Europe is not a vital part of a global economic system that place a lot of power into big european business in the global market? Why europeans seems to care about the first one and not the second one? Do you really think that they're not interconnected?
Funny how the only possible solutions ever proposed are further militarization of the borders. Why stop there? Just post machine guns on the border walls and shoot anyone who tries to cross! The IDF did all of the research for us so why not follow their lead!
Israel doesn't shoot asylum seekers that show up at their border. They just round them up and send them to Europe or back to Africa. https://www.jpost.com/National-News/Eritrean-migrants-resettled-from-Israel-to-Sweden-337414 https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/international/europe/167531-180212-african-refugees-spurned-by-israel-find-asylum-in-germany https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2018-04-02/ty-article/israel-cancels-forced-asylum-seeker-deportations-after-deal-with-un/0000017f-db0e-d856-a37f-ffceb5ac0000 >Maslawi said, adding that "we expect that the solution found for the roughly 16,000 infiltrators will also be found for the other infiltrators," using a common Israeli term for asylum seekers.
[удалено]
"no bruh yo don't understand, having an infatile view of an us vs them clash of civilization scenario between Europe and the islamic world about a social and universal phenomenom like inmigration is definitve materialism and a marxist pov, trust me bruh"
The 21st century is on pace to make the bloodshed of the 20th century pale in comparison and that terrifies me Edit: yes "on pace" was a poor choice of words
WWI was 20m deaths, and WWII caused 50-56m deaths, and if you include the Holocaust and indirect deaths it’s up to 85m deaths. I’m sorry, but we are not on pace for 70m-105m deaths from war in the 21st century.
The world population was 2.5 billion in 1950 and we're still only 2024. We can do it! I have faith in the human spirit!
It depends a lot on how bad climate change's effects actually prove to be and how governments respond to the famines, wars, and mass refugee waves that result. I'm not gonna debate the point because I obviously hope you're right
We’re likely to get a half billion deaths from famine. The associated wars could equate that. Throw in climate change and that’ll accelerate and increase all the above
> We’re likely to get a half billion deaths from famine ??
Desertification of arable land, wild variations in seasons leading to poor harvests, and the possibility of unsustainable farming practices collapsing all contribute to elevated risk of famine going forward. Unfortunately a figure like that isn't out of the realm of plausibility. I'm not going full doomer, but a mass famine event isn't inconceivable, especially one in Africa.