https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...scue-boats-med
Conservatives obsessed with moral hazard are no doubt on-board.
European right solves crisis on the Mediterranean
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...scue-boats-med
Conservatives obsessed with moral hazard are no doubt on-board.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
What the fuck?
It is a serious issue how these 'saviors' are actually encouraging illegal immigration to Europe.
Congratulations America
[Citation needed]Originally Posted by Hazir
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
Really? With rescue mission waiting just far enough from the Libyan coast to not be obliged to bring people back to Libya? Thus making the business model of the smuggling gangs one where they can sell places on boats that just about can make it out of the 12 mi zone?
Congratulations America
The idea is to discourage criminal behavior by letting children drown. Currently, too many people survive, so the deterrent is ineffective. By interfering with/trolling leftist do-gooders who try to save drowning people, you can ensure that more people drown, which should deter 1-2% from trying to migrate to Europe.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
This is all sorts of messed up. America's 'version' of this was far more civilized and involved appropriate contacting of authorities when illegals crossed the southern border.
While your argument makes sense, there's a lot of things which make for a good logical argumentative chain of events.
Does not mean that this logic is reflected by reality. So, do you have any kind of systematic proof that this is indeed the case?
For instance, why do you think criminals who would sell those people a place on a leaking boat without guarantee of such a rescue would bat an eye at sending those people on with or without such rescue missions? These boats are on a one-way trip anyway so why should they care? They already have their money regardless of the outcome - it doesn't matter for them if the boats sinks and the people drown, or if the boat sinks and the people are rescued, or if the boat actually manages to get to the other side.
See? A logical argument for why your argument does not neccessarily reflect reality. Now it's your turn to show that your argument holds water.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
Hundreds of people die every year while attempting to enter the US. Stricter enforcement has driven many of them to take ever more dangerous routes, or caused accidents eg. involving spike strips, leading to more deaths.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Uh-huh. And yet I remember you praising the civilian border militia which organized itself even though they started shooting at suspected coyotes (and getting shot back at when their suspicions were accurate), despite the fact that coyotes are often carrying women and children in those vehicles.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
There's a huge difference in waylaying other vessels NOT breaking any laws and defending a border from illegal crossing.
Sorry, but you have NO idea about the dynamics of the trade. I have been and am in close touch with people before they made such a crossing, during the crossings and after the crossing. Indeed, the passengers are just money bags for the smugglers, the business model does not work however if the chances of death from drowning become too high. That means that the smugglers would have to invest more of their takings in better boats IF there are no rescue missions waiting for them exactly where international waters start. That in its turn makes it too expensive for the masses to get on a boat. And yes, I know someone who paid for that kind of crossing too, other people buy a compact car for that kind of money.
FYI; the market is developed enough to demand AND recieve a refund if you decide to go through another agent.
Congratulations America
That's a nice anecdote. Now for the systematic proof.
And, please, "refunds"? How exactly do you demand a refund if you drown?
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
These criminal organizations do not have webpages explaining how their business provides a service for easy referral in discussions. But the service goes like this; you contact an agent who rounds up potential customers who then pay to a third person who holds the money. The money is released upon success. Bhuecause strange as it may sound: the people in those boats do not have a desire to actually drown. By waiting for boats just outside of territorial waters the success rate goes through the roof with operational costs for the smugglers going down.
The system also explains why smugglers sometimes use violence to make people get on the boat; if they don't they loose the fee. Because not getting on the boat means you can get your money back; just like in the definition of a refund.
Ergo; NGO's engaging in 'helping refugees' actually boost the profits of the smugglers.
Congratulations America
That was in response to Hazir. The appropriate response to your post is the one Fuzzy provided.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Well, your comment isn't based in reality either, because under present circumstances the smugglers can make a profit still even if a couple of boats sink. A boat that needs just to make it outside of territorial waters costs a fraction of a seaworthy one that actually has to make it to the other side. You simply get more people on more cheap boats and make a killing, even if people get killed.
The helpers encourage the more dangerous attempts.
In the Aegean they'd cram 30-40 people each paying around $700 on a rubber boat which you could buy for around 1 to 1.5k. Boat arrives, and you make close to $30.000. Boats sinks and you loose $1.500. It's better if the boat makes it, but it doesn't hurt so much if it doesn't. Same sum goes for Lybia.
Congratulations America
You just said that they don't get any money in that case.
I'd also still like to see systematic evidence. Because, again, while your argument is logical, we don't know if that actually has such a big effect or vanishes in the standard deviation.
That's always the question you should ask yourself, Hazir: Is it actually a real-world problem? And if so, is it actually a big problem?
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
Well you can go fuck yourself with your demands of systemic evidence of criminal practises.
As for the question if it is a real world problem? Maybe you can answer that one yourself, given that we're talking about corpses floating in the sea.
Congratulations America
The example from the US suggests that, even when crossing becomes more difficult and more dangerous, a large number of people will nevertheless attempt to cross, leading to more rather than fewer deaths.
You might contend that obstructing emergency assistance will deter enough people from attempting the crossing that the total number of deaths will be reduced even though a greater share of those who do attempt to cross will die, but I see no evidence to support that belief. I understand your reasoning about the economics of this particular industry, but that reasoning does not persuasively show that obstructing helpers would in reality have the positive effect of reducing deaths. If you do know of a real world example relevant to this question then please share.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Hazir isn't alone in holding these views, and arguments based on the economics of smuggling can't be dismissed out of hand:
https://euobserver.com/migration/136921
Of course, that says little about what would happen if we were to stop NCIS from helping.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Well, given that people are willing to take the risk, but only if they have a big enough chance to make the crosssing, that means the smugglers will have to make investments in bigger and more sea worthy boats. Thus making it prohibitively expensive for people to try.
The crossing of the Rio Grande can not be compared to the Crossing of the Mediterrenean; where your argument would be valid is in the Balkan route. Where people indeed have more risky alternatives at their disposal that are still affordable.
Congratulations America
Yes, and you seem to want to have more corpses? Because you're arguing against rescue boats.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
I explained already that without the rescue boats there will be less deaths. Because the investment per body becomes higher and thus it becomes more important for the smugglers that their customers actually survive.
Congratulations America
If people in countries with this kind of emigration never heard from anyone who ever tried to cross to Europe, do you think there would be more or less demand for migrant boat smuggling?
The rescue boats feel right, and saving lives is always a laudable goal. But saving lives is questionable if it just encourages more people to risk their lives.
Hazir is right, there are incentives here and this right-wing group has tapped into that. What "measures" they are actually proposing is beyond me and presents a separate moral question I'm still grappling with.
Again, that's an unsubstantiated claim. Sorry if you don't like that I want actual numbers but as long as it's about actual lives maybe we should look at facts and not claims. I don't care about what you heard from your neighbour's nephew who has a cat which is affiliated with a smuggler.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
To demand the figures in this case is a clear example of bad faith debating. It's also the kind of absolutist moralism that in the end can only lead to a complete rejection of the right of asylum in the long run.
Congratulations America
Congratulations America
Astounding. First you accuse me of "bad faith debating" because I want actual numbers. And then you manage to provide numbers.
I'm deeply impressed by your way of debating. Not. Do you listen to yourself when you talk? I think not. You're riding the same kind of high horse Fuzzy regularly prances on into a debate.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
Next time the nyt does a piece I will ask them to give me a heads-up.
Congratulations America
I was coming here to post just that NYT thing. Timing was interesting.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote