Do you think the EU should be funding proper boats to bring migrants to Europe safely?

[Ubik1]

Been Reading the coverage.

I think that morally we should help these people come to Europe safely where their application fur asylum can be processed properly.

We should fund boats that are seaworthy and take them to designated centres. Each country should take a proportion of migrants .

Surely that's the moral thing to do?

Not really practical.

Why not practical?

It sounds like the Green Party attitude to open immigration, but I don't know how much it'll figure as an actual electoral issue.

Unless they were bringing everyone who wanted to come, there would have to be limits and some people would still embark in dangerous trips.

For safety, all that Europe needed to do would be to open the borders. Not really feasible.

Because border control is there for a reason, Ubik.

Sorry the site crashes every time I post

But doesn't Europe have a moral duty to these people? We can't just let them die.

By that token, Europe has a moral duty to much of the world. So then it needs to open its borders entirely. Not practical.

I don't understand why Europe would have to 'open it's borders entirely' ?

Safe boats would be a means to am end - migrant would make application and either be successful or not. At least they wouldn't drown.

Because that's what you are doing providing all these 'safe boats'. Anyone can jump on - criminals, ISIS members, all sorts.

And human trafficking will still occur because as pointed out, there would still need to be limits to how many could come.

But they are stopped at the EU border. And processed. People without a genuine asylum claim would be deported back. People legitimately claiming asylum could them be settled in an EU country.

It wouldn't stop others travelling dangerously - nothing will - but it means perhaps that 1000s won't die including women and children.

No it would reduce trafficking. Because people would be taken to a designated border point.

No we don't have a moral duty. It would be better to help them in their own country rather than them all to come to Europe.

People without a genuine asylum claim would be deported back

Do you really think that would be the end of it or do you think that those people would try to find another way, another country via traffickers

but a large proportion of people would be granted asylum as they are fleeing war and genocide. These people should be offered a safe haven.

Erm...no. People wouldn't just go back home if they received a 'no' response. They would run and settle somewhere illegally.

I agree with you entirely ubik

Do you realise how few people we manage to deport? And that there are countries we don't return people to? What do we do with all these people when their claims are turned down?

What would you do?

It seems to me that providing safe passage is the right thing to do and the risk of some people settling illegally is not as important as the risk of 1000s dying.

AnneElliot
No I didn't realise that. And I suppose we could end up with vast prison- type centres on the borders.

I really don't know. The UK doesn't fund the operation at all- it was stated that they (we? someone?) believed that Triton/Mare Nostrum was encouraging migrants.

A lot of these people are paying up to six grand to get a place on these boats! It's a lot of money.

I think they should be processed in Africa and those who are granted asylum could then be taken to Europe. If all boats were turned straight back around and sent to a processing centre in Africa, surely it would discourage people from making the crossing? And prevent them paying huge sums to human traffickers?

One issue it that even though many people are not granted asylum, very few of those who were refused asylum were actually deported (I think, I will try and find a source on this).

170 000 people made the crossing last year, those are huge numbers and not really viable to keep up over a number of years, and it's such a dangerous chance to take.

As much as I usually disagree with the Australian policy, maybe they have the right idea? Processing boats off-shore seems best, although I do wonder about the quality of the camps at the processing facilities.

I feel very sorry for all the genuine refugees who are risking their lives this way.

I agree that unless they help everyone to come who wants to then it just simply isn't feasible. And the easier the make it the more people will make the crossing. I don't know what the answer is. I think it would be better for the UN to send a peace keeping force to those countries.

'I think they should be processed in Africa and those who are granted asylum could then be taken to Europe.'

And who is going to man those? Would you volunteer to take a post processing them in a war-torn country where Westerners are targets? Or is that someone else's job, just like all these 'safe boats' who will be targets for pirates?

Who pays for this 'moral obligation', the working poor in all these European countries who had nothing to do with fucking everything up?

I think they should be processed in Africa and those who are granted asylum could then be taken to Europe.

People simply won't risk being refused and know once they are in Europe it is much harder to be removed so will still risk the crossing rather than be processed in Africa.