539
Rich Lives matter
(libranet.de)
But F the poor I guess
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 22 Jun 2023
539 points (100.0% liked)
Memes
45895 readers
1236 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
It's easy to polarize with such a headline/picture. Reality is way more nuanced than this:
Migrants are in fact being saved from shipwrecks, it is (sadly) in the news every week or so. The main problem is that these migrants don't have communication devices with them to signal emergencies, unlike the submarine. The boat on the surface alarmed emergency services when they lost connection with the sub, starting the rescue operation. It is difficult to rescue a boat of migrants, when you don't even know that they are in danger in the first place.
Secondly, the harsh reality is that most migrants try to enter a country illegally. Which by definition, is a huge risk on their part. The rich people on the sub were not doing anything illegal. However, in both cases, the people in or on the boat accepted the risks involved in their endeavor.
@Ronno the problem is making the natural human right of migration illegal in the first place.
@Banana no, it's not.
... Of course it is? We have things like taxation and social safety nets that allow a society to function. Never mind the simple fact that some places are stressed for resources as it is. That's not to say it can't be done better, but it's naive to think it's "simple". Never mind that simple doesn't necessarily mean easy...
@usualsuspect191
There, I fixed it for ya ๐
I'm having a difficult time thinking of any form of society where people don't pool at least some portion of their surplus to help the group as a whole (and lift those up who have a deficit). Are you saying that shouldn't be a thing?
Yes it is, where will we house these migrants?
@Ronno @Banana this sounds very similar to "who will pick the cotton?" that was "just asking questions" as to why slavery should remain legal in the southern united states in the 19th century. It's the right thing to do. One's individual rights does not force obligations on the other. A freed market would provide.
IMO, those are very different situations, with slavery their freedom was taken. Most of the migrants (not refugees) are free, they are simply in search for a better life. Which is understandable, don't get me wrong. But the picture that is painted is too bright, people hop on a boat to "paradise" and are promised a life of riches. The reality is, this is not the situation they will find themselves in. Even if we were to allow them into the country, they would still live poor lives. Sure some will succeed, but most of them don't have the foundational knowledge/skills/command of the language of the country to get a job and find a place to live.
Meanwhile, looking at my own country The Netherlands, we see that natives are also struggling for housing. My generation is basically fucked, young families cannot buy nor rent a home to start their family in. This will impact The Netherlands for years/decades to come, it will be reflected in birth rate and future workforce. Allowing other people in the country now would be catastrophic.
On the other hand, recently there was an article about an approach by French farmers which I like. They sourced Moroccan workers, that could work in France for a couple months (IIRC max stay was 3 months), during this time, the workers would receive fair pay. After the work permit ends, the workers have to go back to Morocco. Then they are only allowed to go back to work in France after a period of time, with a new workers permit.
The key benefit is that workers bring the money back home, benefitting Morocco financially, and France with workforce. Most of this work by the farmers is seasonal anyway.
@Ronno @Banana sounds like you need to migrate too.
How are you going to continue to enforce gun control in your country if there are zero borders?
@gun open migration doesn't require the elimination of borders. There is a border between Germany & France, but that doesn't mean they have to stop people from crossing it. It still exists, laws are different, etc.
If you don't stop people from crossing it, how do you check what they are carrying? How do you prevent guns from moving across a border in that case?
@gun I don't think we should.
@gun @fu hey lemmy get the fascists off your instance
@cmdr_nova lemmy.ml is certianly anti-facist, but to my knowledge is not anti-gun
@fu way to focus on exactly what I wasn't talking about
@cmdr_nova I apologize, I had thought you were associating firearm freedom with fascism. Would you mind sharing with me what you were speaking of, as I clearly missed the point.
Right, but if you want to stop school shootings with gun control and are also left wing enough to want zero borders, how will gun control be possible if crazies can just go and get their guns from places where its legal to get them. Am I fascist for pointing out an obvious contradiction?
WTF said anything about wanting gun control?
I did. It's just a random example to argue what @Banana@feddit.it was saying about reality being more complicated.
@gun i don't enforce gun control laws now. As far as those that do...well...ACAB.
Great. Doesn't mean you get to just outright murder them.