Did I say it's not a problem? I don't think I said it's not a problem. No, I am pretty sure I didn't say it's not a problem. However, I am living here, I am working with those people you're talking about, I have first hand experience for the last 2 years. I also experienced something similar during the 1990s with refugees from the Balkan. And guess what? Germany is still here and it will continue to stay. What doesn't change however is the same xenophobic rhetoric of 'We're all doomed! DOOMED If we let them in!'. Same shit they said in 1990s when the Berlin wall droped. It will ruin us! Same shit they said when the east european countries (your nation too by the way) joined the EU. It will ruin us! And, who would have guessed it, they said it with the wars on the Balkan with all the refugees and they say it now with the refugee crysis from 2015. I don't think anyone ever said that it's perfect though. Yes there are issues, but we're far from some apocalypse. Seriously, if the German nation survived 6 years of war from 1939 to 1945, the Cold War, the Oil Crysis and a hell lot of other issues, then it will survive those illegal and legal migrants as well. 1800 or 18000, it's still not a number that would bring the German society to its knees, we're not talking about Luxembourg here. Once we're talking about 18 million per month or something, then we're in trouble. So if you're really fearing migration so much, then you should do everything you can to prevent the climate crysis as this will be the number one factor for mass migration in the next decades and we're talking about 100 million of people here. But for the moment? Those numbers are not serious yet. So stop this panic mongering. 2015 was in many ways a problem with 800.000 people, no one denies that. But Germany hasn't collapsed yet. Due to international martime and international law which Spain, Italy, Germany and almost any other European nation agreed to? Not to mention any human rights agreement you can think off. https://cild.eu/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/KYR-Protection-and-Maritime-Safety_EN.pdf Is there a duty to rescue at sea? Yes, there is. Maritime law and the Italian Constitution (Article 2) are based oncooperation which is a fundamental obligation. International law (the Montego Bay Treaty and others, see glossary) requires States to require any masters of ships flying their national flag to fulfil their dutyto give assistance to anyone found to be in danger at sea, to inform the competent authorities, to provide initial medical assistance to the persons rescued, and to transfer the persons rescued to a place of safety (for a definition of ‘place of safety’, see question 8). And no, Lybia is not a place of safety, regardless what some right wing and extreme right wingers or populists claim. People which are send back to Lyba face a real risk of beeing tortured, inprisoned, raped and sold as slaves. What ever if the people which are rescued qualify as asylum seekers, refugees or migrants is a whole different qustion though and has to be decided from case to case. Yes, I understand very well that this is a complicated, and tiresome process, but I think human rights should be worth it to go trough some troubles. Every individual has the right to apply for asylum, of course not every individual has the right to migrate or to be accepted. But there should be a fair and lawfull vetting process. For decades nations like Spain, Italy, Greece and other border countries had to deal with a very unjust regulation for seeking asylum which left most of the burden on them, the so called Dublin agreements, and I do think it's time to change that process so the border nations aren't forced to take all of it alone. Experience tells us the people cross the sea regardless if there are ships to pick them up or not, besides the people those ships pick up are way to small compared to the number of people that try to cross the sea. It's often said the rescue operations work like a 'pull factor'. But that's a myth. Vincent Cochetel, who oversees the UNHCR's European operations, questioned the claim that NGOs are a pull factor for people leaving Libya to reach Italy. He noted while most NGO boats have left the sea rescue zones, the number of people attempting to reach Italy has almost doubled. Some 5,996 arrived in September, compared to 3,935 in August. "What was that argument of them [NGOs] being a pull factor?," he said. https://euobserver.com/tickers/139266 Besides, the NGOs are a relatively recent occurance which was established exactly because the EU refused to act. So at which point would those NGOs be a pull factor when people try to cross the Sea for the last 40 years regardless if there are ships to rescue them or not? Operation Mare Nostrum A few years ago, there was a governmental (rather than an NGO) operation to rescue people making the journey across the Mediterranean Sea. Named after the ancient Roman name for the Sea, the Italian run, EU funded Operation Mare Nostrum ran for a year and rescued an estimated 150,000 people before being closed in October 2014. It closed, in part, due to lack of funding — the UK government, for example, refused to help fund it because it believed the operation was ‘an unintended “pull factor”, encouraging more migrants to attempt the dangerous sea crossing and thereby leading to more tragic and unnecessary deaths’ The “belief” of the government ministers turned out to be based on nothing (except perhaps, one might speculate, xenophobia). The tragic irony of the situation was that more people attempted the crossing in the period after Mare Nostrum ended than during its operation (also see Kingsley, 127). Mare Nostrum wasn’t the pull factor critics said it was. https://lukeatthisblog.wordpress.co...ts-in-the-med-are-a-pull-factor-for-refugees/ There is also a very ugly rhetoric hidden here if we start to describe 'rescuing' people which are desperate enough to take the risk of crossing the sea as a 'pull factor'. It means that we 'let' those people drown in the sea intentionally, with the targt to scare them away. What kind of logic is that? It's murdering people, that's what it is. Plane and simple. It's just as bad as like if our military would shoot directly at those ships and killing them. Hell, that would be at least honest. That's what the German Democratic Republic did, it had a border wall between West and East Germany, and anyone who tried to cross it would be eventually shoot. More than 100 people still died at the border, they got killed trying to cross it. And yet, people still tried to escape. And the main reason? It was a dictatorship. People didn't even starve to death in the GDR, it wasn't North Korea or Somalia. That's blatant racism. What's your next claim? That those 'niggers' from Africa are subhumans and totally deserve what's coming at them? You don't know those people and you do not seem to care to educate your self about them or their situation, their reasons why they leave their nations, you're lacking any kind of empathy here. And I find that disgusting. As a mather of fact, the majority of African migrants seek ways to improve their lives finding ways to support their families, the idea that all or even the majority of them just want to migrate into our social systems, is populism and not based on facts. We're only talking about a minority, if anything. There are studies about it, regarding the pull and push factors, the motivations and what people do once they reach their destinations. And you could easily educate your self about it. But is it really so difficult to imagine why someone would want to esacpe a place like Lybia, Algeria or Somalia? I suggest that you go out and actually talk to those people. That doesn't mean there aren't crminals or bad people among migrants and refugees, yes there are, but that's no reason to discrminate them all. My oppinion still hasnt changed on that part.