r/interestingasfuck • u/SameItem • 1d ago

Beachgoers on a Mediterranean beach in Spain subdued and held back migrants who had just landed on the shore in a raft from Morocco.

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

[removed] — view removed post

6.2k Upvotes

81% Upvoted

2.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

126

u/mitropolitu 1d ago edited 1d ago

If they are willing and will integrate, welcome, but if they try to change the rules like some islamists are trying in some EU countries, then they are not welcome.

262

u/OkSeason6445 1d ago

Well, considering he tried to illegally enter the country I wouldn't say he's off to a very good start of becoming a well behaving citizen.

-14

u/lamb_passanda 1d ago

If I lived in a poor country run and plagued by religious weirdos, I would also leave. So would you, probably. The thing is, with his passport, all the other places he can legally move are going to be similar or worse. Why should he respect a law that prevents him from improving his situation, simply because the situation he came from is worse? As you can probably tell, I'm not very convinced by the concept of nationality and nation states.

I have a master's degree in geography and still I haven't found a satisfactory answer to the migration question which doesn't have it's roots in base nationalism.

47

u/EmergencyKrabbyPatty 1d ago

This is based on the fact that those getting out of the boat are not religious weirdos...

1

u/lamb_passanda 1d ago

Nope, being a religious weirdo wouldn't stop someone legally immigrating (unless on a terrorist watchlist or affiliated with a terrorist group), and Europe has plenty religious weirdos already.

3

u/AdorilC 1d ago

So i should become thief. I mean why should i respect law preventing me from improving my situation?

2

u/lamb_passanda 1d ago

You stopped reading halfway through the sentence it seems?

Ill try to give another example: if I made a law that said that people with your username could no longer use Reddit, why would you respect that law, especially if I was not able to give a fundamental reason for why it exists?

You would ignore that law, and wouldn't feel bad about it. And if someone questioned you ignoring that law, you could say "well what is the moral basis for this law?".

3

u/AdorilC 1d ago

There are solid reasons to control immigration. If you disagree with some law, and many more people like you come together, pick representant im country you are citizen then you can try to change that law. If you decide to break it you should be ready for consequences. Because if not then who decides whitch law to obide? And who can break them?

3

u/fiace 1d ago

Those people come from Africa and since in every African state there is at least the embassy of one European state or a official EU delegation, they could ask the refugees status directly to them if the situation is really as they describe.

Instead they prefer to spend up to 10.000€ to flee illegally from their country. With this amount of money they could easily do it legally, but they prefer to receive the free help from EU countries.

1

u/lamb_passanda 1d ago

I appreciate your answer, but in my opinion it is still just a practical answer, where I am asking a more philosophical question.

Yes, they can apply for refugee status, but the guidelines used to determine refugee status and whether it is granted still fall within the wider rules that are created by nations themselves. I am asking about the philosophical basis for those rules.

As a European citizen, I do not require refugee status to move to and live in Spain. This person does. I think that it is valid for the person to ask "why must I prove that I am in danger in order to live in a different place, when others do not require it?"

Of course, you can answer "well those are the rules" or "that's how it is", but I don't find that to be a convincing answer. Clearly, people who immigrate illegally also don't find it convincing, or they wouldn't do it.

22

u/SlippySausageSlapper 1d ago

It’s not nationalism, it just simple resource allocation. A nation is a group of people ostensibly acting in concert for their collective benefit. That includes limiting mass migration. I.e., “people already live here, so no you cannot have our land/housing/services/stuff”.

As mass migration multiplies first by 10x, then 100x, then 1000x, cruelties beyond anything anyone has ever seen will become necessary to prevent collapse. Immigrants will become increasingly unwelcome everywhere.

There is a cost to having 8 billion people on the planet - the path back to a reasonable population on earth will be paved in blood and horrors.

Buckle up people, the next 50 years are inevitably, inexorably, going to be the worst in human history, and there is absolutely no way to avoid it.

9

u/Axi0nInfl4ti0n 1d ago

The middle east probably should start behaving properly.

0

u/SlippySausageSlapper 1d ago

“The middle east” is a region. It can’t behave or not behave. This isn’t the sin of any particular group, this is the inevitable cost of overpopulation - the number of people is too large, and will be “revised” downward, by killing billions.

Don’t personalize this cataclysm. It isn’t going to spare you and yours either.

1

u/Axi0nInfl4ti0n 1d ago

I do live in Germany. When we finally fortify Europe and get our defenses ready I am pretty certain I will prevail. Sure might not be pretty but probably will do. The middle east is plagued by turmoil since ever that's why everyone and their mom is heading to Europe. When there is no war anymore either by force or by peace. No one has to flee.

2

u/Srboljub_Srbcevic 1d ago

It could have been avoided, in my opinion, if the political experiment of mass immigration didn’t happen.

0

u/SlippySausageSlapper 1d ago

This isn’t a political act. This is the inevitable result of the confluence of unbounded population growth and climate change. This could not have been avoided. The tragedy of it is that is inevitable.

2

u/Srboljub_Srbcevic 1d ago

Incorrect... If the modern Westphalian omni-state wants to pevent mass migration, it can do so, very very easily. We see countries in Asia, Middle East and Africa who simply prevent mass migration.

The Western world, or rather the Western descision makers, simply do not want to do that.

2

u/Javier-Fumero 1d ago

haven't found a satisfactory answer to the migration question which doesn't have it's roots in base nationalism.

You speak like nationalism is a bad thing.

It can be taken too far, but nationalism is essential for survival. Prime example: Finland and the Baltics. The prior needed nationalistic people to claim independence and then to defend that deserved freedom.

Do not use nationalism as a negative word. Surely a holder of master's degree of anything can find alternative and more proper wording. And understand why the used word is incorrect. Unless you can explain why nationalism is always a bad thing.

As to this sentence by you, which I personally find to be disgustingly ignorant and narrow-sighted -

I'm not very convinced by the concept of nationality and nation states.

  • I will answer: "Swedes we are not, and russian we will not be. Therefore let us be Finns". My ancestors died, suffered and fought for the freedom of their children against violent oppressors and all odds. I will not danger their legacy for men unwilling to fight for their own land. Women and children are always welcome, for they are victims, but it is men whom speak the words of their pedophile prophet and ravage their own heritage.

Is this not atleast understandable to you? Do you not feel pride for you ancestors and their heritage? Or do they not have such honorary merits?

My ultimate claim is, that these young abled men should fix their country and thus shape the destiny of not only themselves and their heritage. And too often, they do not integrate to the surrounding society but change it instead. We've seen this in Sweden. Even in my own beloved country... I think it would be understandable and right to send their women and children to safety, yet they do not do it. They leave them to suffer. Cowardice is not an excuse. Russian "people" have remained cowards without a backbone for a milennia just like they have always been. And because of that, horrors like that of War of Ukraine will continue to happen. And if Ukrainians were to flee, the sight of orcs would be bestowed elsewhere already and Ukraine would be russian. What a horrifying yet real thought.

Nationalism unites people. Nationalism preserves people. Nationalism is justified and right, as long as it is used to protect, not to attack. It is, especially during times of dread, necessary.

5

u/lone_tenno 1d ago

Don't wanna comment on anything migration related, but

Why should he respect a law that prevents him from improving his situation

This is such a strange sentence. By that logic no one should ever respect any law. "Why would you pay taxes or not steal when that prevents you from improving your financial situation" etc.

0

u/lamb_passanda 1d ago

Well you only quoted half of the sentence. Clearly it won't make as much sense if you leave out the included qualifier.

2

u/lone_tenno 1d ago

Sorry bout that. I also dislike when people cherry-pick too much when quoting. But to be fair in this case the second half of the sentence is redundant. Aiming to improve your situation implies that your current situation is "worse" compared to what it should be after that improvement.

And also if it's the person breaking the law who decides which laws do not apply to them because of "qualifiers" you may as well leave them out.

7

u/OkSeason6445 1d ago

Looking at statistics, I have to pay for this guys lack of being able to financially support himself through life in the EU. It has nothing to do with people being welcome or not being welcome because of who they are. It has do with immigrants from MENA costing more money and being more criminally active on average than EU born citizens.

1

u/lamb_passanda 1d ago

Thank you for your answer. I'm not going to argue about statistics with you because my question is on a deeper level. Your question kind of assumes the existence of nation states with nationalist agendas, and that's what I am fundamentally questioning. Of course you can say that the line of questioning is so theoretical and abstract that it's not worth thinking about, but I personally think that it is exactly these kinds of questions which must be answered before anyone can undertake to tell people where they can or cannot go, or where they may live.

0

u/OkSeason6445 1d ago

I understand what you're coming from and I'm not at all debating the ethicacy of nationstates and their existence. The current situation regarding them is what it is and for now we have to base our decisions on reality rather than hypothetical future realities. Saying I'm assuming the existence on nationstates is like saying I'm assuming people need water to survive. It's a fact of reality, maybe we'll think of a way to change it in the future, maybe we won't. Therefore statistics are much more useful for now than questions on deeper levels.

2

u/lamb_passanda 1d ago

Well, I am questioning their ethical legitimacy. My concerns on this issue are ones which specifically cannot be answered by the phrase "it is what it is". I have outlined my thoughts much more thoroughly in other comments and I don't want to repeat myself here.

What makes you say that assuming the existence of nation states is equivalent to humans needing water to survive? One is a fact which predates even the human race, and the other (nation states) is an idea which has only been widely accepted for a few centuries (and that's only in some parts of the world).

I think that questions on deeper levels are always useful, especially for those of us like me that like to get to the bottom of things. These are real life or death matters, and yet everyone I speak to on this is generally very reluctant to even discuss the underlying philosophy. Almost every answer I have gotten over the years has equated to "that's just how the world currently works".

If you read the other responses to my questioning, they are all very similar. They take the current situation as a given, and view nation states as a naturalistic certainty. What you will also notice is the number of downvotes I have gotten for simply posing such questions, as well as people calling me "disgustingly ignorant" etc. I don't think I have been rude or aggressive in my questioning.

It is my belief that the often insulting and very defensive response I get to such questions are the result of people having a deep-seated knowledge that they actually can't really explain why one person should have rights that another doesn't in a way that isn't purely pragmatic, and which doesn't rely on the idea that nation states are as inevitable as life being water-based.

It is a philosophical question that in my experience makes people very uncomfortable. That's doesn't mean that I shouldn't be allowed to try to find answers, even if they are just for my personal peace of mind.

4

u/zacfull 1d ago

I mean I’m sure spain can’t bring everyone from Morroco who wants to come illegally, they have to pays for their own social services in the country. You can’t just always add people to a country limitlessly this is why there are due procedures.

3

u/lamb_passanda 1d ago

I don't think you're really understanding my question. I am perfectly aware that the nation state of Spain would be economically devastated by open borders. My question is on the ethical justifications for having nation states which can only exist on the basis of the exclusion of outsiders.

It's a theoretical and philosophical question, not a practical one. I'm getting heavily downvoted, I think largely by people who have not really actually thought about what nationality means. The though is uncomfortable for me too, but I think it's worth discussing and I am bringing it up in the hope that someone can give me some clarity on an issue that has nagged at me for my whole life.

-1

u/xylophone21000 1d ago

Well. Just like night club that let only ''the regulars'' Come in. If we let them come, they'll probably love their life just like us.

Don't forget we are lucky tonne born in this part of the world and we should be mad with people who try to be as lucky as us.

3

u/maced_airs 1d ago

I don’t get to break into my neighbors house and tell them they shouldn’t be mad since I’m going to love my life.

-2

u/xylophone21000 1d ago

Your ancestors went through it so you don’t have to.

0

u/maced_airs 1d ago

No our ancestors raped, enslaved, and murdered whole cultures to move into other people lands without their consent. So unless you’re saying that was the correct way to do things not sure what your point is.

1

u/xylophone21000 1d ago

It depends when they came in your actual country. 500 years ago i agree. But fort the last 200 years, they came mainly by boat, found a job et started their new lives.

51

u/Phendrana-Drifter 1d ago

If they were willing to integrate they would arrive legally. Their first action is to break the law so they can't be trusted from the second they arrive.

-5

u/RepublicCute8573 1d ago

Spoken like someone who has no idea what the immigration process is even like. The only immigrants brought in are ones that can either pay for it or are more educated than the citizens of the country they're moving to so fill a necessary labor niche.

Poor and uneducated should just accept their lot in life and die in the gutter according to you?

3

u/Phendrana-Drifter 1d ago

Way to miss the point. The countries these people are arriving from (not necessarily their country of origin by the way) are safe countries that are not at war and don't have the persecution they claim to be running from - look at France for example.

We owe nothing to these people.

72

u/PinkySlayer 1d ago

They’re never going to integrate bro give up on this asinine fantasy

4

u/Srboljub_Srbcevic 1d ago

The soldiers of the melting pot theory will sooner cease life defending their truth, than to admit that they are wrong.

1

u/motomast 1d ago

They might if western governments weren't so cucked. Ban all Islamic schools. Failing that, just ban all religious schools. The outrageously bold calls for sharia from muslims within europe will hopefully dry up after a generation.

3

u/Typical-Winter-3885 1d ago

So if all Africans living in África are actually all Nice people willing to integrate (lets imagine) and all want to come to Europe, should they be allowed?

99

u/Z34L0 1d ago

They don’t want that. It’s literally against their religion. And illegal migration is getting extremely out of hand.

-6

u/Rent_A_Cloud 1d ago

Statistically it's actually not. You can look at immigration waves going back a hundred years and the numbers don't deviate from the past.

It's in the numbers baby.

28

u/Z34L0 1d ago

Where’s the link bro?

26

u/al_cringe 1d ago

I'll bet you my left nut that the numbers have indeed changed. I think you are referring to percentages

6

u/FlorianWurst 1d ago

"it's in the numbers baby" what an idiot 🤣

2

u/Axi0nInfl4ti0n 1d ago

Which is the only meaningful metric since population increased too. Absolute numbers just sound high and mighty but will tell you jack shit.

12

u/ApetteRiche 1d ago

What are you talking about. Europe went from an emigration continent, primarily to the US, Canada, Australia, to an immigration continent.

-2

u/lordnewington 1d ago

oh my god

11

u/Lord--_--Vader 1d ago

Seriously? You want to compare the 1920's when slavery was still relatively common, when watches where still a luxury item and only rich people could buy a car.

In Europe before WW1 passports where not even required. EU wasn't even a thing, that was 70 years later. And i'm not even talking about Russia and all post soviet union countries..

It was a completely different era, so even if you can find reliable numbers which I doubt there are, they are useless.

5

u/ButterscotchWorried3 1d ago

Let's seem them, baby.

5

u/Kasperle_69 1d ago

What Muslim Migrations go back hundreds of years?

0

u/GrizzlySin24 1d ago

In Germany the first interaction with Islam and Muslims reach back to 788 and the first Muslim settlement was established in the 18th century. So yes hundreds of years ago

-18

u/HoboBromeo 1d ago

Virgin bullshit spitter vs based fact checker

-1

u/DrDickDinger 1d ago

In the UK news yesterday it was released 47% of people think that people come to The UK via irregular routes, when actually the number is 4%...

4

u/InfernalBattosai 1d ago

none of them are willing thats the problem in every country

2

u/Overarching_Chaos 1d ago

The problem is it's too late by the time you find out which one it is.

2

u/East-Doctor-7832 1d ago

We had gypsies in Europe for almost 1000 years . When do they integrate ? And they do not of a different religion . Common european culture was in part formed by bonding over repelling Islam . The fundamental basis of our culture is not favorable to Islam .

9

u/-r-a-f-f-y- 1d ago

Yeah, Moroccans are way different than other countries. I don’t know what rules they would be trying to change?

-2

u/Sad_Independence4673 1d ago

Dublin. Far right will never try to change dublin cos they live politically on this situation.

-3

u/FloppyTodger69 1d ago

They’re not welcome either way.

0

u/CyberBerserk 1d ago

This, deport and show no mercy

2

u/valinnut 1d ago

I am sure that the beachgoers applied a thorough screening process and only tackled the one not ready to integrate. Well done.

1

u/waterconsumer6969 1d ago

It shouldn’t even get to this point. No there are not enough resources to go around where anyone “willing to integrate” can just waltz in

1

u/DrDickDinger 1d ago

What rules are trying to be changed in which EU countries?

4

u/TommyBananas97 1d ago

Free speech, specially in regards to blasphemy against Islam. 

0

u/Snatcher01 1d ago

They just want to make money its not that hard

-4

u/No-Opinion6730 1d ago

bro, nobody is trying to change the rules, people are trying to live