Comments by "Tony Wilson" (@tonywilson4713) on "Migrants reach Spain's Ceuta enclave in record numbers – BBC News" video.

On one hand we should give people a round of applause for wanting a better life for their family. On the other hand nobody has the right to simply enter another country without a valid reason. In very basic legal terms its called trespass. I don't like anybody who thinks they are simply entitled to cross these borders and walk into other countries and demand anything. Yes in those cases where they are fleeing persecution we should help, but too often it gets ignored that these people do what they do for economic reasons. The developed world did not develop overnight, it took generations of hard work making many mistakes along the way. Should we do a better job of helping other countries develop? Absolutely, we would NOT have these issues if these countries were more developed and worth these people staying there and if there is one thing these people can hold against the developed world its been our continued support for corrupt and or failed regimes. For that we do have responsibility.
2
@freshdelicecookingtutorial6585 They are NOT invading its basic trespass as in being on someone else's property without permission or a valid or a legal reason. And what so many of the supporters of "economic refugees" don't get is that economic hardship might be understandable, but its NOT a legal reason for entering another country. Lack of food, lack of shelter, threats of violence, etc. are legal reasons, but NOT economics.
1
@nm5310 1) What previous comment??? 2) On what do you base the claim? (your words) "all populations are vast majority women and children (65-85%)" No doubt that might be true for some countries but NOT ALL. 3) In Australia many of the arrivals we have had have been unattached men and YES we have seen that as problematic and YES we don't discuss it openly enough. We also get a lot of families. That boat that sank off Greece had over 100 children on board. So there were some families on the boat.
1
@nm5310 I don't mind the longness of that comment at all. I've read through it several times and I agree with all of it. I was really surprised by the number of displaced people. Last I heard was a few years back and they put it around 60 million and growing. So I expected it to be higher but 108 million is where the world needs to STOP and start thinking. You've actually described WHY Australia came down so hard on the boat people issue. The vast majority of those arriving were unaccompanied men. It was kept quite but there were several very ugly incidents in Australia with unaccompanied men coming from cultures where women are seen as property. They simply had no idea of how Western liberal societies operate. Your final paragraph goes right to the core of why Australia reacted as it did. These people had access to enough money to pay the people smugglers. We traced some of that funding back to people already in Australia and that infuriated people. There were millions of dollars leaving the country every week and most of it wasn't helping anyone because it was ending up in the hands of a couple of Pakistani mobsters. The other thing that infuriated people was the money spent on legal claims which was funded by Australia. The concept of "NO - your claim does not meet the criteria." means NOTHING to certain people. You might know it better or explain it better but there is a certain psychology where people define themselves by the attention they get from helping people. My mother made a comment about Mother Terresa many years ago. She said (paraphrasing) "Mother Terresa is a hypocrite. She fights against government funded contraception programs because it would mean fewer orphans for her to take care of and get attention." There's a condition called "Munchausen by proxy" where people seek attention for the illness of others. I think this is something similar where certain people like the attention they get from fighting causes. I think Nigel Farage did that with Brexit. I don't think he cared about it at all except that it got him a lot of attention. We have people in Australia who define their existence on fighting certain causes to the death. I met a lawyer at a social event about 20 years ago when there were a lot of boat people arriving out of Southern China. They explained part of the problem was that they destroyed any and all documentation they had. It makes it almost impossible to identify who they are or where they are from and evaluate their claims, but that never deterred the lawyers supporting their claims and filing claim after claim after claim. We now call these people undocumented arrivals and they are still a problem. Those lawyers actually made the situation WORSE not better and it lead to the "Pacific Solution" that we get condemned for. A significant event was the Tampa Affair, and there's a Wikipedia page on it that's fairly accurate. What's not there is that Australia flipped it back on the international community to asses the 400+ claims which were done under UN supervision. Initially the UN only passed about 20 of the 400+ but over time that number increased but it cost heaps to work out who people were. An odd personal story out of that time. A friend of my father is married to a German and her family in Europe called her up and asked what sort of disgusting racist nation was she was living in. Around 2010 her family were in Australia and all they wanted to know was how did Australia mange to shut down the people smuggling. The answer is unfortunately harsh - we had to be as ruthless as the people smugglers. We simply made it a rule that unless there are exceptional circumstances if you arrive in Australia via a people smuggler we will not let you settle in Australia. It has the tragic outcome that people we should take in miss out and a lot of it stems from how the lawyers behaved that got us so frustrated that we reacted the way we did.
1