Grief-stricken Pakistani town mourns sons lost in Greek shipwreck
Poverty drove young men from small Kashmir town to board ill-fated fishing trawler, say families
No, I do not think that drowning is a suitable punishment for attempting to be an economic migrant. But then nor is asylum the correct response to an economic migrant.
In the photograph, that young man seems to be adequately dressed, healthy, well-fed, and with hair and beard trimmed in a way that would set you back 25 quid in a British provincial town.
A terrible tragedy, of course, but what exactly was he seeking asylum from?
Not much on offer from the social in Pakistan. A nation where stupid white people pay for your family’s housing and give you money for just having kids must be attractive.
It’s not a punishment, it’s a consequence of sneaking into other people’s countries where they’re not wanted.
Poseidon is a jealous god tho.
Interesting that all those picked up were healthy, well fed, adequately dressed young men.
All the dozens of women and children were unfortunately trapped below deck.
Bboy – Pakistani family values.
A lot of them wouldn’t think twice about murdering their own mother as a “whore”. Such a rich and beautiful culture, so it isn’t.
Have been on a few “ferries” in Solomons, Phillipines etc. Travel deck only with lifejackets etc with you – ELB in pocket.
The “staterooms” etc below you might not get out of.
Worst I saw was a 300ft ferry leaving Manilla with less than 2ft freeboard, even the locals thought they were overdoing a bit. That how 1,000+ losses happen.
The few photos of the ‘trawler’ that I have seen make it look seriously top heavy. Had it been modified to allow larger numbers to travel in discomfort? As for all the heavy inuendo about the boat not having moved for several hours (in order to make the Greek Coastguard look bad) – maybe they were lingering to make landfall wherever under cover of darkness.
No, I do not think that drowning is a suitable punishment for attempting to be an economic migrant.
No. But it’s the only deterrent that will work. As will losing the boats. So on the whole. Shrug.
BiS – it’s not a deterrent. Life will always be cheap in the Orient.
Anyway, remember last week, when an African who was somehow allowed to permanently move here as a penniless teenager decided to reward his hosts by doing a Diversity?
After doing its usual misdirection, misreporting and general damage control, the British media and government have already moved on. Like the three gay men who were brutally murdered in broad daylight in the Brighton Diversity, we’ve already decided this is local news, not to be endlessly replayed for racial agitprop like the Stephen Lawrence murder (in 1993!).
BUT… you’ll be pleased to know the entire British media is breathlessly keeping us up to date on the legal difficulties of a man called Andrew Tate. Comments are as wide open as our borders.
Curious, eh?
I’m past giving a damn if they drown, to be honest.
But it’s the only deterrent that will work.
Nah, lots of boats sank on the way to Australia (many unknown, most likely) but they still came as many made it through. What deterred them was very visibly never making it in. Boats actively intercepted offshore and passengers sent straight to camps abroad with no chance of ever being accepted in Aus. They stopped coming as the sure risks outweighed the zero benefit.
Every boat people tragedy should be exploited to promote this deterrence policy as a humanitarian solution, which is what the Aussie right (Liberals) did.
PJF – Yarp
It’s the theory behind the Rwanda policy (which will be quietly killed before the next election and never mentioned again).
It’s actually trivially easy to keep unwanted migrants out, the problem is that the British-identified government wants them.
Well yes PJF. Towing them back did work. Of course now we let them in legally.
As for the fuss about the drownings, what I object to is the automatic assumption that, because these people chose to break your laws, you must change those laws so they can do what they want without risk.
It’s the same as if they were to say, ‘These people are deliberately blocking the road. You must therefore just sit in a queue or they might be hurt.’ As far as I’m concerned, if you glue yourself to the road, people may drive over you at will.
@Sam Vara – “that young man seems to be adequately dressed, healthy, well-fed, and with hair and beard trimmed in a way that would set you back 25 quid in a British provincial town”
Well, obviously. If you wait until you’re weak from hunger and have sold all your posessions for food, so all you have is a few rags, then you’ll be unable to travel to the people-smugglers’ boats and unable to afford passage anyway.
“But then nor is asylum the correct response to an economic migrant.”
The correct response is to let them in. Anything else is part of the foolish left-wing planned economy. You wouldn’t advocate restrictions on someone migrating from Kinston-upon-Hull to London in search of a better job, so why restrict someone from Khuiratta?
It’s actually trivially easy to keep unwanted migrants out, the problem is that the British-identified government wants them.
I’m far from convinced they want them. Why? It’s what’s normal with politicians. Choosing the least worse of two options. Which in this case is to do nothing rather than suffer the screeching of the usual suspects. It’s not as if you lot are bothered by these high levels of immigration. Or you’d bloody well do something. Then you’d see some action.
You really do need to get it into your heads that all government is by consent. They really don’t have the power if a sizeable proportion of the population dissents. Look at what’s happening to Macron
You wouldn’t advocate restrictions on someone migrating from Kinston-upon-Hull to London in search of a better job, so why restrict someone from Khuiratta?
Because we still don’t want to live in a Third World shithole. Hope that helps x
BiS – I mean, we’ve repeatedly tried voting for laws, borders and shit, but I suppose you’re right and we could always try crime and see if that helps.
Depends on how you feel about laws imposed against your interests, Steve.
BiS – I love you, but if Tommy Robinsony stuff was going to work, it would’ve worked.
You wouldn’t advocate restrictions on someone migrating from Kinston-upon-Hull to London in search of a better job, so why restrict someone from Khuiratta?
You can have social security, or unlimited free movement. Pick one.
Not Tommy Robinson’s fault, Steve. It’s the craven British public. Maybe if pushed hard enough, they’ll find a backbone. who knows.
BiS – the fact that, as a white man, nobody in the world has your back, least of all other white men, could be a right wing sociology paper in itself.
It taint 1913, you’re talking bout people who’ve been thoroughly programmed their entire lives.
Charles:
“Well, obviously. If you wait until you’re weak from hunger and have sold all your posessions for food, so all you have is a few rags, then you’ll be unable to travel to the people-smugglers’ boats and unable to afford passage anyway.”
Is this what happens in Pakistan? People start off being relatively affluent and then their individual fortunes dwindle to absolute poverty? Why isn’t this odd situation more widely known about?
“You wouldn’t advocate restrictions on someone migrating from Kinston-upon-Hull to London in search of a better job, so why restrict someone from Khuiratta?”
Increase in UK population if one person moves from Kinston-upon-Hull to London = 0
Increase in UK population if one person moves from Khuitatta to London = 1
That’s why I’d restrict the latter and not the former.
The Grauniad sob-story has these people *flying* from Kashmir (Pakistan share thereof) to Libya, where the traffickers were based. We should propose to the UN that it impose sanctions on Libya for tolerating and facilitating mass-murder by the people-traffickers.
John77 – in retrospect, it might’ve been better if “we” hadn’t murdered Colonel Gaddafi and wrecked his country.
On the other hand, preventing unarmed invasion ships from landing on European shores is the most trivially easy problem, and can be solved with no additional expenditure.
Excuse my French, but just fucking tow them fucking back.
@Harry Haddock’s Ghost – “You can have social security, or unlimited free movement. Pick one.”
I assume from that comment that you want te left-wing option. In fact, we already admit people who are ineligible for social security and their passport is marked “no recourse to public funds”.
@Sam Vara – “Is this what happens in Pakistan?”
That doesn’t matter, I am pointing out that if the only people that you judge worthy of refuge are those too weak to seek refuge abroad, then you shouldn not expect to see a photo of someone you think worthy who tried,
@Andrew C – “Increase in UK population…”
So mandatory contraception/abortion for everyone in the UK? Especially since each adult imigrant can work immediately, while someone just born has to be supported until they’re old enough.