Migrant Rescue Ships

#1
I am torn between putting this in int cell or Naafi, will try here first.

The MV Aquarius and the Lifeline I suppose are amongst other Charity ships operating in the Med to assist MENA migrants into Europe.

They are doing it under the virtue of rescuing people but let's face it, they are doing it for the sole reason of assisting people smuggling.

These Charities ships, once embarked with hundreds of migrants seeking European benefits become floating political tools, like right now trying to seek Malta take in illegal immigrants, will the charity pay for their stay in Malta and process to an accepting country and benefits? Or have they caused the issue they set out to once they drop off the migrants and sail off to smuggle some more unwanted?

This influx is not helping solve the problem, instead of one changing one huge 3rd world in Africa, we are just exporting problems elsewhere.

Why do these Charity people smugglers have to head north, can they not drop the migrants back into North Africa where perhaps they can use some of their money to improve the standard of living over there? I'm sure if the Chinese work for pennies the Africans can become a formidable economy?
 
Last edited:
#2
Or are countries and charities shifting the problem and the constant flow of trafficked people elsewhere? Refugees suffer and pay through the nose just to get stability and safety, but it won't be stopped any time soon while traffickers are exploiting the NGOs. Grass roots support is massive and the Red Cross and various NGOs are waiting at points of delivery. It's something we have to live with, and with vicious advocates.

If these vessels are de-facto taxi services for people traffickers, then one wonders who's paying for them, whether they're connected to -and coordinating with- NGO rescue vessels, and if traffickers in Libya are calling them directly. There seems no doubt that refugees are being mercilessly exploited.

IIRC Frontex suspects some NGOs and traffickers of working together. Even the smallest charities seem to have massive amounts of funds for 'migrant relief operations' (some of it trafficking). NGOs of course, are raking in donations and have plenty of work. Meanwhile they (and the UN) all fail miserably to stabilise regions and prevent displacements.

Could be wrong of course but AIUI, Lifeline seems to be a German NGO vessel flying a Dutch flag; Seefuchs is another Dutch-flagged ship operated by the German charity Sea Eye Seefuchs. Curious, and illegal? The Aquarius is operated by the charities SOS Méditerranée and Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF).
 
#3
It's a problem, damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Nobody wants them but it would be uncivilised to let them drown.

A solution may be to rescue them but offload them where they really don't want to go (and advertise that this will be the outcome). But where? An uninhabited yet habitable island? Not many of them left. South Georgia springs to mind but it's a long way off.
 
#4
It's a problem, damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Nobody wants them but it would be uncivilised to let them drown.

A solution may be to rescue them but offload them where they really don't want to go (and advertise that this will be the outcome). But where? An uninhabited yet habitable island? Not many of them left. South Georgia springs to mind but it's a long way off.
Or much much worse, Manchester
 
#6
The migrants or the smugglers are intentionally placing themselves in peril because they know they will be rescued. It will only stop if they are not rescued, or if they are rescued and taken back to North Africa.
In my case, I don't think I can object to mass migration and then have angst about boatloads of migrants being adrift in the Med, or even drowning.
 
Last edited:
#7
There were similar problems in the late '70's early 80's with Vietnamese boat people setting out from Vietnam in unseaworhty boats in the hope of being picked up by passing merchant ships. There were 3 British ships from Bank Line which between them had well over a thousand refugees on board, Sibonga had over 900. It was a big problem for the owners as no country wanted to take them and they were often left on board the ships which were left at anchor for extended periods. A little different today in that these "rescue" ships are going out looking for them. I seem to recall at the time we were advised (told) to keep at least 50 miles from the Vietnamese coast when transiting the area
 
#9
These ships being used by NGO Charities etc, why cant the Insurance Lloyds etc refuse insurance ? If insurance is granted then they should pay the costs of the Country who is guilted to take them. I'm sure a dip in profits will bring an end to this crime, it is a crime to smuggle/traffic human beings is it not
 
#10
There were similar problems in the late '70's early 80's with Vietnamese boat people setting out from Vietnam in unseaworhty boats in the hope of being picked up by passing merchant ships. There were 3 British ships from Bank Line which between them had well over a thousand refugees on board, Sibonga had over 900. It was a big problem for the owners as no country wanted to take them and they were often left on board the ships which were left at anchor for extended periods. A little different today in that these "rescue" ships are going out looking for them. I seem to recall at the time we were advised (told) to keep at least 50 miles from the Vietnamese coast when transiting the area
Mind you, those buggers did have something to flee from. I don't see the current eflux from Africa through the same prism.
 
#11
The simple solution is to return the migrants to the port of origin.
It will be harsh for a while but it will fairly quickly stop the boats.
As it stands at the moment, all the trafficers have to do is get the boat outside the 3 mile limit where they will be scooped up by the "rescue boats" and given a free ride to Europe.
I would like to know who is financing these boats as I know that ships are not cheap to operate, even smaller ones.
 
#12
The simple solution is to return the migrants to the port of origin.
It will be harsh for a while but it will fairly quickly stop the boats.
As it stands at the moment, all the trafficers have to do is get the boat outside the 3 mile limit where they will be scooped up by the "rescue boats" and given a free ride to Europe.
I would like to know who is financing these boats as I know that ships are not cheap to operate, even smaller ones.
Under a previous government, Australia (ie the RAN) was 'rescuing' IIs from inside Indonesian territorial waters.
 
#14
Probably true but even so there was a marked reluctance from other countries to take them in
Indeed, including the Labor government in Australia.
 
#15
It's a problem, damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Nobody wants them but it would be uncivilised to let them drown.

A solution may be to rescue them but offload them where they really don't want to go (and advertise that this will be the outcome). But where? An uninhabited yet habitable island? Not many of them left. South Georgia springs to mind but it's a long way off.
The Chinese seem to be able to build artificial islands ok, just saying

But wouldn't it be easier to seize the NGO's boats for people smuggling and hit them with a big fine each time, just make it big enough that people trafficking isn't affordable for the virtue signallers
 
#16
There were similar problems in the late '70's early 80's with Vietnamese boat people setting out from Vietnam in unseaworhty boats in the hope of being picked up by passing merchant ships. There were 3 British ships from Bank Line which between them had well over a thousand refugees on board, Sibonga had over 900. It was a big problem for the owners as no country wanted to take them and they were often left on board the ships which were left at anchor for extended periods. A little different today in that these "rescue" ships are going out looking for them. I seem to recall at the time we were advised (told) to keep at least 50 miles from the Vietnamese coast when transiting the area
Strangely enough I would have no problem with picking up Vietnamese people in the the above timeframe. These people were escaping communism, which, IMHO is fair reason to be departing a country. Also the Vietnamese are a people not afraid of doing a day's work, unlike the shit from sub-Saharan Africa who are lazy, criminally minded and more likely to be of "the religion of peace" and terrorists to boot.

Today, communism exists in name only in Vietnam, which can only be good for all concerned.

I remember many Vietnamese turning up in Hong Kong at the time who ended up in transit camps. The first President Bush whilst "The land of the free" would not be accepting them and, slagged off Thatcher for not allowing them to either settle in HK, or allow them to come to Britain.
 

Joshua Slocum

LE
Book Reviewer
#18
Mind you, those buggers did have something to flee from. I don't see the current eflux from Africa through the same prism.
Also most of them who came to the UK and the US integrated built up business and families, and oddly many 3rd generation have returned home to bring their skills to the homeland
 
#19
The simple solution is to return the migrants to the port of origin.
It will be harsh for a while but it will fairly quickly stop the boats.
As it stands at the moment, all the trafficers have to do is get the boat outside the 3 mile limit where they will be scooped up by the "rescue boats" and given a free ride to Europe.
I would like to know who is financing these boats as I know that ships are not cheap to operate, even smaller ones.
Of course - they can return them to Libya/North African coast because its 'not safe'

The answer is a large (UN run?) Refugee camp on the NA coast that they can be safely returned to - and from where any claims for asylum/refugee status can be processed and legitimate refugees shipped to the EU and other countries in a supported fashion.
 

Similar threads

New Posts

Top