Fourteen days across the Atlantic, perched on a ship’s rudder(bbc.co.uk)
bbc.co.uk
Fourteen days across the Atlantic, perched on a ship’s rudder
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-66450500
124 comments
An excellent comment, and I'm glad it's the top one.
This really was an incredible journey. I hope each of the men goes on to prosper and have families-- what a story to tell!
This really was an incredible journey. I hope each of the men goes on to prosper and have families-- what a story to tell!
Totally! That’s why I thought it was worth posting. (Sorry for the flamewar, inevitable in hindsight.) It’s just astonishing that a journey like that is possible at all.
For me the weirdest detail in the story was the casual mention of the two makeshift hammocks that were already rigged up when they arrived. How many people have tried this before, and what happened to the last people who tried?
In any case, looks like this is the maritime version of the airplane wheel-well stowaway:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheel-well_stowaway
In any case, looks like this is the maritime version of the airplane wheel-well stowaway:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheel-well_stowaway
I can't figure out how they attached the hammock. Looked up some more images online of rudders with stowaways but I don't see no net nor a place to attach besides the steering hinge thing (so you could attach a rope there, but where goes the second attach point?)
Some epoxy putty and a hook with a flat flange could make a viable hammock attachment in about 15 min.
Sacrificial anodes, zinc blocks cast on to a steel bar which are then welded to the hull.
But those are usually submerged full time.
But those are usually submerged full time.
One idea: It is possible to 'stick weld' with a car battery(ies).
The situation today with different travel capabilities for holders of different passports is somewhat like apartheid.
Our generation deserves to be described badly by future generations, for the issues we systematically ignore.
Our generation deserves to be described badly by future generations, for the issues we systematically ignore.
> The situation today with different travel capabilities for holders of different passports is somewhat like apartheid.
This isn't new. You seem to forget about the infamous "boat people", or forget how some Jewish refugees were denied asylum in US or Canada at the dawn of World War II.
> Our generation deserves to be described badly by future generations, for the issues we systematically ignore.
No, the mafia who put these people on these "rafts" and exploit their dreams, rob them, assault the women and sell some of them into slavery are the ones to blame. The US, UK, French leaders who made a mess in Libya without thinking about the consequences of their action are also to blame. Libya has literally turned into a giant open air black slave market.
https://time.com/longform/african-slave-trade/
"our generation" isn't to blame, I didn't vote for western armies to topple Gadhafi, no matter how bad he was, and then try to pull the exact same stunt in Syria, which became infested by terrorists who then perpetrated terrorist attacks on European soil that made hundreds of victims, because western leaders decided to finance "freedom fighters" that turned out to be allied with extremists.
Gadhafi was a bloody dictator, yet Libya was one of the richest nation in Africa and provided 10s of millions of jobs to sub Saharan Africans, which helped feed even more people. The western leaders that decided that chaos would be better than order and stability are the one that needs to be "described badly" now and not in the future, not me, not the common folk that didn't agree with all this.
This isn't new. You seem to forget about the infamous "boat people", or forget how some Jewish refugees were denied asylum in US or Canada at the dawn of World War II.
> Our generation deserves to be described badly by future generations, for the issues we systematically ignore.
No, the mafia who put these people on these "rafts" and exploit their dreams, rob them, assault the women and sell some of them into slavery are the ones to blame. The US, UK, French leaders who made a mess in Libya without thinking about the consequences of their action are also to blame. Libya has literally turned into a giant open air black slave market.
https://time.com/longform/african-slave-trade/
"our generation" isn't to blame, I didn't vote for western armies to topple Gadhafi, no matter how bad he was, and then try to pull the exact same stunt in Syria, which became infested by terrorists who then perpetrated terrorist attacks on European soil that made hundreds of victims, because western leaders decided to finance "freedom fighters" that turned out to be allied with extremists.
Gadhafi was a bloody dictator, yet Libya was one of the richest nation in Africa and provided 10s of millions of jobs to sub Saharan Africans, which helped feed even more people. The western leaders that decided that chaos would be better than order and stability are the one that needs to be "described badly" now and not in the future, not me, not the common folk that didn't agree with all this.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Coun... The UN Security Council voted to enforce a no-fly zone over Libya. Not a single member state voted against it. And nobody vetoed it. So saying that the West decided to topple Gaddafi is a lie.
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Coun... The UN Security Council voted to enforce a no-fly zone over Libya. Not a single member state voted against it. And nobody vetoed it. So saying that the West decided to topple Gaddafi is a lie.
Only for western troops and their allies to overstep the very mandate the UN gave them. It's well documented. Denying that fact is a big lie, your own link says so. So much for that "no-fly zone"...
> On 24 August, it was acknowledged for the first time that special forces troops from Britain,[15] Italy, France, Jordan, Qatar,[16] and the UAE[16] had intervened on the ground in Libyan territory, stepping up operations in Tripoli and other cities.[17] This has been questioned as a possible violation of Resolution 1973[18] although the use of special forces is not prohibited by the resolution.
Only for western troops and their allies to overstep the very mandate the UN gave them. It's well documented. Denying that fact is a big lie, your own link says so. So much for that "no-fly zone"...
> On 24 August, it was acknowledged for the first time that special forces troops from Britain,[15] Italy, France, Jordan, Qatar,[16] and the UAE[16] had intervened on the ground in Libyan territory, stepping up operations in Tripoli and other cities.[17] This has been questioned as a possible violation of Resolution 1973[18] although the use of special forces is not prohibited by the resolution.
Passports were originally to help merchants cross war zones safely.
That's why British passports still say on the inside cover that they're issued in the name of the King.
In other words: "don't fuck with me, I have powerful friends."
In other words: "don't fuck with me, I have powerful friends."
What do you propose we do? Do you have any ideas in mind?
Keep in mind that if the richest countries opened their borders for everyone in the world, at least hundreds of millions (if not billions) of people from the world's poor countries would immediately immigrate there, causing the rich countries to collapse, which would be no good for anyone.
Keep in mind that if the richest countries opened their borders for everyone in the world, at least hundreds of millions (if not billions) of people from the world's poor countries would immediately immigrate there, causing the rich countries to collapse, which would be no good for anyone.
This is an unrealistic expectation, honestly.
If there were any risk of collapse at all from immigration, we have never even gotten anywhere near approaching it. A gradual loosening of border barriers down to nothing would get rid of any "sudden shock" effect.
If anything, america has exclusively benefited from immigration historically, providing a constant supply of talent (immigrants to a richer country tend to be the best, and not just because of border constraints), labor and population.
If there were any risk of collapse at all from immigration, we have never even gotten anywhere near approaching it. A gradual loosening of border barriers down to nothing would get rid of any "sudden shock" effect.
If anything, america has exclusively benefited from immigration historically, providing a constant supply of talent (immigrants to a richer country tend to be the best, and not just because of border constraints), labor and population.
America is the number one example in world history of how immigration collapses and destroys a society. Those who lived there before Columbus.
Mass immigration is a weapon of war throughout all history and on all continents. When immigrant numbers are large enough, war ensues as they will try to drive out the natives.
Mass immigration is a weapon of war throughout all history and on all continents. When immigrant numbers are large enough, war ensues as they will try to drive out the natives.
> Those who lived there before Columbus.
That's tricky because North America for instance was already half empty by the point Europeans started settling because to old world diseases killing up to 80-90% of the population in many areas.
Without that gaining a foothold would've been much more difficult. It's not obvious the Spanish would've been able to subjugate all of the native civilizations they encountered that 'easily' either. Chances are Mexico etc. would've looked much closer to India or Indonesia for instance.
That's tricky because North America for instance was already half empty by the point Europeans started settling because to old world diseases killing up to 80-90% of the population in many areas.
Without that gaining a foothold would've been much more difficult. It's not obvious the Spanish would've been able to subjugate all of the native civilizations they encountered that 'easily' either. Chances are Mexico etc. would've looked much closer to India or Indonesia for instance.
There were very well documented campaigns of extermination and forced relocation of the natives, conducted by the immigrants. No matter what was the situation before the arrival of the immigrants. That's just an undeniable fact.
Since I'm not a true hacker, I won't pretend that the people living in America today have any blame for that. But it doesn't mean that we have to let that be repeated. Mass migration with the goal to colonize and replace natives is an act of war, and it is being conducted in many places around the world right now, fueled by an ideology of hatred.
Since I'm not a true hacker, I won't pretend that the people living in America today have any blame for that. But it doesn't mean that we have to let that be repeated. Mass migration with the goal to colonize and replace natives is an act of war, and it is being conducted in many places around the world right now, fueled by an ideology of hatred.
> immigrants to a richer country tend to be the best, and not just because of border constraints
Because it's significantly easier for high-skilled/educated/well-off people to immigrate to most countries.
Because it's significantly easier for high-skilled/educated/well-off people to immigrate to most countries.
>causing the rich countries to collapse
In what way?
In what way?
The UK, for example, has seemingly-permanent crisis-level problems with housing, healthcare, and transport as it is. The country seems incapable of building infrastructure.
Migration is a big political issue not just because of bigotry, but because population is growing and infrastructure capacity isn't close to keeping up.
Also because it can be seen as being used by government as a tool to drive wages down.
Migration is a big political issue not just because of bigotry, but because population is growing and infrastructure capacity isn't close to keeping up.
Also because it can be seen as being used by government as a tool to drive wages down.
Aren't all of those political problems caused by lack of civic engagement and general understanding of the population putting politicians into power?
It's not a real problem so much as an artificial one.
It's not a real problem so much as an artificial one.
We have a two-party system, and neither have real plans to solve these problems, beyond maybe raising taxes/reprioritising spending a bit to slow the decline of the NHS.
The increasingly ridiculous cost of housing is at the core of the UKs problems, but nobody in power even wants to solve that, as so many wealthy people, politicians included, are making so much money out of property.
And solving the transport problem is deeply 'uncool' for environmental reasons. Roads are obviously seen as bad, but even attempts to build railways will be heavily protested. Meanwhile they won't even decriminalise electric scooters.
The increasingly ridiculous cost of housing is at the core of the UKs problems, but nobody in power even wants to solve that, as so many wealthy people, politicians included, are making so much money out of property.
And solving the transport problem is deeply 'uncool' for environmental reasons. Roads are obviously seen as bad, but even attempts to build railways will be heavily protested. Meanwhile they won't even decriminalise electric scooters.
The same way the countries they are from collapsed. Environments have a carrying capacity.
If we're being fair it's not like they were ever in a much better state. The explosion in population was an outcome of improved life conditions (mainly access to food and healthcare).
Security, food availability, housing, job market, social security, etc.
You can't just increase the population of a country and assume everything will continue to work: many parts of the economy have momentum and need time to adapt, and a sudden change may break down existing balances.
You can't just increase the population of a country and assume everything will continue to work: many parts of the economy have momentum and need time to adapt, and a sudden change may break down existing balances.
>many parts of the economy have momentum and need time to adapt, and a sudden change may break down existing balances.
I don't think there's any formal understanding of such mechanics (or concerns)? Seems like personal conjecture.
We're basically past post-scarcity by every conceivable measure, current allocation structures can quickly be adjusted -- we even saw this happen with COVID. We saw it in the U.S. with 9/11.
I don't think there's any formal understanding of such mechanics (or concerns)? Seems like personal conjecture.
We're basically past post-scarcity by every conceivable measure, current allocation structures can quickly be adjusted -- we even saw this happen with COVID. We saw it in the U.S. with 9/11.
> I don't think there's any formal understanding of such mechanics (or concerns)?
A woman can birth a normal baby in 9 months, but no matter how many women you assign to this you won't be able to reduct that time to 1 day. Same with education (teaching capacity is limited), building buildings (incl. factories), etc. A given number of medical specialists can only treat so many patients and train so many new specialists. A population's growth whilst keeping the current quality of life is thus limited by several factors, including construction (for new housing, facilities for new jobs), education, and healthcare.
> current allocation structures can quickly be adjusted -- we even saw this happen with COVID
And the impact of these sudden adjustments to the allocation schedules are still felt across the world.
Chip scarcity due to bulk order changes/cancellations took a long time to ebb (assuming it has subsided by now, I haven't checked recently), health services are still not back to the levels they were before COVID, shipping prices across the atlantic doubled, etc. And that is with only a temporary change in local supply/demand. I'd expect permanent changes in supply/demand to have much more severe and long-lasting effect.
Note that post-scarcity is only applicable assuming the current population of the country. Adding 700 million population across EU/CA/USA (the equivalent of ~50% of the population of Africa) will eclipse the local food production capacities, re-introducing food scarcity.
Note that production existing somewhere on earth doesn't mean everyone on earth has access to that, not in the least due logistics. As an example: Ukrainian grain is having trouble with getting to Africa in the high volumes from before Feb. '22.
A woman can birth a normal baby in 9 months, but no matter how many women you assign to this you won't be able to reduct that time to 1 day. Same with education (teaching capacity is limited), building buildings (incl. factories), etc. A given number of medical specialists can only treat so many patients and train so many new specialists. A population's growth whilst keeping the current quality of life is thus limited by several factors, including construction (for new housing, facilities for new jobs), education, and healthcare.
> current allocation structures can quickly be adjusted -- we even saw this happen with COVID
And the impact of these sudden adjustments to the allocation schedules are still felt across the world.
Chip scarcity due to bulk order changes/cancellations took a long time to ebb (assuming it has subsided by now, I haven't checked recently), health services are still not back to the levels they were before COVID, shipping prices across the atlantic doubled, etc. And that is with only a temporary change in local supply/demand. I'd expect permanent changes in supply/demand to have much more severe and long-lasting effect.
Note that post-scarcity is only applicable assuming the current population of the country. Adding 700 million population across EU/CA/USA (the equivalent of ~50% of the population of Africa) will eclipse the local food production capacities, re-introducing food scarcity.
Note that production existing somewhere on earth doesn't mean everyone on earth has access to that, not in the least due logistics. As an example: Ukrainian grain is having trouble with getting to Africa in the high volumes from before Feb. '22.
If you import the world's people, you import the world's problems.
No society can quickly absorb more foreigners than they already have citizens without becoming something else entirely in the process.
Could Argentina not be a counterexample? Most Argentinians today trace their ancestry to late 19th century and early 20th century immigration when the country was booming. But the country still preserves a national mythology based on all kinds of 18th- and early 19th-century figures and events that most Argentinians bear no actual descent from.
> Most Argentinians
Same applies to the US if we're being fair. However both places were still quite sparsely populated in the late 1800s and the demand for low-skilled labour was significantly higher than now (the situation now is very different).
Same applies to the US if we're being fair. However both places were still quite sparsely populated in the late 1800s and the demand for low-skilled labour was significantly higher than now (the situation now is very different).
> if the richest countries opened their borders for everyone in the world, at least hundreds of millions (if not billions) of people from the world's poor countries would immediately immigrate there
Why do you believe this would happen, given that internal migration between rich and poor parts of counties without internal travel restrictions is nowhere near that significant?
It's not like NYC collapsed from all the people leaving Detroit.
Why do you believe this would happen, given that internal migration between rich and poor parts of counties without internal travel restrictions is nowhere near that significant?
It's not like NYC collapsed from all the people leaving Detroit.
Being a welfare recipient in Germany earns you vastly more monsy than working hard in Nigeria. Almost every single Nigerian has a direct economic interest to get to Germany.
Having a job in Germany earns you vastly more money than being a welfare recipient in Germany.
Almost every single Nigerian has a direct economic interest to get a job in Germany.
Hard figures demonstrate that immigrants frequently work harder and deliver more than many of those in the country they immigrate to.
Almost every single Nigerian has a direct economic interest to get a job in Germany.
Hard figures demonstrate that immigrants frequently work harder and deliver more than many of those in the country they immigrate to.
>Hard figures demonstrate that immigrants frequently work harder and deliver more than many of those in the country they immigrate to.
over 50% of syrians do not work at all.
>Having a job in Germany earns you vastly more monsy than being a welfare recipient in Germany.
Not really. You just need to have a couple of kids.
over 50% of syrians do not work at all.
>Having a job in Germany earns you vastly more monsy than being a welfare recipient in Germany.
Not really. You just need to have a couple of kids.
> over 50% of syrians do not work at all.
Would those by any chance be either (1) asylum seekers who are banned by law from working, or (2) children or spouses?
> You just need to have a couple of kids.
Child benefits come with the rather high expense of looking after kids.
Also, while Germany has excellent child benefits, they not that high.
Also also, the UK says much the same thing even with much worse benefits.
Would those by any chance be either (1) asylum seekers who are banned by law from working, or (2) children or spouses?
> You just need to have a couple of kids.
Child benefits come with the rather high expense of looking after kids.
Also, while Germany has excellent child benefits, they not that high.
Also also, the UK says much the same thing even with much worse benefits.
No. 50% receive "citizens money".
>or spouses?
Women can work too, you know?
>asylum seekers who are banned by law from working
No such law exists in Germany. You are explicitly allowed to work even while waiting for the decision for being granted asylum is being made.
>or spouses?
Women can work too, you know?
>asylum seekers who are banned by law from working
No such law exists in Germany. You are explicitly allowed to work even while waiting for the decision for being granted asylum is being made.
In English, "spouses" is un-gendered; whoever looks after the household may commonly be a woman, but what I wrote doesn't presume that.
> You are explicitly allowed to work even while waiting for the decision for being granted asylum is being made
Only three months after applying for asylum, with the permission of the Federal Employment Agency, and not if they live in a reception facility.
> You are explicitly allowed to work even while waiting for the decision for being granted asylum is being made
Only three months after applying for asylum, with the permission of the Federal Employment Agency, and not if they live in a reception facility.
> The main problem: Many refugees are poorly suited for jobs in Germany’s highly skilled labor market and Germany hasn’t been very good at training them.
Germany Is Short of Workers, but Its Migrants Are Struggling to Find Jobs https://archive.md/ucnQD
Germany need to up its game then.
Germany Is Short of Workers, but Its Migrants Are Struggling to Find Jobs https://archive.md/ucnQD
Germany need to up its game then.
>Germany need to up its game then.
Which game? The jobs Germany needs are in highly skilled industries. Those were you need years of training to do well.
Which game? The jobs Germany needs are in highly skilled industries. Those were you need years of training to do well.
I moved to Germany from the UK before Brexit happened. Doing so roughly doubled my pay.
Why do you think so few other British people did what I did, despite this economic incentive?
Deutsche Sprache, schwere Sprache.
Kuma a cewar abokin aikina na Najeriya, yaren de-facto a Najeriya Ingilishi ne, ba Hausa/Igbo/Yoruba ba.
Why do you think so few other British people did what I did, despite this economic incentive?
Deutsche Sprache, schwere Sprache.
Kuma a cewar abokin aikina na Najeriya, yaren de-facto a Najeriya Ingilishi ne, ba Hausa/Igbo/Yoruba ba.
You can not compare migration of (presumably) high skilled workers with unskilled workers.
>Deutsche Sprache, schwere Sprache.
So what? Where I live you can get by just fine if you speak turkish or arabic.
>Deutsche Sprache, schwere Sprache.
So what? Where I live you can get by just fine if you speak turkish or arabic.
> You can not compare migration of (presumably) high skilled workers with unskilled workers.
Why not? Is there a "benefits trap" here in Germany, like in the UK, where working makes you worse off?
> So what? Where I live you can get by just fine if you speak turkish or arabic.
Have you tried living without the local language?
As an outsider, first few times at the supermarket checkout was mortifying, just because there's three different common ways people ask if you want a receipt.
The government bureaucracy? Getting my Anmeldebestätigung sorted was intimidating (in the UK, the equivalent is posted through your letterbox and you fill it out and post it).
Mandatory health etc. insurance? I misunderstood, picked an irrelevant kind of insurance instead of what I needed, only found out when I got a job and HR told me and sorted it for me.
Why not? Is there a "benefits trap" here in Germany, like in the UK, where working makes you worse off?
> So what? Where I live you can get by just fine if you speak turkish or arabic.
Have you tried living without the local language?
As an outsider, first few times at the supermarket checkout was mortifying, just because there's three different common ways people ask if you want a receipt.
The government bureaucracy? Getting my Anmeldebestätigung sorted was intimidating (in the UK, the equivalent is posted through your letterbox and you fill it out and post it).
Mandatory health etc. insurance? I misunderstood, picked an irrelevant kind of insurance instead of what I needed, only found out when I got a job and HR told me and sorted it for me.
>Have you tried living without the local language?
No.
No.
> Why do you believe this would happen, given that internal migration between rich and poor parts of counties without internal travel restrictions is nowhere near that significant?
Because quality of life in Detroit is miles ahead quality of life in Nigeria, Gabon, rural Russia and countless other poor places with no good opportunities.
Because quality of life in Detroit is miles ahead quality of life in Nigeria, Gabon, rural Russia and countless other poor places with no good opportunities.
That doesn't seem like a sufficient reason; if we were really just Homo Economicus then any opportunity should have us move to the best opportunities when we can.
I posit that we don't because humans are not primarily focusing on economic opportunities, but rather on social ones. That's certainly why my relatives have so many Philippine in-laws back in the UK: they all wanted to be with each other when they moved.
Know what's really hard to do when you move? Social opportunities. Especially when you have to… использовать другой язык.
Likewise from Gabon: Le français est romantique et tout, mais pas beaucoup d'opportunités aux États-Unis si vous êtes du Gabon et c'est tout ce avec quoi vous avez grandi grâce au colonialisme. Canada might have Francophone job opportunities, but I can't imagine Quebec being much fun to move to if you're used to the sub-Saharan climate.
I posit that we don't because humans are not primarily focusing on economic opportunities, but rather on social ones. That's certainly why my relatives have so many Philippine in-laws back in the UK: they all wanted to be with each other when they moved.
Know what's really hard to do when you move? Social opportunities. Especially when you have to… использовать другой язык.
Likewise from Gabon: Le français est romantique et tout, mais pas beaucoup d'opportunités aux États-Unis si vous êtes du Gabon et c'est tout ce avec quoi vous avez grandi grâce au colonialisme. Canada might have Francophone job opportunities, but I can't imagine Quebec being much fun to move to if you're used to the sub-Saharan climate.
Saying that entire populations would move move is course a huge exaggeration. Especially because after 30-40% leave the people remaining would have access to more resources, land etc. which would make emigration less appealing.
However 214 million people live in Nigeria alone. If all of them had the right to move to Europe it would not at all be unreasonable that say 30-50 million would do that (just look at what happened in the Eastern European countries which joined the EU in 2004 and the disparity between those countries and WE wasn't even close to being as big as between Nigeria and the richer EU countries today).
That's just one country. I would say that 100-200 million Africans moving into the EU over say 10 years if they could would be a pretty conservative estimate. Only around 450 million people live in the European Union and relatively few immigrants would probably move to Eastern Poland or Bulgaria so the immigrants would be concentrated in a few areas where they would quickly outnumber the local population.
> because humans are not primarily focusing on economic opportunities
I don't think this is true at all in general, especially longterm.
> but I can't imagine Quebec being much fun to move to if you're used to the sub-Saharan climate.
Have you heard about a country called Sweden? It's cold, dark and damp..
However 214 million people live in Nigeria alone. If all of them had the right to move to Europe it would not at all be unreasonable that say 30-50 million would do that (just look at what happened in the Eastern European countries which joined the EU in 2004 and the disparity between those countries and WE wasn't even close to being as big as between Nigeria and the richer EU countries today).
That's just one country. I would say that 100-200 million Africans moving into the EU over say 10 years if they could would be a pretty conservative estimate. Only around 450 million people live in the European Union and relatively few immigrants would probably move to Eastern Poland or Bulgaria so the immigrants would be concentrated in a few areas where they would quickly outnumber the local population.
> because humans are not primarily focusing on economic opportunities
I don't think this is true at all in general, especially longterm.
> but I can't imagine Quebec being much fun to move to if you're used to the sub-Saharan climate.
Have you heard about a country called Sweden? It's cold, dark and damp..
> Have you heard about a country called Sweden? It's cold, dark and damp..
and has a national population of two Berlins or half a Lagos, and a total (from everywhere including the EU) net immigration level of [edit: was "about half a million, or 5%." but I now have conflicting citations…]
and has a national population of two Berlins or half a Lagos, and a total (from everywhere including the EU) net immigration level of [edit: was "about half a million, or 5%." but I now have conflicting citations…]
Yes. About 2 million people more than Quebec. And African people don't seem to mind moving there despite the weather.
And even in Quebec, 3% or so of the all the people living there were born in Africa, the Middle East or the Caribbean. So they don't seem to mind the weather that much...
> [edit: was "about half a million, or 5%." but I now have conflicting citations…]
> Sweden, 2,752,572 (26%) inhabitants of Sweden were of a foreign background in 2021, defined as being born abroad or born in Sweden with both foreign-born parents.[290] Of these inhabitants, 2,090,503 persons were born abroad and 662,069 persons were born in Sweden to parents born abroad. In addition, 805,340 persons had one parent born abroad with the other parent born in Sweden.[290]
So ~18.8% of people living in Sweden haven't been born in Sweden.
About 2.2% of people in Sweden were born in Africa. Which is quite high for a a non colonial country. And I'm pretty sure you could rustle up another 10 million or so people throughout Africa who wouldn't at all mind moving to Sweden..
And even in Quebec, 3% or so of the all the people living there were born in Africa, the Middle East or the Caribbean. So they don't seem to mind the weather that much...
> [edit: was "about half a million, or 5%." but I now have conflicting citations…]
> Sweden, 2,752,572 (26%) inhabitants of Sweden were of a foreign background in 2021, defined as being born abroad or born in Sweden with both foreign-born parents.[290] Of these inhabitants, 2,090,503 persons were born abroad and 662,069 persons were born in Sweden to parents born abroad. In addition, 805,340 persons had one parent born abroad with the other parent born in Sweden.[290]
So ~18.8% of people living in Sweden haven't been born in Sweden.
About 2.2% of people in Sweden were born in Africa. Which is quite high for a a non colonial country. And I'm pretty sure you could rustle up another 10 million or so people throughout Africa who wouldn't at all mind moving to Sweden..
And cause the poorest countries - already very dysfunctional - to have basically zero hope to develop. Making it a self reinforcing cycle.
Lets look at Apple.
It is so profitable it has managed to accumulate 200 billion in cash, that it doesnt know what do with. It could reduce prices, but why do that when you can increase the size of your cash mountain.
Thats value system dominates the thinking of the luxury class across the entire developed world.
How do you change that value system? And how do you measure that its changing. Because it has to change or nothing is sustainable.
It is so profitable it has managed to accumulate 200 billion in cash, that it doesnt know what do with. It could reduce prices, but why do that when you can increase the size of your cash mountain.
Thats value system dominates the thinking of the luxury class across the entire developed world.
How do you change that value system? And how do you measure that its changing. Because it has to change or nothing is sustainable.
Do you really think future generations will handle this any less restrictive?
I don't think so, especially not with ever accelerating climate-change forcing people to move to richer more, developed areas.
I don't think so, especially not with ever accelerating climate-change forcing people to move to richer more, developed areas.
Could easily go either way.
Even in a one-world-government scenario, there are countries with restrictions on internal migration.
The usual arguments about migration are "crime, language, culture, jobs".
Crime: AI can already give us trivial cost total surveillance that would make the literal Stasi feel you'd gone too far
Language: AI translation is pretty good, just not real time and speech recognition is still kinda meh
Culture: internet is a giant melting-pot even without migration, and also there's cultural assortive behaviour even within borders over things like "democrat or republican"* or "Red Sox vs… Yankees"** or "Catholic vs. Baptist"
Jobs: offshoring, remote work, and automation are all bigger issues… or should be, at least from an economic POV when the dichotomy (to use an American perspective for illustration but there's also an equivalent one in Mexico) is "Mexicans move to San Diego and take American jobs" vs. "The factory moves from San Diego to Tijuana and Americans are no longer allowed to work there", and the fact this counterpoint never comes up is really just evidence that it's not actually about the economics.
* both big and small R/D, in different contexts; I was born in a kingdom not a republic.
** I had to google that, I'm not into sports.
Even in a one-world-government scenario, there are countries with restrictions on internal migration.
The usual arguments about migration are "crime, language, culture, jobs".
Crime: AI can already give us trivial cost total surveillance that would make the literal Stasi feel you'd gone too far
Language: AI translation is pretty good, just not real time and speech recognition is still kinda meh
Culture: internet is a giant melting-pot even without migration, and also there's cultural assortive behaviour even within borders over things like "democrat or republican"* or "Red Sox vs… Yankees"** or "Catholic vs. Baptist"
Jobs: offshoring, remote work, and automation are all bigger issues… or should be, at least from an economic POV when the dichotomy (to use an American perspective for illustration but there's also an equivalent one in Mexico) is "Mexicans move to San Diego and take American jobs" vs. "The factory moves from San Diego to Tijuana and Americans are no longer allowed to work there", and the fact this counterpoint never comes up is really just evidence that it's not actually about the economics.
* both big and small R/D, in different contexts; I was born in a kingdom not a republic.
** I had to google that, I'm not into sports.
An increasing amount of people have relatives on the other side of the Western high-status bubble, and this might affect political attitudes against hard borders
Our generation needs to go down in history for guilt tripping itself and other generations over every issue in the world.
e.g. "Boomers ruined our economy and our environment".
When is the last time you actually had power to make material change in the world? Even if you did, most people are just trying to survive - don't blame a generation, that's misdirection.
Instead, hold specific people in power accountable. There are individuals whose names we know that are running most of this the world and know very well what they are doing. Don't relieve them of their agency.
e.g. "Boomers ruined our economy and our environment".
When is the last time you actually had power to make material change in the world? Even if you did, most people are just trying to survive - don't blame a generation, that's misdirection.
Instead, hold specific people in power accountable. There are individuals whose names we know that are running most of this the world and know very well what they are doing. Don't relieve them of their agency.
There are interests that different generations tend to vote for, that have led to noticeable quality of life changes for future demographics. Politicians have an outsized share of the blame, but they do respond to the people who actually show up and call them on issues. You have more power than you might otherwise realize (at least in the US I know this is true).
Not saying it's a ton of the generational blame, but if you have wealth, you have power and you can sway things. And if you would advocate for the right stuff, then I don't consider you part of the generational problem. It's just a pretty accurate numbers game that most of the boomers I see aren't helping out with a lot of the decisions that were made 30 years ago that proved to be bad...
Edit: Even the boomers I know who are trying their best acknowledge that their generation made some mistakes (my generation will make mistakes too). Getting defensive about it misses the point.
Not saying it's a ton of the generational blame, but if you have wealth, you have power and you can sway things. And if you would advocate for the right stuff, then I don't consider you part of the generational problem. It's just a pretty accurate numbers game that most of the boomers I see aren't helping out with a lot of the decisions that were made 30 years ago that proved to be bad...
Edit: Even the boomers I know who are trying their best acknowledge that their generation made some mistakes (my generation will make mistakes too). Getting defensive about it misses the point.
You are not incorrect, but it's not quite that simple: you can travel just fine with the worst passport in the world, as long as you can smooth things over with lots of money.
And a lot of patience for visa approvals.
Most countries have investor visas or something similar that not only grants you entry but also residency
AU$2.5 million will get you and immediate family members in to Australia for 5 years and possibly permanently.
https://immi.homeaffairs.gov.au/visas/getting-a-visa/visa-li...
https://immi.homeaffairs.gov.au/visas/getting-a-visa/visa-li...
I mean it is that simple then, if you are from a different country and not wealthy you have no chance.
You are of course fully free to pay any travel for your fellow human being, or help then in any other way, if you think that's the case.
Not that simple. "today", what do you mean "today"? Passports have been a thing for a long time.
The future involves far less (legal) travel, not more, as the working class even in the richest countries lose access to cars and air travel.
You will stay in your assigned district of your '15 minute city', and if you complain, your social credit score will take a hit.
You will stay in your assigned district of your '15 minute city', and if you complain, your social credit score will take a hit.
The “15 minute city” thing is not some conspiracy to try and lock people away. Only an idiot, or someone deliberately missing the point, would come away with such an impression.
We already have plenty of 15 minute cities in the world, and living in them is great.
We already have plenty of 15 minute cities in the world, and living in them is great.
It might not be about locking people up, but it's about removing transport options while providing nothing in return.
Living within a 15min walk of a decent job is always likely to remain a luxury. The best chance we had to seriously reduce commuting was Covid and WFH, but that didn't last long for many people/companies.
Living within a 15min walk of a decent job is always likely to remain a luxury. The best chance we had to seriously reduce commuting was Covid and WFH, but that didn't last long for many people/companies.
This reads like erotic fan fiction for tinfoilers
> The future involves far less (legal) travel, not more, as the working class even in the richest countries lose access to cars and air travel.
Yet all recent trends have been going in the exactly opposite direction. Air travel has never been more accessible throughout much of the developed world.
Yet all recent trends have been going in the exactly opposite direction. Air travel has never been more accessible throughout much of the developed world.
If they were indeed seeking asylum as stated in some of the coverage of this, please remember that seeking asylum is a right under the UN declaration on human rights, and is very different to "illegal immigration".
Yes, one group wants as little to do with the government as possible and one group wants as much as possible to do with the government.
Americans commenting on this need to keep in mind that they could become refugees if there is an American civil war. It’s easy to judge others until you lose your home and all your possessions.
Wait, wasn't Friday also the name of one of the characters in Robinson Crusoe?
EDIT: yes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friday_(Robinson_Crusoe)
EDIT: yes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friday_(Robinson_Crusoe)
rejectfinite(2)
So they enter the country ilegally and... get to stay? Am I missing something?
You may have missed the part where dirt poor people risked their lives to reach somewhere better. Why not give them a chance? What is there to gain from sending them back? Excuse the pun, but "discouraging more migrants", that ship has sailed.
If the best and brightest people leave the country - how is it going to improve?
> the best and brightest people leave the country
There are significantly easier way for them to do that already than hitchhiking on a cargo ship's rudder.
There are significantly easier way for them to do that already than hitchhiking on a cargo ship's rudder.
They send most of the money they earn back home.
If a skilled surgeon leaves Nigeria and migrates to Europe or the USA - their hometown is now worse off, because they lost a good specialist and access to healthcare now became worse. And whatever remittances that person sends back home don't offset this.
Rich Western countries poaching skilled workers from poor countries make those countries even poorer.
Rich Western countries poaching skilled workers from poor countries make those countries even poorer.
Well, maybe. Or maybe, they send home enough money to open a clinic, or to fund critical health services that help even more people.
There is nothing straightforward about any of this stuff.
There is nothing straightforward about any of this stuff.
I don't see why a stupid stunt like this should give you a right to bypass immigration laws.
Anyway I was just curious.
Anyway I was just curious.
You say stupid stunt, they say an attempt at finding a better life.
Seeking asylum does not "bypass immigration laws". The right to do so is enshrined in those laws.
And if denied, they get sent back, as it should be.
To you below
https://old.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/15priu2/germany_...
:)
As it should be.
To you below
https://old.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/15priu2/germany_...
:)
As it should be.
> And if denied, they get sent back, as it should be.
I don't know aboit Brazil. But in Europe that usually does not happen.
I don't know aboit Brazil. But in Europe that usually does not happen.
Sweden rejects thousands of asylum cases each year.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/697824/rejected-asylum-a...
https://www.statista.com/statistics/697824/rejected-asylum-a...
You don't know about Europe either.
It's called compassion.
I agree it's stupid. But how do you look at someone who did this and send them back to where they came from, the place they were so desperate to leave?
I agree it's stupid. But how do you look at someone who did this and send them back to where they came from, the place they were so desperate to leave?
As a compassionate person, why don't you pay for people to immigrate over legally and then pay for their bills until they get settled in and find a job? Why do we all have to be forced to pay for your compassion through our taxes?
Why is your immediate assumption that immigrants cannot work and support themselves and their families just like natural born citizens?
Statistics. The refugee crisis happened in 2016 still 50% of Syrians are payed for by the state.
Denmark did a study where they found that immigrants from poor countries are a drain on public finances for almost their entire lives and I have no reason to believe it would be different elsewhere.
https://www.economist.com/europe/2021/12/18/why-have-danes-t... (disable JS to bypass paywall)
https://www.economist.com/europe/2021/12/18/why-have-danes-t... (disable JS to bypass paywall)
Because we are rich and can afford it. Because bringing more people to our country that needs labor will keep the economy churning. Because your ancestors got here somehow.
Not sure if you've looked at your country's national debt to GDP ratio or unfunded liabilities lately, but no first world country can afford immigrants, esoecially ones with no job skills, no language skills, and most likely illiterate coming into a job market that is quickly automating all lower wage jobs.
No european country is in need for unskilled labor. Especially if that unskilled "labour" just gets on welfare, because working for minimum wage in a western country is really stupid.
If that's the case why not create a legal and transparent process which would allow these people to com here instead of encouraging to them to risk their lives to come here illegally?
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
I understand why one wouldn't want to accept them despite their predicament; these stowaways are generally unskilled and don't speak the language of their host country. There's social integration and investment to consider and inviting even one sets a precedence for others to follow.
I understand why one wouldn't want to accept them despite their predicament; these stowaways are generally unskilled and don't speak the language of their host country. There's social integration and investment to consider and inviting even one sets a precedence for others to follow.
> It's called compassion
So you're fine if by doing this you encourage another N people to try and do the same and a non insignificant proportion are guaranteed to die while trying?
So you're fine if by doing this you encourage another N people to try and do the same and a non insignificant proportion are guaranteed to die while trying?
Well if X is the number of dirt poor people willing to risk their lives, and Y is the number of unskilled immigrants you can reasonably accept, then if X > Y, this is an incredibly stupid policy.
Why would you accept any unskilled immigrants as long as there are more than plenty higher skilled immigrants who want to enter you country?
> this is an incredibly stupid policy.
Encouraging people to risk their lives to enter a country illegally (by giving them an impression that they'll be allowed to stay) instead of having a transparent and clearly defined process which would allow people to immigrate legally is an incredibly stupid (and cruel) policy.
> this is an incredibly stupid policy.
Encouraging people to risk their lives to enter a country illegally (by giving them an impression that they'll be allowed to stay) instead of having a transparent and clearly defined process which would allow people to immigrate legally is an incredibly stupid (and cruel) policy.
>Why not give them a chance?
Why should we?
Why should we?
Wouldn't this encourage others to take the same risk? Not all will succeed. It'd become some sadistic Hunger Games-esque style of immigration control.
I wonder how could any semi rational person downvote this comment?
Why would you think outsourcing your immigration policy to people's smugglers could ever be a good idea? Forcing people to risk their lives by giving them the impression that they will be allowed to stay if they give up all of their (and possibly their extended family's saving to people smugglers who are just likely to literally sell them so slavery) just seems extremely cruel..
Why would you think outsourcing your immigration policy to people's smugglers could ever be a good idea? Forcing people to risk their lives by giving them the impression that they will be allowed to stay if they give up all of their (and possibly their extended family's saving to people smugglers who are just likely to literally sell them so slavery) just seems extremely cruel..
See what is happening on the Mediterranean. Again and again people are dying because they are baited to make extremely risky crossings.
I'm well aware of what's happening in the Med, and in the English Channel.
The latter is even more perplexing. People are risking their lives to leave a safe country, France, to get into the UK.
Until recently, most of those making the asylum boat journey from France to the UK, were actually from Albania. They were being sent over to work in gangs involved in drug and human trafficking. It's all coordinated.
The latter is even more perplexing. People are risking their lives to leave a safe country, France, to get into the UK.
Until recently, most of those making the asylum boat journey from France to the UK, were actually from Albania. They were being sent over to work in gangs involved in drug and human trafficking. It's all coordinated.
Also see what happened in Australia: the government took a hard-line approach to the boats and sent a clear message that those who arrived illegally would be deported. So the boats stopped coming, saving countless lives.
> Why not give them a chance?
So survival of the fittest? You only get a chance if you're brave enough to risk your life by crossing an ocean on top of a rudder or a non sea-worth dinghy/overcrowded boat?
Seems like a very cruel and inhumane policy...
So survival of the fittest? You only get a chance if you're brave enough to risk your life by crossing an ocean on top of a rudder or a non sea-worth dinghy/overcrowded boat?
Seems like a very cruel and inhumane policy...
It's not stated in the BBC article, but other news sources say the ones who did not return applied for asylum.
No, they entered the country legally as asylum seekers.
Baiting people to risk their lives on idiotic trips for a chance to become a welfare recipient is the standard migration policy of most western/western aligned countries.
Much more prominent on the Mediterranean though. Governments set up schemes where everyone who manages to enter the country gets free money/housing/food, but, after having invited billions of people in that way, set up no actual routes to enter their countries. Leaving the creation of the routes to human trafficers and NGOs for extremely dangerous trips across the Mediterranean.
Much more prominent on the Mediterranean though. Governments set up schemes where everyone who manages to enter the country gets free money/housing/food, but, after having invited billions of people in that way, set up no actual routes to enter their countries. Leaving the creation of the routes to human trafficers and NGOs for extremely dangerous trips across the Mediterranean.
Proof required that people make these trips to become “welfare recipients”. Sounds like a “just so” story to me.
It's a fact that allowing people who came to your country illegally is encouraging more people to risk their lives doing the same.
For every 1000 of people who get to stay a significant proportion drown in the Mediterranean, end up being slaves in North Africa, are outright murder or die due to other reason while try to take this extremely dangerous trip.
Supporting a system like this just because you can ignore the people who didn't make seems quite perverse?
For every 1000 of people who get to stay a significant proportion drown in the Mediterranean, end up being slaves in North Africa, are outright murder or die due to other reason while try to take this extremely dangerous trip.
Supporting a system like this just because you can ignore the people who didn't make seems quite perverse?
>Proof required that people make these trips to become “welfare recipients”.
Over 50% of Syrians who have come to Germany are welfare recipients, the migrant crisis came in 2016.
I also do not get why anyone in Germany would work minimum wage, seems really dumb. You can just get the state to pay for everything.
Over 50% of Syrians who have come to Germany are welfare recipients, the migrant crisis came in 2016.
I also do not get why anyone in Germany would work minimum wage, seems really dumb. You can just get the state to pay for everything.
here you go:
https://www.economist.com/europe/2021/12/18/why-have-danes-t... (disable JS to bypass paywall)
https://www.economist.com/europe/2021/12/18/why-have-danes-t... (disable JS to bypass paywall)
"No actual routes"? The UK has taken in nearly 200,000 refugees from Ukraine alone.
These men survived fourteen days clinging to the rudder of a ship as it crossed an entire ocean. I can't imagine how difficult, unpleasant and horrifying an experience that would be. And I doubt that, if I'd been in that situation, I'd have made it through alive. What an unbelievable story.