Submitted by AugustWolf22 t3_y389nk in news
Vic_O22 t1_isasgw5 wrote
Reply to comment by MonaMonaMo in Amnesty accuses Latvia of abusing migrants on Belarus border by AugustWolf22
>Yeah that's literally a point of a human right organization, or as you call it "an agenda" - to report on violations.
Tell me then, does AmIn report as diligently and equally on human right violations that the paid off migrants are inflicting upon the citizens of countries they invade?
The patrols at the borders are literally informing them NOT to cross the border, return where they came from. They tell them that every trespasser who does not listen will be turned around forcefully, if need be. Now, if the trespasser still chooses to ignore all warnings, behave with disrespect and/or use brutal force towards patrols - is your belief that the patrols do not have the right to defend themselves from physical abuse?? Don't have the right to defend their dignity?? Should not do their job of protecting their country?? That they should just do nothing?
In your opinion, the trespassers bear no responsibility for their actions whatsoever? They can act as deplorably as they wish?
​
>Whole picture is subjective and open to an interpretation, violation of a law is objective as one has done something they were not supposed to do.
I respectfully disagree. If you look at the facts, the picture will not be as 'subjective' or 'open to interpretation', etc.
These migrants we're talking about here are NOT some systematically abused or wounded refugees fleeing the torture chambers of their government (the vast majority are NOT and that's a fact). They are economic migrants who want to migrate to Western Europe and live off of their rich social security system and other benefits.
That's the hard truth that all human right organizations conveniently choose to ignore. It's extremely unfair to ignore such an important fact, this distorts the whole picture, in my opinion.
Because such economic migrants (statistically speaking), are not the weaker party. They just want to make a quick and easy buck on somebody else's expense by exploiting the legal loopholes of the EU system. After all, economic migrant's main purpose is to exploit EU's compassion and deep pockets for their personal gain. That makes the EU the weaker party in this equation. The bigger portion of economic migrants do not wish to integrate into the culture and society of the rich country they aim to migrate to. They do not rush to find low paying jobs (for starters), they don't care to respect local rules, laws and customs. Plenty of examples of that all over the Europe, just need to google.
That's not to mention the criminal activities and the abuse of local innocent citizens that A LOT of economic migrants bring with themselves.
AmIn seems to conveniently ignore all that. I believe they absolutely should take into account all circumstances and not pick and choose what fits their agenda.
​
>...people crossing the border should not be beaten, threatened, humiliated and electrocuted.
I agree that this should not be done as the first step. No argues there. BUT, as stated above: if the person is ignoring all warnings/chooses to disobey the warnings/orders, acts like a criminal/vandal/etc. then yes self-defense and using physical force is the only language such kind of people understand.
​
My opinion that every sovereign country has the right to defend its borders (with reasonable measures), and choose which migrants they want to let in or keep out. When economic migrants are used as a hybrid war weapon by the crazy Kremlin/Belarus regime - this right must be enforced swiftly by using the most effective measures at hand, otherwise the loophole will be exploited more and more with each passing day.
Are all economic migrants bad or inherently evil? Certainly not, there is a portion who are honest, hardworking and kind-hearted people, who genuinely wish to integrate themselves into the society they will end up living in.
Unfortunately, they are the minority. And that's why Latvia, and every other EU country has the right to protect itself - including using reasonable measures of force when simple instructions and warning are ignored.
​
P.S. Sorry about the long reply, I'm quite passionate about this topic and I don't have the gift of getting the message across with a couple of sentences. :)
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments