Why were Migrants stuck in the Mediterranean Sea for two weeks?
Why were Migrants stuck in the Mediterranean Sea for two weeks?
Bangladesh, Cameroon, Nigeria, Senegal and Egypt Migrants, floating for two weeks on the Mediterranean, while Italy, Malta, and France refused entry, are finally allowed by Tunisian Prime Minister Youssef Chahed to enter "for humanitarian reasons".
Written by: Colin B. M. Wood
|[Tunisia Migrants aboard boat in the Mediterranean]|
I preface this article with my posting of the above video, and my quote, below, along with three quotes in reply to my question which headed up the video post. My follow up article to this usually tough topic to banter over, is below.
"Why does it seem that not only America's current policies but other Country's policies are regressing to the 60's and 70's in some cases and the 40's in others? What is happening in the world? Are all these dehumanizing actions stemming from America being led by a fascist, megalomaniac? Is his harsh, mean, and destructive leadership socially, giving other Country's reprieve to do the same?" - Colin Wood/Facebook Original Post - July 29, 2018
"Because countries are getting tired of taking care of people that are just there for a handout" - Kimberly Secor-Maus/Facebook - July 29, 2018...
..."Because capitalism and free market were allowed into industries where they don't belong, such as education, health care, infrastructure, etc. Supply side economics are also in effect, so when the average people get shafted with stagnant wages, someone is put to blame, and it's almost always someone who can't adequately represent themselves, such as minorities and immigrants." - Scott Wilkins/Facebook - July 29, 2018
"Why do you think they're just there for a handout? "It's too much work working in my home country" isn't usually what motivates people to brave enormously dangerous travel to countries they know nothing about. At least in the USA, the vast majority of people who illegally enter work long, hard hours to support themselves and their families. Sure, there's a limit to how many immigrants a country can absorb in a year. However, there's no evidence that people are mass migrating to get a handout." - Eric Johannsen - July 29, 2018
In the real world, not Facebook world, there will always be poor people, and those who need handouts, as long as corporations and the wealthy horde all the money, which is enough to go around the world completely, and feed, clothe and shelter everyone on Earth, plus more.
However, some argue that, "How many of the adults that come here do you think find actual jobs when they get here? Id be willing to bed not even close to half of the people. They come here with no qualifications and they get free health care and free rent and food stamps of around $125 a month per person. They can sit at home and to nothing. Do you get to do that? I don't." - Anonymous source
How about, instead of shutting everyone out, distancing humans from each other even further with Berlin-style walls, and helping to induce the self-destruction and extinction of mankind, we actually all begin to take these people in...establish some sort of socialist, non-communist enforcement of a certain tiny percentage of every one's taxes above an income of $100,000 per year, without any way to avoid it ever again, and take care of the poor and needy?
Would that be such a horrible, and tough thing to do? Maybe, we are dealing with egos, or fright, or misinformation?
Eventually, the sharing of a minute percentage of the richest 1%'s wealth, ending poverty worldwide, would give many a hard pill to swallow.
It is possible, that disparaging the needy, and being grossly rich isn't so great, and maybe sharing wealth with the sick, needy and poor is actually the successful way to see mankind advance in many, many beautiful ways.
Wars could end, and help would be abundant for countries, and people in need, during destructive weather patterns, and times of famine. Property insurances would go down, there would be less sick people in the world, therefore, health insurance premiums would be forced down.
Think about it. Money seems to give the mainstream of the wealthy pretty good lives, in reflection, doesn't it make sense that that wealth shared with the poor would create even more good lives around the globe? If money works for the wealthy, then so does money for the poor.
Yet, we are a stingy world. I'd hesitate to say America or Americans (reportedly, the most giving country and people in the world) are stingy, but in the bigger picture of how many still suffer around the globe, we still look a mite bit cheap.
My home donates at least once a month. At least $5 to something, a couple things every month, and once in a while, up to a $25 donation. I began independently donating through KIVA, when they first began supporting people in poorer countries in order to start their own businesses, by borrowing from KIVA Independent Investors whom made nothing back but initial investments, after repayment.
Now, I make less than $20,000 a year, currently in my life. I also had wealthy times in my young 20's. Now, suffering from several health issues, and on Social Security Disability for 8 years, as a struggling writer, I am over 125% below the poverty level, according to the NY State of Health Program, which recently opened online.
Yet, I find a way to shuck off a buck or two for others worse off than me. What if everyone making more than $16,000 a year, or something ridiculously low, all the way up to the rich, gave just 1% a year of their income?
Well, we've been told enough, brainwashed to believe by the wealthy and Republicans, and have read enough to know that just 1% of the top 1% earners yearly incomes would solve world poverty.
So, hey, add us poorer, but not distraught earners into that 1% a year, and you have an abundant supply of what every single human being needs. FOOD, SHELTER, CLOTHING!!!
The United States Constitution should be the world's Constitution, for all humans deserve equal footing, and an equal life.
Long gone are the archaic and cave-man thoughts that the strong lead the weak, and the strong survive and the weak fall. That somehow helped us evolve, I suppose, by not running out of supplies throughout ancient history, among a few reasons.
We know we have enough food for everyone, and if we create shelter for everyone who wants it (disregarding tribes), clothe everyone, put some spending money in their pockets each month, you would definitely find a world thriving more, than it ever has.
This should happen in the 21st Century, because we've evolved into different beings than we were millions, or even thousands of years ago.
Communication and technology now allow for world-round awareness, and an ability to send money and needed products to needy areas.
Elon Musk is connecting every place on Earth very soon, with his huge swarm of mini-satellites, intended to bring internet to any place on earth, just about.
Technology, and incredible, ridiculous wealth among the 1% alone, communication beyond our 60's Star Trek imaginations, major health discoveries and cures, Artificial Intelligence...There is no single good reason, to not share the wealth more evenly with the rest of the world, and YES-If I were the richest man or the 100th richest man in the world, I'd be giving at least 10% of my wealth away, if not more, because one simple small estate with some land is all I'd want, with some gadgets and toys, and my family would get enough, and I'd invest a percentage in my families future success. But, the other 30% left? It could go to this worldwide financial program, only run by AI computers for legitimacy, and out to the areas and corners of the world that need growth.
Who really, in their right mind, needs to sit on billions of dollars in their fat-cat bank accounts? Selfish people!! That's who.
All of us, even the poor like me, spend at least 1% of our yearly budget on "stuff" (to quote the once great George Carlin, RIP), junk food, coffees, movies, video games for the kids or ourselves, trinkets, and the list goes on.
Would any of us seriously miss 1% of our income, each year, if it was something we had no choice over for the rest of eternity, and were used to it being gone each check? Absolutely not!
It wouldn't create the Communist or dangerous Socialist society that Stooge-like Capitalists and Republicans will harp on time and again, to protect their hordes of riches, and have you believe.
Why must these kinds of people hold onto so much money, and fight against giving more than their tithing at church, or to the top typical donation funnels, where some of the money is spent unwisely, or lost, or stolen, or misused?
It all comes down to one thing.
Let's drop down one rung on the way to that one thing, that causes the Stooges hording all the wealth, which in turn is causing poverty and death around the world.
They need and want power.
These kind of folks, are either born to need beyond-secure wealth, within their genetic makeup, or raised to desire it and worship it, along with the great freedoms they get to enjoy throughout their lives.
What one thing is the biggest catalyst to desiring power?
We can line up a whole bunch of other adjectives or adverbs after that one, but insecurity can most definitely be discovered as the root of the need for wealthy power. Humans have spent centuries making wealth the greatest source of power all over the Earth. From the Egyptians to present day America, we have stood by and allowed money to be the basis of all we judge people by, admittedly, or not.
Of course, there are several other, more minor reasons for hording wealth. Such as selfishness, inability to share, being scared of having to be near whom they might deem the "lower class", and I imagine the list went on for King Herod The Great.
In modern times, as we've allowed this kind of power to take hold, all the insecurity, and selfishness that stems from such thinking and levels of power, are the main ingredients in a pot of our evaporating humanitarian measures, and soon, without notice will deal a blow to humanity, as a whole. We will watch as those of us without wealth or power, begin to go slowly extinct over decades, and then, a new age will most definitely rise, when the poor will so outnumber the well-off, or wealthy, we will have a common-man war around the world, until a new way of life takes form to save humanity's future.
Do we really need for all that to happen, when we have the wealth and the ability to solve world poverty now?