Death toll in Tunisian migrant ship accident rises to 60 - IOM

By Tarek Amara

 

A relative of Tunisian migrants, who drowned when their boat sank, reacts as he leaves a hospital morgue after identifying the bodies of his family members, in Sfax, Tunisia June 4, 2018. REUTERS/Zoubeir Souissi

 

TUNIS (Reuters) - The death toll from a ship packed with migrants that sank off the Tunisian coast last weekend has risen to 60, the United Nations migration agency said late on Monday, one of the worst migrant boat disasters in recent years.

 

The boat went down near the southern island of Kerkenna, overnight on Sunday. The victims were Tunisians as well as other nationalities, Tunisian authorities said.

 

"Among the 60 victims transferred to the forensic department at Habib Bourguiba hospital in Sfax, 48 are Tunisians ... 12 are non-Tunisian the identifications are in progress", Lorena Lando, chief of mission at the International Organization for Migration (IOM) in Tunisia.

 

Tunisian authorities, which on Sunday said they had recovered 48 bodies, provided no new figures on Monday, but said the coast guard is still searching for dozens of missing migrants.

 

Human traffickers increasingly use Tunisia as a launch pad for migrants heading to Europe as Libya's coast guard, aided by armed groups, has tightened controls.

 

The IOM said 1,910 Tunisian migrants reached Italy's coasts between Jan. 1 and April 30, including 39 women and 307 minors - 293 of whom were unaccompanied - compared to only 231 for the same period in 2017.

 

Security officials said the boat was packed with about 180 migrants, including 80 from other countries in Africa.

 

Survivors said the captain had abandoned the boat after it started sinking to escape arrest by the coast guard.

 

Unemployed Tunisians and other Africans have often tried to cross in makeshift boats from Tunisia to Sicily in southern Italy. The North African country is in the middle of a deep economic crisis since the toppling of autocrat Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali in 2011 threw Tunisia into turmoil with unemployment and inflation soaring.

 

Also on Monday, Italy's newly installed interior minister Matteo Salvini said Italy will no longer be "Europe's refugee camp", as he promised tough action to reduce migrant arrivals and send back those who have already arrived.

 

(Reporting by Tarek Amara, editing by G Crosse)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2018-06-05

As long as Europe keeps accepting such arrivals by illegal means, expect more such tragedies.  Perhaps it's time to change to the Australian solution, which works.

11 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

As long as Europe keeps accepting such arrivals by illegal means, expect more such tragedies.  Perhaps it's time to change to the Australian solution, which works.

Please enlighten all of us: since these people are "refugees"...how are they to travel to Europe?  First class on a plane?

It's always great, when people, who have nothing to fear, spout nonsense and inhumanities from behind their keyboard!

3 minutes ago, DM07 said:

Please enlighten all of us: since these people are "refugees"...how are they to travel to Europe?

First class on a plane?

It's always great, when people, who have nothing to fear, spout nonsense and inhumanities from behind their keyboard!

If I can just correct you, it states migrants, not refugees.

Just turn the ships around and send them back it may be harsh but once you start doing that they will not come

Sent from my SM-A720F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

Troll post removed.   Please stay on topic.  

 

11 hours ago, DM07 said:

Please enlighten all of us: since these people are "refugees"...how are they to travel to Europe?  First class on a plane?

It's always great, when people, who have nothing to fear, spout nonsense and inhumanities from behind their keyboard!

I hope you feel full of humanity behind your own keyboard, but as for sense I have some doubt.

 

The vast majority are not refugees, but migrants. I do not know the cost of the illegal crossing, but I can well imagine it's much more expensive than taking a regular flight or ferry - this latter is less than 100Eur from Tunisia to Sicily. The only problem is that in this latter case they would be either be refused boarding for lack of travel documents, or be stopped and sent back on arrival.

Being "humane" towards migrants doesn't help the root problems back in their countries, and usually results in exploitation and unsatisfactory conditions in the country of arrival, which in turn are often conducive to criminal behaviour.

 

The dozens of deaths in this latest tragedy could be avoided if such illegal crossings were more seriously discouraged.

 

 

Seems that one man's refugee is another men's economic migrant!

17 minutes ago, DM07 said:

Seems that one man's refugee is another men's economic migrant!

No it isn't, only you think this, most other people know the difference.

On 6/5/2018 at 5:26 PM, vogie said:

If I can just correct you, it states migrants, not refugees.

The definition 'migrant' is utilised by some media organisations to replace the word 'refugee', more accurately should be to replace 'asylum seeker'. 

 

The word migrant is defined in Oxford English Dictionary as "one who moves, either temporarily or permanently, from one place, area, or country of residence to another".

 

Approximately 36%of asylum seekers reaching the EU from Africa are positively vetted as refugees, not all, as you infer, are economic refugees. To implement the Australian 'Pacific Solution' as suggested by a member would require agreement by all EU countries, in addition the policy would be contrary to the UN Convention for Refugees. In fact PNG Supreme Court has declared the Pacific Solution contrary to international Human Rights Agreements and has instructed the Australian government to close the camps and remove the detainees, the vast majority of whom are positively vetted refugees.

Edited June 6, 20188 yr by simple1

Troll post and replies removed.  

On 6/5/2018 at 2:26 PM, vogie said:

If I can just correct you, it states migrants, not refugees.

Asylum seekers would be more accurate I suspect

5 hours ago, simple1 said:

The definition 'migrant' is utilised by some media organisations to replace the word 'refugee', more accurately should be to replace 'asylum seeker'. 

 

The word migrant is defined in Oxford English Dictionary as "one who moves, either temporarily or permanently, from one place, area, or country of residence to another".

 

Approximately 36%of asylum seekers reaching the EU from Africa are positively vetted as refugees, not all, as you infer, are economic refugees. To implement the Australian 'Pacific Solution' as suggested by a member would require agreement by all EU countries, in addition the policy would be contrary to the UN Convention for Refugees. In fact PNG Supreme Court has declared the Pacific Solution contrary to international Human Rights Agreements and has instructed the Australian government to close the camps and remove the detainees, the vast majority of whom are positively vetted refugees.

 

Unless mistaken, for someone to be considered an asylum seeker there needs to be an official request for such. Those who's applications are approved are considered refugees.

On ‎6‎/‎5‎/‎2018 at 2:22 PM, DM07 said:

Please enlighten all of us: since these people are "refugees"...how are they to travel to Europe?  First class on a plane?

It's always great, when people, who have nothing to fear, spout nonsense and inhumanities from behind their keyboard!

The normal procedure for refugees is to go to the first safe country and apply for refugee status. When they are accepted as refugees, the new host country will pay to bring them to that country.

Paying traffickers to take them illegally to Europe is not the accepted method.

2 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Unless mistaken, for someone to be considered an asylum seeker there needs to be an official request for such. Those who's applications are approved are considered refugees.

One can declare application for asylum at an airport or any border crossing on arrival (e.g. largest number of asylum seekers arrive by air in Oz, but this truth is conveniently ignored by some). With specific reference to the EU, EU passed the Dublin Arrangement for processing asylum seekers, there has been a number of amendments, refer below.  Remember the Arrangement fell over for a while due to the huge numbers of applicants during the first major wave in 2015.

 

https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/asylum/examination-of-applicants_en

 

Obviously there are some countries which do not permit entry for asylum seekers or if they do locate asylum seekers, detain and deport. e.g. Thailand has a very poor humanitarian record regards processing asylum seekers.

 

NB: some members need to refresh their understanding of "first country of entry". Here is a starting point...

 

http://www.refworld.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/rwmain/opendocpdf.pdf?reldoc=y&docid=4bab55da2

Edited June 7, 20188 yr by simple1

Is there any point in asking once again why the onus appears to be on Europe taking the migrants, when countries like Saudi would be more culturally appropriate?

They have vast areas of unoccupied land to set up camps and a lot of money to buy food for them.

Edited June 7, 20188 yr by thaibeachlovers

2 minutes ago, simple1 said:

One can declare application for asylum at an airport or any border crossing on arrival (e.g. largest number of asylum seekers arrive by air in Oz, but this truth is conveniently ignored by some). With specific reference to the EU, EU passed the Dublin Arrangement for processing asylum seekers, there has been a number of amendments, refer below.  Remember the Arrangement fell over for a while due to the huge numbers of applicants during the first major wave in 2015.

 

https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/asylum/examination-of-applicants_en

 

Obviously there are some countries which do not permit entry for asylum seekers or if they do locate asylum seekers, detain and deport. e.g. Thailand has a very poor humanitarian record regards processing asylum seekers.

 

Could be missing something, but don't see see how this applies to turning away people en route (especially if arriving illegally). Defining them as asylum seekers, before asylum was officially sought sounds odd.

2 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Could be missing something, but don't see see how this applies to turning away people en route (especially if arriving illegally). Defining them as asylum seekers, before asylum was officially sought sounds odd.

I was talking to the normal course of events. I assume you're referencing those being trafficked, using people smugglers or  individuals crossing illegally. Some countries do permit stay if intercepted for humanitarian reasons or waive them through for a variety of reasons.  Must say can't imaging much good will in Africa due to the way the nations cruelly treat their people, though I guess there are rare exceptions.

 

 

1 minute ago, simple1 said:

I was talking to the normal course of events. I assume you're referencing those being trafficked, using people smugglers or  individuals crossing illegally. Some countries do permit stay if intercepted for humanitarian reasons or waive them through for a variety of reasons.  Must say can't imaging much good will in Africa due to the way the nations cruelly treat their people, though I guess there are rare exceptions.

 

 

 

My point was more to do with applying labels wholesale. "Asylum Seeker", "refugee" ring much better than "migrant". As for "normal course of events", guess there would be differing views on what's considered "normal". But even so, dealing with "normal" is, in theory, less of an issue. IMO, not applying a clear differentiation, and not having a clear, agreed upon policy (never mind apparatus) of dealing with such cases, plays right into the hands of those strongly opposed to aiding refugees. 

33 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Is there any point in asking once again why the onus appears to be on Europe taking the migrants, when countries like Saudi would be more culturally appropriate?

They have vast areas of unoccupied land to set up camps and a lot of money to buy food for them.

...and they took in a whole lot of Syrian- refugees, for example!

Next!

4 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

My point was more to do with applying labels wholesale. "Asylum Seeker", "refugee" ring much better than "migrant". As for "normal course of events", guess there would be differing views on what's considered "normal". But even so, dealing with "normal" is, in theory, less of an issue. IMO, not applying a clear differentiation, and not having a clear, agreed upon policy (never mind apparatus) of dealing with such cases, plays right into the hands of those strongly opposed to aiding refugees. 

When I mention normal course of events I'm talking about governments who have clear policy and legislation regards the processing of asylum seekers.

 

Media outlets such as the BBC have clear written policy on why they use the term "migrant' as opposed to refugee or asylum seeker. So far as I know Western governments have very clear definitions documented in policy and legislation, as does the UN, as to migrant, asylum seeker or refugee. Unfortunately individuals, groups and governments are deliberately muddling the waters, primarily so called nationalists to the right of center, in their aim to facilitate authoritarian regimes.

5 minutes ago, simple1 said:

When I mention normal course of events I'm talking about governments who have clear policy and legislation regards the processing of asylum seekers.

 

Media outlets such as the BBC have clear written policy on why they use the term "migrant' as opposed to refugee or asylum seeker. So far as I know Western governments have very clear definitions documented in policy and legislation, as does the UN, as to migrant, asylum seeker or refugee. Unfortunately individuals, groups and governments are deliberately muddling the waters, primarily so called nationalists to the right of center, in their aim to facilitate authoritarian regimes.

 

I have no doubts that such legal definitions exist, or that there are guidelines as to when to use which term. But in reality, there seems to be a whole lot of confusion and conflating of labels. You wish to make it a one-sided thing, go right ahead. IMO, though, you see this kind of wholesale labeling and misuse of terms on either side of the political divide. I'd guess that the other side's way of putting it would be "aim to facilitate unwanted multiculturalism" or something.

 

Considering even just the present wave of asylum seekers/refugee/migrant/whatever Europe is experiencing, it's quite obvious that there isn't, in fact, a wide public agreement and understanding on these issues. Whether that's intentional or not is another matter.

3 minutes ago, Morch said:

in reality, there seems to be a whole lot of confusion and conflating of labels.

Agree. IMO for calculated disruption to dialogue as manifested by a particular politically oriented group on this forum and society in general.

1 minute ago, simple1 said:

Agree. IMO for calculated disruption to dialogue as manifested by a particular politically oriented group on this forum and society in general.

 

We'll have to remain disagreed it's a one-sided thing.

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Is there any point in asking once again why the onus appears to be on Europe taking the migrants, when countries like Saudi would be more culturally appropriate?

They have vast areas of unoccupied land to set up camps and a lot of money to buy food for them.

because they are not stupid!

Edited June 7, 20188 yr by Opl

3 hours ago, simple1 said:

When I mention normal course of events I'm talking about governments who have clear policy and legislation regards the processing of asylum seekers.

 

Media outlets such as the BBC have clear written policy on why they use the term "migrant' as opposed to refugee or asylum seeker. So far as I know Western governments have very clear definitions documented in policy and legislation, as does the UN, as to migrant, asylum seeker or refugee. Unfortunately individuals, groups and governments are deliberately muddling the waters, primarily so called nationalists to the right of center, in their aim to facilitate authoritarian regimes.

Media outlets may disingenuously claim impartiality, but the simple existence of an article, or the choice of a certain picture can put sufficient political spin on a topic, as you probably well know.

 

I see no evidence that western governments have any clear and consistent grasp of either their existing immigration policies or the consequences of the excessive immigration that has resulted from those policies. I see no grasp whatsover of an optimum level of immigration (I suggest 5% max. of any population). The waters here are definitely muddied most by bleeding heart humanitarians who can't bear to see anybody in tears, and by politicians who use immigration to deliver the growth that keeps them in power, and by immigrants themselves who are salving their own sense of guilt.

 

You seem to think that people adopt a position on the left-right spectrum and then tailor all their beliefs and their actions in accordance with that position - that they have one grain of an opinion and the rest is prejudice. That's desperately defensive. You know that all the convincing rational arguments on curbing excessive immigration are coming from the right. We don't hear any arguments at all in favour of excessive immigration coming from the left - in fact the left has no idea of the concept of excessive. If you have any such arguments, please enlighten us.

 

Edited June 7, 20188 yr by CharlesSwann

14 hours ago, CharlesSwann said:

Media outlets may disingenuously claim impartiality, but the simple existence of an article, or the choice of a certain picture can put sufficient political spin on a topic, as you probably well know.

 

I see no evidence that western governments have any clear and consistent grasp of either their existing immigration policies or the consequences of the excessive immigration that has resulted from those policies. I see no grasp whatsover of an optimum level of immigration (I suggest 5% max. of any population). The waters here are definitely muddied most by bleeding heart humanitarians who can't bear to see anybody in tears, and by politicians who use immigration to deliver the growth that keeps them in power, and by immigrants themselves who are salving their own sense of guilt.

 

You seem to think that people adopt a position on the left-right spectrum and then tailor all their beliefs and their actions in accordance with that position - that they have one grain of an opinion and the rest is prejudice. That's desperately defensive. You know that all the convincing rational arguments on curbing excessive immigration are coming from the right. We don't hear any arguments at all in favour of excessive immigration coming from the left - in fact the left has no idea of the concept of excessive. If you have any such arguments, please enlighten us.

 

With relevance to the OP the current Italian government is a combination of left and right, your argument doesn't stack up when it comes to realpolitik. Though I must say some Italian politicians have awful policies, including aligning themselves to dictatorships.

 

I repeat yet again I do put subscribe to the Left, but to an environment where launching nasty all encompassing diatribes against the less fortunate is completely unacceptable, yet a constant meme from some members. I have yet to read an argument from members why they are of the view, contrary to guidance from our security agencies, that's its OK to vilify entire ethno religious groups.

 

Personally I agree with controlled migration, utilising the auspices on UNHCR and so on. In the meantime government must lift their game to contribute to reduce the level of suffering in detention centres, camps etc. It is terrible the less fortunate have very little hope due to the enormous numbers of asylum seekers, refugees and IDPs. Denigrating these people is cowardice. The rise of inward looking. isolationist populist governments in the EU and elsewhere, whilst applauded by some on this forum, do not offer any solutions to a global problem.

Edited June 8, 20188 yr by simple1

3 hours ago, simple1 said:

I repeat yet again I do put subscribe to the Left, but to an environment where launching nasty all encompassing diatribes against the less fortunate is completely unacceptable, yet a constant meme from some members.

Many of those people come from countries where they have overpopulated themselves to the point that the economy is unable to provide enough work. I don't see why, when they have caused their own problems they should be allowed to immigrate to countries with low birth rates and continue to produce large numbers of children and merely transfer their country's failing to another.

3 hours ago, simple1 said:

Denigrating these people is cowardice.

I do not consider that I have "denigrated" any person for being unfortunate enough to want to move to another country just because they can't survive in their own. However, given their reluctance to intergrate, and their obvious desire to produce large numbers of children, I don't want them coming to western countries and reproducing the same problems as those they seek to escape.

 

However, I have no problem with western countries supporting them to have better lives in another country, while waiting for the situation in their own country to improve.

Edited June 8, 20188 yr by thaibeachlovers

Moroccan youths living rough in northern Paris park

 

http://www.france24.com/en/20170901-focus-france-paris-park-moroccan-children-teens-minors-homeless-drugs-petty-crime-migrants

 

 

Edited June 8, 20188 yr by Opl