But you are saying. Because people who come in handmade boats drown in the sea we are racist. There is no logical correlation between those two issues.
You just want to stamp a negative connotation label on us over that.
The fact that we want to control who enters our countries does not make us racist. That’s just a fact, as it does not fit into the definition of racism. Race have nothing to do with it.
Wanting to control immigration is not racism.
Racisms is making policies to harm people of different colour (or race) living in our country. Our politics have nothing to so with race, but with border control. We don’t care of the colour of the skin, we just care that they are coming through an unregulated migrational path, that it’s actually pretty dangerous to them. We are not even actually trying to kill anybody.
And it’s of maximum importance to considere the massive amount of immigrants of all races and colours that come to Europe by different migrational path and face not those issues. So it’s EVIDENT that the treatment to those who come on handmade boats are caused by HOW the come, and not by what their colour or race is.
Are people of the exact same race coming by plane sinking in the sea by european policies? No, then race is not the cause.
Also, sorry, but the voices of a few politicians of two countries about Ukrainian refugees does not make EUROPE.
It’s also very important to differentiate the concepts of not supporting immigration, or wanting to have control over the borders to the concept of racism. As they have nothing to do with each other, once again racism here is just used as a punitive label, a fallacy of those you like so much, to avoid talking seriously about the pros and cons on different border and immigration policies.
Your argument is a perfect example of how we sanitize our migration policies with euphemisms. “Border control” sounds neutral and reasonable, but what we’re really talking about is active policies that regularly result in preventable deaths.
Frontex doesn’t just “control borders” - they push migrants back to Libya where they face documented torture and sexual violence. They don’t accidentally fail to rescue people - they actively avoid responding to distress calls. These aren’t unintended consequences; they’re the designed outcome of policies meant to create a “deterrent effect.”
Whether it’s technically “racism” by your narrow definition is beside the point. The reality is we apply completely different standards to different groups of migrants. When Ukrainians needed refuge, we quickly created special protection status. When Syrian doctors needed refuge, we let their families drown in the Mediterranean. The difference isn’t “HOW they come” - it’s who they are and where they’re from.
Your claim that “we don’t care about the color of their skin” is contradicted by statements from European politicians who explicitly advocated for Ukrainian refugees because they were “European” with “blue eyes and blonde hair” (as multiple news anchors and politicians stated in 2022).
And yes, a “few politicians” absolutely represent broader European attitudes when they’re leading political parties and setting policy. Friedrich Merz isn’t some random person - he’s likely to be Germany’s next Chancellor. When these politicians face no meaningful backlash for their statements, it reveals societal acceptance.
The problem isn’t that we want functioning migration systems. It’s that we’ve created a two-tier system where people from certain regions are forced into deadly routes and then blamed for taking them, while we pretend this isn’t connected to who they are.
I think is a well known fact, given all that has been talked about Syrian refugees
All violent death is preventable, the question is what’s the best way to prevent those is, and who is to made responsible. Those torturers you talk about are as human as you and me, thus respinsible for their actions.
But you are saying. Because people who come in handmade boats drown in the sea we are racist. There is no logical correlation between those two issues.
You just want to stamp a negative connotation label on us over that.
The fact that we want to control who enters our countries does not make us racist. That’s just a fact, as it does not fit into the definition of racism. Race have nothing to do with it.
Wanting to control immigration is not racism.
Racisms is making policies to harm people of different colour (or race) living in our country. Our politics have nothing to so with race, but with border control. We don’t care of the colour of the skin, we just care that they are coming through an unregulated migrational path, that it’s actually pretty dangerous to them. We are not even actually trying to kill anybody.
And it’s of maximum importance to considere the massive amount of immigrants of all races and colours that come to Europe by different migrational path and face not those issues. So it’s EVIDENT that the treatment to those who come on handmade boats are caused by HOW the come, and not by what their colour or race is.
Are people of the exact same race coming by plane sinking in the sea by european policies? No, then race is not the cause.
Also, sorry, but the voices of a few politicians of two countries about Ukrainian refugees does not make EUROPE.
It’s also very important to differentiate the concepts of not supporting immigration, or wanting to have control over the borders to the concept of racism. As they have nothing to do with each other, once again racism here is just used as a punitive label, a fallacy of those you like so much, to avoid talking seriously about the pros and cons on different border and immigration policies.
Your argument is a perfect example of how we sanitize our migration policies with euphemisms. “Border control” sounds neutral and reasonable, but what we’re really talking about is active policies that regularly result in preventable deaths.
Frontex doesn’t just “control borders” - they push migrants back to Libya where they face documented torture and sexual violence. They don’t accidentally fail to rescue people - they actively avoid responding to distress calls. These aren’t unintended consequences; they’re the designed outcome of policies meant to create a “deterrent effect.”
Whether it’s technically “racism” by your narrow definition is beside the point. The reality is we apply completely different standards to different groups of migrants. When Ukrainians needed refuge, we quickly created special protection status. When Syrian doctors needed refuge, we let their families drown in the Mediterranean. The difference isn’t “HOW they come” - it’s who they are and where they’re from.
Your claim that “we don’t care about the color of their skin” is contradicted by statements from European politicians who explicitly advocated for Ukrainian refugees because they were “European” with “blue eyes and blonde hair” (as multiple news anchors and politicians stated in 2022).
And yes, a “few politicians” absolutely represent broader European attitudes when they’re leading political parties and setting policy. Friedrich Merz isn’t some random person - he’s likely to be Germany’s next Chancellor. When these politicians face no meaningful backlash for their statements, it reveals societal acceptance.
The problem isn’t that we want functioning migration systems. It’s that we’ve created a two-tier system where people from certain regions are forced into deadly routes and then blamed for taking them, while we pretend this isn’t connected to who they are.
Every syrian got asylum not just doctors.
I think is a well known fact, given all that has been talked about Syrian refugees
All violent death is preventable, the question is what’s the best way to prevent those is, and who is to made responsible. Those torturers you talk about are as human as you and me, thus respinsible for their actions.