> The solution is to once again enable applying for asylum at the embassies and consulates. Then nobody has to drown.
So you think if those countries don't accept everyone that wants to enter then it's ok for people to try to enter illegally? That's not how borders work.
> Apart from the many people being killed by random North African country, like what is happening currently with migrants in Libya. That's not fine at all.
They can go to a neighboring country without being "stranded" at sea where they need "rescuing".
> Humanitarian reasons, not ideological.
Humanitarian reasons do not require you to pick up people near the coast of Africa and and instead of taking them back back to where they came from bring them to ports much further away. That's purely ideological. One could even call it treasonous.
> The solution is to once again enable applying for asylum at the embassies and consulates. Then nobody has to drown.
> So you think if those countries don't accept everyone that wants to enter then it's ok for people to try to enter illegally?
Right, so let's unpack this. There is no way to apply for asylum at embassies. It was previously possible, but it's not possible anymore. If you want to apply for asylum, you have to be physically present in the country where you want to apply. Since applying for asylum is legal (it's a guaranteed human right and some countries try to respect at least a subset of human rights, wonder for how long), it is also legal to enter a country for the purpose of applying for asylum, no matter what everyone else says.
> countries don't accept everyone
This is not about accepting anyone. Asylum is a totally different legal concept than migration. Asylum is granted (or not), not accepted. People that are drowning in the Med. sea are applying for asylum, if they survive. For most of them, it will not be granted, but they are exercising their rights. People have a right to apply for asylum, countries have a right to grant or refuse at will.
> They can go to a neighboring country without being "stranded" at sea where they need "rescuing".
Everyone has the right not to be killed. Just a basic respect to other human beings would be welcome at this stage.
> Humanitarian reasons do not require you to pick up people near the coast of Africa...
Yes they do, there are again legal reasons for that. The laws can be changed, but until then it is indeed the only legal thing to do. And also some people don't enjoy seeing other people drowning.
So you think if those countries don't accept everyone that wants to enter then it's ok for people to try to enter illegally? That's not how borders work.
> Apart from the many people being killed by random North African country, like what is happening currently with migrants in Libya. That's not fine at all.
They can go to a neighboring country without being "stranded" at sea where they need "rescuing".
> Humanitarian reasons, not ideological.
Humanitarian reasons do not require you to pick up people near the coast of Africa and and instead of taking them back back to where they came from bring them to ports much further away. That's purely ideological. One could even call it treasonous.