comment: >
  
  I assume the EU is willing to take these immigrants in themselves?  /s
context: Its called aiding in human trafficking. >
  
  Prosecuting for illegal immigration? >
  
  By helping illegal migrants those groups encourage more illegal migration. Why spend money and time going legal way, if you can just pay only to get the in the boat, sail out and wait to be rescued? Why try to fix the situation in your own country, if you can just move to a better place, where everything is already built by others? But I would say, that if that rescuer is truthful about the sentence she might receive, the punishment is way too harsh. >
  
  
  Why spend money and time going legal way, if you can just pay only to get the in the boat, sail out and wait to be rescued?
  
  If you can enter a country "legally", meaning via conventional immigration mechanisms, you arent a refugee in thos context. Those are mutually exclusive.
  Secondly, those human traffickers are not cheap by any means.
  
  Why try to fix the situation in your own country, if you can just move to a better place, where everything is already built by others?
  
  Thats like chastising the jews for fleeing nazi germany instead of "building it up" and "improving their country/democracy" etc.
  Those things are a lot easier said than done from the comfort of live in a safe and wealthy western country, just saying. >
  
  Ah, famous comparison of anything and everything to jews and nazi's. Are all illegal immigrants coming through several safe countries were in danger of being put to concentration camps back in their countries? All those healthy adult males, that somehow are so persecuted, that they rarely take more vulnerable women and children with them, while moving to another country. I think not. Illegal immigrants do not stay in the first country that can offer them shelter, they want better welfare, and that is a fact. And yes, I live in a safe, even if not very wealthy western country. And before you assume, my country never had colonies, never invaded anyone. Instead of leaving to more wealthy country, people remained here, and made my country safe by constant hard work. Funny thing is, my country also had some groups of refugees from Syria several years ago. They never stayed a week. They were given shelter, food, housing, and money. One night, they left, crossed the border illegally again, and went to Germany. Because Germany paid more money to refugees than other countries do. >
  
  
  Ah, famous comparison of anything and everything to jews and nazi's
  
  Just pointing out that your argument of "why dont they simply stay" isnt a well thought out one. Just for a second think about the inherent dangers these refugees even are exposed to on these journeys. They are literally risking their lives, with thousands upon thousands having died on these journeys. This is not a risk you take over mere discomfort or because youre annoyed by the outcome of an election, so to speak. 
  Whether its Jews fleeing the Nazis, the rwandan genocide or civilians fleeing the khmer rouge regime, you name it, history has numerous examples, unfortunately. 
  
  And yes, I live in a safe, even if not very wealthy western country. And before you assume, my country never had colonies, never invaded anyone.
  
  Therefore yes, it is not only cheap and easy but also ignorant to tell people who experience genuinely hellish circumstances to "just work on improving your own country".
  Talking a big game on an anonymous internet platform from, as i said, complete safety in a wealthy (btw, even if your country might not be wealthy compared to other western countries it is still a lot wealthier than about 90% of the countries in the world) western country. 
  
  Are all illegal immigrants coming through several safe countries were in danger of being put to concentration camps back in their countries?
  
  Concentration camps were literally just an efficient and concentrated means for political persecution and extermination of the "undesirables". It was unique in its scale, cruelty and horrific mechanisation of the act, but the act of arresting and killing unwanted people was not. Political persecution and subsequent execution very much persist to this day.
  So to answer your question, are these refugees youre speaking about, the brown kind, at risk of landing in concentration camps? Likely not.
  Are they are risk of being rounded up and killed off for any kind of reason that can be as miniscule as wearing the wrong type of dress code or facial hair? Yes.
  So, are you suggesting that extrajudicial killings are more tolerable because it didnt happen in ww2 concentration camps?
  
  All those healthy adult males, that somehow are so persecuted, that they rarely take more vulnerable women and children with them, while moving to another country
  
  Actually, one reason for that is because the journeys are long and dangerous, hence families would often send the youngest and strongest (=most likely to survive) to take on the journey and then have the family come later, once he received asylum.
  
  Instead of leaving to more wealthy country, people remained here, and made my country safe by constant hard work.
  
  I highly doubt your country was ever, at any point, regarded a failed state, just saying. So the equivalent of you comparing a western country to, lets say afghanistan, is about the same as a trust fund kid giving oliver twist monetary advice. The situations are not comparable. >
  
  You assume, that they always flee the regime. If they need a safe country, they do not need to go to Europe. Staying in a neighbouring country that do not have war or conflict is better, because it usually have similar customs and culture, so less time needed for assimilation, less chance of xenophobia. Somehow, you cannot comprehend, that most people become illegal migrants putely for financial gain.  They risk their lives for a chance to get more money. It is simple as that. Also, it is interesting, how you say, that families send their strongest, but leave their weakest to suffer under some horrible regime, instead of making sure that most vulnerable and those that actually need help the most, could get it first and it shoud be seen as normal. And again, you cannot expect your country to ever prosper, if all the population leaves. It is not an ignorant advice. If you need ww2 parallels, war completely devastated multiple european countries, yet people stayed and fought. They could just run away to another corner of the world, and let nazi's take all the land, leave all their weak relatives to die. But they stayed and fought and won. Also, it is very ignorant to believe, that western countries never had any significant hardships during the course of history. You should learn actual history, before saying that every western country equals happy rich life since the dawn of times, with no genocidal regimes, wars and conflicts, mass poverty periods.