The European Union criticized by humanitarian organizations for the minimalist response to the tragedies of migration

The European Union has been criticized by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch for not having done enough to save the lives of the migrants drowned in the Mediterranean. In particular was judged negatively the decision not to undertake an action such as that conducted by Italy with Mare Nostrum, but in an extended, replaced by Triton, which has the sole task of defending the borders. The criticism of the two humanitarian organizations, were added those of the President of the European Parliament, Martin Schulz, who has established himself as Brussels has totally ignored to develop a common immigration policy, a decisive factor for the failure of humanitarian assistance to migrants. What the President of the European Parliament confirms the inadequacy of a supranational institution, which not only has not been able to listen to the demands of its citizens, but, rather, has completed the path of indifference toward even instances of belonging to the countries most poor and paths from the violence of war, they saw and they see the European continent a chance of salvation. The absence of an organic common immigration policy is due to the demands, often in stark contrast, the member states and by their inability to reach an agreement, issues that arise directly from the lack of common political structures, able to rely on a best interests of the fragmentation of the needs of the individual states. Too bad that this unit has been found to impose the necessary rigor to the rescue of the banking and financial institutions, victims of their own speculations. Just this comparison, with rescue operations, much more expensive, banks than those of immigrants, it was calculated that Italy, who also spent heavily, took 600 euro to save the life of each immigrant subtracted death , has to reflect on the need for a change in direction of the current European policy towards greater attention to the rights of the people and the founding values ​​on which should underpin the institutional bases of Brussels. The joint statement of the three United Nations agencies, which deal with human rights and refugees have defined the response provided by the European Union to the tragedies of the past few days, which, however, are repeated from time as minimalist; this term snapshot of the unwillingness of action of an institution, too conditioned by national variables, determined by visual policies too narrow and related primarily to the liking election. Very important is also the issue in question, which is the refugee problem within the larger problem of migration. This distinction should understand that within the increasingly serious problem of poverty and misery, there are also the needs of those who flee from wars, which are becoming more frequent and affect civilians in ever more devastating. The lack of a concrete discipline of the right of asylum, subject to bureaucratic delays and inefficiencies, represents a serious failure in a supranational entity that stands example of respect for human rights. These loopholes in the law, which can not be opposed to cumbersome regulatory requirements, which are still on a national basis and not unitary, are the most obvious sign of lack legal training, which precedes the practice, which has never been considered by a Brussels committed only to make mere mathematical calculations on how, and to whom, impose their senseless rigor. A new policy regarding immigration is needed as a sign of civilization and as a justification for the very existence of Europe; calls for humanitarian organizations and international, take away much of the European Union that aura of a champion of civil rights, which is assigned by itself and that now the international judgment can no longer support until the results of the counting of lives saved will not say the opposite. Numbers far more important than those that the European Bank obliges us to observe.