Sea-Watch journey and stand off with Italian authorities
On June 29 at 01.30am the so-called search and rescue vessel, Sea-Watch 3, under command of captain Carola Rackete, entered the port of Lampedusa without permission after a long stand-off. Bringing the Sea-Watch alongside the quay she lightly rammed a Guardia di Finanza boat, that managed to get away.
The 40 remaining emigrants on board, were brought from down the ship, while the captain. Carola Rackete was arrested and the Sea-Watch 3 impounded.
More two weeks before on June 12 the Sea-watch had picked up, or rescued, 53 migrants (39 men, 9 women, 2 toddlers and 3 unaccompanied minors) about 47 nautical miles off the Zawiya in Libya.
According to the NGO behind the Sea-Watch, the ship was advised by the Libyan coast guard to bring the migrants to Tripoli. Carola Rackete rejected this advise, arguing that "Libya, where migrants face unlawful detention, rape, torture and slavery, is not a Port of Safety." Apparently she also considered a Tunisian port, which would have been closer than Lampedusa, but judged Tunesia unsafe for the migrants (though the German government seems to regard Tunisia as a safe country).
Instead she made course for the Italian island of Lampedusa, even though Italy had announced the closure of its ports to NGO ships carrying rescued migrants. Salvini had twitted: "Italian ports are CLOSED, ... The traffickers of men and their accomplices know that our ports are closed, STOP!"
June 14 it was announced that ship and captains could face fines of up to 50.000 Euros if the entered Italian ports without permission.* (The fines have since been raised significantly).
The Sea-Watch took up position outside Italian territorial waters near Lampedusa, and on June 15 the Italian authorities evacuated 5 vulnerable persons and 5 accompanying persons of the ship.
The following days saw a standoff between the Italian authorities and the Sea-Watch.
On June 21 Carola Rackete and about 40 migrants on the ship applied to the European Court of Human Rights under Rule 39 of its Rules of Court, requesting to be permitted to disembark from Sea-Watch 3.
The application was rejected on June 15, as the president of the court noted, "inter alia, that the vulnerable individuals, children and pregnant women on board had been disembarked on 15 June and that Sea-Watch 3 had not indicated that other individuals from vulnerable categories were on the ship. In consequence, he considered that there were no exceptionally serious and urgent reasons justifying the application of the urgent measures."
Meanwhile EU countries were bickering among themselves about offers to take at least some of migrants.
Around June 26 after spending 14 days at sea with the migrants Carola Rackete told Italian authorities “I cannot guarantee the safety of these people any more, ... I have to disembark the 42 people I have on-board. I will turn the ship around and enter Italian waters.” (The Guardian).
She was warned not to proceed: "Sea-Watch, you are not authorised to enter Italian waters.”
Ignoring the warnings she decided to enter Italian territorial waters with Sea-Watch taking up position just outside the port in Lampedusa.
After a further 60 hours of stand-off and the evacuation of a few more people, she argued that uncertainty over fate of migrants still on board was causing tensions to mount. "The necessity to go into port is to prevent any harm or any self-harm which people might be contemplating." Apparently the migrants had threatened to commit suicide, thus forcing her to take matters in her own hand, and disregard the Italian authorities.  At least this seems to have been her argument for forcing the entry of the port of Lampedusa during night time on June 29
While it seems plausible that migrants may have threatened to harm themselves, one has to remember that the ECHR (European Court of Human Rights), presumably on evidence from people aboard the Sea-Watch, saw no necessity for interim measures, as the most vulnerable people had already been taken off the Sea-Watch.
Carola Rackete was released from house arrest by a judge a few days later to face court proceedings at a later date.
 
A simple-minded categorical imperative of saving migrants in Mediterranean
Carola Rackete has explained and defended her actions as captain of the Sea-Sea-Watch in several interviews after she became a kind cult figure in the media.
In interviews in the German "Bild Zeitung," The Austrian "Der Standard" and elsewhere she explains why she is convinced to have done the right thing and why her actions have been in accordance with the law, but also why it became important for her to get involved in the rescue of migrants in Mediterranean.
Let us try to se how her arguments relate to legal, moral (or moralistic) and political considerations.
 
Legal arguments
She is convinced that she has acted in accordance with the law, mentioning the duty to rescue people in distress at sea.
If we first take a look at the original rescue action on June 12 she certainly seems to act in accordance with (SOLAS) the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea and other conventions like United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), SAR etc.
According to Regulation 33.1 of the SOLAS Convention, "The master of a ship at sea which is in a position to be able to provide assistance, on receiving a signal from any source that persons are in distress at sea, is bound to proceed with all speed to their assistance, if possible informing them or the search and rescue service that the ship is doing so."
On the other hand we have to remember that Sea-Watch is out in specific mission to find and rescue migrants attempting to get to Europe form Libya. She mentions that they are actually using drones to make it easier to find migrant boats and inflatables.
There is also the question of what kind of distress the migrants were in. Why was is it necessary to rescue them? Here the argument seems to be that they would not have been safe in continuing on their own in the inflatable, not having all the necessary equipment.
Still it might be argued that she is indirectly helping and abetting people smugglers in Libya and assisting illegal migration to Europe, and that this is in fact her intended mission.
 
Forcing entry of the Port of Lampedusa
Now to the entry into the Port of Lampedusa without permission. Carola Rackete argues that she couldn't follow instructions to bring the saved migrants back to Tripoli or to some port in Tunis, which would have been closer than Lampedusa. She argues that neither solution would have represented a place of safety for the migrants. Libya because of the conditions in refugee and migrant camps. Tunisia because they don’t have safe asylum procedures.
There may be something to her argument. The SAR convention defines a place of safety as "a place where the survivors’ safety of life is no longer threatened and where their basic human needs (such as food, shelter and medical needs) can be met." It could in fact also be a ship.
But the convention also mentions the need to avoid "disembarkation in territories where the lives and freedoms of those alleging a well-founded fear of persecution would be threatened is a consideration in the case of asylum-seekers and refugees recovered at sea." Thus apparently lending support to Carola Rackete's argument.
But here one has to remember that Italy and more or less the whole of EU has accepted that Italy has supported the Libyan Coast Guard with material, patrol boast etc., in order to enable them to pick up migrants at sea and return them to Libya. Apparently with Italy's and the EU's blessing doing exactly what Carola Rackete refused to do.
After Italy refused her permission to enter Italian port she says that the Sea-Watch organisation asked Malta, France and Spain, but didn't get a positive response, thus forcing her to enter Lampedusa without permission, lightly ramming a small Guardia di Finanza boat, that apparently had tried to prevent her from entering.
When Italy denied entry for Sea-Watch, Carola Rackete and the group of migrants appealed to the European Court of Human Rights.
The Court on June 25 rejected the appeal. Meaning that it saw no need for emergency measures, apart from what the Italians already had done, when evacuating migrants from the Sea-Watch for medical reasons.
Thus it seems questionable if Carola Rackete was in her right when forcing entry into the Port of Lampedusa, endangering the lives of people from Guardia di Finanzia.
Well, we can leave that to an upcoming court case and the judges to decide.
 
Moral arguments. Acting according to a categorical imperative
From the interviews Carola Rackete has given, one gets the impression, that although she insists she was acting in accordance with law, she also acted out of a deeper moral conviction, in primitive sense somewhat along the line of Kant's categorical imperative:
“Always act so that you may also wish that the maxim of your action become a universal law.”
And furthermore "an action from duty has its moral worth not in the aim that is supposed to be attained by it, but rather in the maxim in accordance with which it is resolved upon."
About the action to save migrants a in the Mediterranean she argues that it was imperative to do it: "Es ist absolut notwendig, dass wir das machen. Die Menschen flüchten nicht ohne Grund. Wir sind an unserer Außengrenze dafür verantwortlich, Schaden abzuwenden, weil wir es eben können. Wir haben die technischen Kapazitäten, es ist einfach, diese Menschen zu retten." (Der Standard).
She tells how she heard about the problem in the Mediterranean while working for Greenpeace, and that she found the problems so urgent, that she had to join the NGO action.
This moral argument also seem to pervade her far reaching and reather idealistic political arguments.
 
Political views coloured by moral convictions and sense of a greater purpose
"Asyl kennt keine Grenze!" (Asylum knows no borders!) she argues. She asserts that the break down (Zusammenbruch) of Climate system (whatever that means?) leads to more refugees. Refugees, that we of course have to let into Europe. "... wir kommen jetzt zu einem Punkt, wo es ,forced migration‘ gibt, also eine durch äußere Umstände wie Klima gezwungene Migration. Und da haben wir dann keine Wahl mehr und können nicht einfach sagen, dass wir die Menschen nicht wollen. Es ist auch Europas Verantwortung.
In her view European nations have been responsible for many of the problems in Africa, she mentions historical colonialism and continuing exploitation. Thus in her view Europe has the responsibility to take up all those people, who can no longer live in Africa.
Somewhat incongruously she then mentions that on board the Sea Watch they   also had People from Bangladesh, presumable meaning that Europe also has to take migrants from there.
When asked what should be done about the migrants still in Libya, she argues that they should all immediately be brought to a safe country. According to her half a half a million people stuck in Libya must to be brought to Europe. In a video message she has even called for end to the European cooperation with the Libyan coast guard.
She insists that there is no limit to how many migrants Europe can take in, but also that countries in Africa must be helped. In her view by reducing CO2 emissions in Europe, as that would help countries in Africa. The connection isn't explained, but illustrates her view that not only must we save all would be migrants but Earth itself.
Although one might argue that more migration will not save the Earth, as it will not help to limit population growth.
Questioned if she cannot see the rescue actions of Sea-watch and other NGO ships leads to more migrants attempting to cross the Mediterranean, she argues: "More people die when there are fewer ships to rescue them." She asserts that statistics don't show that more rescue actions will led to more migrants attempting to cross the Mediterranean "Schauen Sie sich die Statistiken an, dafür gibt es keinerlei Belege. Die einzigen Zahlen, die klar sind, belegen: Es sterben mehr Menschen, wenn es weniger Rettungsboote auf dem Mittelmeer gibt." (Der Standard).
Finally Carola Rackete attacks anti-migrant right-wing views prevailing in Europe, but argues that the sudden media attention around her actions has lead to growing awareness of the plight of migrants, and shown that many are dissatisfied with right-wing politics in Europe, and how false European migration policy has been.
That may be her view, but it doesn't to fit the fact that parties wanting to control migration seem to represent a majority, as indicated by the difficulties of agreeing on distribution of migrants and attempts to limit migration.
 
White saviour on a do-good mission with questionable consequences
In defending her actions she starts out with the simple argument that one has the duty to save people in distress, and few could argue with that, but from there she takes off and flies along with loftier arguments that may lead us to se her as a self-proclaimed, white heroine saviour demanding that we must welcome all migrants, save Africa and perhaps Bangladesh too, and ultimately Earth itself.
In a popular psychological terms a saviour is "a psychological construct which makes a person feel the need to save other people. This person has a strong tendency to seek people who desperately need help and to assist them, often sacrificing their own needs for these people.”
A white saviour of course being a white person, who desperately seems to feel a need for helping black Africa. In 2012 the African writer wrote about "The white-saviour industrial complex": "One song we hear too often is the one in which Africa serves as a backdrop for white fantasies of conquest and heroism. From the colonial project to Out of Africa to The Constant Gardener and Kony 2012, Africa has provided a space onto which white egos can conveniently be projected. It is a liberated space in which the usual rules do not apply: a nobody from America or Europe can go to Africa and become a godlike savior or, at the very least, have his or her emotional needs satisfied. Many have done it under the banner of 'making a difference'."
 Examples of this phenomenon is found here in earlier blog entries like "Patronizing Africa with band-aid and bribes. "In it most primitive and condescending form when singing "Do they know it's Christmas." We see it in all sorts of NGO's wanting to help an Africa, that cannot help itself. In all sorts of strange appeals help Africa, like an appeal to give a goat to Africa (A Danish Christmas initiative a few years ago).
"For too long foreign nationals, mainly white people, have come into Black and Brown communities in the name of charity or mission work. They have portrayed one story to donors overseas, while we have witnessed a far different reality first-hand, seeing what actually takes place on the ground" (No White Saviours).
Carola Rackete is just one in a long list of do-gooders, wanting to save not only Africa, but the whole world, a praiseworthy intention perhaps, but it always has to be according to their single minded, categorical imperative view. In an interview she argues that "Sie habe Glück gehabt in ihrem Leben, sie sei in einem reichen Land geboren, als Weiße, sie habe an drei Universitäten studiert. Darum habe sich sich entschieden, Menschen zu helfen, die weniger Glück haben. 'Ich weiß, was ich riskiere'."
Like many white saviours before her, she means so well, but her actions may have very ambiguous consequences.
 
Siren like luring migrants to sea
She is acting almost like one of the sirens luring Odysseus on one of his voyages.
First in the way she is stationing herself in Sea-Watch just outside Libyan territorial waters and actively searching, even with the help of drones, for migrants leaving Libya bound for Europe. It means that she actively lure them to enter the sea, in the hope that she will make sure that they arrive safely in Europe.
She herself has denied that more migrants are coming, when she and other well-meaning NGO's station ships outside Libya.  
Others do not agree. A 2016 Report from The House of Lords, "Operation Sophia, the EU’s naval mission in the Mediterranean: an impossible challenge,"
 reached the opposite conclusion after evaluating the results of the Operation Sophia. It concluded that the ships belonging to the operation actually might raise hope of a safe crossing of the Mediterranean: "Operation Sophia may be feeding hopes of safe passage." and furthermore " By operating beyond European coastal waters, the mission is assisting the job of smugglers, who now only need their boats to reach the high seas, rather than EU waters."
The EU Commissioner for migration also stressed that "The 2017 risk analysis of the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (EBCGA) stresses the unintended consequences of the search and rescue (SAR) missions close to, or within, the 12-mile territorial waters of Libya, with migrant smugglers organising crossings with the main purpose of being detected by EU, civilian and non-governmental organisations (NGO) vessels. (europarl.europa.eu).
Exactly what one may expect will happen when NGO's station search and rescue ships near the North African coast.
 
Do actions like hers really prevent migrant deaths?
Carola Rackete also argued that more migrants will die if she and others  aren't there to try to save them.
What do the numbers show?
From data collected by IOM (International Organization for Migration).

Remember that Carola Rackete argued: "Schauen Sie sich die Statistiken an, dafür gibt es keinerlei Belege. Die einzigen Zahlen, die klar sind, belegen: Es sterben mehr Menschen, wenn es weniger Rettungsboote auf dem Mittelmeer gibt."
She might mean that in 2019 the percentage of migrants that has died is greater that in 2018. On the other hand it is evident that the absolute number of dead migrants sank from 1.083 in the same period in 2018 to 426 in 2019. Important to Italy, the absolute numbers of migrants reaching Italy also sank.
This leads to the provisional conclusion contrary to hers, that a reduction of NGO search and rescue ships means a reduction in the number migrant arrivals and of dead migrants.
If one wanted to really reduce the number of migrant deaths in the Mediterranean, one can think of two alternative approaches. One that would consists of safe transport from coast to coast. The EU chartering ferries to transport migrants to safety. Well somehow this proposal doesn't seem to go down well with European decision makers, as this might result in a flood wave of migrants, thus explaining the existing, half-hearted efforts and the EU's acceptance (But certainly not Italy's) of NGO search and rescue.
The other alternative that might reduce the number of death, is the Australian approach, "Operation Sovereign Borders," with the warning to potential illegal migrants "No Way – you will not make Australia home." Since prime minister Kevin Rudd in June 2013 announced "As of today, asylum seekers who come here by boat without a visa will never be settled in Australia." the number of migrants death at sea declined to zero in 2014 and has stayed at zero since then.
Of course a white saviour like Carola Rackete would argue, that this would lead to containment of migrants under terrible conditions in Libya and elsewhere. Against this simple view one might argue, that a "No way – you will not make Europe home" policy might reduce the stream of migrants coming to Libya, as there would be almost no hope of making it to Europe. No sirens would be luring them to sea, and if they went anyway they would be pushed back.
 
A Darwinian selection of the fittest?
Sea-Watch picked up 39 men, 9 women, 2 toddlers and 3 unaccompanied minors. Mostly men then, and that is the general picture when looking at the demography of the migrants crossing the Mediterranean. In a UNHCR tally from July 18 of Mediterranean migrants arrived in 2019, we find this demographic composition:

It seems to represent an almost Darwinian selection, where only the fittest migrants will get to Europe, while the weak ones are left behind. Is this what white female saviours like Carola Rackete is aiding and abetting?
The Australian push back policies are accompanied by a policy of taking in refugees from refugee camps, taking the whole family and not just the most able-bodied men. It would seem to be a much fairer approach than aiding and abetting in taking in mostly the fittest, those who are able to get to Europe's doorstep.
Another consequence of the unthinking do gooder activity of people like Carola Rackete is that they are contributing to imbalance between the sexes, due surplus of male migrants. A situation that has been seen as a problem in Sweden.
 
Migrants ending as slave workers in Europe, or as a burden on the welfare state?
Here and there stories of migrants ending as slave labourers on farms in Italy and Spain pop up. Italian trade unions estimate in a report that more than 130.000 workers are working under slave like conditions, the majority being migrants. "They had been ensnared by an ancient Italian system of press-gang labor called caporalato that enables farmers to outsource their labor needs to middlemen for a set fee, avoiding payroll taxes, work-safety requirements and minimum-wage payments in the process. It is illegal, widespread and dominated by organized crime". (Time)
https://time.com/longform/african-slave-trade/
Other migrants may succeed in getting  to countries further north in Europe, where many will be a lifelong drain on the welfare system, with too few representing a positive contribution. This may represent a manageable problem at the moment, but what would the consequences be if we accepted Carola Rackete's insistence that there is no limit to number of African migrants we should take in?
 
Single-minded humanitarian efforts – a burden on others
One wonders if Carola Rackete and all the other NGOs' trying to pick up and transport migrants to Italy have thought about the consequences of their actions. By acting singlemindedly on their own, they are leaving a burden on others, who haven't been asked if they are willing to carry the burdens caused by the single-minded insistence of part-time white saviours.
They don’t seem to mind that even more might lured to start the journey from Sub-Sahara and other places, they don't care that they may contribute to a survival of the fittest, they don't see that they may contribute to a slave like labour market. They dont't see that  they are putting a burden on an Italy,  that is striving to contain the stream of migrants, or that they contribute to more makeshift camps somewhere in Europe, or to increased anxiety for women, who read about sex-attacks of young men from Africa.
The unthinking single-mindedness of the white  saviours really shouldn't be applauded.
And it still continues. The MSF (Médecins Sans Frontières) has just announced that they are sending a Norwegian registered ship to pick up migrants emanating from Libya, insisting "We view the return to search and rescue as a duty, fuelled by the humanitarian need to prevent people from drowning while they seek safety from Libya."
 
The looming migrant potential
Estimated population of Africa in 2019, 1,3 billion, with a present growth rate of around 2,5 per cent. Estimated population in Africa in 2050 around 2,5 billion and still with expected growth rate of around 1,7 percept. This numbers ought make the EU nervous, and perhaps also make white saviours like Carola Rackete think twice before insisting that there should be no limit to the number of asylum seekers from Africa.
Population growth, constant conflicts and potential climate changes contribute to a looming out of Africa migration potential.
As IOM data show the numbers of migrants crossing the Mediterranean from Africa has actually declined from 2018 to 2019. It has declined from a peak in 2016, after a steady growth from 2012 to 2016. leading to the idea that the problem of African migration has become less prominent, and that the activities of white saviours don't represent a major challenge for the EU.
On the contrary, the fact that migration has declined has been  a result of curbing the activities of NGO ships in the Mediterranean, combined with efforts of a previous Italian government, especially the efforts of interior minister Marco Minniti, rather unkindly called Italy’s ‘minister of fear.' With EU doing little to stop the stream of migrants over Mediterranean he succeeded in making deals with groups in Libya, that meant that Libya became involved in curbing the stream.
And there is a growing African migration potential. A recent Gallup report found that 33 per cent of people in Sub-Saharan Africa would want to migrate if they could. Not that such a high proportion could ever be expected to be to migrate, not the least because they would lack the means.
A publication entitled, "Many more to come?" from the European Commissions JRC Joint research Centre) looks at characteristics of Africans planning and preparing to move abroad:

From this it is evident we can expect potential migrants to be young people, the majority male, like we have already seen, with some education and having more that average income. Elsewhere it shown that the migration potential increases with rising GDP up to around 7.000 to 13.000 Dollars per capita.
With a combination of expected rise in GDP, better education and growing population one would this expect growing migration potential. Based upon these expectations the report project an "increase in theannual number of Africans leaving their country of origin from 1.4 million in 2015 to 3.5 million in 2050 (Many more to come?). With  major consequences  for Europe and prsumably the US.
The numbers may be to optimistic. What happens when a fast growing population makes it impossible to generate acceptable living condition, perhaps because of population growth itself, perhaps because og continuing internal strife and major climate shifts. Might that not result in a mass exodus from Africa, also of people outside the spectrum of having some education and possessing some means?
We don't know but at least the looming prospects we se here make a mockery of the white saviour intentions of saving Africa. The numbers would overwhelm Europe and could lead to internal conflict and even civil war in Europe.
 
Punish the saviours and silence their siren song
Realistically therefore it would seem that the EU sooner or later would be forced introduce to some kind Australian policy, making it necessary to curb the activities of do gooders like Carola Rackete and others, by punishing their attempts to undermine a push back policy, and silencing their siren song just outside the North African coast.
 
* While Italy attempts to close Italian ports to NGO ship carrying migrants, they quietly  seem to accept the so-called ghost arrivals, migrants arriving on their own in boats and inflatables.

Perfect corpses?
CNN June 27: "The bodies of Oscar Alberto Martínez and his 23-month-old daughter, Angie Valeria, lie face down in murky waters littered with reeds and discarded beer bottles. Their heads are wrapped in a black T-shirt, and her tiny right arm is draped over his shoulders." (CNN).
I suppose that everyone knows what CNN is talking about. It is the photo, and as it turns out also a video, showing the dead corpse of the father and daughter that drowned in trying to cross the Rio Grande river into the USA.
The photo went viral and popped up in news media all over the world.
Why? What is so special about this photo and the video? Father and daughter certainly wasn't the first fatalities in attempts to cross the border into the US. Why then this picture now? Why were the bodies left in water, with onlookers taking photos and videos?
Perhaps the explanation is that the dead bodies of father and daughter were perfect corpses. Young bodies, in perfect shape with no apparent bruises, and only slightly untidy clothes. Almost too clean to be believable (as one border guard apparently since tweeted). Their faces averted, so not too disturbing, and of course there was the moving detail of the child having her arm about the neck of the father. Almost as if they were just sleeping and would be awake in a moment.
One is reminded of the photos of Aylan Al-Kurdi on a beach in Greece, which showed similar characteristics, and of the effect they had on public opinion. “If these extraordinarily powerful images of a dead Syrian child washed up on a beach don't change Europe's attitude to refugees, what will?” (The Independent).
Perfect corpses for stirring up people, and unscrupulous used for exactly that purpose.
By CBS " Tragic photo underscores the plight of migrants"
By the democratic presidential candidate, Beto O'Rourke, who blamed Trump " "Trump is responsible for these deaths."
By the democratic presidential candidate getting a lot attention at moment, Kamala Harris: " These families seeking asylum are often fleeing extreme violence, and what happens when they arrive? Trump says, 'Go back to where you came from.' That is inhumane. Children are dying. This is a stain on our moral conscience."
By Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, who became emotional when she responded: "Can just imagine how that happened and I, I just think it's such a shame for that to be the face of America around the world"
Even the Pope chimed in: "The pope is profoundly saddened by their death, and is praying for them and for all migrants who have lost their lives while seeking to flee war and misery."
For the time being it certainly looks as if news media has been successful in stirring up public opinion with a very selective piece of truth, based upon a photo.
This piece of truth and the comments accompanying it conveys the impression that the tragic deaths of father and daughter were a direct consequence of Trump's harsh immigration policies.
 
Untidy corpses
Two days before the photos of the dead father and daughter showed up in news media all over the world, PBSO (Public Broadcasting station) reported that two babies, a toddler and a woman had been found dead in the Rio Grande Valley. Law enforcement officers told the press that the four had died days ago, presumably overcome by sweltering heat and dehydration after fording the river. Some days earlier another decomposed body had also been found on the banks of the Rio Grande.
Photos of these dead migrants found days before the father and daughter did not show up in news media around world. Perhaps because they weren't as photogenic, being decomposing and untidy? Or perhaps no one was around to grasp the chance to use photos of decomposing dead migrants to stir up opinion?
We don’t know, but it certainly looks like news media know how to select and publish photos of dead migrants for maximum effect, to stir up compassion and protests over the plight of migrants.
Even accompanying the gratuitous publication of photos of the dead migrants, with explanations of how difficult an ethical decision it was.
After criticism of The New York Times' decision to publish the photo, a reader finding "it a thoroughly humiliating (disrespectful) photograph," the paper wrote that the decision was taken after a long discussion. In the end " the editors decided to run the image because it bore witness to what is happening at the border between the United States and Mexico right now."
Apparently they also discussed if the prominent placement of the photo on the front page might be seen as a political statement , but "the editors were confident that the image stood on its own, reflecting the perils migrants on the border face, not a position on the issue of immigration.
Either the editors must have naive or less that sincere, when they didn't see the photo as a political statement. They must have known precisely what they were doing, as they even discussed the effect of the Aylan Al-Kurdi photo.
As we have seen this was exactly what happened. The photo was used explicitly by all opponents of Trump and his migration policies: "Trump is responsible" (The Guardian). Almost as if he was personally responsible for the death of Oscar Alberto Martínez and Angie Valeria.
Not so in El Salvador though. President Nayib Bukele of El Salvador thinks his country is one to blame: "We can blame any other country but what about our blame? What country did they flee? Did they flee the United States? They fled El Salvador, they fled our country. It is our fault"
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-4882310
 
The truth in numbers instead of photos
How many migrants die attempting to cross the border, how has this changed over the years, and how does the number of deaths stand in relation to the number of migrants?
According to ABC News 281 migrants were found dead in the 2018 budget year which ended on September 30.
According to UN sources 412 migrants died crossing the border in 2017. (refugeesmigrants.un.org).
To compare these numbers with the previous years we found the following statistic in a CNN investigation from 2018, covering the period from 1998 to 2016. Incidentally also showing that U.S. Border Patrol was underrepresenting the number of migrants deaths. (edition.cnn.com)).

We can see are that the number of dead migrants show spikes in 2005 and 2012-2013, with more than 450 counted.
This at least shows that migrant deaths at border spiked before Trump became president and was accused of being responsible for migrant deaths at the border.
Furthermore the number of migrants apprehended at the border, is showing a significant rise in numbers in 2019. (U.S. Customs and Border Protection). Presumably accompanied by a similar rise in illegal attempts to cross the border and correspondingly a rise in numbers of deaths. Perhaps even amplified by a period of unusual high temperatures in the border region (cbp.gov).

This information would seem to have been extremely relevant, when discussing whether Trump was responsible for the death of migrants, but this discussion has generally been ignored by news media. Instead we get a photo of a dead father and daughter, an isolated fact that is used knowingly and cynically to cater to an opinion critical of everything Trump does. A simple fact is chosen, placed under a magnifying glass, implying that it shows the truth.
It is not fake news as such, as the photo presumably shows a fact, but in a way it is worse than fake news. Fake news can be revealed to be fake news, but the photo isn't fake news. It is a true fact you see, and from this we can infer the harshness Trump's migration policies. That at least seems to be the reasoning in the news media that published and commented upon the photo.
No, that is not what we can infer and the numbers, as far we can see, does not bear out this inference.
We are led to the conclusion that a true, but isolated fact, is used by news media, commenters and opponents to Trump to draw a false inference. Perhaps we may even call it a lie.
 
Border control strategies and funnel effects
The Trump administration did not invent what is called the "prevention through deterrence" strategy to reduce the number of illegal border crossings, at what is usually called the Southwest border.
This strategy was initiated in 1994, when the US Border Patrol published a National strategy in order to bring the Southwest border under control.
"The Border Patrol will improve control of the border by implementing a strategy of "prevention through deterrence." The border Patrol will achieve the goals of its strategy by bringing a decisive number of enforcement resources to bear in each major entry corridor." In accordance with this strategy there was a dramatic increase in the number of Border Patrol agents assigned to the regions where most migrants crossed the border.
In this way it was hoped to get control of the border, although it wasn't thought that all illegal crossings could be prevented.
The "prevention through deterrence" strategy led to a funnel effect. Stricter border security pushed migrants away from the easy entry corridors and led to attempts to cross the border elsewhere, by more dangerous routes and less populated border areas.
This led to more fatalities, to more migrants dying, as they were increasingly "falling victim to exposure" in their attempts to cross the border.
Trump has been criticised for seeing migrants as criminals drug smugglers etc. and while his language may be abhorrent, he certainly isn't the first one to see the danger of drugs coming across the border.
Under president Obama we find the outline of Counternarcotics Strategy at the Southwest Border in which it is argued: "Criminal activity along the Southwest Border (SWB) poses a significant national security threat for the United States The almost 2,000-mile border that separates the United States and Mexico includes major population centers, transportation hubs, and large tracts of uninhabited desert Criminal organizations have used that vast area to engage in cross-border drug trafficking, human smuggling, weapons trafficking, money laundering, and other associated illegal activities." (obamawhitehouse.archives).
Thus Trump is continuing and enhancing the same strategies that his predecessors had used to prevent an uncontrolled rise in illegal migrant crossings and in criminal  activities at the Southwest Border. Still Trump and his administration is seen as a special kind of culprit, whose policies are responsible for migrant deaths at border. At least that is the impression most of the news media is giving us. Is this a fair impression based upon facts? Does it represent the truth? Or is a is a skewed impression based intentionally upon selective facts, and photos chosen not to make us any wiser, but with the ulterior motive of making us abhor President Trump and his actions.
 
Ambigous media ethics
The Ethical Journalism Network has published a five point guide for migration reporting. According to the first the point "Facts not bias" they want journalists to ask themselves:
"Are we accurate and have we been impartial, inclusive and fact-based in our reporting?
Are we acting independently from narratives that stem from politics and emotion rather than facts?
Are we fairly and transparently reporting the impact of migration on communities?”
 Judging from what we have seen, news media reporting on the death of the migrant father and daughter, are neither impartial nor acting independently from political and emotional narratives, and they certainly seem to ignore the impact of migration on communities.
In fact it seems that even the more serious spectrum of the news media are using exactly the same means, albeit more sophisticated, as we see in the social media. Reporting to suit a certain political view, choosing carefully selected facts presented as the whole truth, and catering to a biased opinion partly created by themselves.
Can we really believe the self-proclaimed objectivity of the news media, when they see themselves as a corrective to biased social news and alternative facts?
From what we have seen here, it would seem that the media also operate with what one may actually call alternative facts (not alternative to facts). In the sense that they are placing a looking glass over facts that suits a certain political and ideological agenda. Thus creating a truth that caters to certain opinion, ignoring that looking glass truths may lead to a bigger lie.

See  also: " Whose Deaths Aren’t We Seeing? by JACK SHAFER in Politico Magazine