3 Difficult Questions About the Refugee Crisis

Tags

Afghanistan, Africa, Assad, asylum, BBC, Boats, Britain First, Christianity and Islam, Civilisation, death, Defend the modern world, drama, eritrea, Facebook, flood, immigration crisis, immigration uk, Iraq, Islam, Italy, Kurds, migrants, Multiculturalism, No to Turkey in the EU, politics, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, refugee crisis, refugees, Spain, syrian war, syrians, Terrorism, Twitter, UKIP, ukip refugees

When a photograph depicting the corpse of young boy washed up on the shore of the Mediterranean emerged last week, the world was shocked and appalled. Unlike any image before it, the photo has galvanised a massive humanitarian response, some of it deeply moving and morally impressive, from Iceland to Poland, Britain to Greece. Money is being thrown aimlessly into the air. Shelter is being offered across the continent. EU governments, including formerly hard-line and conservative regimes, are now yielding to public pressure for greater quotas of asylum seekers for their respective nations.

When emotion shouts in this way, wisdom struggles to be heard. Questions of a more cynical, less humanitarian nature are in this environment extremely difficult to ask. One risks being accused of ‘heartlessness’, ‘meanness’ or ‘xenophobia’ for casting any doubt, however light, on the official humanitarian narrative. But cast it we must.

Here are 3 questions that must be answered, however difficult and cynical they may – in the shouting short term – be considered.

1. Are the majority of ‘refugees’ actually refugees?

This is obviously the most important question at this juncture. Do the ‘refugees’ pouring into Europe deserve the label, or are they simply opportunists seeking a better material outlook for their family? While it is impossible to give a definite answer (one applicable to every different individual case), the information already gathered allows us to at least make a general estimate. Most, if not all, the refugees attempting to reach Europe are actually migrants.

How do we know this? That’s the answer to question 2…

2. Why isn’t Turkey safe enough for them?

The Kurdish child Aylan Kurdi, whose grim fate now dominates every newspaper in the world, did not have to die. He and his family were already safely in Turkey when they chose to shoot for Europe, and since Turkey is perfectly safe and reasonably affluent, Europe has no moral case to answer for his demise. Indeed, while he was been roundly criticised for it, the UKIP member Peter Bucklitsch was brave and entirely correct to place the blame directly on the child’s parents, remarking that had they not been ‘greedy for the good life’, the tragedy could have/would have been averted.

This isn’t actually a complicated matter (or at least it needn’t be). Once a refugee reaches a country of safety, he or she ceases to be a refugee. If that person then chooses to move on in search of a more desirable haven, that person becomes a migrant. It really is that simple.

3. Who is to blame for the crisis?

The answer to this last question is crystal clear. ISIS/Islamic State are to blame. Their cynical and merciless campaign against the people of Syria has sent ripples of destructive chaos across the whole of Eurasia. The everyday suffering in Raqqah and Palmyra is almost too extreme to be imagined. As we luxuriate in our peaceful suburbs, Syrian men, women and children are being enslaved, beheaded, brainwashed, forcibly conscripted, raped and robbed by a psychopathic gang of desert primitives. I fully understand why ordinary people wish to leave the nightmare being constructed. We would all do – or at least, try to do – the same.

But Europe is a not a charity. It is a continent and a civilisation. We have our own problems, our own impoverished masses and our own economic and politic disorders to contend with. In this time of Muslim suffering, the Muslim world must come to its own aid. More than anywhere else, the money-drenched kingdoms of the Arabian Gulf must allow a massively increased quota of migrants into their own territories. If they truly believe in the concept of an Ummah, let them prove it. Let them impress and embarrass the whole world with their brotherly kindness.

And if they do not, the blame is theirs and theirs alone.

D, LDN.

Advertisement

Invasion of the Boat People

Tags

asylum, asylum seekers, BBC, boat people, Boats, boats calais asylum seekers, boats people, calais, Cameron, channel tunnel, Counter-Jihad, david cameron swarm, debate, Defend the modern world, Facebook, France, Immigration, invasion calais, Multiculturalism, Muslims, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, sea, seawater, swarm cameron, Twitter

So, the invasion forces of Africa have now reached the shores of France and seem intent on entering the United Kingdom. As I write, and as even the Prime Minister is now publically lamenting, tens of thousands of Black Africans (mostly Muslim) are attempting to force their way into Southern England, with methods ranging from clinging to the side of lorries, to hiding in cargo boxes and sacks of fruit, to launching primitive boats onto the English channel and rowing up to the English coast.

In Kent, the quiet and genteel ‘Garden of England’, local authorities already describe their agencies as being ‘overwhelmed’ by the hordes of foreign children, homeless, hungry and without a word of English. A local official reported that the number of asylum seekers is “unprecedented” and ‘will cost tens of millions’ to process them, even if their claims are eventually turned down.

Of course, we have no right to be surprised by any of this. When the boats first started coming all those wasted years ago, we knew full well where their cargo desired to end up. No African crosses the Mediterranean to enjoy the marbled romance of Italy, or the cathedrals and sophistication of France. They all want to get to Britain, the pop-cultural lieutenant of America, with our social security, football teams, television, music and cinema. These self-starved, Chelsea-shirt-wearing illiterates don’t just want to live in the ‘West’, but in a country (even city) of their choosing. More than anything else, this pickiness proves their claims of asylum are entirely phoney. If the invading migrants simply wanted to eat and be free from government abuse, Austria would have been tolerable enough for them, to say nothing of Germany, France, Portugal, Italy and Spain.

So what to do? How does Britain get out of this? These questions are only as morally complicated as we choose to make them. The law makes the solution beautifully simple – none of these people have any right whatsoever to enter – let alone reside in – the United Kingdom, and we should deport them as quickly and efficiently as we can arrange. That’s it. No further discussion or thought required. That is what the law demands and what the citizens of this country desire and should be able to expect.

As has now been widely reported, most of the current swarm (and yes, the Prime Minister was right to use that term) are from Eritrea and Somalia, two disastrous attempts at nationhood and each the source of much global disquiet. How could a nation as developed as Britain conceivably profit by the infusion of such material? An Eritrean of 15 years will always be an Eritrean. A Somali of 21 years will always be a Somali. While it’s true that the offspring of such migrants would have the option of being British (it would depend on a secular upbringing and eventual apostasy, not merely the location of birth), that is a delayed reward, and in any case an uncertain one. We don’t need any more Muslims in the UK. We surely have far too many to begin with. End of.

D, LDN.