Why, oh why does the left seem so desperate to see North-Western Europe overrun by migrants from Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, North Africa and the Horn of Africa and points South and East?
By most measures and certainly in comparison to the regions whence the migrant streams originate, North-Western Europe is wealthy, prosperous, safe, socially, educationally, technologically and industrially advanced. It offers a fabulously high standard of living, with free healthcare, free schooling and damn near full employment. Minorities enjoy rights across Europe that they would not even dream of in most of the countries of origin of the migrants arriving today. Equality of gender, sexuality and race and freedoms of expression, assembly and religion are well established. The rule of law works pretty well.
In contrast, the regions from where hundreds of thousands are setting off on often expensive and perilous journeys towards this perceived utopia are under-developed socially, industrially and economically. Standards of living are lower, as are levels of literacy and opportunities for education. Freedoms that are, by and large, taken for granted in the West are often absent. In many of these areas, all aspects of peoples' daily lives are rigorously controlled by authoritarian powers, be they secular or theocratic in essence.
It is quite understandable that many would wish to exchange this life of relative hardship and struggle for one seen as being hugely safer, freer, healthier and one offering vastly enhanced living standards and over millennia, many have done so. After all, many Western nations were founded by and nurtured by immigrants. The USA is a perfect example.
Yet we live in different age. America is no longer a wilderness, rich in natural resources and with a relatively tiny native population. It is developed, rich and cosmopolitan. Europe too is operating at pretty close to capacity, indeed struggling to meet the growing expectations of the population. It could be argued that Western nations are pretty much 'full', that we are just about providing what we want with what we have. Against that backdrop, should we accept further immigration - in the broadest sense - and if so, who ought we to accept and how many?
Despite the protestations that the migrants setting out for and reaching Western Europe are 'refugees', it is clear to most that a substantial majority are 'economic migrants'. Whilst we should certainly endeavour to take and assimilate a sensible number of those genuinely displaced by war and threatened with, or indeed suffering, violence, we have managed to send out a message that it's a free-for-all for anyone who has the wherewithal to make the journey.
German Chancellor Merkel's blithe offer to accommodate 'refugees' to the tune of a million has backfired spectacularly. Recent and continuing cases of criminal behaviour by newly arrived migrants in much of continental Europe suggest that many of these arrivals are not shivering, cowed families fleeing the depredations of life under Assad, Al Qaeda or ISIS and pathetically grateful to have found a safe haven, but aggressive, unruly and thuggish adult single men with neither consideration nor respect for the places that have - so far - welcomed them.
European countries are starting to backpedal; there's increasing tightening of borders and a realisation that we have, at best, over-extended ourselves. Resentment is growing amongst people who would otherwise welcome a properly managed intake of 'real' refugees and yet many of those who brandished the #RefugeesWelcome hashtag continue to suggest we take many more migrants and seem, intentionally or otherwise, to be oblivious to their actual status. The unpleasant attacks on women and bystanders that took place on Cologne at New Year are even 'defended' by some of the left and feminist left in that they attempt to lift responsibility for these events from the perpetrators. Naivety, cultural differences and the behaviour of the locals have all been blamed.
Without doubt Europe should accept temporarily - or try to integrate as appropriate - sensible numbers of those genuinely fleeing direct persecution. It should not be allowing those from less developed regions, often poorly educated, unskilled and from vastly alien cultures and traditions, quite incompatible with many Western values to arrive with minimal, if any, background checks and with little or no desire to become part of the society but to take what they can for themselves with little respect for the communities in which they find themselves.
By most measures and certainly in comparison to the regions whence the migrant streams originate, North-Western Europe is wealthy, prosperous, safe, socially, educationally, technologically and industrially advanced. It offers a fabulously high standard of living, with free healthcare, free schooling and damn near full employment. Minorities enjoy rights across Europe that they would not even dream of in most of the countries of origin of the migrants arriving today. Equality of gender, sexuality and race and freedoms of expression, assembly and religion are well established. The rule of law works pretty well.
In contrast, the regions from where hundreds of thousands are setting off on often expensive and perilous journeys towards this perceived utopia are under-developed socially, industrially and economically. Standards of living are lower, as are levels of literacy and opportunities for education. Freedoms that are, by and large, taken for granted in the West are often absent. In many of these areas, all aspects of peoples' daily lives are rigorously controlled by authoritarian powers, be they secular or theocratic in essence.
It is quite understandable that many would wish to exchange this life of relative hardship and struggle for one seen as being hugely safer, freer, healthier and one offering vastly enhanced living standards and over millennia, many have done so. After all, many Western nations were founded by and nurtured by immigrants. The USA is a perfect example.
Yet we live in different age. America is no longer a wilderness, rich in natural resources and with a relatively tiny native population. It is developed, rich and cosmopolitan. Europe too is operating at pretty close to capacity, indeed struggling to meet the growing expectations of the population. It could be argued that Western nations are pretty much 'full', that we are just about providing what we want with what we have. Against that backdrop, should we accept further immigration - in the broadest sense - and if so, who ought we to accept and how many?
Despite the protestations that the migrants setting out for and reaching Western Europe are 'refugees', it is clear to most that a substantial majority are 'economic migrants'. Whilst we should certainly endeavour to take and assimilate a sensible number of those genuinely displaced by war and threatened with, or indeed suffering, violence, we have managed to send out a message that it's a free-for-all for anyone who has the wherewithal to make the journey.
German Chancellor Merkel's blithe offer to accommodate 'refugees' to the tune of a million has backfired spectacularly. Recent and continuing cases of criminal behaviour by newly arrived migrants in much of continental Europe suggest that many of these arrivals are not shivering, cowed families fleeing the depredations of life under Assad, Al Qaeda or ISIS and pathetically grateful to have found a safe haven, but aggressive, unruly and thuggish adult single men with neither consideration nor respect for the places that have - so far - welcomed them.
European countries are starting to backpedal; there's increasing tightening of borders and a realisation that we have, at best, over-extended ourselves. Resentment is growing amongst people who would otherwise welcome a properly managed intake of 'real' refugees and yet many of those who brandished the #RefugeesWelcome hashtag continue to suggest we take many more migrants and seem, intentionally or otherwise, to be oblivious to their actual status. The unpleasant attacks on women and bystanders that took place on Cologne at New Year are even 'defended' by some of the left and feminist left in that they attempt to lift responsibility for these events from the perpetrators. Naivety, cultural differences and the behaviour of the locals have all been blamed.
Without doubt Europe should accept temporarily - or try to integrate as appropriate - sensible numbers of those genuinely fleeing direct persecution. It should not be allowing those from less developed regions, often poorly educated, unskilled and from vastly alien cultures and traditions, quite incompatible with many Western values to arrive with minimal, if any, background checks and with little or no desire to become part of the society but to take what they can for themselves with little respect for the communities in which they find themselves.
Comments
Post a Comment