Refugees: Rot, Rort & Reason

First of all, here's UKIP's Nigel Farage, speaking last week:

For a splendid example of the sheer perverse rot spewed by leftists, even on the distaff side, here’s feminist (yes, feminist!) Laurie Penny, ranting recently in the New Statesman following her return to Britain after a year away.  Yes, there’s the inevitable condemnation of “Islamophobia” and the inevitable facile and highly contentious analogy between today's "refugee" crisis and  the plight of persecuted European Jewry during the 1930s, and yes, there's the perception that all cultures, even egregiously misogynistic ones, are created equal, and that all migrant groups bring “cultural enrichment” to their host nations. 

“…. It’s not that Britain wasn’t a racist, parochial place before. But the xenophobic, Islamophobic and, most obviously, the anti-immigrant rhetoric has ramped up everywhere.

…. Fascism happens when a culture fracturing along social lines is encouraged to unite against a perceived external threat. It’s the terrifying “not us” that gives the false impression that there is an “us” to defend.

…. The chosen minority must summon the fears of every social class at once. That’s why migrants, the bogeyman of choice, are presented as a paradox, just as the Jews were in the 1930s.

…. Perhaps those of us lucky enough to be European citizens should take a deep breath and realise that maybe, just maybe, our feelings might not be the most important thing here. That maybe if thousands of people are desperate enough to risk death to come to our shores, whether or not we’re entirely comfortable having them move to our area should not be the deciding factor in policymaking.

…. Notionally more compassionate news outlets take care to remind us that immigrants actually “enrich” our culture and bring economic benefits. The fact that this is entirely true does not make it any less of an offensive argument. Migrants do not come to the west from war-torn Syria, Eritrea, Afghanistan or any other nation that has been colonised and occupied and then bombed and plundered for resources over centuries of imperial and post-imperial exploitation chiefly to enrich the lives of westerners and liven up our god-awful cuisine with some actual flavour. They come out of fear for their lives. They come for asylum and security and opportunity, and they are perfectly entitled to do so, if not by the law of the land then by the principles of justice and human decency.

…. Europeans are quite capable of sitting calmly in the bubbling water of cultural bigotry until it boils away every shred of compassion we have left. That’s the real threat to our “way of life”.’ 

Compare the above bilge with these admirably clear-sighted passages from an article in the August issue of the Australian conservative intellectual journal Quadrant by editor John O’Sullivan:

“…. Refugees are not the only people on the move.  Economic migrants in their millions want to leave places like Afghanistan, Somalia and Burma and settle in the welfarist West.  Enjoying fewer rights than refugees under international law, they seek either to pass as refugees or to break into the West and establish a modern legalistic version of squatters’ rights.  Unlike the passive DPs of post-war Europe, they come from a potentially limitless pool of future migrants.  Given both their numbers and their willingness to override our immigration and other laws, they plausibly threaten our security, identity and social cohesion, especially under a multiculturalism that treats all cultures as equal or that (in reality) privilege the culture of the Other.

…. International human rights law, UN treaty compliance rules, and the influence of NGOs internationally are now among many constraints on national policy-making.  An alternative structure of law, regulation and political authority competes with national governments in refugee policy and human rights law…. Citizenship, borders, democratic decision-making – these are all subject to external supervision.  Lawyers and activists even assert that governments have no rights to control their borders because migration is itself a human right.

…. Migrants of all kinds, sensing weakness, keep coming.  More drown.  The problem gets bigger.  And worse.

Nations can only be generous if they feel secure.  That was the lesson of World Refugee Year.  Australia has learnt it.  The international community … not so much.”

 Australia has learnt it?  Let's hope so.  Here's Australia's most-read columnist, Andrew Bolt, today, in the wake of emotive calls from Australia's Labor opposition leader, Bill Shorten, and certain other politicians, for the country to admit more refugees; (these demands have been prompted by the tragic drowning of little Aylan, notwithstanding the fact that his father, it's been revealed, was not a genuine asylum seeker but sought German dental care):

"Aylan [Kurdi]’s terrible death does not tell us to open our borders. If anything, it warns us to be wary of the consequences of badly directed “compassion”.

Aylan’s family, while originally from the Syrian border town of Kobani, recently besieged by IS, had actually been living in safety in Turkey for three years....

[C]an the West really take in not just real refugees, but the Third World’s poor as well, including those in search of better dentistry?

And here is the dilemma: the more the West takes in, the more will try to come, too, searching in rich countries for what they cannot find in poor — and the more will drown in trying, just like Aylan. We saw all this from the boats which landed here, before the Abbott Government stopped them. Now Germany sees it.

The “refugees” flooding over its borders have crossed many countries where they’d have been safe .... before finally making it to the rich welfare state they really want....

Germany expects up to 800,000 asylum seekers this year, most of them men who will seek to bring over their relatives and brides, too.

How will Germany assimilate so many? How well will such people — mainly Muslims from much poorer countries — fit in? What will this cost German citizens, in money, jobs and safety?

These are questions no responsible statesman can avoid, for all the demands to show “compassion”. But our own politicians have dodged such calculations in the past, and we have paid for it.

For instance, the Fraser government responded to the Lebanese civil war by taking in thousands of Muslim Lebanese, most with few qualifications and no English.

So kind. Yet the consequences for our security have been dramatic. Of the 21 Australians jailed for terrorism offences, all are Muslim and nine were born in Lebanon or to Lebanese families. Gun crime in the Lebanese enclaves of Sydney is now notorious.

More recently, we responded to the wars in Afghanistan and Somalia by again taking in more Muslim refugees.

Again, it made us less safe. Afghans are heavily recruited into bikie gangs and jihadist groups. One Afghan refugee, Numan Haider, pledged himself to IS and stabbed two police in Melbourne.

Children of Somali refugees have joined jihadists in Somalia. Levels of crime for their community, too, is above the national average — to be expected when many are poor, traumatised and face extra hurdles fitting in. They face racism, too.

True, most Muslim immigrants make fine Australians. But any politician who refuses to consider the safety of fellow Australians when deciding on our refugee intake is betraying their first duty.

That said, Syrians tend to have higher education than people from Somalia and Afghanistan. Many do badly need help, and we have wealth to share.

But let’s not pretend that bringing in people from what’s still an overwhelmingly tribal or sectarian Muslim country carries no risks...."

Read all of Bolt's article here

Meanwhile, in Wales, Greens leader Pippa Bartolotti has a message or two:

More on that football story here