Afghan, Pakistani and Bangladeshi migrants flee the conflict (Mesut Varol/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images)
It is remarkable that any army could occupy a country for two decades yet leave in such a hurry. The nature of the US exit from Afghanistan will, for obvious reasons, be a memory that lingers: the photos of desperate people queuing at the airport; the international dash to get their citizens out; the bombings targeted at defenceless and terrified people.
Earlier this week, when the White House’s press spokeswoman Jen Psaki was asked about this ignominious withdrawal, she refused to concede that there was anything wrong with it: “I would say that this is now on track to be the largest airlift in US history. So no, I would not say that it is anything but a success.”
The long-term consequences of the collapse of Afghanistan will naturally take time to come into focus. But it seems unlikely that they will be associated with “success”. Already it seems inevitable that America’s enemies — in particular China — will have noted how easy it is to push around the world’s superpower. Meanwhile, America’s allies now face challenges of their own; the EU and UK now surely know that they need to be more operationally adept, capable of doing basic things like holding an airport without requiring the support of the US.
Of course, none of this can be predicted with absolute certainty. And yet I strongly suspect that there is at least one consequence that Europe can anticipate as a foregone conclusion: that, thanks to the fall of Afghanistan, in the coming months and years the West will experience a new migration challenge that it is incapable of preventing.
Throughout the last decade, the migration crisis in Europe has been exacerbated by the fact that many European governments and citizens had nothing but sympathy for the millions of immigrants — many of them from Syria — whose homelands have been destroyed by war. Indeed, when Angela Merkel steps down this year, she will largely be remembered for her decision in 2015 to open Germany’s borders to Syrian refugees.
Yet although there have been large numbers of Syrians among those who arrived in Europe in the past six years, Syrian refugees did not make up the bulk of the arrivals. Instead, the Syrian migrants ended up inadvertently becoming the sharp tip of the world’s migration demands. Behind them came people from a bewildering array of other countries; from across Africa, the Middle East and Far East.
Even then, Afghan refugees were certainly among them. I met many myself in the refugee camps of southern Europe. On one occasion, I spent the day with a group of Hazara Afghans, a persecuted Persian-speaking minority group. I remember one of them asking me why Syrians should be given priority over Afghans when applying for asylum in the EU. After all, he said, by that point Syria had only been at war for five years. His country had been at war for 15 years. Should that not be taken into account?
It was — and remains — an important question. One of the most complex aspects of the global migration challenge is the fact that everybody has a competing claim to asylum, and that privileging one group inevitably comes at the expense of another.
In any case, it is striking that six years ago, Germany and almost every other European country reported the same phenomenon, which was that many people said they were Syrians in order to get into Europe. However, once they were inside, very few countries were able to verify this. And for much of the general public it was enough to be told that Europe was responding to a “refugee” crisis rather than a “migrant crisis”.
Which brings us back to the situation in Afghanistan today. In the coming months and years, there will invariably be a steady flow of refugees fleeing the Taliban’s Afghanistan. The hurried nature of the American departure means that there will have been people left behind who have a credible case for asylum in the West. And as the Taliban’s rule once again reasserts itself, they will attempt to flee.
At the same time, within the West there will be a prevailing cloud of shame hanging over the way in which Afghanistan has been abandoned. NGOs and other groups will argue that we all have a moral obligation to accept refugees fleeing Afghanistan. As ever, they will not bother specifying where this obligation begins or ends. Many will be persuaded that we are in some way responsible for Afghanistan not being a thriving liberal democracy. They will be told that we are responsible for Afghanistan’s precarious humanitarian situation. And because there will be a grain of truth in this — if nothing else then because of the nature of the exit — it will be exceptionally difficult to reject those claiming to be fleeing Afghanistan.
The problem will lie, as it always does, in the details. No European country or border force has anything like the number of experts required to work out where exactly those entering Europe have come from. The dearth of language experts alone has remained unfixed since 2015. And as a result, no doubt many migrants who are not from Afghanistan will recognise the benefits of pretending that they are.
Some of this will affect America, though its geographic position makes it a less accessible destination. Europe does not have the same luxury. Indeed, one border official I spoke to last week said that the UK is already seeing an increase in the number of people crossing the English Channel claiming to be Afghan refugees. In many cases, this will be untrue. After all, if it were then they got to the UK awfully fast.
But is it so surprising that they would say such a thing? No doubt they are aware that the UK and EU feel morally sordid over the Afghan withdrawal. The smuggling gangs will certainly know this, and will advise migrants on how to use it to their advantage.
What will make it more complex still is that politicians and the public cannot have an honest conversation about the impact of this new migrant wave. At times of humanitarian crisis such as these, most Western Europeans do not want to hear politicians being “heartless”. But after their experience of 2015, it seems unlikely that they will want them to be too relaxed either.
The British public, for instance, currently believes that it is their moral duty to take in refugees from Afghanistan. But I suspect that feeling will not last indefinitely. It will take years for us to know how many Afghans decide to flee to Europe. It seems likely, though, that while a significant number will come from Afghanistan, an even more significant number will arrive pretending to be Afghans. And once they see Europe welcoming these migrants with open arms, others will likely follow.
There can be little doubt that those concerned about the safety of Afghanistan’s refugees are well-intentioned. But that doesn’t mean those good intentions won’t be exploited. And when that happens, neither European citizens nor European governments will be capable of dealing with the consequences.
Main Edition
US
FR
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeThe problem with addressing not just Afghan but pretty much all refugeeism is this assumption that they’re fleeing something – Islam, failed states, kleptocracies, poverty, lawlessness – and that we must help them.
The thing is, they’re really not. Rather a lot are actually the perpetrators of that stuff at home and simply seek a more congenial place to carry on doing it. So when you let in ostensible refugees from Islam, they don’t renounce it and start a new life. They quite frequently continue to imprison their women, rape children, and assault Jews. They haven’t come here so we can civilise their society; they’ve come here so they can uncivilise ours.
This applies right the way up the chain. Russian gangsters who’ve fled Russia because Putin may do a Khodorkovski on them don’t become model citizens on arrival. Chinese buyers of Bishop’s Avenue property don’t become philanthropic democrats.
We shouldn’t let anyone in from any Third World hellhole. The only immigrants we should admit should be those from countries that either everyone wants to get into, or that at least meet some minimum standard of pleasantness. That way you can be sure that whoever you’re letting in is not coming here intending to destroy your country, threaten its people, or continue here the behaviours that have made their place of origin a hellhole. So Australia or the US, fine; Poland fine; Syria, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Tunisia – not fine.
The prospect of a council house free flights for the family to join you and all sorts of other benefits is an incentive to flee the homeland.
Its all young men – and taking them is insane. The Left will hold the doors open, as wrecking the West is their goal.
Look closely at the cesspool they left, they created those cesspools and now wish to flee like cockroaches to nest elsewhere.
Totally agree. The former head of Kabul Bank was quoted in the Times today as acknowledging that his personal corruption was morally indefensible but he excused this by saying he was an Afghan.
Societies have basic characteristics. Most third world countries are not societies as we recognise them. Accepting migrants purely on the basis they want our prosperity but not necessarily the values that have created it risks importing the reasons for the societies they are fleeing: tribalism, religious fanaticism, intolerance, corruption, contempt for women and much else besides.
Yes, I sympathise with individuals in these countries, such as Afghanistan. But it was not so long ago that we here on Britain had child labour, brutal working conditions, injustice, squalid housing, inadequate or non existent health provision. We have ameliorated our situation by our own efforts. Other countries need to see this as an example. We cannot be a destination. That way lies our own certain destruction.
Islam is a sick cult of death and will finally kill Europe
Well said.
Remember liberals and globalists believe uneducated, unskilled crazies are a boon to diversity. Watching Europe die amuses me.
“The British public, for instance, currently believes that it is their moral duty to take in refugees from Afghanistan.”
I suppose that I must resign myself to appearing indelicate. I am not responsible, in any way, for the situation in Afghanistan and so I feel no moral obligation to bear the consequences for the actions of our deluded, stupid, arrogant, incompetent ruling class.
If I may clarify: I may extend assistance out of charity, I am objecting to the idea that other people can create a moral obligation for me.
I’ll be even more indelicate. The British public believes no such thing. Once again, politicians are arrogantly presuming to tell the public what they should think.
They usually tell the public these in response to questions from a journalist, and seldom have the moral courage to think for themselves and then say what they think. Such is the temptation of high office.
I entirely agree. I think they should stay and fight and those that turn up here should be sent back to do so.
Hear hear! For too long our politicians have assumed the right to tell us, their electors, what moral obligations we have. firstly, this is philosophically incoherent. Moral obligation is a personal matter. Whether or not I feel some moral obligation is entirely for me to decide. Secondly, of course politicians are free to guess what the typical moral obligations are of their electors, maybe using polls (though beware the wording of the questions) but I strongly suspect that most people will deny any such moral obligation when the issue is correctly viewed in the context of the many other obligations they have, most of which will outweigh those to unfortunates of other countries. This last point is particularly so when the full consequences of meeting those obligations are examined; something politicians rarely do.
We cannot save everyone suffering in other countries. Every extra refugee has an impact on UK citizens on our overcrowded Island, for example, hospital waiting times, housing, cultural friction.
We must look to support refugees on foreign soil and not just look to take them in and disadvantage our own citizens.
That’s a vital point often overlooked. The more migrants we accept, not only is that a cost to us but it’s also a loss to the country of origin. Especially since it’s very often the better, brighter or at least more resourceful who are able to make the journeys. And/or the opponents of the powers-that-be; the Taliban probably aren’t too bothered to see the potential opposition leaders and supporters, who might otherwise challenge their grip on Afghanistan, go somewhere else and ideally never come back.
I’m afraid I have come to believe that ‘they’ want the western democratic cultures to be overwhelmed and irradicably transformed so as to be permanently weakened. There are those – and they seem to have the power these days – that believe ‘whiteness’ and ‘westernism’ are the cancers of the world and must be destroyed.
Douglas, you’ve written that: ‘What will make it more complex still is that politicians and the public cannot have an honest conversation about the impact of this new migrant wave’. If this conversation ever takes place (very unlikely), please could it include consideration of the longer-term impacts of the mass migration of people from cultures very different to our own. I’ve taught adults for over two decades and, for the last 6 or 7 years, have taught growing numbers of first and later generation (mostly non-EU) migrants. A small number will do well (possibly even very well) but a significant proportion (probably the majority) will cost the public purse their entire lives (as might their children) (in fact, the research on the costs of mass migration shows that non-EU migrants are an economic liability (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25880373). Most of my students struggle with English (and don’t seem to have any qualms about plagiarising others), don’t understand many aspects of British life because they are not exposed to in their social circles (I’m often the only British person they interact with), can’t adapt easily to British systems of education and will likely end up either unemployed or in menial, low paid work (some of which, to be fair, will be socially useful, like caring or cleaning). This is true of many home-grown lower achievers, of course, but the home-grown variety don’t have grandiose ideas about their prospects. In my experience, many migrants have overblown and wildly unrealistic expectations about how well they will fare in the West and, when reality sets in, can become disillusioned (and even angry). If this is bolstered by strong religious sentiment, it doesn’t bode well for social cohesion.
many being interviewed currently give the reason flight to Europe as “to study”. What – Who will pay for it – What will it lead to?
For most, it will lead nowhere (degrees are not the gateway to a well-paid job they once were, and everyone has one now. Even students with the most appalling English can graduate – a private (and relatively lightly regulated) higher education industry has emerged over the last decade or so to cater to such students). The taxpayer will foot the bill (students don’t pay back their loans until they are making £26-27,000 a year. Out of the 1,500+ students with migrant backgrounds I’ve taught, I’d estimate less than 50 will ever a salary of that order. The vast majority of those who are able to secure employment will end up in minimum wage work).
This dumbing down of education is a feature in many countries. In South Africa there are now woefully low grades required to pass matric (final year of high school). This in part (together with high birth rate, high poverty, corrupt governance, Covid lockdowns, talent flight) has contributed to the highest unemployment rate in the world. And to boot they create false expectations in naive schoolchildren who think a shiny future is beckoning.
Agree wholeheartedly, Lesley.
What they study – I don’t know.
What it leads to – I don’t know.
Who will pay for it – I do know.
In London it has become de rigueur for state schools to display prominently a poster made by the children of how many languages they speak between them. 30 to 40 is not uncommon.
This is paraded as some sort of token of virtue, but it’s actually a complete and utter disgrace. When I was at school, the kids between them knew one language. The odd kid might rock up who knew another, but the schoolwide total would be 2 or 3 languages, not 10 times that number.
This carried the huge educational benefit that everybody understood the teacher. Everybody’s lesson did not to stop so that some kid who barely spoke English could have it all explained to him all over again. What benefit arises from 40 different native languages I can’t fathom, but it would have to be handsome to outweigh that advantage.
The unashamedly propagandistic effort involved in this cooption of children is chilling and sinister in itself. But the more the left hectors and screams and wags its finger, the more it knows in its corrupt heart that nobody believes the message; that the public are forced to agree by apprehensions as to their livelihoods; that they know full well how little remains of the freedom they were born to. As and when a sufficiently serious split appears in the left-establishment facade, then we may well see a repeat performance of 89. Here’s hoping.
I may be showing my ignorance here, but what happened in ’89?. A pretty boring year as far as I remember.
Presumably you were in rompers.
OK – got it. Not in rompers, but a naive and slightly drunk student at the time.
89. I remember it mostly for the Salman Rushdie Affair which was when I first realised the dangers of Islam (particularly Islam in the West) and our politicians disgusting cowardice in the face of it.
The fall of the USSR.
They need to have a poster displaying the IQ range of the schools to give a token virtue as to how inclusive the school is. My guess is today the range would 30 – 40 point spread, instead of your old days when it would be 10-20.
I always considered Blair’s multiculturalism to be well intended – but insanely naive
Spend money on English lessons – not pamphlets in multiple foreign languages.
It wasn’t well intended it was bought and paid for by S0r0s.
You note the increase in migrants arriving in the UK claiming to be Afghans, and point out “In many cases, this will be untrue. After all, if it were then they got to the UK awfully fast.” The UK has made this mistake repeatedly. To give just a few examples: letting in Albanians who pretended to be from Kosovo, letting in Libyans “fleeing” from Gadaffi (who had kicked them out for being too extreme) and letting in Kenyans pretending to be from Somalia.
The recurring mistake seems to be that at some points in time, the chattering classes obsess about the situation in one country and the Government is too scared of the chatterati to say no to dubious asylum claims.
Having said that, a friend who works with Afghan refugees in Washington DC tells me that the trickle turned into a flood months ago. The people on the ground knew what was going to happen, even if the US Top Brass didn’t have a clue.
Far better to ask whether Europe and America can survive the dreadful politicians who seem determined to destroy us from within, with the help of the media and the intelligentsia.
Soros spends billions a year funding the elections of who ever will do the greatest harm to the West. That is the problem, a cabal of completely evil global elites pulling strings. There is nothing similar working for the good.
An interesting comment; why do you think that there is nothing similar working for the good? Is it default human nature?
At its core, democracy is ill equipped to deal with Islam. And every such liberal hearted altruism, or expression of guilt, feeds a Frankenstein’s creation that grows more demanding… Till Sharia is an inevitability of a demographic transition… And thus, democracy with its freedoms paves the way for its own demise
I think you’re perhaps overly pessimistic.
Yes, democracy is certainly seriously challenged by political Islam. Ordinary Islam presents major cultural challenges too, as any authoritarian theocratic culture does, including theocracies of the West not so long ago and even today.
But we are a long way from any takeover by Sharia law or Islamic dress codes on the beach or forced halal food provision in public places or banning pigs or any of the other myriad details of cultural clash.
On the contrary, democracies have so far resisted such attempts to infiltrate our culture, and most refugees/migrants still become largely acculturated by the second or third generation. Most Muslims probably won’t ever take to eating pork, but the sons and grandsons of immigrants are gradually acquiring more liberated and respectful attitudes to women, and also tend to do better than their parents in education.
So I think we have reason to be hopeful, if wise to keep our wits about us.
Sorry but halal is already becoming the default in our schools and in our supply chains. We already have de facto Islamic blasphemy laws because of the threat of violent Islamist reprisals, and our p***y govt desperate to avoid accusations of ‘racism’ or ‘islamophobia’. We already have out benefits system paying out to multiple wives. A court this week was deliberating a case about ‘bride prices’. Trevor Philips has been expelled from the Labour Party for daring to show his research about British Muslims. Far from integration the younger generation are becoming more Islamic not less and the whole community holds beliefs including 95% who think homosexuality should be ILLEGAL. My WTF-OMETER went up to 11 a while ago.
The things you mention may be true about the UK, but they are not true of other western countries, e.g. Australia where I live. No default halal here, nor de facto Islamic blasphemy laws, and to the best of my knowledge, multiple wives are near non-existent and homophobic Muslims are not shouting their views to the roof tops.
I do think things are not as black and white as you make out. I would share your frustration about some of the selectively regressive measures you cite, but even then, it’s possible to stand back a bit and see Britain as going through a rather unique situation at present, a serious identity crisis, which inevitably means immigrants get caught up in the dilemmas and confusion about just who we English, we Britons, think we are.
Islam is not any threat. The threat is universalist utilitarianism and equitarianism.
And when the next humanitarian crisis strikes in yet another country, do we and other European countries carry on being the refuge of first resort. Is there no exit strategy from mass migration?
No, there isn’t. Immigration will end when the Western countries are as screwed up as the countries the immigrants are coming from.
Personally I’m sick to death of being expected to care about, and be responsible for, the lives of everyone on this planet. I used to be very liberal but the older I get the more I realise that globalisation and the kind of liberalism we are seeing that denigrates its own culture, is toxic. Not all cultures are equal. I do NOT want cultures that are antithetical to ours here. I don’t want more machete gangs, FGM, burqas, ‘honour’ killings, jihadists, de facto blasphemy laws and all the other crap thst has become commonplace in the last 30 years. My liberalism has gone out of the window and I don’t think I’m the only one.
Not all cultures are equal.
You make a key point here. This was the big mistake that those promoting multiculturalism made. The legitimate idea of differences coexisting was gradually extended to mean no difference could be criticised. Applied to whole societies, this then came to mean that all cultures were equally valid. The thinking behind this sequence of developments is woolly and quite illogical. The case could easily have been argued down, but for some reason no one wanted to.
Clearly, if all cultures are equally valid, there are no grounds at all for emigration from one’s homeland, let alone refugees! The existence of immigrants and refugees is proof positive that cultures are definitely not all equal. From this, it then follows that some discrimination in refugee and immigration policy is warranted. Not everyone will be acceptable to a host country. But some will be.
Multiculturalism is inevitable and unavoidable as the world opens up. And cross-fertilisation of cultures is a good thing. Movement of peoples will increase. But no nation should be asked to accept incomers who are hostile to the host culture and want to destroy it. That is just to allow substandard, antipathetic cultures, and the evil they carry, to multiply.
The people running things don’t care if your life is made worse.
It’s a strange thing; we are told that people of other countries such as Afghan are so keen not to be ruled by foreigners that they are prepared to fight for decades, and yet the desire for the people of those countries to leave the land of their birth and seek a new life in a foreign land seems without limit.
However, the day may come when those foreign lands are afflicted by much the same problems of instability and danger.
Europe is dying from suicide by stupidity as it embraces the mental illness known as liberalism
My issue isn’t just with giving asylum, it’s that giving asylum appears to be synonymous with permanent residency. It should only ever be temporary. The whole concept of asylum is being so abused it’s becoming meaningless. Everywhere is at war, everywhere outside the West is less ‘free’ and less rich, and everyone wants a better life. European countries now have significant proportions who are not European, same across the Anglosphere – and the rest of the world is almost entirely non European. at least 2 out of 4 people on the planet are Chinese or Indian, most of the other one are African and middle eastern. White European descendents are about half a person. About half a billion. Add in Hispanics it’s a bit more but not challenging the sheer numbers of the others. Population growth in Africa and the subcontinent is eye watering. And it’s happening here too thanks to mass immigration and lack of assimilation. NUMBERS MATTER. Any pretence at tackling climate change is meaningless without tackling the elephants in the room, population growth and the fact that every 3rd world immigrant to the 1st world also becomes a 1st world level consumer with carbon footprint to match. Never hear Greta mention that though.
The plan, of course, is to turn 1st (and 2nd) world consumption levels into 3rd world consumption levels.
The plan, of course, is to turn 1st (and 2nd) world consumption levels into 3rd world consumption levels.
My issue isn’t just with giving asylum, it’s that giving asylum appears to be synonymous with permanent residency. It should only ever be temporary. The whole concept of asylum is being so abused it’s becoming meaningless. Everywhere is at war, everywhere outside the West is less ‘free’ and less rich, and everyone wants a better life. European countries now have significant proportions who are not European, same across the Anglosphere – and the rest of the world is almost entirely non European. at least 2 out of 4 people on the planet are Chinese or Indian, most of the other one are African and middle eastern. White European descendents are about half a person. About half a billion. Add in Hispanics it’s a bit more but not challenging the sheer numbers of the others. Population growth in Africa and the subcontinent is eye watering. And it’s happening here too thanks to mass immigration and lack of assimilation. NUMBERS MATTER. Any pretence at tackling climate change is meaningless without tackling the elephants in the room, population growth and the fact that every 3rd world immigrant to the 1st world also becomes a 1st world level consumer with carbon footprint to match. Never hear Greta mention that though.
Well said!
Characteristic feature of the Taliban: they are people who hate people. Characteristic feature of people posting comments on this page: they are people who hate people.
But not you?
Voting with their feet. And for the West, Christendom if you like, people the world-over have shown their support for civilisation, that civilisation, by literally voting for it with their feet. They make long, often tortuous journeys towards freedom and sanity from hopeless, forlorn and lawless eastern lands by dismissing entirely the possibility of moving to the big, shiny fella who, which, dominates the whole region. Even when their land borders it. That would be the same oddity, or odyssey I should say, as Mexicans turning up in boats on Greek islands. For THAT to happen, America would have to be so unattractive and unappetising and constrictive a country. So you can imagine, if you think the West is a dump, what …. So the young radicals at the Western universities would, I imagine, lift the hearts of the desperate, the fearful, who have made it to the West — if these well-off … activists decided that it would be kind to give the impression that a good life was to be had and enjoyed in the Western liberal democracy. If they could at least do that on account of the long and tortuous journey the poor, the desperate undergo to reach freedom and safety, then a greater belief in Western society as a force for good would be achieved. It is the only way in this world.
The moderation machine objected to an expression I used for “automatic”, starting with “knee…”.
They are not “voting for Christendom”, they are in quest of advantage. When they get here, a significant number show so little respect for the ways of Christendom, as you put it, that they attack its churches, molest its inhabitants and seek to curtail its freedom. A further significant number fails entirely to find useful employment. You speak of long and tortuous journeys – neither so long nor so tortuous as they were – which is the only reason persons from a landlocked country on the other side of Iran can get to the Med in the first place. And finally, for “Christendom” to survive, it needs to be dominated by an ongoing Christian people – a process put into serious doubt by low native birth rates and huge influxes from the Islamic world. And it is hence the duty of that Islamic world – not Christendom – to take in Islamic refugees. A few years ago, during the last migrant crisis, a journalist called Simon Reeve made a BBC programme about the Mediterranean. Being a good bien pensant, he ignored the history, the beaches, the hotels and trained his cameras on groups of migrants meandering north along the dusty roads of a Greek island. He gave a few swaddled womenfolk a lift in his car, for which – five minutes later – he and they were roundly threatened and reproved by a number of migrant men. Honest enough to be shaken by this experience, noting implicitly that these people were not starving, desperate and grateful but hefty, assertive and entitled, happily importing their domestic prejudices from their home societies, he acknowledged that the problem was far more complex than automatic Guardianista “compassion” could possibly understand. And that is what we should acknowledge, too.
The British media reporters during the current crisis are doing an incredible job at great risk to themselves. Sometimes it must be difficult to take a balanced view without letting personal opinion cloud the story.
They are not “voting for Christendom”, they are in quest of advantage.
One size does not fit all.
Some are economic migrants, arrogant and with a sense of entitlement.
But I know of many who are exactly as Dustshoe describes. Many, many Christians have fled to the West from Islamic and non-Islamic countries where they have been a persecuted minority because of their religious belief. This applies widely around the globe, from Indonesia to Nigeria to China.
Then there are the genuine political refugees, who believe in the western cultural/political project and are forced to flee their country because of repression of dissent. They make wonderful citizens.
It is because of this variety that wholesale acceptance of illegal and irregular methods of migration is irresponsible. In among the sheep are wolves. Second, why does escape from Nigeria or China involve arrival in Great Britain or Europe? Is the whole world outside the west so awful? If so, are you arguing to rehouse that whole world? And as for the “woke” – as usual, they offer a glaring contradiction: the west is evil and awful; so it should let everybody enjoy its advantages! No, it won’t do. With imperial reach goes imperial responsibility and we have neither. It’s time to recognise our limits and salvage what we can of our fading wealth and prestige. This means obliging other countries, neighbouring countries to step up when regimes go to pot. Pakistan, Iran and India are well placed to take refugees from Afghanistan, for example; and it is about time our media, instead of using moralistic propaganda to force yet more immigration on the west, reminded other nations of their obligations.
I wasn’t arguing to “rehouse the whole world”, as you put it. You put words in my mouth, attributing to me a position I do not hold.
I was making a clear point about the need to discriminate carefully between different types of refugees.
I made a second clear point that some types make wonderful citizens.
The implication of that statement would be that we should be accepting some refugees in western countries, but based on very different criteria from those currently in operation. We could ask, for example, which of these refugees would add to and enhance our society, i.e. what do they have to offer us? This assessment should not be based purely on how much money they have.
We could also ask how well they are likely to integrate. Are they likely to be able to share our values, accommodate themselves to our cultural milieu? These are perfectly valid bases on which to devise a refugee policy.
Others fleeing, who did not meet such criteria, could be directed to cultures more suited to their religious beliefs, attitudes to women, etc. There is enough diversity of cultures and religions around the world to suit and take in any class of refugee.
No nation can reasonably be expected to import refugees who will prove hostile to, and destroy, the host culture.
There’s quite a few sentences in there that you started but didn’t finish, and ellipsis use designed to confuse or you don’t understand it yourself. Did you get a degree in some kind of grievance studies?
What or where is the “ the big, shiny fella who, which, dominates the whole region”
Think Pidgen!
Why do you feel the need to be so abusive in your response to Dustshoe?
designed to confuse… how do you know that?
a degree in some kind of grievance studies… uncalled for and unkind, what does that add to readers’ understanding?
Your comment would have been worthwhile had it included only your last sentence.
Some are as you describe, some not. We need to discriminate more carefully between these widely varying peoples with their plethora of reasons for leaving their homelands.