The reality of thousands of migrants flooding into Europe is almost daily news in 2015, both in the mainstream and social media.
Until now it is pretty much the southern European countries close to the coast of Libya who are bearing the brunt of the influx, although even many of
the migrants don't want to stay there, and would prefer to move to more prosperous European countries.
Currently there are very divergent views in Europe, and even different classes of migrants and refugees.
Of course, one can totally understand more right-leaning fears about so many people arriving in a human flood that is virtually forcing an open-door
policy and a free-for-all, and that criminals or terrorists are amongst the migrants, or that so many people cannot integrate successfully, but will
simply bring their religious wars, ideologies and habits to Europe.
To some it seems like an invasion.
Those to the left argue that that because Europe had colonialism and has taken resources from some countries, they owe it to all these people to
resettle in Europe as easily as possible.
I don't quite buy that argument, since Europeans never settled in West African countries in significant numbers (they were considered the white mans
grave); the oil industry, for example, is providing some jobs in those countries, and Europe did not create the ideologies of waring Islamic sects,
nor the greed and corruption of African or Islamic dictators in these regions.
In fact, many countries and ideologies are responsible for these migrants, and many are exploiting Africa (like China economically, or disruptive
Jihadist propaganda sponsored by rich Arab states) and should help to pay or have their assets frozen until migrants from their regions or ideologies
are self-sufficient in Europe.
Watch the flood stop very quickly, if responsibility is equally shared along with equal rights, and Europe stops enabling misrule.
I'd even say the same from South Africa, where Robert Mugabe should be billed or have his assets stripped until he personally pays for Zimbabwean
refugees and their cost to the local taxpayer, especially regarding education or health-care (until they become self-sufficient personal income
In fact, the last thing one wants is the xenophobic violence we've seen in South Africa since 2008, when the local population feels totally
I recently saw a German documentary on the refugee situation in that country spilling over from Italy.
It described quite a complex situation, and it followed mainly "deserving" migrants with desirable skills (like doctors or engineers) who posed no
terror threat, and who would integrate easily.
One was an Afghan man who worked as interpreter for the US during the war, and now faced execution as a spy from the Taliban.
Deserving yes, but why did the US just abandon these people, and Europe must pay?
Send the bill to the USA!
That's a whole issue on it's own, for which mainly the US must take responsibility.
However, I'm more concerned about the highly-skilled workers.
Europe does need certain skills, especially in health-care and engineering.
So goes the left-leaning argument, and if they arrived via legal channels that's quite correct.
Every country allows controlled immigration on that basis.
(Although none of the people in the documentary had their qualifications proven.)
But my question is then, what happens to those countries where skilled people are fleeing from?
Who will rebuild Syria if all the doctors and engineers are gone when their war should ever end?
Isn't that another form of resource theft?
Should one rather say they can stay until it is safe to go home, and then send them back?
That's what happened to Angolan refugees in South Africa when the war ended in that country.
But then many already had local families, and had integrated, and it was inhumane.
I'm not against controlled immigration, but especially for people to just pitch from some countries because they cannot run themselves or their
reproductive habits is unacceptable.
In that case such countries should ask for the "white man's burden" and the colonies back, instead of going to Europe because of socialist and
Islamist failures (I doubt Europe would oblige in any case).
Simply eventually resettling entire regions in Europe is however just another form of begging for the "white man's burden" back, no matter how one
looks at it.
Well, in South Africa it was already an argument a while back that Britain and Europe should stop recruiting all our sorely needed nurses and
Or should economic pull factors (much higher salaries and better working conditions) decide who gets what skills?
It's probably a catch-22, but the current argument that skilled immigrants are good for Europe is very illiberal towards poor countries who need those
skills, and entire war-torn countries that will need reconstruction.
What do others think of the conundrum?
The skilled labor must stay argument - liberal or just further theft of resources?
(Incidentally, I'm sure many of those in the German documentary ended up staying, they just ended up with some temporary discomfort, but hey that's
what happens when you just pitch uninvited.)
edit on 13-5-2015 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)
edit on 13-5-2015 by
halfoldman because: (no reason given)