As could be expected, the clearing of the Calais jungle has not been a very huge success. While about 3000 migrants “voluntarily” agreed to being bused to other parts of France (helped by a few hundred flics) as many as 5000 stayed in the camp (all figures according to the Express).
And that’s not even counting those who in the meantime have relocated to other camps along the coast of France and Flanders, e.g. Sangatte.
I would have liked to add the cartoon characters but that’d get Bob into trouble.
Also, parking lots for lorries have become a huge attraction to the more agile young men who have set their minds on reaching Britain at any cost. So instead of haunting the motorway that leads to the channel tunnel, they now spook lorry drivers in Belgium while the latter are trying to enjoy a well-earned rest before their final running of the gauntlet on the way to Britain the next day.
The refugee crisis is of course entirely man (and woman) made. Whether its making is intentional or not is neither here nor there but one thing is certain: it is entirely avoidable. It has been brought to us by open borders “activists” and per the EU’s Schengen agreement. People in Europe did this – not any old war in the Mid East alone.
What with free moment and all: it’s now in a day’s work to hop on a bus in Calais and hop off in Belgium without so much as waving a passport at anybody. And after a brisk and refreshing walk to the next service station further transport arrangements can be made. Quite illegally and without the lorry drivers’ due knowledge of course, lest they be fined upon their arrival in Dover.
Now, everybody knows this has been going on for a while and will continue to go on in future if none of the pull-factors are eliminated in order to make migrating to Britain less attractive. I for one can empathise with any person wanting to better their life but when I’m made to pay for their aspirations becoming a reality, the buck must stop somewhere. Setting aside the ridiculous pretence that all these eager young men are children, migrants largely fall into four groups:
Children. This is how they look like.
Note: they’re quite, quite tiny. About the height of two corgis stacked on top of each other.
Group 1. The truly needy cases. They might exist, after all. Maybe not in the jungle of Calais (population now 5000) but somewhere along the Channel coast in France there may be the odd Syrian Christian or Kurdish asylum seeker who cannot return to his or her country on threat of death (at least for the time being). Quantification would be guess work but people, shall we say “close to the scene”, estimate them at between five and ten percent of all migrants. People in this group are legitimately entitled to help.
Group 2. The aspirational mid-class. Make no mistake: although the BBC would have you believe it, not all of Syria and all of Iraq are at war at once. And half of Africa and India aren’t either. There are still parts of the world that function quite normally. But normal people understandably get tired of having their lives disrupted by the vagaries of war and bad governance. So, they move. And to move, they need money. And money they have – which they pay to people we call people smugglers. Now, if you can afford to pay somewhere between five and ten thousand GBP for services rendered, you are not one of the neediest cases in your old country. In fact, you’re quite wealthy.
Assuming the pound in Syria or Iraq buys you five to ten times the amount of things that it buys you in Britain, you are quite rich if you can spare five or ten thousand pound in Syria or Iraq. This can’t be held against these people and it’s all too understandable them wanting to better their lives. But realistically: what are these nice mid-class people going to do in Britain, or any other country that is remotely “First World”? How many more taxi drivers do we need? Because whatever qualification in law or the sciences these people can muster (and I suppose there are not very many gender studies graduates amongst them) their certificates are bound to be quite useless in this, i.e. the real world. Not least of all because qualified professions are highly regulated businesses here.
As for the prevalence of his group I’d say between 10 or 15%. Call me an optimist.
Group 3. The residual category makes up between 80 or 90% so isn’t a residual category at all but the mainstream, whereas the first two groups are in reality more or less fringe phenomena nested in the mass of young men waiting in “refugee” camps all around Europe now. They have no qualms in stating their ambition: getting to Britain (or Germany or Sweden) because of the money being handed out in these generous social democracies (of course the social democrats, i.e. Labour, don’t hand out their own monies but yours and mine but that’s a story for another day).
Now a funny thing happens: although the migrants – once you speak to them – tell you quite frankly and many times over that they want to go to Britain because of the money, we are being told that they “really” come because they’re persecuted in their country and that anyway we are to blame for their sorry state and now shut up or else you bigoted person. Something is clearly lost in translation, I dare say, apart from the loss in courtesy.
Terrorists. Such a fun loving lot.
Ups, I’d almost forgotten Group 4. This is where the fun begins. They’re all those peace-loving rocket scientists and Islamist co-operatives who embedded themselves in the migrant masses from Iraq and the Levant because that mad woman in Germany couldn’t keep her cake hole shut when it mattered most. Well thanks Angie, thanks so much. The people in this group are notoriously hard to quantify and people on the Continent are very lucky about A) the operatives of Group 4 being not exceedingly smart (for now) and B) the occasional tip-off from “foreign services”.
It’s surely a tiny minority but even at one or two percent there’d still be ten or twenty thousand of them on the Continent now. And most of us can still remember what ten of them did in Paris and three of them in Brussels. Well it’s a small price to pay for the lefties feeling doubleplusgood about themselves, I reckon.
Of course, a moral case can be made for helping people who have fallen on hard times through no fault of their own. And it must be made. But if you leave your home in Syria and can afford to pay a people smuggler thousands of pounds you are A) not very needy and B) you have brought it upon yourself. This obviously applies to the people in group 2 and group 3.
And while provisions could be made for accepting talents needed (from group 2), we must also realise that the huge majority of migrants are unlikely to be a financial success in their host country but will put further strains on a public purse and services paid for via taxes. Especially, once migrants set their minds on “family reunification”. And it does make you wonder how they only ever miss their relatives once they’ve made it to some affluent part of Europe.
But let’s get back to the moral case for one last time. It could be argued, that nobody is entitled to any other man’s or woman’s property. What rightfully belongs to you, must be respected by the law. The fruits of your labour are meant to be yours and yours alone. Not anyone can lay his or her hand on something that doesn’t belong to him (or her). And it’s all fine and dandy with being generous towards people in genuine need but above and beyond the call of duty charity should A) be up to anyone’s individual choosing and B) begin at home.
Even the Hebrews of the Ten Commandments – though odd and old-fashioned as this may sound – a few thousand years ago felt an urge to state that no one ought to covet another person’s “house or wife or oxen”.
There is a natural limit to one’s generosity (though one might call the 10th the least important commandment). And you don’t have to believe in God to believe in this idea either. Atheists could probably claim the limit to their generosity is unalienable. Meaning: you don’t have to be generous in a way that is harmful to yourself.
Marxists and socialists would of course deny this as their ideology “entitles” them to being generous with something they don’t own. Here’s what Marxism tells its adherents: to steal the whole day long, with the help of the state. And sometimes, they steal everybody’s future.
Dear NYT: I don’t like you either.
There may be a very good moral case to be argued for refusing to help people if – or as we must now assume: when – helping them puts ourselves in danger. Personally, I think that the events over the past one or two years have made it abundantly clear that this point has been reached. A change of tack is urgently required:
stop operating a taxi service in the Med.
return boat people to their countries of origin.
continue cracking down on people smugglers.
refuse entry at border crossings to illegals.
stop benefit payments and housing benefits to illegals.
require photo ID for NHS services.
These simple measures could make Britain (or any other “First World” country) a whole lot less desirable for unqualified migrants.
And then of course it could be argued that if the EU stopped paying generous subsidies to French farmers for doing fuck all squared there’d be much better prospects for the agrarian industries of Africa on the world market. But that clearly is for another day.
While combatants wrestle over potential outcomes of the Brexit debate, we should recognise the part played in all these shenanigans by fear, borne of uncertainty. Many warnings against the dire consequences of leaving the EU [more…]