Asylum: Britain must not be blackmailed

By Pete North - September 2, 2020

Around the web lately there are plenty of handwringing articles from the left about the use of language in the immigration debate. The “far right” are calling the migrant surge an “invasion”.

Of course it isn’t an invasion but what we are seeing is highly deliberate. Europe has a duty of rescue and a duty of care to minors. This is why so many unaccompanied children (91% male) are sent. It is an attempt to exploit the inherent compassion of the system – and to an extent, German holocaust guilt.

These children face psychological distress, remain outside of formal education, and are vulnerable to exploitation. Many of the child migrants, allegendy 75%) have already been subjected to forced labor and prostitution. Little wonder then that we are seeing young migrant men with mental health problems committing serious violent crimes.

As a response, UN officials have called on the EU to create “protection corridors” for children migrants fleeing to Europe. Though there is a compelling desire for compassion, it is precisely that compassion that leads to more of the same. For as long as Europe accepts unaccompanied children, families in poor countries will continue to send them.

One of the reasons this continues is an aid NGOcracy that doesn’t see why migration has to be controlled. As Paul Collier in his book, Refuge: rethinking refugee policy in a changing world, points out, the mindset is one of utilitarian universalism – the greatest good for the greatest numbers. A simplistic dogma I have often called spreadsheet sociopathy which disregards wider ethical issues.

The NGOcracy thus advises governments that instead of acting to prevent migrant flows, the challenge is to change public narratives – ie put a positive spin on it, while subjecting us to a sustained barrage of emotive images. Blackmail.

Being that they think they are the good guys, less is said of the perverse incentives created by allowing economic migrants to succeed. People smuggling is a lucrative business, as is passport fraud, and with so much competition between gangs the price competition has brought the costs down considerably, thus making it even more accessible.

In any case we are looking at migration from middle income families from north Africa, piggy-backing on the refugee flows from Syria and elsewhere, with a view to exploiting the weaknesses in asylum systems. The only way authorities can be assured of providing refuge to genuine refugees is to take them directly from camps near to conflict areas. Since this is what we do, there is no moral case for allowing the dinghies at Dover. This is a vast criminal enterprise and much be treated as such.

As Collier notes, people seeking refuge are not fleeing poverty. They are fleeing danger. Out basic obligation is to provide some form of sanctuary against danger but we cannot realistically shelter the world’s poor. We can take some, but not all, and for that there must be a fair system. Those seeking to subvert that system must not be allowed to succeed. This is why bogus asylum seekers entering illegally must not be allowed to work. Caving in creates further incentives.

What’s not surprising is how little the NGOcracy has learned since 2016. The kind of radicalism they propose, albeit in a mealy mouthed way, relies entirely on public consent. Without that consent you get Trump and Brexit. Yet still, they use they power through the insitituions to weave the narrtives necessry to enable further mass immigration.

This is not without consequence. As Collier writes, European welfare systems are built on a sense of common identity between lower and upper income groups, and the more this is eroded by immigration, the less tolerance there is for redistributive policies. In other words you can have a welfare state or you can have mass immigration. You can’t have both. The trotskyite left haven’t realised this but the ultra libertarians have which is why they want open borders.

Being that Britain will never consent to this, it does point to the need for an enhanced burden sharing agreement between European nations. Such may be unpopular but it at least buys the moral authority to come down hard on people smugglers and deport the abusers. If we are to give refuge then we must define a minimum standard of welfare and a quota but stick to it so that the influx can be managed and welfare standards are maintained.

If we depart from this and bow to left wing bleeding hearts then all we do is lower overall welfare standards and increase waiting times for asylum decisions. The system is already creaking and unsustainable.

If, though, we are to find common solutions, the NGO has to recognise that calling the people who pay their wages ignorant and racist is only going to harden resolve. The system as is has a limited absorptive capacity, as does society as a whole. The more numerous and rapid the influx, the greater the social inequality and instability – and the greater prevalence of criminal activity from young redundant males.

Games can be played with statistics to downplay the impact but this ignores the fact that the UK has experienced decades of immigration yet to be fully integrated, and has stored up a battery of problems for the future as we slide into a Brexvid depression.

Hostility to immigration will continue to be a feature of British politics until such time the left recognises that the is a democratic demand for a fair, controlled immigration system. For as long as the Labour party is in thrall to its far left extremes who consider all borders as fundamentally racist lines on a map, they can expect to remain in opposition for eternity. If there is a fear that Labour will do a Merkel and fling open the doors, their chances of election are nil.