The row over what status should be given to the migrants at Calais (or indeed making their way across the Mediterranean and throughout Europe) is causing serious confusion for the UK general public. Our main stream media, particularly the left-leaning BBC, tend to favour applying ‘refugee’ status to all migrants, regardless of their origin, citing Syria and the war there as the main reason for their fleeing to Europe in the first place and appealing to the public’s ‘humanity’ to take in all who come our way.
This is false, without any doubts. Whilst some are certainly Syrians, the majority moving north to Calais are coming from Eritrea and Pakistan – countries with no war or direct persecution to warrant refugee status. If we apply refugee status to all of these migrants, then we must apply the same to everyone fleeing a regime that differs from our own.
Certainly Eritrea isn’t a country most of us would wish to live in, it is governed by a single party dictator and would be strict (harsh even) in the treatment of their citizens. The government is very private, though there are many Western countries citing Human Rights abuses, but these are no worse than the majority of African countries (take Zimbabwe for example).
Eritrea is a military state, has been since Independence in 1993, with one of the largest standing armies in North Africa. All Eritreans must also serve 18 months National Service, with 6 months military training and 12 months assisting with infrastructure building, but this is hardly ‘persecution’. FGM is a problem in Eritrea, though they have banned the practice since 2007.
Eritrea is almost 50% Christian, 50% Muslim, causing some religious division internally – though this is held together with the usual tyranny of such African states.
The economy of Eritrea has been growing fast for the past few years, with an ever-increasing share from ‘remittances from abroad’. Growth has been running at 14% (2011 est.) and the country is set to further grow after increasing Gold, Silver and Cement production.
Left-wing UK media, such as the Guardian, would have us compare Eritrea to North Korea and classify every migrant originating from Eritrea as a refugee, yet most of Africa’s recent history is peppered with countries & states who have little or no regard for Human Rights as we see them in the ‘West’.
Pakistan is the 36th largest country in the world, the 6th most populous, with a population exceeding 209 million. Pakistan is a Federal Islamic State and has had a steady stream of immigrants coming to the UK for many years.
Another rapidly growing economy, Pakistan is on target to become a major world economy, making me wonder why so many are migrating throughout Europe to settle in the UK.
Pakistan is under-developed in areas, has constant tensions with India (particularly over Kashmir) and the links between the Pakistani Security Services and Islamic Terrorism are long-standing.
Osama Bin Laden was found to be living in Pakistan and the US sent a team in, without the co-operation of Pakistan authorities, resulting in the death of Al Qaeda’s most prominent figure-head.
All that said, if we automatically apply refugee status to everyone migrating from Pakistan, then we may apply it to anyone moving anywhere.
The war in Syria has been dragging on for over 4 years now, with many dead and millions displaced. Whilst we can sympathise with the left-wing position in the UK and with the plight of these people, one has to ask why the UK should take them in?
We had a vote in the UK parliament on whether or not to become militarily involved in the Syrian conflict, but the Labour Party under Ed Miliband decided to vote down any action (after supporting it and agreeing to support it initially). To now expect the UK population to house, feed and clothe the fallout from that momentous decision is ironic at best.
The lack of commitment to militarily intervene in Syria, the arming of rebel groups and the general hands-off policy adopted towards Syria, compounded with the withdrawal of troops from Iraq allowed the growth of ISIS, so we are partly to blame for the brutal regime which now causes mayhem in the Middle East.
The geographical distance between Syria and the UK is immense, so why are these ‘refugees’ not being homed in neighbouring countries, particularly Muslim countries with vast wealth (Saudi Arabia, etc.)?
The questions which need answered are laid out below:
How can the UK, given our own economic problems and austerity-esque cuts being applied, afford to fund taking in any significant quantities of these migrants? Even 10,000 at a very conservative estimate of £20,000pa total benefits, would set us back £200m per annum.
We can argue until blue in the face over the ‘net benefit’ of immigration to the UK, but these people are arriving with little other than the clothes they stand up in, without any job prospects, so they will become an instant drain on the UK Welfare State.
Once ‘settled’ in the UK, are they then permitted to send for their family? Are they entitled to send money ‘home’ to their families, either through earnings or benefit claims for children abroad?
We had immigration of over 800,000 last year, with net migration of over 330,000. This takes no account of the illegals sneaking into the UK via Calais to operate in the ‘black economy’, so we can assume the figures are under-estimated.
If we continue to increase our population in this fashion, how can we expect our Hospitals, Schools, Housing, Transport, Welfare, etc. to cope with these increased numbers? Apart from the pittance of income tax potentially paid by those who do find work, there will never be enough capital finance available to build the additional schools, hospitals or houses needed to keep pace with the numbers demanding.
Paying of people smugglers
If all of these migrants are to be classified as ‘refugees’, then surely we have to question the money they have given to people smugglers to get them to their final destination? If a person can afford a few thousand Euros to pay their way, surely they are not fleeing the abject poverty we see on a daily basis throughout Africa and sections of Asia?
Surely the money they have given to smugglers would ensure a comfortable life for themselves and their families in poorer, undeveloped countries such as their own?
The vast majority of migrants coming across the Mediterranean or converging on Calais (to illegally bust into the UK) are military-aged males. Certainly there are some youths and women, but these are a serious minority.
This raises the question – where are their families? If we were fleeing persecution or war, surely we would take our wives & children with us, rather than leave them totally unprotected?
Could it be that they intend to ‘send for’ these families, once they have settled? If this is the case, then we are looking at economic migrants, pure and simple.
We already have a problem in the UK with regards to Pakistani men and sexual abuse. Grooming gangs have been operating with impunity cross the UK, in places like Rotherham, Rochdale, Oxford, Bradford, Birmingham, etc.
To simply allow Pakistani migrants to cross Europe, enter the UK via Calais unfettered, without the proper checks being done – surely we are going to add to this problem? We seem to value the ‘diversity’ being offered (claims made regularly by Left-Wing politicians and their supporters) more than the lives of indigenous young girls throughout the UK.
We have seen examples of the crimes being committed by these migrants in the drowning of 12 Christians who were simply thrown off a boat by Muslims in the Mediterranean. This story was initially publicised, then never mentioned again by any of the mainstream media.
The brutal gang-rape of a young UK journalism student at a migrant camp in Calais is a sign we have to perform some sort of control and checks on our borders, otherwise we are inviting rapists into our country.
Nobody is suggesting that all of the migrants at Calais are criminals and rapists, but nobody has any idea what is there – these are not simply families fleeing persecution.
The fact that they are happy to enter the UK illegally or to violently protest when not being given priority status in Europe should raise some eyebrows as to the general lawlessness of these migrants.
If anyone thinks that millions of migrants, the vast majority of which are Muslim and Male, are travelling to the West without some level of infiltration from ISIS or other terrorist organisations then surely they are being completely naïve?
We also have no idea of the political or religious ‘leanings’ of these migrants, so we can assume there will be many ISIS sympathisers among them. Many polls have shown support for ISIS among the existing British Muslim population, so to expect anything different from the migrants is foolish at best.
We have to assume that, since the vast majority of migrants invading Europe at present are military-aged men that some of these men will have been involved in some of the recent wars throughout Africa and the Middle East.
Can we be certain that we are not inviting war criminals who are guilty of the almost daily atrocities committed on the continent of Africa? Surely those being persecuted the most would be less likely to have the means (financial or otherwise) to pay for their passage to Europe via the people smugglers?
Why the UK?
One of the most asked questions with regards to the migrant crisis amongst the UK general public is why the UK?
If, as is being stated by Guardianistas & BBC loons, these people are fleeing persecution in their own country – why are they not settling instantly in the first ‘safe’ country they arrive at? Why travel throughout Africa and the Middle East, via Libya, to Southern Europe and then make the horrendous journey north to Calais to gain entry (illegally) to the UK?
Surely, if a person is fleeing for their life, they would be satisfied the moment they set foot on the soil of a free Europe?
Whilst this is a conversation which is politically toxic (think Farage during General Election debates), we cannot ignore the sheer number of HIV/AIDS cases that we would be importing into the UK from African countries. Already 60% of cases in the UK are foreign-born, but Africa is still rife with HIV, so we can safely assume a proportion of the migrants trying to enter the UK are HIV-positive.
HIV-positive cases cost approx £20,000 per annum for medicine, so any large increase will automatically place a drain on our already-struggling NHS. Whilst nobody would wish to refuse medicine or health care for anyone, realistically our NHS cannot cope with a large influx of expensive medicine bills.
I’ve only touched on HIV here, what other tropical diseases will be carried into the UK? We used to have strict controls on dogs to ensure we eliminated rabies from the UK – how can we possibly eradicate or prevent any disease when we have up to 1.5 million illegal migrants in the UK and many thousands more trying to enter daily?
With hundreds of thousands of migrants moving en masse north, through Europe, on an annual basis and with these figures increasing year-on-year, at what stage do we call a halt?
If we continually house & settle migrants, surely this sends the wrong message to others and this will add to the numbers. If we do not deal with the problem at source and halt this flow, we will have a population displacement which can only harm the demographics of North Africa and the Middle East.
We already source many nurses, doctors and professionals from Asia, the Middle East and Africa – if we now permit their working-age male population to leave en masse, what does this leave these countries with in terms of working population? Are we allowing this mass movement of people to add to the problems of poorer nations?
I already penned an article on the Mediterranean Migrant Crisis, detailing the only solution which will work long-term to halt this problem. If we simply allow our media to convince our own population that these are poor refugees, convincing them we need to take in all who ask, then surely we will have problems down the line once our own economy begins to suffer as a result.
To allow the free movement of labour is one thing – but to permit totally open and unchecked borders is reckless in the extreme.