A World of Refugees: A straightforward migration

Canada Free Press/ Daniel Greenfield

The old paradigm that a country has the right to decide who enters it has been decisively overturned in Europe, it’s under siege in such first world countries as America, Canada, Australia and Israel by the creed that says it’s the human rights obligation of every nation to accept every refugee.

Given a chance, a sizable portion of the third world would move to the first, a minority because of oppression and a majority because the opportunities and freebies are much better there. Even low ranked first-world nations still find themselves swamped with refugees looking to move in. 

International law does not assign any priority to a nation’s citizens over any person who happens to stray across the border. At the ground level that means the end of borders and the end of citizenship, which is why immigration isn’t just a touchy issue in Arizona, it’s a touchy issue in Sydney, Tel Aviv and Birmingham. You can hardly open a newspaper of the liberal persuasion without being treated to another group of refugees in some troubled part of the world walled up behind fences and trying to get over to London, Sydney or New York.

This sort of thing can’t be called immigration anymore, it’s a straightforward migration and it has no apparent limits. However many you take in, there will be more waiting and always burdening you with an unsolvable crisis.

One approach is to try and stabilize whatever crisis they are supposedly escaping from. Too many Libyans running away to Italy? Just bomb their dictator and they’ll go home again. At least that’s the theory, it doesn’t work too well in practice. For one thing, Libya is more dangerous and unstable than it was under Gaddafi. Stabilizing it would require an Iraq-level investment of money and manpower, and Iraq isn’t stable either. And London is still full of Iraqi refugees dating back to the 1980’s.  More >>