Around the topic of the migrants crisis there have been many
falsehoods, but the chief one I believe from the British point of view is that
we already take in too many asylum seekers, when in reality a mere 3,000 have
entered compared to 10,000 taken in by Sweden and an estimated 20,000 by
Germany. Compassion rather selfishness should be guiding this debate, yet unfortunately
much of the discourse around this has centred on the latter.
Of course, there is no simple fix for this, but we have two un-ideal
choices in this debate. We either do the inhumane thing and leave the migrants
either in poor conditions as Australia have done, or we allow them the chance to
assimilate and live a life so drastically superior to the one they previously had,
whether in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan or Eritrea. Anyone born in the U.K. or most Western
countries are, relatively speaking, lucky to have been so. Where we are born is
of course, a genetic lottery and our odds of being born in such a place were
slim. We could have been born in a country at war, a country in a more primitive
age such as much of Europe was in the Middle Ages, or born in one lacking the
infrastructure we so heavily rely on. Those who were not so lucky have just as
much of a right to be here as anyone really, although practical considerations
of course deny this from being possible. Yet someone who leaves a place such as
Eritrea and travels a both arduous and likely dangerous journey is somehow
denied by people who feel they are entitled to leave in a country with
similarly lucky people. That is not fair in my view. We really ought to realise
this is no one person’s country, but a place as many people as practically
possible should be welcomed to so they too can excel here. In any of these
immigrants or their children may be the cure for cancer or diplomatic
capabilities few else have, yet only by letting them in and allowing them to
benefit from a highly developed country can these chances be maximized.
That is not to say I do not sympathise with those who have
legitimate concerns about pressure on resources which may come as a result of
the vast increase in the number of asylum seekers I am proposing, however we
must be wary this does not become a racist fear of what people deem “other” or
different to them. Many of those who do suggest we essentially ignore these
desperate migrants, whether asylum seekers or economic migrants, appear to lack
any sense of common compassion with those suffering, which Akala, in my view,
rightly attributes to racism in part, saying the 700 who drowned in the Mediterranean
“were they white human beings, they certainly wouldn’t have been called
cockroaches”. Again, I’m not accusing all those concerned about immigration of
racism, but there appears to be a fear of the non-English speaking people,
whether they be Polish, Syrian, Iraqi or otherwise which persists less so in the
discussion of Australian, American or Canadian immigrants.
A mere 7% of British land is built upon, so the ridiculous
argument of “we are full” really should stop being made. If Germany’s and
France’s small towns can welcome and cope with immigrants then so can Britain’s,
with many desolate buildings and factories available for re-conversion for the
short-term. If Britain let in, for example, 10,000 migrants in a few months,
would the country fall apart? No. The case has been made that many of these
migrants are children so would create difficulty in terms of school spaces, but
that can be sorted out given time, while in the meantime they could be taught
in individual facilities as they get to grips with their new country. These
problems are not the huge, insurmountable challenges some have claimed they
are, essentially those who are advancing it are claiming we should let others
suffer rather than British-born children have slightly larger classes. That is
the sort of selfishness I see from many who agree with my right-of-centre views
on many others. Central to this issue is humanity; those migrants need the sort
of help Britain has for far too long been reluctant to give.
Primarily, compassion for these immigrants should guide our
discourse and views on this subject, not merciless selfishness. Of course those
coming from overseas should not be allowed into the UK or Europe as a whole
before some checks, but those who pose no threat deserve open armed welcomes. It
is of course our moral duty to share the wealthy first world countries (I would
add the likes of Japan, USA and Canada should take in more asylum seekers and
economic migrants too) and not ignore it as we did following the initial rush
of Syrian immigrants in 2012. We should remember how lucky we are to live in
one of humanity’s most widely developed civilisations in history where most
live the lives our ancestors and many people elsewhere could only dream of. We have
the opportunity to rectify our initially poor response to the migrants crisis
by both letting in our fair share of migrants and then welcoming those who have
endured hardship most of us could scarcely imagine.
