Migrants 3
Ethics & Morality

Calais migrants may not "break in" to Britain

 

It was an unfortunate, though, quite possibly, purposeful juxtaposition on the BBC News website. On the left, we read that dozens (actually thousands) of migrants are drowning in the Mediterranean as they flee violence, conflict and persecution in their home countries, hoping to walk to Calais and thence cross into the land flowing with milk and benefits. On the right, we read that David Cameron intends to ensure that the “swarm” of illegal immigrants cannot “break into Britain”, because the UK is already “taking its fair share of asylum seekers”, and the honey pot is empty. Ergo the callous Prime Minister is leaving the terrorised and traumatised to perish in a watery grave, basically because we’ve fulfilled our national quota of welcoming huddled masses of humanity, who must now seek security and cornflakes in another land.

Sometimes compassion must trump politics. Yes, of course, the very expression of compassion may be an acutely political act, especially on the run-up to a general election. But the political mind that thinks in terms of cost or quotas while children are bobbing up and down in the Med is not a mind that’s inclined toward mercy.

Forget, for a moment, the “hordes” of unknown Calais migrants and refugees who are so desperate to escape the “cesspit” that they’d rather cling to trucks or high-speed trains and chance their lives on a prayer – you know who, whatchamacallit and whatsisname. Consider, instead, the boy named Hamed. His parents dead, suffering himself from exposure and hypothermia, we either pick him out of the water or leave him to slip beneath it. We know what and how he suffered:

“When they told us that we had to go on to that other boat, we refused because we’d doubtless have finished up at the bottom of the sea,” he said. “At that point, the traffickers.. rammed us, smashing the bows and we all finished up in the sea.”

“We were asking for help and about to drown, and they were watching us as if they were in a cinema.”

“A lot of us, myself included, did not know how to swim. I’d never seen the sea before. Seven or eight of us clung to a lifebelt, but as time went by a lot of them didn’t make it and only two of us – I and another lad, a compatriot who was wearing a life jacket – were left. Then he disappeared too. Others were clinging to little bits of wood and the current carried them away. For many hours – I don’t know how many – we remained in the water in those conditions..

We have a choice: we can either recline on the sunny deck of our luxury yacht, nibbling at syrupy strawberries and sipping Bollinger while Hamed goes under for the third time, or we can extend an arm, bring him aboard, wrap him in blanket, fill his belly and wipe away his tears. Or perhaps there’s another option: leave it to someone else – Italy or Greece or someone – because Britain is already “taking its fair share of asylum seekers”.

What nature conspires to cynicism and impartiality when faced with a drowning child? What moral outlook reasons that these impostors can flee for refuge if they want, but not at my expense? Do we not inhabit and are we not heirs to the infinite riches and wealth of the kingdom of Christ, or are we just citizens of a vast, amoral, impersonal, monolithic social structure, whose capacity to absorb has been reached, and whose quota of compassion is fulfilled?

It is an inner weakness to plead incapacity in the face of human responsibility. We save and liberate because we love, not because we can afford to. It is a false value and a repellent moral code which ramps up the rhetoric in preference to binding up wounds and healing the brokenhearted.

Thou shalt neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt‘ (Ex 22:21).

Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction..‘ (Js 1:27).

A father of the fatherless, and a judge of the widows, is God in his holy habitation’ (Ps 68:5).

Pray God that you who turn a blind eye are never forced to sit by the rivers of Babylon, weeping for Zion, singing the Lord‘s song in a strange land. Forgotten, abandoned and tormented, there is no hospitality or compassion: the quota has been fulfilled.

  • Terry Mushroom

    Mary & Joseph and their child were refugees, of course.

    • skeetstar

      Indeed they were, and they subsequently returned home. None of the migrants crossing the med will ever plan to return to their ancestral lands.

      • Terry Mushroom

        In fact they didn’t return home to Judea as they were afraid to go there because Archelaus had succeeded his father, Herod, who’d caused them to flee in the first place. Instead they left for the region of Galilee.

        • The Explorer

          But they did return to their own country when they could.

          • Terry Mushroom

            Doubtless those who are fleeing from violence, conflict and persecution want to go home too.

          • Sam

            Peter Hitchens explains all in the daily mail:

            “The founder of the Christian church was not actually a guerrilla fighter or a Russell Brand-type demagogue. He had nothing against people obeying laws or fulfilling their obligations. I’d say, rather the opposite.

            He was himself a genuine refugee, hiding in Egypt from the real, murderous wrath of Herod. But when the danger was past, his family didn’t settle in Egypt but returned home.

            Nowhere in the Beatitudes did Jesus say ‘Blessed are the queue-jumpers’, trying to gain an advantage at the expense of others. This is what the people at Calais are.

            They are not prepared to apply for asylum or seek visas and work permits in the normal way. Their actions make people in this country less willing to grant any asylum, or to welcome any migration.

            They force their way into lorries and trains, or break down a lawfully constructed fence, sometimes clutching drawn knives as they do so. Many destroy their passports so that the truth about their origins and claims can never be proved. Why precisely is it Christian to endorse this behaviour?

            As the Left-wing media have rightly been pointing out, only quite a small share of the migrants arriving in Europe from Africa and elsewhere actually end up at Calais. They are already out of danger (if they were ever in it) and have chosen to be there”

          • Terry Mushroom

            I fully accept that some/many may be chancers/economic migrants or criminals. However, I’d like more assurance than the Daily Mail can give me that all are.
            From personal experience, I know how difficult it is for genuine refugees to trust Border Guards and Police because of their previous appalling experiences.

        • skeetstar

          Terry , Luke ch1 v26′ they went home to their original abode in galilee. They were only in Judea for the Roman census.

          • Terry Mushroom

            True, of course. I missed that. But you have to justify how you know that “none” of the migrants crossing the med ever plan to return to their homes.

            For myself, I suspect there is a mixture of motives, some good, some bad. This is an EU wide challenge. Or else, as Janet Daley asked in the Telegraph, what’s it for?

          • skeetstar

            Terry, upi are right I don’t and cannot know the intent of each of the would be migrants, but I would be amazed if it could be shown that even one one in ten planned to return home. Yes it is a EU wide challenge one that is manifestly not being addressed.

            As to motives, I cannot criticise anyone for wanting a better life in the west, but I do not feel any obligation whatsoever to facilitate their efforts to achieve it. Quite the opposite. However genuine asylum seekers, as opposed to economic migrants, are a different case, one which merits a much different approach,

    • Jon Sorensen

      C’mon. They were not refugees.

      • The Explorer

        Why not? I think we need some definitions here.

      • Terry Mushroom

        Fleeing because your ruler intends to kill your child makes them refugees in my book. They certainly weren’t economic migrants.

        • Jon Sorensen

          Mary & Joseph when from Galilee to Judea with no intention to migrate. Got in to trouble and went back to home. That is not being a refugees. They did not leave their country in order to escape war, persecution, or natural disaster.

          • Terry Mushroom

            You split a fine hair. Killing all the male children under two years old in Bethlehem and the surrounding experience was hardly a nice thing to do

          • Jon Sorensen

            Sure, They have bad time away from home and then they went back home. Some Christians just want to make Jesus and his family what they were not.

  • Martin

    Are they refugees from “violence, conflict and persecution” or are they economic migrants who’ve been told the streets of the UK are paved with gold?

  • Malcolm Smith

    The reason people are drowning at sea is because the Europeans allow the people smugglers to put them on boats in the first place. Europe is a magnet; people try to get in because they know they can. The more you let in, the more will drown at sea trying to get in. Yet need to stop the drownings the way we did it in Australia: stop the boats!. Halt them on the high seas. Scuttle them and put the passengers on a naval life vessel and tow them within sight of shore and let them go with just enough fuel to get there. Ensure that anybody who actually reaches Europe will never be allowed to settle there. It’s tough, but it’s the only way. Otherwise, I suggest you read a prophetic novel by Raspail entitled, The Camp of the Saints.

    • Anton

      Vile book. But otherwise I agree with you.

  • The Explorer

    An historical peculiarity has occurred to me.

    Colonialism was a great evil. Everybody said so. Fortunately, the colonialists saw the error of their ways, and withdrew. Quite a long time ago. Long enough ago for the victim nations to have recovered the prosperous self-sufficiency they had enjoyed before they were invaded by the colonial powers.

    It is thus an extraordinary twist of fate that descendants of the victims of colonialism should now be seeking entry to the very continent that spawned colonialism in the first place. You would think it the last place they would wish to be.

    It is most curious.

    • Sam

      Dude

      The more I think about it, the better off the world would be if the empires were still here. The other day I was looking into what is left. Both the British and the French overseas territories have higher per capita GDPs than the surrounding independent countries and some bigger than the UK.

      E.g.

      [British ]Falkland islands : $35,400
      Ex Spanish colony of Argentina : $7,600

      Current British colony of Bermuda :$99,000
      Ex British colony ofJamaica: $4,750

      French Guiana: $8,300
      Nextdoor Ex British colony of Guyana : $1,500

      • The Explorer

        John Cleese’s “What have the Romans done for us?” may yet turn out to be the truest observation ever made about colonialism.

        • Sam

          Dude,

          The freest , best and “gayest” time as my great grandfather once wrote for my Iraqi Jewish ancestors was in the 1920s when Iraq was under British imperial rule , as Iraq was a British mandate (Jews being businessmen and the educated middle class were among those who built modern Iraq) .

          It went downhill after independence in the 1930s , culminating in the Farhud pogrom in the 1940s , when my grandparents decided to leave for British India, via Aden. The rest of the family were later forced to leave to Israel , being allowed one suitcase, as the situation got worse and Jews were humiliated , stripped of their citizenship and had their properties and businesses taken over.

          • The Explorer

            Before colonialism, Malaya didn’t have rubber. The British took it there, and transformed the economy.

          • chiefofsinners

            Today we have a new half-cocked colonialism. Instead of invading and staying we are invading, destroying what infrastructure and government there is, half rebuilding it, then leaving and watching it collapse. Then we wonder why the inhabitants want to come here. Arab spring we smugly called it. Looks like an Arab autumn now.

      • David

        Excellent point !

    • Dreadnaught

      Colonialism was a great evil. Everybody said so.
      This is kind of bollocks needs a slap in the face. Guilt tripping Brits on the legacy of the revisionist view of the past is contemptible. Hate yourself if you must – NOT Everybody agrees with you,

      • The Explorer

        I think you’re having problems with my use of irony again. For clarification: irony is saying the opposite of what you mean for satirical purposes.
        The thing is, if you have to explain that you are using irony, it rather defeats the purpose.

        • Inspector General

          Yes, he does have his sense of irony switched off today.

    • Anton

      Time for a repeat of the Monty Python sketch, only this time involving us rather than the Romans…

      “WHAT DID THE BRITISH EVER DO FOR US?”

      (A clue: railways, sewers, hospitals, schools…)

      • The Explorer

        As per my comment to Sam below.

        • Anton

          Yes, I saw it when I scrolled below. But also as per my comment on this blog several months ago.

    • Karma … perhaps it is a law of the universe. We reap what we sow.

    • The Explorer

      Irony-free version of above post.

      Liberals say colonialism was a bad thing. But think roads, railways, dams, reservoirs, irrigations systems, other agricultural improvements, clinics,hospitals. ‘Heart of Darkness’ showed the horrors of the Congo, but at least under the Belgians you could travel clear along the Congo River. Now you can’t.

      If colonialism as really such a bad thing, why are escapees from ex-colonies trying to get into the Europe from whence colonialism came? You would think they would want nothing to do with it.

    • Anna

      When cultures and civilizations meet, there is always an exchange of information and ideas, so good things come out of even darkest periods of history. But never was India so poor as under the British Raj. Since Independence, the Indian economy has been steadily improving, despite the high levels of corruption and mismanagement. The poverty today cannot be compared to the terrible poverty experienced by millions of Indians during the colonial period. As an old (and very poor) Harijan I once knew, put it, “No one is poor anymore!”

      So, while I understand your nostalgia for that period, please remember it was not always such blessing for those who had to live under it.

      “It is thus an extraordinary twist of fate that descendants of the victims of colonialism should now be seeking entry to the very continent that spawned colonialism in the first place.”

      When a country has been so thoroughly ruined, it sometimes takes a hundred years or longer for things to improve. There is no magic wand. Rebuilding takes time. People who have lived under an authoritarian system need time to find their way and build a stable society.

      Now lots of Indians have migrated to countries all over the world, mostly to find work and build better lives for their families. There is nothing wrong with this… it has been the way of human race. Many have returned in recent years as things have improved.

      I do hope you will be able to tackle your ‘immigrant problem’. I believe people moving to another country should respect the host culture, contribute to its well being and not undermine its society in any way. Sadly this does not always happen. You only need to study Indian history to understand that!

      • The Explorer

        Mind you, everybody’s richer than they were during the colonial period: including the British.

        • Anna

          i thought you were suggesting that former colonial nations have fallen to ruins once deprived of the benefit of the excellent rule and wonderful stewardship provided by the colonial masters. “…think roads, railways, dams, reservoirs, irrigation systems, other agricultural improvements, clinics,hospitals.”

          I was just trying to show you this was not always the case. I agree many (not everybody) are richer; probably the British, too. After all the colonialism meant numerous, costly wars, often subsidised by the colonies.

          • The Explorer

            I did say colonialism did much to improve infrastructure. I didn’t say all that infrastructure has collapsed since.
            Agreed, I did say the Congo River transport system had gone to ruin (which it has) and I concede the Congo was a bad example to have chosen. It was nightmarish under King Leopold (as I said) and has remained nightmarish since getting rid of the Belgians. But I didn’t say it was necessarily representative. Look at Singapore since independence.

            The poverty issue is paradoxical. In Victorian times, Britain was the richest country in the world. But conditions in the poor parts of the great cities were dreadful. Now Britain is only the seventh or eighth largest economy, but the standard of living for all is much higher than when Britain was Number One. That’s because of better sanitation, medical discoveries, transport, communications, better food etc.
            The same must go for India. But is that because you got rid of the British, or because of global scientific advances?

          • Anna

            When a country was considerably richer before colonial occupation, and grew wealthier after the colonialists graciously ‘withdrew’, I think the evidence is clear. As Nehru once pointed out, the degree of poverty and backwardness in an Indian state was directly proportional to the duration of occupation by the British. Longer under the British Raj, the poorer it grew.

            To this day, poorest and most backward Indian states (example – Bihar) are those formerly under the British Raj; the former princely states (example – Kerala) are wealthier, better educated and less corrupt.

            The average British person (who lives in the UK) is, I am sure, decent and well meaning; but the British Raj was set up by scoundrels (who went abroad) and an unmitigated evil.

          • The Explorer

            How about Mumbai? Wasn’t that under the British Raj? Isn’t it the richest city in India?
            I’ll accept your argument. The British should not have gone abroad; they should have stayed at home. Just as those abroad should stay where they are and not be coming to Britain.

          • Anna

            Mumbai, the richest city? Yes, and with the biggest slum in the world – another legacy of colonialism!

            “The British should not have gone abroad; they should have stayed at home…” but they did, didn’t they? So you should not be surprised that people all over the world will do the same.

            I think this discussion is getting a bit unpleasant, and would prefer to stop.

          • The Explorer

            That’s fine. Thank you for the conversation, and, despite our disagreement, the courteous fashion in which it was conducted.

  • The Explorer

    Thing is, Bollinger drinkers on luxury yachts could easily extend a helping hand while pointing the hordes with that same hand to a part of the country where they themselves don’t live. The Bollinger-drinking yacht owners won’t be the ones who have the new hordes living next door to them, making inevitable demands on housing, transport, and local surgeries, or filling classrooms with kids whose first language isn’t English.

  • Jack Smith

    Are we to keep on accommodating and tolerating until we are completely overwhelmed and the last traces of our society have been swept away in the tsunami? By encouraging limitless altruism, you are causing the end of Britain as we know it. Causing the obliteration of a society seems un-Christian to me.

  • preacher

    The source of this problem is in the homelands of those seeking refuge. Most of the countries that these people are fleeing from have two main sources of income, firstly tourism, but mainly mineral deposits, namely oil.
    The West has been held to ransom before by an oil embargo that forced the ‘Mighty’ E.U to split into it’s component parts & follow a policy of survival of those that will tug their forelocks to the oil barons will receive a few barrels of the stuff.
    The Sheiks got richer while their subjects scratched a living out of the sand, the rich brought new Rolls Royces while the poor walked.
    Some of the more militant population started to see the potential of an armed takeover bid & set about raising cannon fodder followers to accomplish their plans.
    Israel was a prime target for religious hatred & the storm of propaganda became a tsunami to drive Israel into the sea.
    As these groups grew & were armed the vision increased of seizing power from the political leaders of various countries. Hey Presto ! the ‘Arab Spring’ then came the World’s Winter !.

    Two thoughts; First, if the Western nations who have oil formed a coalition to share their resources, the demand for oil from the Middle East would fall & bring prices down, making acquiring power less of a target for the leaders of terror groups.
    Second; Israel has no oil, but has made the land blossom with produce irrigation & prosperity. If a real peace plan could be bought to the table & Israel was assured that it was genuine, not a ruse, she could show her neighbours how to prosper & support the poor to be self sufficient. End of hostilities, no more terrorism, no one being forced to leave or die & possibly some going back to their homelands & a future for their families.
    Wishful thinking ? most certainly, but is their another answer ? otherwise it’s back to the suffering & horrors of the immigrants versus the consciences of the fast filling to overflowing populace of Europe.

  • elizabeth sadler

    We cannot all go where we want to go;I see so-called migrants taking “selfies” as they climb out of inflatable boats on Cos;they see the kind of life they want to be a part of via the internet,and yes many of them are desperate and their plight is terrible,BUT it is all still a question of where they WANT to go and not the first place of safe haven. Back in the 70’s I saw many UK families for medical examinations because they wanted to emigrate. Many of these were turned down by Australia,New Zealand,Canada and the like,because they had often very minor health problems. The traffickers must be dealt with and countries need their peoples.

  • Inspector General

    We saw off Napoleon, and we saw off Hitler. And we can see off this latest invasion too, what!

    God Save The Queen!

  • Inspector General

    Let us ignore Cranmer’s impracticability, some might call it silliness, today, and reflect on our God given lives. We are free spirits essentially, whatever misfortune we might find ourselves living under, and we are very much masters of our own destiny. We pays our money and we takes our choice. So for those who sink in the Med, let us salute these indefatigable types for they have lived their dream, albeit for a short while.

  • Dreadnaught

    They are not migrants – they are illegal gatecrashers.
    From what I have seen there seems to be an inordinate number of cowardly, fit young men exploiting the plight of genuine fleeing families: they should instead of being a bunch of cowards and illegal opportunists, be taking up arms and fighting for their freedom and defending their own families, in their own countries.
    We need to toughen up on them and all the whining bleeding heart lefties and start shipping them back from whence they came, in truck or containers, which they seem to prefer instead of directly approaching embassies for help.

    • Inspector General

      Hear Hear this noble rant!

      • Dreadnaught

        Donkey-shite Mein Herr

        • Inspector General

          But dear Dreadnaught, you are at your best when foaming at the mouth…

          • Dreadnaught

            I was Compilmenting not rebukiung you IG, in my own fractured Chermann No?

          • Inspector General

            And there was the Inspector thinking your sense of irony had failed you…

            Good man!

  • Jill

    I don’t think any of us who are not psychopaths want to watch children drown. The
    thing is, why are they taking these perilous journeys? Most have already crossed safe countries to get that far.

    White Brits are now in the minority in the London borough I live in. Our hospital is staffed and peopled with mostly non-whites. The meat counter in Tesco is the national Halal centre. The shops are mostly Asian, as are most of our neighbours. Local organisations I have belonged to for years have rapidly falling membership and face closure because they are no longer part of the culture around here. Church congregations are shrinking and facing closure while mosques are popping up. In short, I feel there is not much left for me, the product of many generations of white Christian English.

    I am all in favour of Songs of Praise from Calais. Christians should be concerned with people living in those appalling conditions and must do what we can to alleviate their suffering. But that doesn’t mean we all have to move out so they can move in.

    I think Peter Hitchens has it right.

    http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2015/08/did-jesus-really-say-blessed-are-the-queue-jumping-knifemen.html

    • Inspector General

      Good girl Jill. If only the politicians were as keen to live with these aliens as they are in letting them in. But alas, they are not…

      • Darter Noster

        That’s always the point isn’t it?

        There must be plenty of space to house the Calais migrants in vicarage spare bedrooms and Bishops’ Palaces up and down the country; just imagine how many would fit in Lambeth Palace alone.

        But when they preach “We as a society should house, feed and clothe these poor people” what they actually mean is “Somebody else should house, feed and clothe these poor people.”

        There are few emotions more powerful than righteousness by proxy.

        • Little Black Censored

          “Somebody else should house, feed and clothe these poor people.”
          That is what you are saying as well.

          • Darter Noster

            Yes, but I’m saying it openly. I’m not trying to salve my liberal conscience and appear compassionate at the expense of other people. I’m not arguing for open borders with every poverty-stricken hell-hole on earth whilst knowing full well that it won’t be me personally who has to deal with the consequences, in terms of jobs, crime, overstretched public services, poverty and community tensions.

    • Politically__Incorrect

      Well said. A little under fifty years ago my parents moved us out of our home in the Birmingham area to the countryside. The reason? The road we were living in was becoming so “multi-cultural” that we felt out of place and uncomfortable. That was fifty years ago. I can only imagine what it’s like now.

      In a sense we were refuges in our own country. Not suffering the way many do of course, but feeling sufficiently alienated to move house. change jobs, and leave behind friends. Thus we see the ghettoisation of Britain. Porous borders do not equal compassion. Remember how King Solomon’s multi-cultural harem lead to the breakup of the kingdom. That was not God’s
      will but man’s folly.

      • VivM

        Yep. We feel this. Where we are just doesn’t feel like my home. Wanting to live in the culture you grew up in and instinctively understand is not racism, it’s basic human nature.

        But because the mass migration we have does not affect the white, upper middle class enclaves of politicians, they will never feel this, or reflect on it.

    • Sam

      Jill

      I think there has to be a discussion on multicultural philosophy without being called Islamicphobic or racist. Here is my take : British multicultural philosophy says you can import yourself, language and customs into Britain as a mini satellite of your home country without any corresponding attempts to adopt or adapt oneself into the host country via symbiosis or osmosis. This can be positive (music and cuisine for example) .

      But also negative : a permanent non integrated society which could in the end game, become like a Balkanized Yugoslavia, but along the way there is female genital mutilation, honour killings, a disrespect for British ways, a permanent grievance culture, a desire to turn your host country to your particular religion, arranged marriages, a high birthrate, but only of men as females are aborted, sexism towards women, and a hate of gays and Jews.

      This stems from the fact that there’s never been an impetus for other immigrants to even discuss or adapt to their new surrounding. This contrasts with the Jewish experience. As a Jew and of one whose grandparents were immigrants, who did not come here to scrounge welfare, I am told by the words of the prophet Jeremiah to “seek the peace of the city to which I have exiled you and pray to the L-rd on its behalf; for in the peace thereof you shall have peace.” (Jeremiah 29:7).

      We are also told by our Sages of blessed memory that a family must have a trade( or a job) and pass this skill to the children. Jews have the general principle of ‘Dina d’malkhuta dina’, the law of the land is the law. Hence we have jobs, normally well paid and contribute to the economic well being of Britain : in our synagogues we pray for the Queen , Royal family and the British armed forces, albeit both that and the national anthem are sung in Hebrew.

      In the traditionally established British Sephardic communities, it is traditional for men to wear a top hat (of all things) on Shabbat: in some synagogues the Rabbis and Cantor will wear a top hat when leading a service. My grandfather, therefore went from a fez to a top hat , Anglicised the family names to British ones (hence why their grandchildren all have “British” biblical names ).

      So why we still keep to our faith and understand Hebrew, have Jewish songs bad cuisine , we are also a part of mainstream British civil society.

    • michaelkx

      hitchensblog said “Nowhere in the Beatitudes did Jesus say ‘Blessed
      are the queue-jumpers’, trying to gain an advantage at the expense of others.
      This is what the people at Calais are.
      They are not prepared to apply for asylum or seek visas
      and work permits in the normal way. Their actions make people in this country
      less willing to grant any asylum, or to welcome any migration.
      They force their way into lorries and trains, or break
      down a lawfully constructed fence, sometimes clutching drawn knives as they do
      so. Many destroy their passports so that the truth about their origins and
      claims can never be proved. Why precisely is it Christian to endorse this
      behaviour? ” I agree with this, and with fear of being a bore. what is there real reason for wanting to come here? If it is for Humanitarian reason OK, but to come just because we I quote ” give them money a house and a car” then NO we do not want you, go back were you come from and apply to enter for what you can give us, and do for your chosen country.

  • Orwell Ian

    I’m no supporter of Cameron but its unfair to accuse him of leaving the terrorised and traumatised to perish in a watery grave. The Navy is doing what it can to rescue the drowning. The people traffickers are the ones responsible for any deaths at sea and they often cause them deliberately. This callous trade has got to be stopped at source even if that means sinking every empty boat while they are still in harbour.

    The problem is now so bad in Italy and Greece that migrants cannot be processed properly. A way has to be found to assess suitability for asylum. I have no problem with Britain taking in a reasonable number of helpless refugees like Hamed. What I am not prepared to put up with are the undeserving, the aggressive and the criminal migrants who wander towards Calais and then proceed to break into Britain.

  • Politically__Incorrect

    Cranmer, you seem to be addressing two different issues here. On the one hand you are talking about rescuing people from the jaws of death in the Mediterranean and on the other hand the question of allowing them into this country. As to the former, only a cold-blooded psychopath would leave them to drown. But once they have been rescued, why do they head straight for Britain rather than other European countries where they would be treated compassionately? As to those drifting in the ocean I say we should try to rescue every one of them. But those trying to get into Britain from Calais are not drowning. They are, from the television reports I’ve seen, not hungry, thirst, or without shelter of at least a basic type.

    And why focus on one group of people? Don’t the persecuted souls of places like North Korea and other Far Eastern and middle Eastern nations matter too? What does Europe do for them? If the whole world arrived at Dover in a ship, is it our respoonsibility to give them the same standard of living as we have?

    This is not a matter of running out of compassion, it is simply the fact that we are not capable of dealing in a practical way with all the injustices man throws at his fellow man. Did God tell the Israelites to open their borders and accept refugees from all nations because they would be treated more fairly? What Jesus did say was to spread the Word of God to all those nations so they could show proper compassion to each other. That is a far more valuable gift.

    • The Explorer

      Is it feasible, though, with Muslim nations? A lot of them were Christian once, before Muhammad appeared on the scene. Not much likelihood of reversion to their original faith, I’d say.

  • Johnny Rottenborough

    Thou shalt neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him

    Thanks to the boundless compassion of do-gooders such as Your Grace, it is now the strangers who are doing the vexing and the oppressing. The videos on this post at the Diversity Macht Frei blog were filmed after an African migrant in Mallorca had died while attempting to evade arrest. Coming soon to a street near Your Grace.

  • David

    This is a very confused article.

    Fishing them out of the Med. is the right thing to do.

    But this has little to do with those few determined to gatecrash into the UK, illegally. Once people are fished out of the Med., taking them to Europe is morally wrong. Dumping them in Italy merely encourages more of the brightest and the best to leave their countries instead of improving them.

    So after the rescue from the briny they must be returned to their own continent and preferably their own country. Aid money, we are told, is needed to assist in the developing and improving of those countries. Well so use it ! Only the young, fit, able and well off are making these long, dangerous journeys. Sucking them out of their own countries merely makes those places weaker.

    Mass migrations cause social unrest throwing different types of people with clashing faiths, cultures and practices together. The best way to destabilise Europe and bring increasing misery to almost all of us is to boost large scale migration.

    This is the most confused article I have read here, where one expects a high level of clarity, if not agreement with ones own views.

  • Inspector General

    If the migrants are not sent back, let’s spare a few moments thought for the as yet unborn who will be making the trip too. Rather like an ant trail then, and the people being just as unwelcome as ants in your house…

  • Yes,yes,yes…..but why is is that they cross seas and land masses to come HERE?

    I keep asking but never get an answer- if some, then why not all? and if all then why should they have to risk their lives on dodgy boats? send the Cunard fleet for them, as many as want to come.

    • Inspector General

      ‘Something for nothing’ comes close to answering your question, Dr Hayes…

  • The Explorer

    I find the whole asylum subject intensely confusing. I’m not clear as to whether we’re driven by our own rules, EU rules. European rules, UN rules, or all four. I do note that the Liberty website says, rather ominously, that if you are a genuine asylum seeker (you meet criteria listed by the website) then, “The UK has a duty not to return you to where you will face persecution.” That would mean not going back if you’ve come from Eritrea, Sudan, Somalia, Syria, Iraq or Afghanistan.

    The UK does not have the same duty towards you if you’re an economic migrant. Guess what? Nobody’s an economic migrant, and everybody becomes an asylum seeker. Losing any documentation that might say otherwise presumably helps. How accurately the genuine are sifted from the bogus, I have no idea.

    But the economic migrants are a side issue. If conditions in the six countries I’ve mentioned worsen, then the Mediterranean could be awash with a whole fleet of genuine asylum seekers. And if Europe has signed itself up to the same rules we appear to have, then Europe has presumably committed itself to taking them. The issue then becomes not if we take them or not, but how we allocate them across the EU.

    Or Europe will need to look again at the treaties it has committed itself to.

  • Anton

    There are refugees from ISIS, and there are the people at Calais. Let us not suppose that the two sets are equivalent.

  • HG is competing with the Guardian today in the emotional blackmail
    stakes on the migrant crisis.

    Why doesn’t he take in little Hamed himself? But he can’t then complain when
    he grows up, turns round and tries to kill him for what he is.

  • Inspector General

    Anybody know Corbyn’s stand on these blighters? Would he send the Queen Mary II to pick them up from Tripoli and thence to Southampton where an awaiting boat train can whisk them into the capital whereupon they will be billeted in the finest hotels, probably indefinitely…

    • The Explorer

      Of course. As he said, the rich want to pay more tax. He’ll help them. What goes for rich individuals goes also for rich nations. (He hasn’t said as much about the nations, as far as I know, but I’m inferring.) Your taxes can help fund it all, Inspector.

      • Inspector General

        There’s room in Inspector Towers boiler room to take a few. But one fears they’ll spend all their time scheming for the Inspector’s demise and drinking the fellows precious whisky…

      • Anton

        What has Corbyn said about global warming (anybody), please?

        • chiefofsinners

          Corbyn is an enthusiastic green campaigner, which is why lots of vegetables have joined the labour party in order to vote him in as leader.
          Corbyn has an embarrassing older brother, Piers, who is a leading climate change ‘denier’, which is apparently like a holocaust denier but worse. Or might be to do with the thickness of tights. Not really my subject.

          • James60498 .

            I am far from an expert in global warming either, but it appears clear that those who disagree are treated, as CoS says like holocaust deniers, or even worse, like opponents of “gay marriage”.

            David Bellamy is one who has disappeared from national TV since he denounced windfarms on Blue Peter and then some time later referred to man made global warming as “poppycock”. No doubt there will be an excuse for this one, like there is for every other individual MSM bias, but it does seem unusual for someone to disappear from TV screens so totally.

  • France seems to have all that free land in Calais that the illegals are camping on, why doesn’t France just accept the migrants and get them to build their own town there? It’s not quite the cesspit it might have been at first. They have somehow built entertainment clubs that play music and have dancing to while away the hours. They also have all the latest mobile phones and charging facilities there. And where did they procure the timber to build the church from? They’ve got knives and even guns too. Let’s face it they chose to get on the boat in the first instance. They have not applied for asylum in the correct way, namely from their country of origin or from the nearest safe country to theirs if they have escaped war.

    • dannybhoy

      ‘France seems to have all that free land in Calais that the illegals are
      camping on, why doesn’t France just accept the migrants and get them to
      build their own town there?’

      Because they don’t want them Marie. They already have choc a bloc banlieues all around Paris.. They’re not assimilating them, they’re keeping them separate. A bit like Apartheid South Africa…

      • Well we are choc a blocked. France is a hell of a lot bigger than we are. They can move them to the Languedoc region in S.E France and they can become farmers there’s plenty of room tor them there, it’s under populated. Or We can work together to transport them all back to a safe African or middle eastern country more in-keeping with their temperamet and culture.

        • dannybhoy

          Marie, why should they move them anywhere? Why should they impose them on the people of Languedoc just because there aren’t many ‘Languedocians?’
          I fail to understand this modern western enthusiasm for importing people. Our ancestors for hundreds of years fought to secure their national boundaries, and now suddenly, it doesn’t matter any more. I really don’t understand it.

          • Well as it stands the situation cannot go on and it’s not going to resolve itself anytime soon. You’ve got to be realistic. Nobody is doing anything and night after night they are sneaking into the UK.anyway. All people are doing is arguing about David Cameron’s language which isn’t going to get us anywhere. What do you suggest we do?

          • Inspector General

            Dear Marie, far from ending, this is it for all time. For evermore. Indefinitely. Until further notice. How do we know? Because of the lack of an effective response, to wit, the building of a secure compound they can rot in until asking for repatriation. It’s the only way. Let them bring their stories of failure back home to discourage the future waves…

          • Yes, a secure compound could be the answer, Clever Inspector!

          • Inspector General

            “It could be arranged with just a word in Mr Churchill’s ear” as the song goes. But alas, the country is run by political pygmies barely fit to wait at the great man’s table…

          • dannybhoy

            Cue song..
            “If I ruled the world!!”
            I believe our God directs us all to live within our own countries. I know these boundaries are fluid and I know men will always fight over something or other. But basically we should respect difference of culture, difference of religion, and refrain from interfering unless our core interests are threatened.
            It may not do much good, but we should certainly apologise to Iraq and other nations for interfering in their affairs and causing them more problems than they had before, and we should stop trying to impose our values on other nations who don’t understand them or want them when they do.
            We could start by withdrawing from or abrogating all treaties which tell us we can’t have control of our own borders.
            We could go on to adopt an immigration points system similar to that of Australia.
            We could start using our overseas aid budget to set up secure, supplied refugee camps in areas near to where these folk are coming from. Stop these boats crossing the Med to get to Europe, work with France to empty the camps around Calais and take them back too.
            We should use overseas aid money to guarantee the safety and security of minority groups currently being persecuted, and provide more training and help to develop agriculture in impoverished nations.
            I think we should stop pouring guns and military hardware into these more volatile nations, even if others do.

            We really have to beef up our own military with personnel and equipment, because these problems will become worse as supplies of fresh water become scarce and climate change takes hold. We need s strong well trained and maintained. flexible military capability to protect our borders and those refugee camps.
            There’s lots more, but others will add what I’ve left out or point out the flaws in my masterplan!

          • Inspector General

            ‘Stalag Afrika’ camps will sort them out, Danny, what!

          • Our spineless government are just hoping the problem will go away of its own accord. And I’ve a sneaking feeling that this foreign aid budget is a bit like The Emperor’s New Clothes!

          • Anton

            I’ll answer that. Offer to buy for a good price every non-European-owned fishing boat in the Mediterranean, plus a million pounds to be shared among the crew. Broadcast a warning that this offer is open for 4 weeks after which all such boats will be sunk. Then do it.

      • The Explorer

        Except, unlike the South-Africa situation, both authority and those affected are in agreement about the desirability of the separation. Keep all the Muslims together, and their way of life can continue unhindered.

  • dannybhoy

    ‘Thou shalt neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt‘ (Ex 22:21).

    ‘Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction..‘ (Js 1:27).

    Sorry, but there is a difference between taking in strangers, and taking in thousands of strangers, tens of thousands of strangers, hundreds of thousands of strangers.

    If your argument is valid, why did not this God you quote tell the Hebrews to request sanctuary amongst the various nations in Canaan?

    “14 Then the Lord said to Moses, “Write this on a scroll as something to be remembered and make sure that Joshua hears it, because I will completely blot out the name of Amalek from under heaven.” Exodus 17

    10 And he said, “Behold, I am making a covenant. Before all your people I
    will do marvels, such as have not been created in all the earth or in
    any nation. And all the people among whom you are shall see the work of
    the Lord, for it is an awesome thing that I will do with you. 11 “Observe what I command you this day. Behold, I will drive out before you the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites. 12 Take care, lest you make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land to which you go, lest it become a snare in your midst.
    Exodus 34

    There is nothing new under the sun and any nation which takes in great numbers of strangers cannot help but be changed by them, sometimes to the extent that the very values which motivated this compassion may be swept away.
    We should look after and provide sanctuary for these people in their own lands.

    • The Explorer

      Absolutely. If they cannot defend themselves in any given country, then create a safe area and protect it with a UN peace keeping force. Use foreign aid to improve agriculture/create industry. It might take a long time, but their presence in Europe would create even longer-term consequences.

      • dannybhoy

        If Europe took them in Europe would be unable to respond to any other threat from within or from without. From within you wouldn’t necessarily know who your enemy is or who their supporters are.
        If the threat came from without -say for example Russia, you wouldn’t know whether or not your immigrant population would fight with you or against you..

        • The Explorer

          London bombings a case in point. Punishment for British involvement in the Iraq War. Message: get out of Iraq.

          • Benjamin Waterhouse

            And we did…

      • carl jacobs

        protect it with a UN peace keeping force.

        [Snort]

        • The Explorer

          I know, you want the US to do it on its own. But since Europe is involved, Europe should bear part of the burden.

          • carl jacobs

            you want the US to do it on its own.

            Actually I don’t want the US to do anything at all. The role of “International Globo-Cop” isn’t found in the US Constitution. I was merely reacting to the notion of “UN Peacekeepers” actually protecting something.

            But since Europe is involved, Europe should bear part of the burden.

            Europe provides about 4% of UN peacekeepers. Do you see any chance that Europe would actually provide more? Under UN command?

          • The Explorer

            I was joking!

          • carl jacobs

            More inscrutable British humor for which I am held to account. You see, the problem isn’t that Americans don’t recognize irony. The problem is that British humor isn’t recognizable as humor.

          • Phil R

            Americans as a whole are getting better at “lightening up” in my experience.

            However, they still take life far too seriously.

          • dannybhoy

            Ged aht of it! Taking Phil R’s point much as I enjoy the company of Americans, they do tend to take things literally. My theory is that they so venerate our long and illustrious history, they take everything we say seriously.
            Unless they see us smiling or holding up a sign saying, “Joke. Laugh now.”

          • Lol …. irony, irony, wherefore art thou, oh irony?

          • The Explorer

            He’s American.

          • Is he?

  • Inspector General

    Have re-read Cranmer’s original. Anybody remind the Inspector who the Patron Saint of Chancers is?

  • Steve Perrins

    James 2 mercy triumphs over judgement.

    • Inspector General

      trump you there…

      “Blessed be the weak of brain…”

      • Steve Perrins

        I hope so for your sake!

        • Inspector General

          You are a witch, sir. A black one come to destroy us all. The Inspector testifies thus. TESTIFY he tells you!

          • The Explorer

            ?? He’s wearing white in his picture.

          • Inspector General

            black of heart and evil of intent…

          • The Explorer

            Are you basing that on what he’s said here?

          • Steve Perrins

            Not specifically. More on what I know of the general situation and what these people have fled from.

          • Steve Perrins
          • Inspector General

            and what remains of you will be buried in unconsecrated ground and children of the earlier school years will be encouraged to visit the spot and urinate upon.

          • The Explorer

            I have encountered this article a couple of times before. Some of it is fair enough, but some is misleading.

            0.027 of Europe’s population. That suggests Europe’s current population is currently indigenous. But 8% of France is Muslim; 4% of Britain. (And that’s excluding other ethnic minorities.) By 2050, the projected European Muslim average is 16-20%. That’s not inconsiderable. Thereafter, as the indigenous population dies off, the rise will be exponential. (The Muslim population is younger than the European average.)

            Yes, Lebanon has been heroic and puts Middle-East numbers into Britain in perspective. But Lebanon hasn’t taken the UK’s numbers of Poles, Romanians and Latvians etc. Numbers unknown, but over 2 million since 2000. One in thirty Latvians is said to be now living in the UK.

            The numbers crossing the Mediterranean are increasing. In 2011, the figure was thought to be around 64 000. In 2014, according to UNCHR it was at least 348 000 Do the maths.

          • James60498 .

            Surely, part of the problem is that the Government has “net migration targets”.

            (This would seem to mean that as long as sufficient people leave, then they can meet the targets. Interesting in itself. )

            Then they have to allow in EU migrants who thereby take up the majority of the places “available” within the limits.

            And then those who genuinely do need asylum may not get it.

          • The Explorer

            Don’t know enough about it, but having targets means having quotas: which is tricky when circumstances are unpredictable. It would be like having targets for crime. Suppose there’s a surge in crime. what do you do? Not arrest new offenders because you’ve already hit your quotas for the year? Let out existing offenders in order to let in the new offenders, and thereby keep the numbers stable? Decriminalise certain existing crimes, so that offenders have no longer committed an offence?

            Some schools do actually operate quota systems for suspension. Yes, this student deserves suspension, but given that the quota for this student’s gender and ethnicity has already been filled, it can’t be done. We’ll first have to suspend more of other genders and other ethnicities to restore the balance.

          • James60498 .

            The school thing sounds right. We can’t go expelling those that need it can we!!!

            I know an undertaker. Next time I see him I shall ask.

            But going back to immigration, as you say the whole targets thing is a nonsense, particularly when you have no control over EU immigration.. Net immigration targets are even more ridiculous.

          • The Explorer

            Sorry if there’s confusion, that was a question to the Inspector, who seems to be deducing a lot from not much data.

          • As is his way ….

          • Inspector General

            and his head axed from his body, and put on a pole next to the tunnel, in the middle of the ‘six foot’

        • Steve Perrins

          Oops, that was judgemental, not merciful.

          • Inspector General

            Who sent you to Cranmer tonight? Was it Lucifer? We will have the truth from you, under torture if need be…

          • There’s a time for judgement too.

    • The Explorer

      Which verse says that? And what point are you making? Empty the prisons? Tell everyone they’re going to Heaven? Let in everybody who wants to live in Britain? What?

      • Steve Perrins

        James 2:13 better to show mercy to people in need than judge them not worthy of entering OUR country!

        • Inspector General

          You will be taken to a place of persuasion, and your carcass will be racked…

        • The Explorer

          I take 2:13 to be in the tradition of if you do not forgive, you will not be forgiven. If you have shown mercy, you need not fear judgement, for you yourself will be shown mercy.

          It’s in the context of loving your neighbour. But if you love your Calais ‘neighbours’ are you loving your actual existing neighbours? Suppose the new arrivals (if they arrived) were to wreck the quality of life of some of your existing neighbours. (As has happened.) Would not the merciful thing be to keep the new arrivals out?

          Take another example that is clearer. Suppose a rapist is having his way with your neighbour. Do you try to stop him, or (if you can’t) do you ring the police? That’s unloving to the rapist because you’re depriving him of his pleasure. It’s unmerciful if it gets him arrested. On the other hand, it’s unloving/unmerciful to the neighbour to allow him to continue if she (or he, in this day and age) doesn’t want to be raped. It’s the sort of situation where you can’t be merciful to both parties: someone has to lose out.

          • Steve Perrins

            The biblical test case for love of God is love of neighbour, the biblical test case for love of neighbour is love of enemy. The neighbour definition is as wide as it gets.
            Your para 2 is motivated by fear not love. Fear is the opposite of love, and its what drives most people on issues like this.
            As for para 3 Its not unloving to see your neighbour get the help they need whatever form that may be and the presence of love doesn’t mean an absence of law, and consequences for the wrong decisions we make. A judge can love someone and still send them to prison!

          • The Explorer

            How do you know para 2 isn’t motivated by love? How do you know I haven’t seen the situation I describe happen? If you fear for someone else’s welfare, that can be evidence of love.

        • dannybhoy

          It IS our country!
          When you go abroad on holiday, you’re going to someone ELSE’S country. Is that not so? You need a passport, you may need injections, health and travel insurance and the means to buy the goods and services you wish to enjoy. Is that not so?

          It’s not a question of whether people are WORTHY or not, it’s about how many extra people you can house, educate, find employment for and successfully assimilate. Even how many extra people you actually need! Then there’s the economic cost of our own citizens losing out on employment to people who are willing to work for less..
          You do realise that our country is already borrowing money at a staggering rate to simply keep afloat?
          http://www.debtbombshell.com/
          http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25944653
          http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/10849333/Interest-bill-on-UKs-1.27-trillion-debt-to-hit-1bn-a-week.html

  • chiefofsinners

    “While I was among the exiles by the Kebar river (Babylon), the heavens were opened and I saw visions of God.” – Ezekiel 1 verse 1.
    It is entirely possible to be in adverse circumstances and still be blessed by God. It depends where we set our sights – on earth or on heaven.
    Rescue the perishing? Of course. But “the poor you have with you always”.

  • David

    Do I see two factors propelling this migration of Biblical proportions ?

    It appears that, the US, anxious to bring down Russia, which is determined to remain Russian, and not in thrall to the US, attacks any and all Russian orientated Muslim state on the periphery of Europe, like Irag, Libya and Assad’s Syria. Those areas are then destabilised, because the “strong man”, who kept the lid on their internal factions, is destroyed.

    This destabilisation facilitates entry by Muslim extremists.

    So with their countries in ruins, because of wars, and with Isis gaining territory, those young, able, relatively wealthy Muslims flee from even more extreme Muslims. No doubt they hope to establish themselves in Europe and then bring in their extended families. In time the cycle will probably repeat itself here, in Europe.

    But for the time being they flee to what is at present, a safe haven, post-Christian Europe – soon to be destabilised as well, if this continues unchecked.

    But our totally blind establishment politicians cannot see any of this. Prescient, they are NOT !

    Of course there are other areas that are have not been attacked by the US or Nato, in Africa, where Isis-like extremists are also killing innocents and gaining territory, like Nigeria, which also displaces populations…

    So there’s a few of my thoughts anyway.

  • IanCad

    Maybe a little discrimination is required to sort this.

    “Migrants” OK! Mostly Muslims fleeing their brothers and seeking pastures green among the soft and decadent British; or at least, some other likely EU host. Pretty good if you can wangle your way in. The family can follow later.

    A smaller number of Christians fleeing persecution from said Muslims. We are counseled to succor our brothers. Woe betide us if we don’t.

    Now, it can be argued that we are a Christian country. Possibly so; regardless; we have built up a certain capital or deposit of the faith. It is diminishing but with what we have left it our duty to support the displaced Christians.

    Maybe we have been weighed in the balance and are found wanting:

    http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/sexual-orientation-uk-half-young-people-say-they-are-not-100-heterosexual-1515690

    • David

      I am prepared to believe that it may be true. Now that the secular influenced section of the nation has abandoned the man/woman definition of marriage, the potential for further mayhem and confusion is immense. Allowing same sex couples to “marry” is not a destination, but merely a stop along a lengthy track to even greater chaos, degradation and waste.
      Like Alexander Boot I believe that either the west has a Christian civilisation or no civilisation at all. But the liberals never listen.

      • IanCad

        Alexander Boot! I had forgotten about him.
        He did a couple of guest posts on this blog a couple of years back.

        • David

          Well remembered !
          He’s a splendid “Man of the west” with a multi-country background. But just a tad too pessimistic for me. Essentially he’s an interesting, I’d say philosopher of sorts. Few nowadays have such deep understanding of the origins of western and eastern, Orthodox and Catholic (+derived), faiths and their resultant cultures.

    • dannybhoy

      I think we are now a post Christian society Ian, and secular humanism shapes our policy making.

  • len

    Britain is a post Christian County and any vestiges of our Christian foundation that remain are the the only definitive guide we have left. .Atheism has no moral foundation and stands on the shifting sands of ‘no moral absolutes.’
    Christian immigrants coming here (hopefully) will find that the Christian Nation that sent missionaries into the entire World has shrunk to small pockets of believers still hanging on despite all attempts to silence them by the’ liberal secularists.
    It is also becoming apparent that border controls into the UK are virtually non existent and the PM`s stance on this matter is mere posturing to reassure the electorate.

  • Jonty Cecil

    “We only take Christians and Shia muslims” no more atheists or Sunnis.