This scene is from the Balkan wars of the 1990s. A summer’s breeze compared to what is now coming from Africa.
Imagine a Danish person who is unhappy with his current life. Then he hears about Canada being this swell place to live. So he sets out in a rowboat from the Danish coast to start a new life. To everyone’s surprise, he doesn’t get very far before he runs into trouble.
Now, imagine a world where Canada has an absolute responsibility to come and rescue the Dane, no matter how much closer to European shore he is than North American. And after he is brought safely to Canada, he is owed automatic permanent asylum as well as his entire extended family, which is also entitled to lifetime welfare on the Canadian taxpayer’s dime. If Canada refuses any of the above, it is proof that Canada is a fascist country.
Welcome to Leftist logic 101; we have merely substituted the Mediterranean with the Atlantic.
The past few weeks have been filled with debate about the deaths of migrants crossing over from Africa in search of a better life. Since the coast guard off the European countries are obligated to rescue ships in danger, the smugglers pack people onto unsafe wrecks and send them off to be rescued. Inevitably, some sink before the coast guard reaches them. It’s tragic. But is it Europe’s fault?
Yes and no. For the no-side, you have to accept some personal responsibility when you deliberately endanger yourself. The Dane trying to reach Canada in a rowboat is obviously an idiot. When you hit your thumb with the hammer, not even a lawyer would sue the manufacturer.
Some argue that these are desperate people fleeing war. Yes, there’s a few pockets of unrest in Africa. Nobody can argue the need to run when bullets are flying around you. But when the person has reached safe haven in a peaceful country and yet continues to travel, the argument no longer holds water. For example, the number of people fleeing Gambia is on the rise. So they cross the border to Senegal, a democratic country at relative peace. But instead of stopping there, they choose to travel through Senegal, Mauritania, Algeria, and then get on a dinky boat to reach Europe. Are they still fleeing for their lives at that point?
For the yes-side of the European fault discussion, we have the honey pot aspect. Here is where Sweden plays a major role. Two years ago it became official policy that anyone claiming to be Syrian or Eritrean was owed automatic permanent residency with all welfare perks that come with it. ID is not required; you merely have to make the claim and present a semi-plausible story. It would be hard to come up with a better incentive to the world’s poor seeking a better life. All you have to do is get to Swedish soil, and you’re set for life at a with a standard of living previously unimagined.
Contrast this with Australia’s approach. “No Way: You will not make Australia home” is the policy wherein they simply refuse anybody to set foot on Australian soil. Instead, anyone attempting to migrate gets transferred to Nauru or Manus island. Those who have legit cause for seeking asylum get their due process, while the fortune seekers are unceremoneously turned away.
The number of confirmed deaths on the mediterranean has quadrupled since 2008. This year is predicted to be a record-breaker, with an estimated million migrants waiting to cross on the African side. The first few months of 2015 has already clocked in 30 times (!) the deaths of the same period in 2014. Meanwhile, as far as I’ve been able to find by Googling the news, Australia has decreased the death toll into single digits — primarily by people sabotaging their own boats in the hope of avoiding being escorted away.
So Europe has a problem, and the Australian approach holds great appeal for solving that problem. That means increased coast guard presence in the mediterranian to turn back boats to Africa, while removing the incentives for attempting the journey to begin with. Makes perfect sense to 28 of the 29 EU members.
But of course, the world’s Humanitarian Superpower don’t want anything to do with that approach. “Sweden shall fight for establishing legal ways into Europe!” said prime minister Löfven in the parliament EU committee. In other words, the Swedish government want to open up for asylum application at the embassies and consulates around the world.
Now, combine this with that Sweden now considers poverty a de facto grounds for asylum. Bascially anybody worse off than a Swede in any way is to be let in, period. This can be clearly seen in the percentage of approved applications for asylum; from hovering in the 20-30% approval range in previous years, to suddenly hitting a whopping 77% percent. Ponder this for a second. The criteria for being granted asylum is now so watered down that more than three out of four that make it to Sweden are granted asylum.
To summarize: The rest of Europe wants to shut the door and remove the incentives for risking life and limb to cross the mediterranean. Meanwhile, Sweden wants to open up for everybody in the whole world to apply for asylum, based on their generous criteria where almost everybody gets approved.
There is an estimated 2,5 billion people living in poverty in the world. India alone has a few hundred million living in absolute squalor. Perhaps Löfven should use India as a test balloon and start an airlift of, say 100 Boeing 747s at 500 each per day. That’s 50 000 poor but happy Indians arriving at Arlanda airport every day to be absorbed by the country of less than 10 million.
Let’s give it a month. If everything works out, he can go global with this inspiring initiative to end the world’s ills by bringing them all to Sweden.