Immigration,The EU, The UN And The Public

Immigration And The EU: Chickens Coming Home To Roost

My last posting was a rant against the English (or UK) culture test in the context of immigration. I have also formerly expressed doubts about the advisability of conferring rights, human rights as accorded by the UN or EU, without also noting concomitant responsibilities. It seems these chicken are coming home to roost with avengeance in the ongoing debate about immigrants to Europe.

The culture test can be set aside now. I've no idea whether other countries have such a test but, if they do, it is hopefully more relevant and less inane than the UK one. But my point about differences in culture with respect to the treatment of women has now been made in spades (or, more specifically, in Germany). Political correctness, incidentally, another of my betes noires, seems to have played a role in the cover-up of sexual assaults by recent immigrants in Germany and some other countries. Two important points clearly emerge, the first to do with Schengen and the second with human rights.

Only the EU commissioners sitting on their cloud (entrance to cuckoo land) on top of their ivory tower seem to have failed to see what must have been obvious to a blind man. If you remove border controls from a set of geographically contiguous nations you automtically increase the need for controls at the boundary of the contiguous area. And if the countries at these boundaries don't have an exemplary record for control, or the means for exemplary control, you are going at some time to be in serious trouble. The EU's official response so far, giving Turkey 3 billion euros to attempt to stem the tide of immigrants entering from there, strikes me as a concrete example of the rather crude expression of a flea wiping an elephant's arse with a piece of confetti. I've no doubt the 3 billion was gratefully received by Turkey but grave doubts as to how much of that sum has been used for its stated purpose rather than to line individual pockets. Who could possibly have thought otherwise, other than the EU Commission? The Schengen agreement clearly has to be scrapped, indeed is already being so piecemeal by individual EU countries, but will the EU commission officially repeal it? Dream on (as they do).

The UN long ago, and the EU more recently, declared that all human beings had rights which, unfortunately, the vast majority of people in the world don't currently enjoy. Compared to all but a handful of other nationalities, Europeans in general have a relatively “soft” existence, notwithstanding that life can still be very hard for some. It follows that the vast majority of people outside of Europe are having their human rights infringed in some way, often very many ways, so there must be a great incentive for them to get to Europe if they can. There the infringement of their human rights in their own countries may well make a good case for asylum. So what stops them coming in even greater numbers than are now being seen? In most cases, they simply won't have the means; inertia, lack of opportunity, wide family ties and an understandable love of their home territory, even if it is very uncomfortable, will also deter many. But, if circumstances at home get dire enough, who can blame them for trying?

So what, then, is Europe supposed to do about accommodating them? I've already addressed this question in greater detail in previous postings so won't elaborate now. My point here is that the EU Commission shows no sign of addressing this issue or, indeed, of having any desire to do so. Angela Merkel has, albeit belatedly, declaring Germany's right to deport immigrants if they commit crimes or show themselves otherwise to be undesirable. But what of their human rights and right to appeal to the EU or the UN? Their defence there could well be upheld, ensuring at least an extended stay in their current country which will have in the meanwhile to cope with their undesirability. The problem, I suggest, is the conferral of rights without concomitant responsibilities. I concede that there may be many marginal cases and can forsee difficulties but think that if an immigrant in any country commits a serious crime, a murder, a rape or an armed burglary for instance, deportation must be an option, even if the criminal faces danger in the country to which he/she is deported (and assuming a country of origin can be indentified). To me it is a matter of balancing rights with responsibilities. The granting of asylum is anyway a privilege, not a right, and privileges too carry concomitant responsibilities, at least in my opinion. Where do the UN and EU stand on this? They appear to stand on rights, not on responsibilities or consequences.

This imbalance does immigrants no favours. Some of the miscreants in the Cologne new year debacle were quoted, accurately or not, as saying Angela Merkel had invited them and so the Germans had to treat them kindly. But if you've come from a region where you had few if any rights at all, it would be only too natural to glory in your new status; which only adds fuel to the fire. Immigrants thereby confirm a resentment felt by many citizens in the country, that they, the immigrants, have a status privileged beyond that of the incumbent citizen. And so immigrant-bashing can easily become a popular sport, championed by the tabloid press and extreme right-wing political groups. Thus an already complex problem becomes even more intractable.

So who will sort out the mess? Certainly not the EU or UN so it will be left to individual countries, hamstrung by the proud proclamations of these international bodies. The only solution I can see is for individual countries, as they are beginning to do, to ignore the EU and UN and, effectively, tell them to get real or get lost. The EU is at root, after all, simply a coalition of individual countries and, if the EU can't help, then these countries will have to find their own solution, with or without EU approval.

The Public

I was amused to note that the final accounts of the north-eastern region railway, just published, show it had achieved greater punctuality and greater client satisfaction than any other train company, and a very significant level of profit to boot. Readers may remember that this region was returned to public ownership a few years ago after the private railway company contracted to run it failed dismally. Jeremy Corbyn may be widely regarded as not far off the lunatic fringe but he is most certainly right in wanting to return all the railways to public ownership. So what happened next? The north east region was returned by the current government to private ownership of course. Better private profit, it seems, than a good public service and public profit. Margaret Thatcher famously said that there is no such thing as society. The current UK government clearly believes that there are no such things as public services. How long before we hear that there is no such thing as the public? And how do you define a nation that has no society or public?