Open borders and child migrants

Missy has drawn attention to this from The Telegraph: Sweden was overwhelmed by influx of child migrants – we should heed their lesson

Sweden used to regard itself as an open, tolerant country – and it had a fine record of integrating newcomers. But now it is closing its borders, rejecting asylum applications and sending people home. Nothing has done the country’s self-image more harm than its handling of child refugees – a sad story full of warnings for Britain.

Sweden’s problem is one of scale. Back in 2004, it was taking in about 400 children a year; by 2011 it had risen to 2,600. But then came the Great Migration – an astonishing march of African and Middle East migrants across Europe, a mix of the aspirant poor and people fleeing war. Sweden received the highest number of asylum seekers compared to its national population. In 2015, some 163,000 people claimed refuge. More than a fifth, or 35,000, were children.

The strain on services was predictable: unaccompanied minors account for about half the asylum budget. Sweden had to find an extra 70,000 school places in a country that already had a shortage of teachers. At one local primary school, 90 per cent of children reportedly speak Arabic and nearly 20 per cent arrived in the country just two years before.

Worse: nothing prepared Swedes for the abuse of their asylum system by predators and criminals.

Sweden has had to face the grim possibility that not all its child asylum seekers are children.

But:

Even if some of these “youths” were bending the truth, who can blame them? In wartime, the line between childhood and adulthood blurs. Children grow up fast, giving them the haunted, haggard look that can make it hard to judge their age, while someone who has just turned 18 is really only an adult on paper. To send them back to an uncertain fate on a technicality seems cruel.

Children can be deported if there is a guardian waiting for them. A group of teachers recently wrote an open letter expressing horror at the idea that their pupils could be effectively sent home to fight in a war: “What is a government even worth if it is incapable of protecting children in its own country and giving them hope for the future?”

Sweden is an example of good intentions having decidedly mixed consequences. The peoples of the developing world are on the move – it is tempting, in the spirit of Christian charity, to open the door to them. But there are a lot of them. They are a mix of refugees and economic migrants. And some may even be criminal.

It makes far more sense to focus on ensuring stability and development in their home countries than encouraging relocation here – and if refugees are accepted in significant numbers then the voters are going to want to know that they are genuine refugees. If the idea gains currency that hospitality is being exploited or rules broken, the popular mood will swing the other way. Life for migrants in Sweden is increasingly, tragically, uncomfortable. Racist attacks are up. An immigrant’s chance of being unemployed is now twice as great as a native Swede.

Liberals beware: evidence is mounting that open borders are unpopular and will not stay open for long. An act of mass generosity is likely to be followed by an act of mass intolerance – as Sweden’s asylum seekers will tell you.

There’s lessons for New Zealand in this as well, although we are distant and relatively isolated from the bulk of mass migrations.

But it is a difficult and complex issue. There are many tragedies and victims associated with wars.

If Western nations are going to get involved directly in wars in foreign countries, if they are going to make money by providing arms, if they are going to use failing states in geopolitical game playing and feuding and power battles then should they also take some responsibility for the damage that is caused to children and people who are more than just collateral damage?

Previous Post
Leave a comment

37 Comments

  1. “then should they also take some responsibility for the damage that is caused to children and people who are more than just collateral damage?” Valid point Pete. But ultimately Powers play for keeps and there are always casualties – that is realpolitik.

    NZ should be taking heed of the unfolding disaster that is occurring in West Europe – the Eastern Europeans have been too smart to fall into the “lets diversify our culture” trap, which is nothing more than self inflicted destruction. The nation state is not dead, people are tribal no matter what socialists and leftists say.

    Unfortunately the bs immigration strategies of western Europe are going to lead inevitably to mass bloodshed – its been forced on locals and many of them don’t want it. They haven’t wanted it going back to the nineties…

    Reply
    • Missy

       /  23rd October 2016

      Well said dave.

      The thing that the liberals and PC brigade are missing is that the more of this immigration and diversity that is brought in to Europe the greater chance that the far right will gain more popularity, and possibly get into positions of real power, already we are seeing that trend in local elections in Germany, and the more that there are these migrants coming to Britain it just fuels the right wing of the Conservatives, and parties like UKIP and BNP.

      Reply
      • Missy – been in Europe twice in the last 20 years the change between 99 and 2015 is really noticeable. London has changed so much in terms of the people on the streets – the locals seem totally absence in places.

        The anger was there in 99 but was isolated in the more extreme elements, though one of my cousins was very angry with the lack of any attempt to adapt to Dutch culture by middle eastern immigrants and their demands that the Dutch bend to their culture.

        Your correct, the left has loosened the stopper on the bottle containing the extreme nationalist genie – if it gets loose then its going to get very messy

        Reply
      • While what you say is true, it should be pointed out that that majority of voters involved have not change their politics towards the Right, but that ‘far’ Right-wing parties represent their interests more than centre and Left-wing ones. The result is that the implementation of the the ‘far’ Right policies acts as a corrective, and the centre-Left and centre-Right incorporate these into their own policies and reach a revised stasis.

        There are commentators who are raising the spectre of a fascist or Nazi revival but I see no evidence of this. Of all political groups, the ordinary non-ideological, self-interested voters are the easiest to keep in line, simply by limiting changes to their modi vivendi.

        Reply
        • Missy

           /  23rd October 2016

          You are right that many have not changed their politics, an example is the shift in the last UK election of many heartland voters to UKIP. With the FPP system here it wasn’t enough to give UKIP the seats (under a proportional representation system they would have done much better). I would suggest that many of those voters have not moved to the right – they would have voted Conservative if they had – but rather that they see UKIP as representing their views more, and understanding their concerns.

          Reply
  2. Pete George: “But it is a difficult and complex issue.”

    Not really, Pete. Islam is conquering the West and bringing it into submission to the will of Allah in what has been termed ‘The Third Jihad’.

    It does this using three doctrinally-inspired means, jihad, hijrah and dawah. Jihad is the use of threat, force, and violence. Hijrah is migration – legal and illegal, high fertility, and out-group marriage requiring conversion. Dawah is proselytising, dissembling, financing of Islamic institutions, mosques, religious education and teachers, manipulation of the press, shutting down debate by limiting free speech and criticism through charges of ‘Islamophobia’, and encouraging the West to blame itself for sins committed by Islam and its followers, thus making Muslims the victims.

    Once you grasp this, Pete, everything falls into a coherent narrative consistent with history, doctrine and current affairs. Very important, this. The West is being played like a finely-tuned oud by Islam, with skills unchanged but honed through fourteen centuries of experience. The West just plays it election by election, forgetting the past and ignoring the future. No wonder we’re losing the war.

    Reply
    • Islam is doing a very poor job at taking over the world. They are fighting amongst themselves and self destructing in the Middle East.

      Reply
      • Corky

         /  23rd October 2016

        They are doing a very good job Pete, in my view. They are breeding at a much higher rate than us. No guns needed..and as a freebie we will help them with financial support.

        “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.” Sadly we are in the downside of the Roman Empire phase.”

        Reply
      • Missy

         /  23rd October 2016

        Pete, I think you are wrong, there are more ways to take over the world than by force. In the UK Muslims are the fastest growing part of the population, they have tried, or succeeded, in implementing Sharia Law, and they have learnt how to use the West’s liberalism and tolerance against them for their own benefit.

        Islam may not be doing a good job over taking over in New Zealand as yet, but in Europe they are well on their way. Muslims make up over 30% of the UK population, a number of surveys over the years show that of those at least 60% (up to 80% in some surveys) support Sharia Law being introduced and superseding UK law – of those that want Sharia Law few are terrorist or ISIS sympathisers, this is a mainstream Muslim view in the UK. In areas with high Muslim populations there are a lot of social problems with regards to the treatment of Women, the Rochdale grooming gangs is only the tip of the iceberg. The UK is also experiencing problems with child brides, and honour killings. Only a few months ago a young British women was sent back to family in Pakistan where she was killed by her brother and father for marrying a man who was a different Islamic sect.

        You are naive if you think this is not a problem for the West. It probably won’t happen in the short term, but long term prospects for the West is grim at the moment unless something is done about the migrant issues. If it is not the Muslims, it will be a rise in nationalism. And trust me, it will spread to NZ eventually if it isn’t curtailed.

        The first step is for those that raise concerns not to be shouted down with cries of racist from the liberal elites – as was seen this week in the UK when people questioned the age of the so-called child migrants coming to the UK.

        Reply
        • I haven’t said it’s not a problem for the West. The West like the rest of the world faces many problems. A significant part of Muslim related problems have been created by the West and are adversely affected by the West’s ongoing meddling in the Middle East.

          How the West reacts – positively and badly, can make quite a difference to possible outcomes.

          It’s far from a case of ‘Islam’ – that isn’t a single force – taking over and the West rolling over.

          I don’t think that increasing the ‘us against them’ rhetoric is going to help the situation.

          We (the West) has to be be strong but we also have to be better.

          Reply
          • “A significant part of Muslim related problems have been created by the West and are adversely affected by the West’s ongoing meddling in the Middle East.”

            This is a false assumption, generated by the extreme Left and by the supremacist segments of Islamism. As ‘globo-cop’ the US is under tremendous pressure by MENA states to sort out problems caused by Islam’s fissiparous and violent nature. It’s not the nations’ governments who are complaining about Western interference (Syria’s excepted until Russia came to its aid), nor is it the majority of ordinary citizens. It is Islamists and the extreme Left. Remember the amount of support the US invasion of Iraq had from everyone – Sunnis, Shias, marsh-Arabs, Kuwaitis, Saudis, Iranians – except for Tikritis and the real victims of Islam, religious minorities, Christians especially, who had a level of protection from Saddam Hussein. Just as they did in Syria under Assad. But no-one cares about Christianity’s survival in its home zone any more than they do in the West.

            Islam IS a single force. The world is either Islamic or at war with Islam. It is foolishly misleading to think that because Muslims appear to have different world views that they don’t all wish to live in an Islamic world, because it’s part of Islam’s DNA.

            I can’t stress enough the importance of understanding Islam from an Islamic point of view, and on the evidence Pete George expresses here, he fails abysmally.

            Islam’s problems are caused by it knowing it has the Absolute Truth and ensuring that all comply with it under threat of death.

            Reply
      • Quite the contrary, Pete.

        Just look at Islam’s growth in the West in under fifty years. History has yet to be written but I suspect that it’s been done with a lot less slaughter than Islam’s conquest of the Maghreb, the Levant, Tamerlane’s and the Mughal conquests and the defeat of Byzantium. It’s phenomenal. Compare its growth with any other religion or doctrine like communism or Nazism in an alien environment.

        Islam splits the world into two, dar al-harb and dar al-Islam. Dar is the house, domain, region or abode. Dar al-Harb is the domain of disbelief where the battle for the domination of Islam should be waged, while Dar al-Islam is the ‘abode of peace’, countries where Muslims can practice their religion freely, has common frontiers with other Muslim countries thus having religious security, and has Islamic governance.

        Europe is effectively conquered and has entered dar al-dawah, the ‘house of invitation’.

        The failings in the Islamic world are due to the doctrinally impure, who have to be fought and killed. This is in the nature of any ideology of Absolute Truth – its real enemies are those within, since those outside have not been given the opportunity to accept the Truth.

        Reply
    • “Jihad is the use of threat, force, and violence.”

      Spoken like a true media whore. Jihad is a fight or struggle in the way of Allah.

      Reply
      • Gezza

         /  23rd October 2016

        It’s the different perceptions of what is the way of Allah, what Allah demands, the type of fight or struggle, and against who or what, from the different innterpretations made of the quran, the sira, and the hadith, that is the problem.

        Reply
        • Gezza

           /  23rd October 2016

          Which, incidentally, brings me back to a question I have posed now twice to you but you haven’t yet answered, Uggers. What is the role of deity in law & which deity are you referring to when you speak about that?

          Reply
          • The role is that of the source, of the laying down of fundamental principles, i.e. the authorship of the nature of things. The deity in question is known by many names, but is probably best identified as the prime Creator, the uncreated one. In the context of the law of NZ Blackstone is probably the most reliable source if you’re looking for specifics.

            Reply
            • Gezza

               /  24th October 2016

              But there is no evidence that any prime creator has laid down any fundamental principles, nor even that fundamental principles of different societies’ in original laws or codes of behaviour in the various different parts of the world are based on anything but reason & survival/preservation of the group.

            • Except for the evidence referenced by my previous post, idiot.

            • Gezza

               /  24th October 2016

              Your ad hom does nothing to make a convincing case that Blackstone – a remarkablly influential jurist notwithstanding – was correct about this, because Blackstone believed the law of nature is dictated by God Himself and not attainable by reason. That until they were revealed by the Judeo-Christian deity in the Bible scriptures, “they were hid from the wisdom of the ages”. So he was already sold on the belief in an unproven & improbable deity.

        • True enough, but facts and reason are the only reliable means of finding a sound interpretation of the source texts. The MSM whores often describe acts prohibited by the Quran as jihad, which is essentially a slander or libel against Islam.

          Reply
          • Most Muslims rely on centuries of figh for their interpretation of Islam, and those scholars who provide it use their reason & facts to deduce Islam from the recorded sayings and doings of Mohammed, in the Sira & Hadith, as he dictated the Quran & thus his behaviours were necessarily in accordance with it. (Lets face it, the Quran was dictated (over the 23 years it took) to enable Allah to fit the requirements of Mohammed, rather than the other way round.)

            Reply
            • While tradition does play a significant role in Islamic society, the Quran warns against the traditions of the fathers and favours the application of reason.

      • Uh-oh. Someone’s drunk the Kool-Aid. Mr Truth conflates greater and lesser jihad. Here’s some clarifying quotations, mostly from Islamic sources, There are lots, lots, lots more.

        In the words of Majid Khadduri of Johns Hopkins University (1955) jihad is “an instrument for both the universalisation of [Islamic] religion and the establishment of an imperial world state.”

        “The spread of Islam by arms is a religious duty upon Muslims in general … Jihad must continue to be done until the whole world is under the rule of Islam … Islam must completely be made over before the doctrine of jihad can be eliminated.” Encyclopaedia of Islam’s entry for jihad.

        Shortly after he founded the Muslim Brotherhood in 1928, Hassan al-Banna made very clear what jihad was about: “It is the nature of Islam to dominate, not to be dominated, to impose its laws on all nations and to extend its power to the entire world.”

        “The starting point of Islamism is the new interpretation of jihad, exposed with uncompromising militancy by Hassan al Banna, the first to preach it as a holy war in modern times.” German political scientist, Matthias Kuntzel.

        “Muslim jurists agreed that the purpose of fighting with the People of the Book…is one of two things: it is either their conversion to Islam or the payment of jizyah.” 12th century Maliki jurist Ibn Rushd quoted by Imran Ahsan Khan Nyazee, Assistant Professor on the Faculty of Shari’ah and Law of the International Islamic University in Islamabad, who said, “This leaves no doubt that the primary goal of the Muslim community, in the eyes of its jurists, is to spread the word of Allah through jihad, and the option of poll-tax [jizyah] is to be exercised only after subjugation” of non-Muslims.

        “Violent Islamic Jihad is the most ambitious imperial project that the world has seen for many, many years – an attempt to re-establish a caliphate which brings the sharia law across large parts of the world. And the sharia law, let’s not forget what it does. It tortures people, it executes people, it cuts people’s hands off, it subordinates women, it deprives women of rights. It deprives women of education.” Colonel Richard Kemp, Former commander of British forces in Afghanistan.

        One of the world’s most respected Deobandi scholars believes that aggressive military jihad should be waged by Muslims “to establish the supremacy of Islam” worldwide. Justice Muhammad Taqi Usmani argues that Muslims should live peacefully in countries such as Britain, where they have the freedom to practice Islam, only until they gain enough power to engage in battle. His views explode the myth that the creed of offensive, expansionist jihad represents a distortion of traditional Islamic thinking.

        Jihad against the kuffar with weapons is of two types: jihad talab (offensive jihad) and jihad daf’ (defensive jihad). Jihad talab means attacking the kuffar in their own lands until they become Muslim or pay the jizyah with willing submission and feel themselves subdued. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: “I have been commanded to fight the people until they bear witness that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allaah, and establish regular prayer, and pay zakaah. If they do that, then they have protected their blood and their wealth from me, except in cases decreed by Islamic law, and their reckoning with be with Allah.” Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 25; Muslim, 20.

        Reply
        • “Uh-oh. Someone’s drunk the Kool-Aid. Mr Truth conflates greater and lesser jihad”

          I’m not the one parroting the MSM lies, fool. If you want to know what jihad is then go to the authentic source, not your pseudo-Islamic academics.

          The ones who have believed, emigrated and striven[jihad] in the cause of Allah with their wealth and their lives are greater in rank in the sight of Allah. And it is those who are the attainers [of success].
          Quran 9:20

          Can you show how the unqualified “use of threat, force, and violence” is consistent with the cause of Allah?

          Reply
          • This is a strange and dissociated response. My understanding of jihad from original sources is not relevant, or else I would be telling Muslims their Absolute Truth, like Mr Truth seems to be doing. What is important is the understanding, interpretation and actions of jihad by Muslims, and the effects of these on the non-Muslim world. It’s for Muslims, not me, to tell the world that their use of violent jihad is consistent with the cause of Allah. And this they do copiously in word and deed.

            Reply
            • Yeah, I get that a conclusion that isn’t based on the MSM fictions would seem strange and dissociated to you. I’m not telling them their Absolute Truth, I’m telling you that their authoritative source is inconsistent with the lie that you are peddling. Looking to the outcomes and effects without considering the intangible causes is typical of the superficial nature of the personal paradigm of the west, of considering the representation rather than the context and intent.

  3. Alan Wilkinson

     /  23rd October 2016

    I don’t see how the West survives if it becomes majority Muslim. At 30% already the UK is well on the way to a majority that will destroy all its institutions and conventions..

    Tell us, PG.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s