THE European Union’s vast experiment in open borders, free movement and cultural diversity has been tested to destruction.
As the influx The very fabric of European civilisation is disintegrating as the influx continues
Although Britain is not part of the EU core we are going through the same social revolution as the rest of Europe. The annual rate of immigration to our country officially stands at 630,000 but even that astonishing figure is probably an underestimate given that no fewer than 917,000 National Insurance numbers were dished out to foreigners last year.
The traditional bonds of solidarity and shared identity are collapsing
Deceit, scaremongering, sentimentality and distraction are their chosen weapons in their campaign to destroy the traditional social order. And they are not above exploiting children in support of their cause. They did so last August when the image of Syrian child Aylan Kurdi found dead on a Turkish beach was used with ruthless cynicism to galvanise public backing for the open floodgates in the name of compassion.
But it is an appalling act of deception for, according to the United Nations, more than 70 per cent of these migrants to Europe are able-bodied young men. Nor are many of them genuine refugees. Only last week the EU Vice President Frans Timmermans admitted that 60 per cent of the influx is made up of economic migrants from North Africa. “These are people that you can assume have no reason to apply for refugee status,” he said.
But this is a desperate moral perversion. The vast majority of migrants are not fleeing persecution at all. Moreover genuine refugees in Europe have been given accommodation, food and welfare, the very opposite of the terrible fate experienced by Jewish people under the Third Reich. Above all the grotesque irony of the open borders approach is that it has led to the import into Europe of a viciously anti-Semitic culture from the Arab world and Asia, which is why attacks in Europe have risen.
Only last week the EU admitted that 60 per cent of the influx is made up of economic migrants
The menacing squalor of the migrant camps at Calais and the rioting at Dover on Saturday are twin symbols of the disorder that the EU has inflicted. Just as empty is the Europhiles’ claim that mass immigration has fuelled prosperity. “Free movement is hugely beneficial to our economy,” wrote Labour’s Andy Burnham, ignoring the reality that mass immigration has pushed down living standards and imposed a colossal burden on the civic infrastructure.
The EU cannot undo the epic mess that it has made. Talk in Brussels about applying an “emergency brake” on migration is meaningless. The EU’s whole existence is predicated on the abolition of patriotism, frontiers, self-government and nationhood. In its drive to create a multicultural superstate it has left us defenceless against the migrant floodtide. Our only hope of escaping this meltdown is to vote for our exit.
It’s one of the sweet fibs of the Left – that refugees make us richer.
Here, for instance, is the ABC last year:
As the Government announces it will take 12,000 additional refugees, it’s worth nothing that the data shows a generous intake is likely to be the most economically sound immigration policy of all, writes Tim Dunlop.
University of Sydney sociologist Stephen Castles:
It is the people with the greatest courage, endurance and human resources who make it. Australia could benefit from these qualities – as we have done in the past: refugees have made major contributions to our economy and society since 1945.
Labor’s then Immigration Minister, Chris Evans:
“We always talk about refugees as if they are a cost,” Senator Evans said at a fringe event to the ALP National Conference. “Refugees are generally young, we are an ageing population … we should see refugees for their capacity as well as their cost.
“They … have proved to be great contributors to Australian society.”
Really? If we were still bringing in, say, educated Jewish refugees from Europe those platitudes would be true.
But we aren’t and the platitudes are false, as I already noted six years ago:
NOW even the Gillard Government knows the truth about its bungled refugee program.
The people it’s bringing in are costing us billions, with 85 per cent of refugees on Centrelink benefits in their first five years here.
Worse, it’s the “refugees” who push in—the boat people we don’t pick, and who exploit the Government’s weak laws—who cost us most.
The vast majority of boat people say they are from Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and Sri Lanka, and these are exactly the refugees most likely to be unemployed and living on welfare, even after five years.
Just 9 per cent of Afghan adults have a job and 94 per cent receive benefits, which means every boatload of Afghans landing here is a boatload almost entirely of people we’ll be paying handouts to for years…
It’s the same story among Iranian adults, just 12 per cent of whom work.
And now more confirmation that whatever the moral case for bringing in refugees, it is an expensive act of charity:
The Turnbull government is considering boosting English, education and employment services for refugees amid new research showing only 7 per cent of a group of 2013 arrivals have jobs and budget estimates that welfare payments for new arrivals will exceed $100 million a year…
The Australian Institute of Family Studies study of a group of 2400 arrivals granted visas between May and December 2013, released last week, found 7 per cent of migrants reported being employed and 70 per cent of new arrivals were either working or studying, mainly to gain English language skills.
Is bringing them here really the cheapest and safest way to help refugees?
About 40 per cent were having difficulty finding housing and 35 per cent of men and 45 per cent of women were at moderate or high risk of psychological distress, compared to 7 per cent of men and 11 per cent of women in the general population.
The report showed that humanitarian arrivals struggled with poor English ability and low skills.
It showed nearly three quarters of humanitarian arrivals had either no or a poor understanding of English, while 78 per cent could not speak English on arrival.
This counting of the costs does not include the cost of the cultural clashes we have imported, forcing us to take expensive anti-terrorism measures, for instance. Note that the last three terror attacks on our soil were all conducted by refugees. Three Australians are now dead, and also don’t figure in the costs in today’s report.
Now to the moral issue this raises.
How can we best spend that $100 million a year to give the most help to the most refugees? Is it by bringing in 14,000 refugees a year and spending it on welfare for the workless, or by spending $1000 a person on 100,000 people in refugee camps overseas while they wait to go back home?
And another question: are we creating a new underclass here that will nurse resentments about our “racism” in keeping them in “disadvantage”?