"We are sorry that you, your family and ancestors have created failed states". The solution is not to leave your country but rather stay and be am intregal part of the healing.
16
The EU has financial assistance to Africa to the tune of tens of billions of USD.
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/europe/2017-02-09/eus-misplaced-...
Now that the authors have told us what not to do to stem illegal immigration from SubSaharan Africa because of its high moral cost, could they please tell us what should be done?
Open up borders to the 1.26 B inhabitants? (They may not all wish to migrate, but I probably would).
Of course asylum seekers need to be distinguished from economic migrants (which the Left refuses in many European countries). If that was easily done it would have been done long ago.
It is a lose-lose situation.
10
There are probably close a million homeless in the United States right now. There are thousands in the UK “sleeping rough” as well. There are uncounted thousands on the European continent who are in the same situation. Any serious movement to accommodate substantially more migrants will result in strengthening “right wing” political parties - both in the US, the UK and Europe. Do we really want this to happen?
12
Many countries are in desperate need of government supported family planning.
What is "moral" about allowing thousands & thousands of migrants to enter a country & expect its citizens to educate, feed, & support them?
11
At independence in 1993, Eritrea had a population of approximately 3 million people. This is roughly the population of Toronto. Why was it so difficult to create a decent life for people who had fought so hard for their independence from Ethiopia?
8
There is only one solution to this tragic problem, and it is to create conditions across the world which will enable people to thrive and live healthy, safe lives in their home countries.
If we can achieve that, then there will still be migrants, of course, but there will not be the desperate migrants we have today, willing to risk their lives and give up everything they have, because they have so little, just for the chance to get to a rich country, even knowing that if they get there, their life will be far below that of the locals.
People say this is utopian thinking, but we owe it to ourselves to try, because the alternative is to accept that it's ok for ordinary men, women and children to live (and die) under appalling conditions, in war, in poverty, in corrupt countries lacking clean water and basic necessities.
Without this, there's no easy answer to what the right migration policy should be. Of course we in Europe should and must accept refugees, but do we help or hinder the situation by accepting (and hence encouraging) migrants from non-conflict situations? I don't know. And do we help people by allowing them into our countries if they cannot assimilate or get decent work or bring their families? I don't know.
The answer is to make sure that nobody NEEDS to emigrate to escape a bad situation.
I imagine a world where Africans who come to Europe are musicians who want to live in Vienna fans of Belgian beer ... not people desperate to find a way to stay alive.
4
Africa alone produces 30 million extra people every year. That is in addition to the 10s of millions it cannot support presently. The solution to the impoverished peoples of the world is not, and can never be, send them all west. The biggest reason is that in the end it will simply mean the west will look like everywhere the excess people are coming from and there will still be millions more, every year. The solutions involve helping these countries solve their problems at home so that their populations won't wont to leave. This will, by necessity, involve development money, aid, the education and empowerment of women and of coarse, birth control. The u.s. without immigration, would be on its way to a sustainable future. Mexico is a classic example of a Western Hemisphere country that needs exactly the same solutions. At 120 million it is far past its sustainable population now. With the worlds population at over 7.6 billion and rising, shifting humans around is no longer a viable solution.
18
Whatever it takes to save the developed world! African countries need to lower births. Europe and the US cannot and will not accept the hundreds of millions who want to come to our countries. If we do, we will become the third world nations that these people are fleeing. Every country has a right to place the well being of its own citizens first. They have a duty to do so.
20
When China mandated 1 child only they became an economic giant. Hmmm. Education was and is also a priority.
13
Europe cannot take everyone, it is really that simple.
Austria, where I live, took in the equivalent of 1% of its total population in one year between 2015 and 2016 in refugees. This type of absorption rate is not sustainable without serious social issues including the collapse of the European Welfare State.
In Vienna, an incredibly safe city by US standards, there is increasing violent crime including rapes and stabbings. Several weeks ago a family of three were stabbed by an Afghan rejected asylum seeker very close to where I live in the second district.
All you have to do is to go to one of the train stations in the city and you will see the problem. Gangs of young men, many of whom have rejected asylum status, but cannot be deported, with nothing to do. What does the future hold for these people? A life of crime, maybe, or radicalization, perhaps. But without a secondary education, which the vast majority do not have, there is little or no hope for them to integrate even if they are granted asylum.
There is a limit to how many people Europe can absorb. If I had to choose between the future of my children and those of someone from some far-flung country - what is the moral choice?
Anybody who wants to pontificate on this subject would do well to read Douglas Murray's "The Strange Death of Europe".
15
It is really a problem that those who were denied the right to stay cannot be deported. Here our high moral standards will have to be lowered, it should always be possible to send those who did not get asylum back home.
17
Do as China: since there is no moral justification to intervene in other countries' internal affairs (whether to promote democracy, human rights, etc.) then there is no moral obligation to take any consequences (failed nations, refugees, etc.) China will trade with any regime with no string attached - except when China's interest is violated.
8
I lived in Cambodia several years, which trades with and receives aid from China. Don't fool yourself about the "no strings attached".
3
I find it unsettling and ironic that people commenting on this article determine their own moral responsibility in terms of 1) the actions of others (i.e. “they are overpopulating their own countries” or “others have taken less people in than us”) or 2) in terms of preserving their own culture (i.e. “they are a threat to our way of life”). One’s sense of moral responsibility should never, never be guided by the action of others, and cannot be based on the desire to preserve one’s life style either. Moral responsibility stems from a commitment with human values that, if instituted, so we reason, would be fair to everyone. When we claim that our decisions and policies should be moral (or are not being moral), we are saying that we are aiming towards an outcome that would be equally fair for all the affected or subjected ones. In this process, our cultures and ways of life will undoubtedly be altered and changed. It would be immoral for anyone (rich or poor, black or white, Christian or Muslim) with a sense of moral responsibility AND with the power to change his/her action, to try to preserve any practice or belief which is hampering the flourishing of others. And again, blaming others for not acting morally does not reduce in any shape or form one’s own moral responsibility.
2
Related to this, Spiegel Online just came out with a feature telling the story from the POV of some Europeans whose world has been transformed thanks to Angela Merkel's impulsive open-borders madness. The sub-headline says "Many Germans feel foreign in their own country ..."
Gee, who woulda thunk there'd be any negative effects? (Sarcasm)
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/germany-and-immigration-the-...
The story begins with a discussion of the challenges German health care workers face when providing medical services to Germany's new residents, starting with a woman from West Africa's Guinea-Bissau who is pregnant with twins but "hasn't understood anything, because she doesn't speak any German."
Even if this woman has the education & skills Germany's economy needs (& chances are that she doesn't, as has turned out to be the case with most of the Syrians as well) the fact that she speaks no German whatsoever makes her unemployable in Germany. So it's no surprise that a few weeks ago German govt. mouthpiece DW, in an article trying hard to put a positive spin on immigration, reported that while migrants from within the EU "have found work as the German economy prospers... non-EU migrants continue to make up a disproportionate number of welfare recipients."
http://www.dw.com/en/job-numbers-benefit-claims-rise-for-migrants-to-ger...
17
Ideally immigration would be regulated by better means. Having thousands of corpses floating all over Mediterranean is hardly a better way. Letting a billion unskilled people who despise Europe, either for the colonial past of *some* EU countries or for its secularism and tolerance, would be suicidal. I support helping the refugees, but clearly, as everyone knows by now, these migrants are not refugees on average. That said, I did meed a number of great scientists from various African nations and I fully support their immigration to the West, as they are very driven and do not hate their new countries. Certainly the suicide of Europe cannot be a solution for either the native Europeans or for those who came in later. Stop pushing these destructive, insane ideas.
I still respect NYTimes for its reporting on various issues, but when it comes to immigration, be it illegals in the US, H1B visas or the invasion of Europe of 2015, I cannot extend that respect to it.
17
Given the need for the "best and brightest" in most of these countries it is unconscionable that the west would cherry pick immigrants like some propose. We should not only not be taking these people we should be training them and sending them back to help improve their countries. This may in the short term hurt us economically but in the end will make for a better world for all of us.
5
Except that they don't want to go back. Look at what is going on here in the US with the Haitians and others who were allowed to come here on a temporary basis because their homelands were destroyed by weather and earthquakes. Do we just pick them up and load boats with them? How many have children who are US citizens who will be left alone to be cared for by citizen family or our governments?
We need to stop bringing these people in and instead provide care in their own lands. There they can contribute to the work required to repair the damage and we won't have the problem of returning them.
5
When will the First World take responsibility for plundering and devastating the Third world? We are all interconnected, and all of us in the First World are profiting from the Third world. Even if you are struggling, you have to know that these cheap imports you afford yourself, are produced on the backs of human beings who struggle even more. Reading through some of the comments, it really seems that many people think that they have more of a right to a passable life on this planet than others. Oh, and by the way, this is not an African or European problem to righteously judge from a safe distance. It is an American problem too.
4
So give us the number of people we should take in? 10 million a year? A 100 million? There are billions who would come here if allowed. Tell us what the number is. The truth is, we and the west are over populated now and it is only getting worse. We can help people at home. We can't take them all in or even a small percent.
6
As posted above, the EU gives billions of USD to Africa each year and the US spends 50% more than that.
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/europe/2017-02-09/eus-misplaced-...
If more needs to be done, kindly tell us how you plan to take your share of "the responsibility for plundering and devastating the Third World". Based on my 20-something experience of living in developing countries, I find they are very good at plundering and devastating themselves.
It's not a Trumpish "us versus them". All I'm saying is it's much more complicated and let's not believe nothing is being done.
6
There is something frankly amazing in the idea that Europe has some particular moral obligation to solve the problems of African countries that have now all been independent for as long as they were colonized, ie. between 60 & 70 years in most cases and again, the number of countries where there was real colonisation, with movement of significant numbers of European colonizers ie. more than a few tens of thousands, to the colonized countries was tiny: South Africa, Algeria...? Furthemore, when most African countries gained their independance, their GNP/habitant was higher than many Asian countries which are now way ahead of them in terms of developement. Even China, a very late starter with a massive population, is now way ahead of any African country in terms of GDP/habitant, more than 8000$ versus an average of less than 2000$/person right across Africa, even including North Africa which in principle has always been well connected with world trade routes.
No, quite clearly, things will only imporve in Africa when its leaders take genuine responsability for their countries futures, clean up on curruption and get their demogrpahics under control ie. population increase from 275 million in 1960 to 1.2 billion in 2016 -> 430%
The population of the EU which was greater than the population of Africa in 1960, (400 million), is now (500 million) so dwarfed by the population of Africa that emigration to Europe can in no way be a solution to the continent's problems.
20
Europe (ex-Russia) is a small continent and it cannot, just because of the colonialism of past generations, accept the masses of people who seem to consider it their right to just walk in. Most want to come because they see no future in their home countries, an understandable motivation but Europe cannot fix it for everybody, the people need to be helped in their own countries.
The biggest problem, in my opinion, is that there are too many people on this planet. Whatever it takes, the population growth has to stop. I could write a much longer comment, but space is limited and I just mention what I think are two important reasons for this disastrous growth in the poorest African countries:
1. a lack of even the most basic education and
2. the need to have many children, so that at least a few are left to care for the parents in old age (-> egoism).
What could motivate women and men to have less children, once they got an education and once they have access to contraception and/or sterilization? Could it be the promise of future payments of a small “pension” paid to those men and women who did not produce more than 1 or 2 children? Could it be a certain pride when able to care well for that one or those 2 kids?
I believe, the “pension fund” is worth a try, financed by 1st and 2nd world countries and I believe the cost will be less than doing nothing, much less.
14
Most economic migrants have no idea what it takes to succeed in our economies - 10 years down the road they will hate us - and we have more problems created than solved. (I am not talking about war refugees - they should be given our resources, not voluntary migrants.)
My (humble) suggestions:
We need global population control. How can antipoverty measures be successful if a poor village, already without water and food doubles in population?
The international money that gets pumped into so-called development projects should be subject to oversight that it actually helps the population.
16
"the moral cost is high..."
Well - this is the cost for Merkel's decision to open the borders and unleash the pandemonium. The Germans owe the Italians and the Greeks, big time.
17
We can still create room in America for illegal immigrants if the Liberals keep their promise to leave USA when Donald trump comes to power in 2020. Where they choose to go, Canada or Mexico is their right and perogative that I openly support. We could then easily accommodate Hundreds of thousands of new Syrian refugees, DACA recipients, among others if our Liberals remain true to their word in 2020.
8
This is only a half-measure, and it will not change much, certainly not enough.
The draw is too great, and the smuggler's routes are too established. Europe needs the Australian policy, to deny access to anyone who enters illegally. Australia was able to implement their policy because it actually saved lives at sea, and most Australians from most political persuasions accepted the policy, except for the far left. Europe can easily implement such a policy, the conditions are similar, migrants have to cross by water to get to points in Europe and many migrants have lost their lives in doing so, just as with Australia. Although not mentioned in this piece, some migrants have also lost their lives trying to traverse the Sahara desert. Migrants also suffer degradation in Libya in a holding pattern. Block the sea route as Australia did, and all of this is resolved.
Australia still processes asylum seekers but the regular way and not the irregular way. It offers a perfect blueprint to follow. But the leaders in Europe with all of their wisdom (sarcastically referring to Merkel here) somehow have chosen not to follow Australia's good example.
Also, Sudan and Eritrea are not at war. Why should Europe feel obligated to take mostly economic migrants? And if there are a minority of legitimate asylum claimants, isn't Saudi Arabia much closer? Why should the burden of indefinitely hosting these mostly economic migrants fall on Europe?
16
Australia has a vast ocean helping keep the waves of potential migrants at bay. The u.s. with its porous border and Europe with the much smaller Mediterranean are examples of how more inventive waves must be found to reduce the need for people to leave their home countries.
2
I believe the cost of not controlling the flow will be much higher. No morals involved in that. Each country has a greater moral requirement to take care of its own citizens, first. Immigration will improve all countries, but it must be accomplished in a well planned way.
14
There comes a point when morality has to cede to common sense, and that time is now because there is no way that Europe can continue to absorb the amount of migrants and refugees flowing into the continent from not only Africa, but form other countries as well.
As is, there's an increasing backlash from its native populations in the form of right-wing nativist political activity and even random attacks on foreigners by disgruntled Europeans who don't feel at home in their own country anymore.
And one of the reasons why this unfettered migration has gone on for as long as it has, is because it's become such a lucrative business for human traffickers, as well as for small-time bureaucrats who are often paid to look the other way.
In the meantime some countries, like Austria have taken to more drastic measures in order to reduce the influx of migrants by making it less appealing (and more expensive!) to gain entry -- no doubt a tactic that will soon be employed by others.
And as long as war, poverty, drought and other natural catastrophes are at play with nations whose governments continue to ignore the consequences, there will not only be more forced migrations, but the need to emply ever more draconian measures to stop it.
16
These countries need to figure out how to control their populations and do it. China instituted the one child policy and while unpopular it likely contributed greatly to their current stature by eliminating a huge financial burden that would have been of little benefit to them economically (excess population). And the thing about excess population is it compounds just like debt and leads to not only higher social service costs but conflict and eventually war.
13
Perhaps you can tell these basic facts to our clueless leaders in Washington.
2
You can't wrap yourself in your moral superiority when uncontrolled migration results in the rise of aggressive nativism and nationalism that leads to militarism and war. And uncontrolled migration has the potential to do that.
Look at the US. Everyone averted their eyes while illegal and non-white immigration surged, and look at the response. I'm surprised it took so long. If Trump doesn't expel million of aliens and build the wall, an enterprising politician will come along and promise to do it - and will make Trump look like a moderate in comparison. The forces unleashed by the conflicts of human tribes are base and instinctual.
30
You have hit the nail on its head....most liberals promised to move to Mexico or Canada after Trump, but didn’t. Shame.
5
Europe can’t absorb Africa’s out of control birth rates. It will destroy itself attempting to do so.
Whatever it takes to stop this invasion.
40
Basically this is what everything is about - the population explosion in Africa, with grinding poverty and the number of children seen as a status symbol for the woman, and virility proof for men, is out of control. Women in the sub-Saharan Africa have 5-12 children, with an enormous pressure on resources and wanton destruction of wildlife which is the patrimony of the entire planet.
In addition to controlling migration, something should be done to ameliorate the birth rate. Much of this can be laid at the foot of misguided Western NGOs who indirectly propel the population explosion.
8
I doubt most women see many children as a status symbol. They are not being asked.
Time for 1-(or 2) child policy - and marriage age 25 (just like China successfully showed the world). And punishment for rape and multiple 'wives'. This goes for all developing countries.
If this is 'against their traditions' as some argue, then the same could have been said about changing women's roles 100 years ago.
When women are respected, men and women get a chance to get educated and work, when multiple children get taxed, not rewarded (by any country) we will see a reduction in population, poverty, and overuse of resources.
Throwing money at it will not help.
3
Educated, empowered women are the best and perhaps only solution to Africa's and the planets population problems. It has largely worked in the west and can work elsewhere if fundamentalism, misogyny and tribal history can be over turned. We have to help these people join the 20th century or the west will be overwhelmed and start going backwards.
1
Climate change. There is not enough water for crops so the farmers have been pushed out by touaregs with cluster bombs. Frontex has been developed to extend the boarder far beyond the souther coast deep into Africa. Immigrants are brought back to Libya where they are put on trucks and dropped in the middle of nowhere.
Our governments are doing what we want them to because we can’t have millions of people eating into our comfort zone.
It’ll all work out in the end.
2
This is a foreign invasion. Period. European countries have not only the right but the duty to stop it. If current governments will not protect their citizens from this attack, citizens have a duty to replace thise governments with politicians who will.
Sink the boats.
31
Or, you know, the messy, morally gray attempt to mitigate human misery while diminishing the flow with increased border security that provides indirect humanitarian funding, as the article describes. I’ll take messy, and morally gray over fear-mongering tribalism any day, though it doesn’t win many elections.
Breaking news! Illegal migration is a dirty nasty business, people get hurt and killed and suffer. The big question though is who suffers, is it the illegal migrant or the citizens of countries that allow them in . . . and the naive response cannot be "win win" let everyone in, just look at Germany and other EU Countries, it has not exactly worked out that way has it?
26
If you had to chose between a) taking in a large number of refugees and fueling far right parties that dismantle democracy or b) working with countries along that migration path to reduce the flow- what you chose? That is the situation here.
18
I consider myself a liberal and do think that the West should not totally close its doors to refugees who will otherwise not survive in their own country. That being said there is a certain limit to the number of refugees that any country can accept. Especially if those refugees refuse to assimilate in the culture they want to move into. Look at what happened in Cologne, and Paris, and Berlin and many such places. This is the exact reason why sometimes I agree with the Swiss policy of testing assimilation before granting citizenship. It keeps the culture and values intact keeps the people at peace, i.e. they will not elect the next Trump in their country.
41
My Polish immigrant Grandmother never learned English and lived in heavily Polish-speaking Scranton, PA. She never “assimilated”. Her children and grandchildren have. Assimilation happens over time. Be patient.
We are rationalizing our resistance to immigration. We’re willing to bomb Syria to keep civilians safe from chemical weapons, by we have allowed only 12 Syrian refugees into the country so far this year. Our compassion for these oppressed people is shallow.
1
Reality check: you are not a liberal.
The Syrian conflict is not our doing. Moving all the unhappy Syrians here, will in the end, solve nothing. The world has billions of people who on paper would benefit from coming here. Should we take them all? If not, which ones? The solution is no longer migration. In situ solutions are what are needed.
1
So, Europe has a 'moral' obligation to care for those that don't want to live in their countries of origin? And do they also have a moral obligation to tolerate those that do not tolerate them or their customer or culture? Is this new definition of 'diversity' where the west must care for those from around the world and embrace the upheaval of their economies and safety in the name of the NYTimes idea of morality?!! It's no wonder the pendulum has swung, as it always will when extreme social engineering is forced upon citizens.
70
I have given up on Europe. They have shown no will to protect its people. How many more will be killed by terrorists disguised as migrants?
How money is left to pay for their own poor?
France was a harbinger of things to come, what with their no go zones. Merkel thought: what a great idea, let's invite millions more.
And you're surprised European vote more and more for the right?
24
We do need to remember that we bear a good bit of responsibility for chaos in the ME.
4
The whole world has a moral obligation, not just Europe.
This is not a "moral" cost. It is what happens when a country wants to preserve its way of life, culture and national heritage. This "open borders" perspective of what is a terrifying inflow of people, mainly Muslim, wanting to impose their culture, and refusing to be culturally assimilated, is the "moral" issue.
51
What appeared -- from my distant remove -- to turn open-armed sympathy into nationalism and turmoil was religion. People for whom religion is law and culture combined don't want to merge, they expect their laws and culture to be respected wherever they may be. That doesn't work when you come to someone else's home for shelter.
38
The Times' coverage of migration issues is so slanted that it amounts to propaganda. It is hardly ever acknowledged that there are 1.2 billion people in Africa alone and a big percentage of them would love to move to Europe. They simply can't. Yet any and every effort to prevent it is cast as a moral travesty by this newspaper.
73
There is also a 'moral obligation' on the part of Sub-sahara countries to keep their population growth in pace with the rest of the world. One of the basic drivers of mass migration is dwindling resources due to overpopulation and Africa has had a population growth which is 30% greater than other continents.
69
Well then I guess you've got your lobbying work cut out for you. The Trump people reinstated the W era "gag rule" against any of our aid workers in places like Africa informing anyone whatsoever about birth control methods. You can't simultaneously be in favor of controlling population and against birth control, so either the concern for Africa's overpopulation or the concern for the "sanctity of life" has got to be not sincere. Which is it?
11
This is the residue of European colonialism from 1492 through the 1960’s. Excusing them from their culpability is not doing the Europeans a favor. Throughout Africa, south and southeast Asia, and Latin America are nations and people, former subjects of European powers, who’ve never really had a chance to ascend.
1
Then Christian missionaries should stop preaching religion and start preaching birth control!
8
Some truths are self-evident, such as all men are created equal with unalienable rights of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.
These truths are not limited to Americans; are humankind. The moral ground is to accept that these self-evident truths apply to all people. We must either allow them to pursuit happiness here or in Europe, or help them pursue them in their home countries with real investments that are win-win to both.
Isolationism and nationalism go contrary to these, it’s an us-vs-them where we all lose in name of tribalism.
6
Every country has the obligation to put its own citizens first. Every country has the obligation to create policies to improve the lot of their citizens. None of these countries even attempt to control population growth. Once they wreck their own country, these people should not be allowed to destroy other countries.
45
They did not wreck their own countries, the “West” did, which includes the U.S.
Thank you! Definitely not the feeling of the majority of commentators.
1
To say that has Europe has superior morality to the rest of the world is laughable. Considering our loss of treasure and spilled blood, their debt (and China’s too) is beyond comprehension. We are still protecting them with very little appreciation with each passing year. They have arrogantly turn their backs on Christian values at their own peril.
2
Using almost the same tactics that Tony Abbott did when he was prime Minister of Australia...the slogan used was”Stop the Boats”.... it was incredibly effective...Europeans condemned him....now they are using exactly the same measures...Individual nations have the right to maintain their national sovereignty...Merkel allowed this to happen and in the process bought the EU to its knees....want to import terrorist activity into the EU? Then letting the boats in is one sure way of doing it as evidenced by the scope of terrorist attacks in Europe over the last few years
50
As long as Europe refuses to face their moral obligations (this entire situation was created by European colonialism from the 16th- 19th Century) their response will be morally vacant. If you think America caused this situation, you are ignorant. Iran = British Petroleum. Vietnam = French Indochina. Syria/Iraq = Sykes-Picot. All of Africa & Latin America = blatant, nearly genocidal European imperialism. Not to mention India, Indonesia, Phillipines, etc.
America was left holding the bag when Europe abandoned their mess.
8
What moral obligation? This situation was not caused nor created by European colonialism but the exploding population growth of recent times.
70
You’ve answered your own objection.
Nono, America has been meddling quite a bitto create this mess!
The US has been the mercenary army for Saudi Arabia for decades because of the Petro-Dollar. The link between Iraq, Libya and Syria is that they are secular countries. For example in Syria the Vice President is a woman and millions of Christians live in peace with muslims.
Saudi Arabia wants Sharia Law where women wear burkas and gays are stoned. The Saudis are the biggest financiers of terrororists in the world. They are financing al Qaeda and other rebel terrorists in Syria and elsewhere with US backing. The Saudis also have killed over one hundred thousand civilians in Yemen and also a famine where millions could die by blockading food and medicine with the aid of US arms and air support.
We need to ask why our tax dollars are supporting terrorist groups, which are causing unrest in the world and mass migrations.
18
This observation is repeated:
" Most Africans would jump at the chance to migrate to Europe. "
So is this:
"Africans despise Europeans for the 'crimes' of colonialism."
So now Europe is expected to welcome, settle and care for hate-filled aliens and consider that flood a blessing.
A collective punishment for past "crimes" ? --- Is that progressive?
Would not it make more sense, and create less tension, if Africans started having fewer babies and European started having a few more?
Some call this a "racist" notion. Never mind that it would reduce bloodshed.
Who are the real humanitarians here?
61
This deeply troubling story needed to be told - rather more important than the glorious tidings that a bonny baby, fifth in line to the British throne, has been born, hallelujah. My thanks to NYT for giving space to the voiceless.
There are no easy answers and I wonder if I even have the questions. I do understand the problems faced by European governments and that they may have to take stern steps to deal with a difficult issue. However, they cannot stoop to the level of collaborating with a criminal regime to stop desperate people, some of whom may only have torture and death as alternatives to migration.
7
Most Africans would jump at the chance to migrate to Europe. Europe has done a commendable job of giving asylum seekers refuge. Europe is overwhelmed. Italy has been accepting migrants in great numbers, 200,000 in 2016,and more in previous years. Spain effectively blocks entrance with warships. A visible deterrent such as ships blocking migrant routes closer to the African side of the Mediterranean might discourage migrants, but those people are so desperate they still might seek Europe. The population of Africa is booming. This is not sustainable. Until women give birth only to the number of babies they can support the poverty in Africa will get worse, and the overflow will try to reach Europe. A concerted effort to help women control the size of their families is needed. Aid for business startups and education that might be steps to alleviate the hardship that makes people want to migrate often disappears in graft and corruption. And, then there is drought to contend with. Europe, too, is getting thirstier.
81
There is still space in the U.S.
Put them in one of your spare bedrooms.
3
I realize that things in sub-Saharan Africa are unsustainable, what with swelling populations, non-existent governments and diminishing resources as the desert advances, and that the feeling is 'well, these people have to go somewhere'. But moving these people to where they can beg and be put up - because that is essentially what's going on - until their application for asylum is rejected has become a business, funded by (who else?) taxpayers. In the past, the industrial sector could absorb fair amounts of ubnskilled workers, but that is no longer the case. There is no work here for them, and no plan to absorb them into our society and make them Europeans. They are here to send money home, which is given to them by well-wishers (myself included) as they panhandle outside every ATM, supermarket, bakery and café. This is not a viable solution to the problems of sub-Sharan Africa, as anyone can see. Feeling sorry for people isn't enough. We need a new plan.
107
The desert is not encroaching, the people are encroaching on lands never meant to sustain large populations. The population of Africa has doubled in 15 years! That is the problem.
28
Well said Paolo, completely agree!! Policy can shape this, we need a better plan that actively discourages irregular migration while opening new paths to legal migration.
2
Really, it’s exclusively a "high moral cost” with regard to Europe, not Israel, which forcibly deports African migrants or jails Africans in the desert and has built a huge fence on the border with Egypt to keep them out? Only Europeans are the moral lepers and culprits?
25
First of all no one is a moral leper who wants to defend the identity and culture of their own country against masses of people who dont share or wish to assimilate to their values. And what does Israel have to do with this? But as long as you brought it up, they too have a right to protect their tiny sovereign nation meant to be a safe haven for Jews from masses of non Jewish migrants who shall we say probably dont share a deep and abiding love for the Jewish people and culture . . .
3
It's too bad that Europe lacks the moral and physical courage to use their armies and navies to stop this invasion. Outsourcing unpleasant work like this to Sudan is a fig leaf for what will ultimately be a worse human rights situation for the migrants.
What is far worse, though, is why these countries are content to do some odd jobs for crumbs from Europe, rather than embarking on the harder (but far more rewarding) work of learning from Europe and actually being places that people want to live in.
66
What lesson would Africa learn from Europe - that a society can be built up rather cheaply by going to another continent with lesser technology, colonizing it, removing many of the resources of the newly colonized continent back to the home continent, and then sit there self-righteously pontificating about the lessons the colonized could or should learn from the colonizers?
5
The arrogance and elitist nonsense in this piece are amazing. The "moral cost" of stopping illegals is in letting them through. Borders mean something. These illegals are economic migrants, and stopping them from entering the EU is the right thing to do. Europe, with 500M people, will be overwhelmed by a tidal wave of Africans and Asians. The moral thing to do is control their borders, and one simple way is to ensure that other countries control their borders as well.
It is time for the notion of "moral cost" to be updated. We have borders for a reason. Sudan has the right, and the obligation, to enforce their borders. I'm glad to see some controls being imposed. The moral order involves border control and stopping illegals.
114
I think you aren't understanding. The moral cost isn't in policing the borders, it's in collaborating with a regime that stands accused multiple times of genocide, and uses torture and forced disappearance as enforcement methods.
11
A key,,,, borders do mean something. Quotas will be necessary
2
I'm glad Sudan uses these methods. The crisis is real. The crisis is not in Eritrea or Ethiopia or others in that area. They have had civil wars for the last 40-50 years. Let them all die. They created their own disaster. The crisis is allowing ANYONE from those countries to leave. WHATEVER method is used to keep people from leaving is fine by me.
9
The U.S. should try paying the Central American countries to police their borders and keep their citizens from escaping.
41
The US should help lift people from poverty and its encompanying violence rather than trying to keep people trapped in it.
8
Preventing citizens from escaping a country is totalitarian and inhumane. I agree that the US should help (and it does to some extend) countries like Mexico to patrol their southern border. Not letting migrants in is the right of sovereign nations but preventing their citizens to leave is the North Korea style oppression.
1
Europe has taken in 1,5 millions refugees from conflicts the US has at least partially created (Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria) since 2015; Austria, my country, a neutral country with no military presence in these conflicts, has taken in more than 120,000 - with a total population of just over 8 million.
We can argue about where our responsibility begins and ends with these conflicts, but it is kind of hard to be lectured by a newspaper from a country of 350 million people that has accepted less refugees than Austria.
So while I agree in principle, your reporting misses the larger point that US foreign policy is a big driver of refugee movements worldwide and Euopre, due to its geographic location, is forced to absorb the worst of that.
So as long as the US isolates itself from the consequences of its own (in)actions, I'd welcome a more open discussion of the US role in these matters - or at least an acknowledgement in your reporting that despite all its faults Europe is doing a lot more than the US for refugees.
89
Excellent point, Matt. I couldn’t agree more with you. Thank you for sharing and thank you also NYT for giving visibility to this issue and encouraging these conversations. I’m using this article in my class on Global Justice this week. Matt, I will also share your argument with my students.
8
Totally WRONG. The US takes in over 1MM legal immigrants/refugees per year, and probably twice that of illegal immigrants - more than the rest of the planet COMBINED.
Second, what is causing these migrant invasions is the inability of the 3rd world - africa, mideast, asia and south america - to practice birth control and stop having 8 kids per family. It is NOT the responsibility of the West or anyone else to feed and support their families.
There is going to be a mass expulsion of third-worlders out of the West in the next few years, and the corporate-managed globalist mouthpieces like this "publication" that seek the end of borders so that labor is undermined will lose in the end. It is inevitable.
35
I agree with Martha, Matt. This is a strong argument and I think you should wrap it up and send it to the Times editorial board. Maybe you could also send it as a little note to the US State Department.