Various evidence indicates that 2/3 or more of all
non-European migrants currently arriving are in search of a better
life. That is nothing for them to be ashamed of, but also no reason to grant
them asylum. On the other hand, our European challenge now is much
greater than just bolstering the shaky asylum regime. It must be
changed, reformed, and nobody dares.
A liberal border and asylum regime in the European
Union worked as long as most people outside the EU were reasonably
content with their condition. They stayed at home, and Europeans
expected them to continue doing that. In return, European development
aid was a way of paying off a perceived debt of guilt.
But now, that formula no longer works. When war and
social turbulence rattle a whole region in Europe's southeastern
vicinity, one should not be surprised to see civilians moving away
from chaos. Syrians' closest neighbors outside of that chaos are
Lebanon, Turkey and Jordan. They have done more than could be
expected of them. After years of shouldering the burden, their
capacity to help was exhausted. There was only Saudi Arabia and the
Gulf states left who had resources and space to aid refugees.
But these Arab Muslim brothers were brothers only in
theory. In practice, the kingdom of Saudi Arabia has showed itself
to be morally sick. High on sharia, low on humanity.
So turning to the West was the alternative left to the refugees
from Syria, Iraq, Libya and beyond. Indeed, over the horizon Europe was beckoning, with generous governmental subsistence grants (see
my blog of June 26) for those who gained asylum. The policy of
northern EU countries offered a predictable monthly respite from
poverty - but also from the need to work or learn the language of the host
country. Information on the amount of the subsidies was easily
available even outside Europe, and the flow of migration went "to
the highest bidders", Sweden and Germany.
It may be crass to say it like that, perhaps, but that is the pernicious outcome of a well-intentioned policy that was supposed to be more or less the same all across the EU. Member states - like Sweden - who felt able to offer a bit more than the sparse EU average subsidy - were of course free to do so. This competition among the generous few led to the ludicrous situation that asylum grantees in Sweden receive more than the average income of Swedish citizens, and are not required to pay taxes on this income. Why seek a job under such circumstances?
It may be crass to say it like that, perhaps, but that is the pernicious outcome of a well-intentioned policy that was supposed to be more or less the same all across the EU. Member states - like Sweden - who felt able to offer a bit more than the sparse EU average subsidy - were of course free to do so. This competition among the generous few led to the ludicrous situation that asylum grantees in Sweden receive more than the average income of Swedish citizens, and are not required to pay taxes on this income. Why seek a job under such circumstances?
Other Nordic countries, like Denmark and Norway, have
recently changed their policies in a more sensible direction.
Of course, in the waiting period for a decision on
their status, asylum seekers in Sweden are not as well provided for as those whose applications have already been accepted. Asylum seekers' per diem keeps them acceptably supported, and their
lodging is free. Yet, if their asylum application is denied, and they
are due to be deported, Swedish authorities have not until now
implemented their deportation immediately. Instead they have even continued to
pay the same per diem as before, even though the
recipients are (by now) illegals. Desperate to stay, these illegals
do what most in their situation would - they hide. Some are stressed
to the point of turning to violence, as recent cases in Sweden show.
Out of a desire to appear kinder than most, Sweden
has also exceeded the EU advisory norms on other counts. The EU has
advisory policies on most aspects of the treatment of non-European
migrants. One of them is the special care to be taken to help
unaccompanied children - defined as youngsters up to the age of 18.
Now how do you tell the age of a person who has no reliable ID, or
none at all? Using medical criteria is the obvious solution, as is
done by most Nordic countries, and others. Except Sweden, where influential voices claim that such testing is a "breach of personal
integrity".
So Sweden is now well stocked with "children"
of normal adult stature, sporting beards, using drugs and showing
rough behavior not exactly typical of children. Tests by migration
authorities on hundreds of asylum seekers, conducted both in Denmark
and Norway, have shown that between 3/4 and 9/10 of the asylum seekers
who claimed to be children, are medically speaking over 18. Sweden
accepts them on their word. Their acceptance as children in Sweden is
jeopardizing the existence of the real child migrants who are housed
separately and given special care. As I see it, those who lie about their age are
not the kind to be welcomed as new residents of Europe.
Other statistics on the masses of non-European
arrivals in 2015 indicate that a large number of them are young men,
under 35, who are in search of a better life. Realistically, these
young men have had the choice of either going to war for one of the
fighting sides in Syria (or whatever country they are from), or get
out, in search of a peaceful existence. Many of them have families.
Of course they would not be safe if they should go back. So who can
blame them for "choosing peace", which is actually what
they do, even as they run away from deportation? Their situation illustrates the unsuitability of the
entire asylum and immigration regimes for the kind of situation where
a country's whole civilian population is on the run because of the
conduct of a murderous few.
The true situation now, in which very large numbers
of migrants will predictably see their asylum application rejected,
is "how to move them back out of Europe", how to find "safe
countries" to move them to. The impatient say, kick them out,
send them back where they came from.
Will that work? Hardly. Large numbers of them are
likely to run away, go underground. We Europeans have contributed -
by a misconceived, excessively unconstrained policy - to creating a
situation that is unsustainable. The consequences will now be fully upon us. We need to recognize that from now
on, Europe has a large new contingent of prospective future citizens
in our midst, a minority that we cannot simply treat as criminals.
The massive numbers of present migrants are far
beyond the capacity of EU member states to offer meaningful welfare.
A completely revised legal regime is required. The prohibition on
returning deported persons to unsafe countries of origin is
idealistic, but unsustainable. It must end.
At the same time, immigration on normal (non-asylum) grounds must become much more open, much more available to people from non-European backgrounds. Immigration for work is the only solution. EU labor unions hold the key to resolving this conundrum. If they do not see their current blocking position for what it is, we are headed for a spate of ugly conflicts all across our continent. In fact, they have already begun.
At the same time, immigration on normal (non-asylum) grounds must become much more open, much more available to people from non-European backgrounds. Immigration for work is the only solution. EU labor unions hold the key to resolving this conundrum. If they do not see their current blocking position for what it is, we are headed for a spate of ugly conflicts all across our continent. In fact, they have already begun.
