Refugees arriving in the EU is news and provokes controversy. It even featured here in the post The Irish Madonna of Hungary. It raises a number of questions.
One question is why Middle Eastern countries don’t take in more refugees. Well, Turkey has given sanctuary to over 1.6 million, Lebanon 1.1 million, Jordan 600,00 and Iraq 240,000.
All these numbers are for Syrian refugees. It is estimated that more than 11 million Syrians have been displaced, as it’s euphemistically put. Illegal migrants from North Africa swell the numbers seeking to enter Europe.
If the idea is that the Gulf States should take in refugees, that is most unlikely. They take in foreign workers but only so long as they work, so to that extent some refugees would be welcome, so long as they prove useful.
Nigel Farage’s intervention, incidentally, that there is “an exodus of biblical proportions” seems to show an unfamiliarity with the Old Testament. The highest estimate for Israelite men leaving Egypt is 600,000 so, with women and children, perhaps a maximum of 2 million. Many commentators put the number much lower than this. Ironically in this “biblical exodus” Egypt has taken in about 136,000 Syrian refugees.
The next much trickier question is whether the UK should take in refugees and, if so, how many. In living memory we have taken Asians from Uganda and Chinese from Hong Kong, albeit a bit unwillingly. I would say that we have benefitted from the contribution both groups have made. My question is can we choose our refugees? I am thinking along the lines, Syrians desirable, some Africans less so.
What flexibility does Theresa May have? How much room is there for a bit of horse trading, an expression which sounds callous in this context. Three Syrians and an African in that ratio? I should not think like this but it is a line of thought I cannot ignore.
Great to see you!