EU Must Open Doors to Avoid Syrian Refugee Catastrophe, Says UN

Martin Chulov and Harriet Grant, Guardian (London), January 13, 2014

The crisis posed by millions of refugees from Syria’s civil war flooding into neighbouring countries is becoming a humanitarian and political catastrophe that can only be eased if Europe opens its doors, the UN and European commission have warned.

More than 2.1 million refugees have been registered by the UN high commissioner for refugees (UNHCR) in Syria’s four neighbouring states; hundreds of thousands more are known to be living outside Syria’s borders without access to aid.

The scale of the crisis is perhaps the most acute since the end of the second world war. David Miliband, president of the International Rescue Committee (IRC), described the ever-deteriorating situation in Syria as “the defining humanitarian crisis of our time”.

The UNHCR, European commission and British Refugee Council have urged EU leaders to acknowledge the exceptional crisis posed by the Syrian civil war and accept the temporary settlement of Syrian refugees inside their borders–relaxing “fortress” policies designed to keep migrants out of Europe.

The UN has issued an urgent call to resettle 30,000 of the most vulnerable Syrians worldwide–a call that remains unmet as the exodus from Syria into Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan and Iraq fast outpaces the capacity to provide for them. The UK government has refused to take part in the resettlement scheme, calling the idea tokenistic and stressing the importance of the £500m of aid it has sent to the region.

António Guterres, UN commissioner for refugees, told the Guardian: “While countries neighbouring the conflict are being asked to keep their borders open, I find it disconcerting how many Syrians struggle to find protection in Europe, with reports of people being pushed back from a number of borders. And all this is happening although the overall numbers are small in comparison – Turkey alone has received 10 times the number of Syrian refugees as all EU member states together.

“I have been repeatedly calling on all countries, particularly in Europe and the extended Middle East, to allow Syrians to access asylum and enjoy quality protection.”

Michele Cercone, spokesperson for the European commissioner for home affairs, said member states could not be coerced to accept the resettlement programme, but the commission had offered €6,000 (£5,000) towards every refugee a country accepted. “If all member states would get involved into an EU resettlement exercise and make available a proportionate number of places, we would be able to resettle thousands people more from refugee camps.”

The EU has stressed the importance of aid but has resisted sharing the vast burden of refugees. While it has applied enormous pressure on Turkey to keep its borders open – Turkey has so far accepted about 600,000 people–it is working as quickly as possible to create a network of fences, patrols and policies to keep them from entering Europe. The EU has spent millions on border controls between Turkey and Greece.

About 64,000 Syrians–2.4% of the total number who have fled–have sought asylum in Europe, with 60% of those applications made in Sweden and Germany.

The deputy prime minister, Nick Clegg, revealed last week that the UK had taken in 1,500 displaced Syrians through regular asylum routes, but that number falls far short of demands of the UN.

“The neighbouring countries are beyond what in the west would be considered the breaking point,” Miliband said. “The refugee influx into Lebanon–more than 800,000 out of a population of 4.5  million–is the equivalent of 60 million people coming to the US. The cost of the crisis to the Lebanese economy alone is estimated by the World Bank at $7.5bn (£4.5bn). It is time for the rest of the world to step up and for the US to lead by example.”

Frustrated by the government’s position, the Refugee Council has published a strongly worded letter in the Guardian addressed to David Cameron, stating “aid is not enough”. The letter–signed by Colin and Livia Firth, Emma Thompson, Michael Palin, Dame Vivienne Westwood, Grayson Perry and Juliet Stevenson–says: “So far, 18 countries have responded by pledging resettlement places for Syrian refugees. We’re ashamed Britain isn’t one of them.”

Vincent Cochetel, the director of UNHCR for Europe, described the UK’s response as “timid” and “not good enough”. Refugees–Afghanis and Somalis as well as Syrians–fleeing some of the most violent conflicts of our aged are simply being pushed into dangerous, illegal journeys to find safety.

As the inevitable exodus into Jordan, Turkey and the Kurdish north of Iraq continues, so enormous humanitarian demands grow.

The unresolved refugee crisis has been particularly destablising inLebanon, whose fragile sectarian mix is being increasingly unsettled by the influx of primarily Sunni Muslim refugees. The Lebanese government has refused to allow refugee camps or anything resembling a permanent shelter to be constructed on its territory, fearing deeply ingrainedsectarian tensions will be inflamed.

As the war has intensified, regional backers have increasingly shored up support for their proxies. The Alawite-led regime of Bashar al-Assad is resolutely backed by Iran and Russia, while the predominantly Sunni opposition is supported equally strongly by Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar and other Gulf states.

Syria has become an unflinching contest for regional supremacy, anchored largely by the ancient regional power struggle between Tehran and Riyadh, but fuelled by more contemporary grievances.

The volatile sectarian power tussle leaves little concern for the health and safety of millions of refugees, the majority of whom are women and children.

“We are talking about people that are in dire need,” Maurice Wren, chief executive of the Refugee Council, said, arguing that the British government was being led too strongly by domestic pressures onmigration. “[What] we are seeing from the camps is eye-wateringly scary. It is just not a sustainable environment for people who cannot look out for themselves.”

In a cafe in Istanbul, the Guardian found Syrian refugees discussing the response of Europe to the crisis, and the options available to them as a result. Because Turkey offers sanctuary but no permanent residency, refugees cannot work legally. Men in the cafe talk about travelling illegally to countries such as Germany or Sweden, which have very generous policies towards Syrians who make it to their borders. But there are almost no legal routes to either country from Syria or Turkey. At least Britain’s position is honest, says one man: “They don’t want any Syrians.”

One man, Tarek, describes how he has tried and failed three times to cross into Europe through Bulgaria, each time being caught by Bulgarian border guards and “pushed back” into Turkey. If this was on Bulgarian territory, it was a breach of international refugee law. Illegal push backs from Greece and Italy have been widely reported by human rights groups.

This journey has separated Tarek from his wife, Yasmin, who is nine months’ pregnant and their four-year-old son.

The Guardian found Yasmin in Harmanli detention camp in Bulgaria where she and her son are living in a portable building with three other families, surviving on one meal a day.

Back in Istanbul, Tarek says he will keep trying to get into Bulgaria to find his wife: “We suffer twice, first in Syria and now as refugees. I feel like I’m fighting the world to be with my family.”

Syrians are not alone in their perceptions of the European asylum system as a giant trap. For refugees from across Asia and North Africa, including Afghans, Somalis and Eritreans, it is now almost impossible to appeal for asylum in Europe without travelling illegally along dangerous routes.

Those who do reach Europe are further confined by the Dublinagreement, which stipulates that asylum seekers must remain in their first country of entry, despite the differing conditions that refugees face across the EU. Italy, Greece and Bulgaria have all been widely criticised for their treatment of asylum seekers, but they say their geographical position means they are bearing an unfair share of responsibility for coping with refugee flows.

Cochetel said traumatised refugees were being put at risk by European policy. He argues that there must be wider reform of asylum policy in Europe, as Syria’s neighbours cannot be expected to bear the full humanitarian weight of a conflict that offers little hope resolution.

“It’s not good enough; its timid,” Chochetel said: “Five hundred in France, 10 in Hungary, 90 in Ireland, none in the UK. We need to wake up to the situation. Everybody was hoping for a quick fix, but the reality of the conflict is that we know many people will never go home, not just because their house is gone but because the infrastructure is gone.”

Topics: , , ,

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • Frank_DeScushin

    Why must Europe open the door for refugees? Why not Asia or the rare peaceful African nation?

    • Truth Teller

      Nobody should have to open the door to refugees. Instead, the dictatorship should be strengthened and the Islamists should be fought against. The non Islamist elites of the country should be given more power IMO and the US would be the perfect country to do it.

    • Whiteplight sees the Emperor N

      Why not Saudi Arabia or any other of the wealthy nearby non-European countries? Like you and probably everyone else here, I’m disgusted with the obvious attitude of the UN that Europe must be a dumping ground for every conflicts’ problems in the world (as well as the U.S., Canada and every other Western nation).

  • Truthseeker

    Europe is going to suffer death by altruism.

    • LovelyNordicHeidi

      I hope they don’t let these folks in, because we already have enough nice folks.

    • Spartacus

      Rather, death by judaism…

    • Whiteplight sees the Emperor N

      “Camp of Saints” The prediction has long been made. Read the book if you have time.

  • Pro_Whitey

    If pushing back an alien you don’t want to enter is illegal, then the law needs to change.
    Any country that takes refugees should put them in fenced-in, guarded camps like our Japanese internment camps in WWII. Give them the bare minimum to live, make them work, and give them no freedom of movement. Let’s see how many are really refugees.

  • David Ashton

    Why only millions of Syrians – isn’t that “discrimination”? What about billions of unhappy folk all over the Near East, Asia, Africa and Latin America? “What a good idea!” said my local vicar a few years ago. Camp of the saints!

    • bigone4u

      Find a new church to attend.

      • David Ashton

        Nothing suitable exists anywhere, and I am now an agnostic re Christianity. This “progressive non-theist” vicar has moved to other pastures and has been replaced by an ex-navy true believer with an ear-ring.

  • Cecil Henry

    Nope, its called white genocide.

    Send them to Israel–its close by and prosperous.

    Enough with the parasites. Syria must solve its own problem internally.

    • Sick of it

      Syria did not have catastrophic problems which needed to be solved until the usual suspects got involved.

    • Whiteplight sees the Emperor N

      Syrians tolerated having Hezbollah inside their country and serving as a home base for attacks on Lebanon and Israel for decades. Now, they think the West owes them their blood and treasure to rid them of,,, I don’t know, sounds like no one can tell who is behind what group now.

      • Franklin_Ryckaert

        Hizbollah din’t “attack” Lebanon or even Israel. It is a Lebanese grassroots organization solely founded to defend Lebanon against Israel.
        Hizbollah of course didn’t attack Syria either. What is causing trouble inside Syria is a bunch of mercenary terrorists, non of them Syrian, intent on toppling Assad in order to establish a Sunni dictatorship. Behind these socalled “rebels” are the governments of Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the US and ultimately Israel. It is the same formula of destabilization that was successful in Libya. In Syria however it is not succeeding.

        • Whiteplight sees the Emperor N

          It’s pretty well known that Hezbolla has used Syria, Lebanon, Palestine and other locations and that it is sponsored primarily by Iran. Al Qaeda is always popping up, too. They attacked from Lebanon, and first, that doesn’t make them the righteous defenders of Lebnon, who only wanted them out, but haven’t had the power to eject them.

          I trust the intentions of Israel and the U.S., France and the entire NATO organization far more than your fantasy Hezbollah. Your Jew hatred makes you a supporter of Islamic terrorism. Good work!

          • Franklin_Ryckaert

            Hizbollah was founded after 1982 to expell the Israeli invaders. They succeeded in 2000. That makes them eminent Lebanese patriots. They are a better guarantee of Lebanon’s independence than the weak Lebanese army. They are respected by all Lebanese communities, including the Christians. If defending your own country makes you “terrorists” then that is a great honor. Iran supports Hizbollah out of Shia solidarity, nothing “terrorist” in that. Terrorism was introduced in the Middle East by the Zionists. First against the British (King David Hotel!) then against the Palestinians and other Arabs. Israel, the US and NATO are terrorist entities.
            Al Qa’ida is a CIA construct created to justify the fraudulent “Global War on Terror”, which is in reality a war OF terror for empire and Israel. “News” by the MSM is Big Lie propaganda. You are obviously a victim of that propaganda.

  • Anglo

    “accept the temporary settlement of Syrian refugees inside their borders.”
    Asylum is never “temporary” and why is it Europe’s problem to take them?

    • Franklin_Ryckaert

      Asylum should be temporary until the crisis is over, just like taking shelter for the rain. As it is, it always boils down to fleeing to First World countries (instead of neighboring countries) and settling there for good. In short asylum = immigration.

  • David Ashton

    Wasn’t Vincent Cochetel kidnapped by multi-cultural terrorists in Russia and rescued by the Spesnaz, or was that a meddler with the same name?

  • Spartacus

    “David Miliband, president of the International Rescue Committee (IRC)…”

    ——————————————————————————————————————–

    Here’s a snip from this guy’s Wikipedia page :

    • Garrett Brown

      What else other than marxist Jews could come up with such psychotic ideas?

      • Whiteplight sees the Emperor N

        Force of habit, I guess. If you and your family are the object of persecutions for a couple thousand years due to unfounded and unreasonable cultural bigotry, you end up being a radical that doesn’t work in the interests of the ones that supported and appear to continue to support such persecutions. I don’t think they ought to be running the show in Western governing, but I think we invite this through our past activities and a continued posture of unreasonable and complete antagonism. What else would you expect, what you do do?

        I don’t like Marxism or communism as a governmental form, but I do understand why it happened and that in Russia in the 19th century, Jews (and many, many others) saw that it offered a far better promise than the continued rule of the Tzars. That’s how history works, and we’re all subject to history.

        • Franklin_Ryckaert

          Read Kevin MacDonald to see how “unfounded” and “unreasonable” that attitude really was.

  • JohnEngelman

    Whites are not responsible for the fact that blacks and Muslims have difficulty governing themselves. Blacks and Muslims were better off under European colonialism.

    • Truth Teller

      Do you see Syrian Christians as like Blacks?

  • Jesse James

    How about the Europeans rescuing their own people trapped in South Africa?

    • Erasmus

      Best post on the thread. They’re the ones we should care about, not black Somalis or brown Mexicans.

  • bigone4u

    Third worlders fight their deadly civil wars with arms we supply them, and then demand refugee status when things go bad. It’s time to say no to refugees. You guys in Syria work it out on your own.

    • Sick of it

      They would if Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the United States would butt out of Syrian affairs. Of course that’s about as likely to happen as AIPAC shutting down.

      • Whiteplight sees the Emperor N

        Syria has been the home base and staging ground for Hezbollah and Iranian (and other) backed terrorist groups for attacking Lebanon and Israel for decades. It looks like Syria was impervious to Saudi, Israel and U,S. and all other influences except some French and lots of Soviet (now Russian) “meddling” read – support. I think you’ve got your shoes tied together.

  • jackryanvb

    Oh dear.

    Brit leaders have seemingly an unlimited capacity to adopt 3rd world Islamic rapist, throat cutters.

    I guess it’s part of their glory days to defeat the Nazis, bomb Hamburg and Dresden.

    Wow, my British kinsmen have gone mad.

    • Whiteplight sees the Emperor N

      And Germans their glory days of invading Poland and Russia and France and …..

      Stop it with the indulgence in the old, tragic European Civil Wars. Everyone caused it but Brits certainly did not want it, Scandinavia didn’t want it, etc., etc.,…. and America was a pacifist nation before both world wars. We cannot afford to be rehashing this stuff at all anymore.

      • Franklin_Ryckaert

        For Britain the quickly industrializing Germany after its union in 1870 was a serious competitor on the continent. It wanted this competitor destroyed. The first and second World Wars were splendid opportunities to achieve that goal. Hitler always wanted peace with Britain but was rejected. When finally Rudolf Hess flew to Britain to make peace personally, he was incarcerated. At the Neurenberg tribunal he was convicted for ….war mongering! The participation of the US in both World Wars was solely due to Jewish lobbying. What the Nazis can be accused of however is the attack on Poland and Russia, but on the Western front Hitler didn’t want war.

      • Franklin_Ryckaert

        America was a pacifist nation? Hmm, 1898 Spanish-American war under false pretexts and next the colonization (“liberation”) of Porto Rico and the Philipines and the annexation of Hawai. Very “pacifist” indeed!

  • jackryanvb

    Here ‘s the full Enoch Powel speech on this subject:

    The supreme function of statesmanship is to provide against preventable evils. In seeking to do so, it encounters obstacles which are deeply rooted in human nature.
    One is that by the very order of things such evils are not demonstrable until they have occurred: at each stage in their onset there is room for doubt and for dispute whether they be real or imaginary. By the same token, they attract little attention in comparison with current troubles, which are both indisputable and pressing: whence the besetting temptation of all politics to concern itself with the immediate present at the expense of the future.

    Above all, people are disposed to mistake predicting troubles for causing troubles and even for desiring troubles: “If only,” they love to think, “if only people wouldn’t talk about it, it probably wouldn’t happen.”
    Perhaps this habit goes back to the primitive belief that the word and the thing, the name and the object, are identical.
    At all events, the discussion of future grave but, with effort now, avoidable evils is the most unpopular and at the same time the most necessary occupation for the politician. Those who knowingly shirk it deserve, and not infrequently receive, the curses of those who come after.

    A week or two ago I fell into conversation with a constituent, a middle-aged, quite ordinary working man employed in one of our nationalised industries.
    After a sentence or two about the weather, he suddenly said: “If I had the money to go, I wouldn’t stay in this country.” I made some deprecatory reply to the effect that even this government wouldn’t last for ever; but he took no notice, and continued: “I have three children, all of them been through grammar school and two of them married now, with family. I shan’t be satisfied till I have seen them all settled overseas. In this country in 15 or 20 years’ time the black man will have the whip hand over the white man.”
    I can already hear the chorus of execration. How dare I say such a horrible thing? How dare I stir up trouble and inflame feelings by repeating such a conversation?
    The answer is that I do not have the right not to do so. Here is a decent, ordinary fellow Englishman, who in broad daylight in my own town says to me, his Member of Parliament, that his country will not be worth living in for his children.

    I simply do not have the right to shrug my shoulders and think about something else. What he is saying, thousands and hundreds of thousands are saying and thinking – not throughout Great Britain, perhaps, but in the areas that are already undergoing the total transformation to which there is no parallel in a thousand years of English history.
    In 15 or 20 years, on present trends, there will be in this country three and a half million Commonwealth immigrants and their descendants. That is not my figure. That is the official figure given to parliament by the spokesman of the Registrar General’s Office.
    There is no comparable official figure for the year 2000, but it must be in the region of five to seven million, approximately one-tenth of the whole population, and approaching that of Greater London. Of course, it will not be evenly distributed from Margate to Aberystwyth and from Penzance to Aberdeen. Whole areas, towns and parts of towns across England will be occupied by sections of the immigrant and immigrant-descended population.

    As time goes on, the proportion of this total who are immigrant descendants, those born in England, who arrived here by exactly the same route as the rest of us, will rapidly increase. Already by 1985 the native-born would constitute the majority. It is this fact which creates the extreme urgency of action now, of just that kind of action which is hardest for politicians to take, action where the difficulties lie in the present but the evils to be prevented or minimised lie several parliaments ahead.

    The natural and rational first question with a nation confronted by such a prospect is to ask: “How can its dimensions be reduced?” Granted it be not wholly preventable, can it be limited, bearing in mind that numbers are of the essence: the significance and consequences of an alien element introduced into a country or population are profoundly different according to whether that element is 1 per cent or 10 per cent.
    The answers to the simple and rational question are equally simple and rational: by stopping, or virtually stopping, further inflow, and by promoting the maximum outflow. Both answers are part of the official policy of the Conservative Party.
    It almost passes belief that at this moment 20 or 30 additional immigrant children are arriving from overseas in Wolverhampton alone every week – and that means 15 or 20 additional families a decade or two hence. Those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad. We must be mad, literally mad, as a nation to be permitting the annual inflow of some 50,000 dependants, who are for the most part the material of the future growth of the immigrant-descended population. It is like watching a nation busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre. So insane are we that we actually permit unmarried persons to immigrate for the purpose of founding a family with spouses and fiancés whom they have never seen.

    Let no one suppose that the flow of dependants will automatically tail off. On the contrary, even at the present admission rate of only 5,000 a year by voucher, there is sufficient for a further 25,000 dependants per annum ad infinitum, without taking into account the huge reservoir of existing relations in this country – and I am making no allowance at all for fraudulent entry. In these circumstances nothing will suffice but that the total inflow for settlement should be reduced at once to negligible proportions, and that the necessary legislative and administrative measures be taken without delay.

    I stress the words “for settlement.” This has nothing to do with the entry of Commonwealth citizens, any more than of aliens, into this country, for the purposes of study or of improving their qualifications, like (for instance) the Commonwealth doctors who, to the advantage of their own countries, have enabled our hospital service to be expanded faster than would otherwise have been possible. They are not, and never have been, immigrants.

    I turn to re-emigration. If all immigration ended tomorrow, the rate of growth of the immigrant and immigrant-descended population would be substantially reduced, but the prospective size of this element in the population would still leave the basic character of the national danger unaffected. This can only be tackled while a considerable proportion of the total still comprises persons who entered this country during the last ten years or so.

    Hence the urgency of implementing now the second element of the Conservative Party’s policy: the encouragement of re-emigration.
    Nobody can make an estimate of the numbers which, with generous assistance, would choose either to return to their countries of origin or to go to other countries anxious to receive the manpower and the skills they represent.
    Nobody knows, because no such policy has yet been attempted. I can only say that, even at present, immigrants in my own constituency from time to time come to me, asking if I can find them assistance to return home. If such a policy were adopted and pursued with the determination which the gravity of the alternative justifies, the resultant outflow could appreciably alter the prospects.

    The third element of the Conservative Party’s policy is that all who are in this country as citizens should be equal before the law and that there shall be no discrimination or difference made between them by public authority. As Mr Heath has put it we will have no “first-class citizens” and “second-class citizens.” This does not mean that the immigrant and his descendent should be elevated into a privileged or special class or that the citizen should be denied his right to discriminate in the management of his own affairs between one fellow-citizen and another or that he should be subjected to imposition as to his reasons and motive for behaving in one lawful manner rather than another.
    There could be no grosser misconception of the realities than is entertained by those who vociferously demand legislation as they call it “against discrimination”, whether they be leader-writers of the same kidney and sometimes on the same newspapers which year after year in the 1930s tried to blind this country to the rising peril which confronted it, or archbishops who live in palaces, faring delicately with the bedclothes pulled right up over their heads. They have got it exactly and diametrically wrong.
    The discrimination and the deprivation, the sense of alarm and of resentment, lies not with the immigrant population but with those among whom they have come and are still coming.

    This is why to enact legislation of the kind before parliament at this moment is to risk throwing a match on to gunpowder. The kindest thing that can be said about those who propose and support it is that they know not what they do.
    Nothing is more misleading than comparison between the Commonwealth immigrant in Britain and the American Negro. The Negro population of the United States, which was already in existence before the United States became a nation, started literally as slaves and were later given the franchise and other rights of citizenship, to the exercise of which they have only gradually and still incompletely come. The Commonwealth immigrant came to Britain as a full citizen, to a country which knew no discrimination between one citizen and another, and he entered instantly into the possession of the rights of every citizen, from the vote to free treatment under the National Health Service.
    Whatever drawbacks attended the immigrants arose not from the law or from public policy or from administration, but from those personal circumstances and accidents which cause, and always will cause, the fortunes and experience of one man to be different from another’s.

    But while, to the immigrant, entry to this country was admission to privileges and opportunities eagerly sought, the impact upon the existing population was very different. For reasons which they could not comprehend, and in pursuance of a decision by default, on which they were never consulted, they found themselves made strangers in their own country.
    They found their wives unable to obtain hospital beds in childbirth, their children unable to obtain school places, their homes and neighbourhoods changed beyond recognition, their plans and prospects for the future defeated; at work they found that employers hesitated to apply to the immigrant worker the standards of discipline and competence required of the native-born worker; they began to hear, as time went by, more and more voices which told them that they were now the unwanted. They now learn that a one-way privilege is to be established by act of parliament; a law which cannot, and is not intended to, operate to protect them or redress their grievances is to be enacted to give the stranger, the disgruntled and the agent-provocateur the power to pillory them for their private actions.
    In the hundreds upon hundreds of letters I received when I last spoke on this subject two or three months ago, there was one striking feature which was largely new and which I find ominous. All Members of Parliament are used to the typical anonymous correspondent; but what surprised and alarmed me was the high proportion of ordinary, decent, sensible people, writing a rational and often well-educated letter, who believed that they had to omit their address because it was dangerous to have committed themselves to paper to a Member of Parliament agreeing with the views I had expressed, and that they would risk penalties or reprisals if they were known to have done so. The sense of being a persecuted minority which is growing among ordinary English people in the areas of the country which are affected is something that those without direct experience can hardly imagine.
    I am going to allow just one of those hundreds of people to speak for me:
    “Eight years ago in a respectable street in Wolverhampton a house was sold to a Negro. Now only one white (a woman old-age pensioner) lives there. This is her story. She lost her husband and both her sons in the war. So she turned her seven-roomed house, her only asset, into a boarding house. She worked hard and did well, paid off her mortgage and began to put something by for her old age. Then the immigrants moved in. With growing fear, she saw one house after another taken over. The quiet street became a place of noise and confusion. Regretfully, her white tenants moved out.
    “The day after the last one left, she was awakened at 7am by two Negroes who wanted to use her ‘phone to contact their employer. When she refused, as she would have refused any stranger at such an hour, she was abused and feared she would have been attacked but for the chain on her door. Immigrant families have tried to rent rooms in her house, but she always refused. Her little store of money went, and after paying rates, she has less than £2 per week. “She went to apply for a rate reduction and was seen by a young girl, who on hearing she had a seven-roomed house, suggested she should let part of it. When she said the only people she could get were Negroes, the girl said, “Racial prejudice won’t get you anywhere in this country.” So she went home.
    “The telephone is her lifeline. Her family pay the bill, and help her out as best they can. Immigrants have offered to buy her house – at a price which the prospective landlord would be able to recover from his tenants in weeks, or at most a few months. She is becoming afraid to go out. Windows are broken. She finds excreta pushed through her letter box. When she goes to the shops, she is followed by children, charming, wide-grinning piccaninnies. They cannot speak English, but one word they know. “Racialist,” they chant. When the new Race Relations Bill is passed, this woman is convinced she will go to prison. And is she so wrong? I begin to wonder.”
    The other dangerous delusion from which those who are wilfully or otherwise blind to realities suffer, is summed up in the word “integration.” To be integrated into a population means to become for all practical purposes indistinguishable from its other members.
    Now, at all times, where there are marked physical differences, especially of colour, integration is difficult though, over a period, not impossible. There are among the Commonwealth immigrants who have come to live here in the last fifteen years or so, many thousands whose wish and purpose is to be integrated and whose every thought and endeavour is bent in that direction.

    But to imagine that such a thing enters the heads of a great and growing majority of immigrants and their descendants is a ludicrous misconception, and a dangerous one.
    We are on the verge here of a change. Hitherto it has been force of circumstance and of background which has rendered the very idea of integration inaccessible to the greater part of the immigrant population – that they never conceived or intended such a thing, and that their numbers and physical concentration meant the pressures towards integration which normally bear upon any small minority did not operate.
    Now we are seeing the growth of positive forces acting against integration, of vested interests in the preservation and sharpening of racial and religious differences, with a view to the exercise of actual domination, first over fellow-immigrants and then over the rest of the population. The cloud no bigger than a man’s hand, that can so rapidly overcast the sky, has been visible recently in Wolverhampton and has shown signs of spreading quickly. The words I am about to use, verbatim as they appeared in the local press on 17 February, are not mine, but those of a Labour Member of Parliament who is a minister in the present government:

    ‘The Sikh communities’ campaign to maintain customs inappropriate in Britain is much to be regretted. Working in Britain, particularly in the public services, they should be prepared to accept the terms and conditions of their employment. To claim special communal rights (or should one say rites?) leads to a dangerous fragmentation within society. This communalism is a canker; whether practised by one colour or another it is to be strongly condemned.’
    All credit to John Stonehouse for having had the insight to perceive that, and the courage to say it.

    For these dangerous and divisive elements the legislation proposed in the Race Relations Bill is the very pabulum they need to flourish. Here is the means of showing that the immigrant communities can organise to consolidate their members, to agitate and campaign against their fellow citizens, and to overawe and dominate the rest with the legal weapons which the ignorant and the ill-informed have provided. As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding; like the Roman, I seem to see “the River Tiber foaming with much blood.”
    That tragic and intractable phenomenon which we watch with horror on the other side of the Atlantic but which there is interwoven with the history and existence of the States itself, is coming upon us here by our own volition and our own neglect. Indeed, it has all but come. In numerical terms, it will be of American proportions long before the end of the century.

    Only resolute and urgent action will avert it even now. Whether there will be the public will to demand and obtain that action, I do not know. All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.

  • GeneticsareDestiny

    “One man, Tarek, describes how he has tried and failed three times to cross into Europe through Bulgaria, each time being caught by Bulgarian border guards and “pushed back” into Turkey. If this was on Bulgarian territory, it was a breach of international refugee law. Illegal push backs from Greece and Italy have been widely reported by human rights groups.”

    Good for Bulgaria, Greece, and Italy! They have no moral obligation to take in Syrians, no matter what international refugee law says. Syrians already have four countries near them that are taking them in: Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan and Iraq. They also have “18 countries […] pledging resettlement places for Syrian refugees.”

    Syrians have plenty of places to go. They don’t need to flood every white country.

  • IstvanIN

    International law or no law the British are not required to swamp their small island kingdom with refuge, as if they haven’t already. They do have an obligation to help their own kin, their extended British family, which includes only the English, Scottish, Welsh, & Ulstermen and whatever the people of the minor outlaying islands call themselves. Period. If they choose to help Syrians, or anybody else, in their homelands, fine, but the idea that the shoemaker’s children should go barefoot is absurd.

    Furthermore a people will only advance if they are forced to fight. As long as there is a release valve the disagreements they have internally will never be resolved. Their society will never reach the equilibrium that is right for them (which is not necessarily a “democratic, secular, republic”).

    Lastly, Assad is the good guy in this “civil” war and the refugees are generally the bad guys, who will visit destruction on the UK.

  • MBlanc46

    The real humanitarian catastrophe is allowing all these Third Worlders into the countries that our ancestors built.

  • Truth Teller

    I don’t believe in granting asylum. I instead think that the country should be ruled by elite families who are anti Islamist. The Islamists of Syria should be fought and there should be a stronger dictatorship to protect the elite and non Islamist families from disaster.

  • Garrett Brown

    “The crisis posed by millions of refugees from Syria’s civil war flooding into neighbouring countries is becoming a humanitarian and political catastrophe that can only be eased if Europe opens its doors, the UN and European commission have stated.”

    Why are we the only ones that laugh at the insanity of this statement when we read it?

    • Erasmus

      Better to take Syrian Christians than Muslim Somalis. Why any sane country allows those parasites in escapes me.

      • Garrett Brown

        Very wrong. It isn’t better to take ANY people that will displace and replace us.

        • Truth Teller

          I don’t think Europe should take anyone but the offspring of a Euro and a Syrian Christian looks white like Steve Jobs and is genetically similar to a Maltese. The offspring of a Euro and a Somali does not.

          • Garrett Brown

            I don’t want offspring from Somalis OR Syrians. Stop thinking about what ground to give up, start knowing you will not give up any.

          • Truth Teller

            Then you are free to not breed with either. I don’t see why I should see Christian Syrians as “the enemy” just because they happen to live outside of Europe. I wouldn’t be fine with them in Europe at all but I would be OK with small numbers in the USA or Latin America.

          • Garrett Brown

            Why are you affiliating Christianity with anything positive? Or anything helpful for an ethnic state? Religion in its entirety is evil and ignorant. You want your Europe to be clean of filth but not the us??? You are my enemy then.

          • Truth Teller

            Europe should be for Europeans only because they are old world countries deserving of an identity. Christians of the upper class in those regions are not filth. If they were, they wouldn’t be one of the top income earners in America. They also have low crime rates and are culturally Westernized. Your stance is based on anti intellectualism. There is no intellectual reason to exclude culturally Westernized people that can often pass as European physically.

          • Garrett Brown

            The mod deleted my post lol, that’s funny. I would reply to you with a serious post anti white, but it might just get deleted. So no point.

  • Truth Teller

    The Christians are intelligent. They are not third worlders and should be protected. However, not via asylum but through fighting the Islamists and ensuring the country is under control of a more secular or Christian government.

  • Truth Teller

    Help the rebels? The rebels are Islamists.

    • Franklin_Ryckaert

      The “rebels” are non-Syrian mercenary terrorists.

  • Franklin_Ryckaert

    This is the defining humanitarian crisis of our time for Israel. Not only is that country near by, it already has territory to settle Syrians : the Golan Heights, which it has occupied and annexed illegally for 47 years already. Settle those Syrians on the Golan and declare it Syrian territory to be returned to Syria after the civil war is over. Well David Miliband, you have some lobby work to do!

    • NoMosqueHere

      The Golan belongs to Israel. For a time, Syria illegally occupied and squandered it. Israel will never “return it” to Syria because it doesn’t belong to Syria.

      • Franklin_Ryckaert

        The whole world belongs to the Jews, we all know that, it is written in the Talmud. That’s why they are “chosen”. So if the “chosen” want to have something, they claim it as their right and accuse the legal owners of “occupying” it. I already understand this chutzpah mentality and know it is useless to debate it. Only thing is that people with such a mentality will be naturally hated by the whole world. Some people never learn.

      • Franklin_Ryckaert

        Palestine should be returned to the Palestinians. As for the kosher squatters, to quote Helen Thomas : “Get the hell out of Palestine!”.

      • Franklin_Ryckaert

        Not even in its mythical past was the Golan ever inhabited by any Israelite tribe (not that it would matter now). Golan was not even promised to the Jews in the UN partitition plan. The Golan was conquered by Israel in 1967 and later annexed by Shamir, but Ehud Barak was prepared to return it to Syria. Besides, the real name of occupied “Jerusalem” is al-Quds. Before that it was known as Urusalim. The “glorious” Jerusalem of king Solomon with its marvellous temple is Biblical fiction as such Israeli archeologists as Israel Finkelstein acknowledge. To try to restore a past that never existed is delusional.

  • curri

    This could have been avoided if US, Israel and Saudi Arabia (the new Axis of Evil) hadn’t sponsored a war to overthrow Assad.

    • Erasmus

      Let them go to Israel, along with the refugees from Eritrea, Somalia and Ethiopia. While Milibrand’s tribesmen are tirelessly working to brown white countries, so too should the country who holds his first loyalty be browned. I want Tel Aviv to look like Mogadishu and Jerusalem like Asmara.

      • Truth Teller

        Isn’t it a bit extreme to compare Syrian Christians to East Africans?

    • NoMosqueHere

      Right. Israel and Saudi Arabia are allies. How are things in the loony bin?

      • Jeef Berky

        Israel and Saudi Arabia are pure entangling alliances. We should buy oil elsewhere on the world market so we can avoid the apostate dictatorship in Saudi Arabia that angers millions of Muslims. The Israel Lobby in this country is too powerful and wants to shed American blood in Iran as they did in Iraq.

      • Franklin_Ryckaert

        The Saudi royal family are crypto Jews, originally from Iraq, and that shows in their treacherous policy. How are things in the Hasbara office?

        • PesachPatriot

          I’m pretty sure that anyone who called the saudi royal family “crypto jews” to their faces would be swiftly relieved of either hands or heads….the saud family has always been residents of the arabian peninsula….they kicked their rivals the hashemites out of the hijaz region near the red sea in the early 20th century so the british made them monarchs of iraq and transjordan…the iraqi monarch was overthrown in the late 1950’s but they still get to rule modern day jordan….

  • NoMosqueHere

    I am sure he’s a Peace Now kind of jew. Someone who wants Israel to turn all its land over to the PLO. Screw him.

    • Franklin_Ryckaert

      That would be a splendid solution! Let’s make Miliband prime minister of Israel then.

  • Whiteplight sees the Emperor N

    In the case of Cuba and Israel, they are too small, but then, so is Britain and Denmark. In fact, the reality of the landmass of Arabic and African lands rather well demonstrates that continually fitting in much smaller countries with refugees is a recipe for those nation’s eventual collapse. Why doesn’t anyone (that counts) get it?

    • Franklin_Ryckaert

      Why would collapsing Israel be a bad thing?

  • Truth Teller

    Afghanistan was modern in a lot of the 20th century. Lebanon was also stable and so was Iran.

  • benvad

    Let’em go to India or Africa. We have too many charming individuals from those lovely cultures. Thanks but Nooo Thankss

  • dana

    i think it ‘s better for them to seek asylum in Arab countries, cause they are more familiar with the culture.