Bureaucrats in Brussels have been telling European countries reluctant to accept immigrants from Africa and Islamic countries that they have a moral obligation to do so. If someone has the physical stamina to cross the land and/or sea and make it to a European shore then that person has the right to asylum. But if it is a moral imperative to save Syrians and Afghanis from the situations prevailing in their home countries, why is the moral imperative limited to those who show up in Europe? If a person is elderly and/or physically disabled, shouldn’t that person have at least as strong a moral right? If so, shouldn’t the Europeans be flying 747s (max passenger configuration up to 660) and A380s (max passenger capacity 853) to airports in Afghanistan and picking up anyone who wants to leave? Why limit the offer of European residency to those who are strong enough to trek over mountains? Similarly, for Syria and north Africa, shouldn’t the Europeans send passenger ferries to pick up anyone who wants to depart and can show that he or she is from a war and/or poverty zone?
In short, if accepting asylum-seekers is a moral question, how can it be legitimate to filter by physical stamina and capability? Shouldn’t the Europeans be favoring the physically weak instead?
Phil, I often find your posts interesting, but sometimes I think you are just trolling.
The answer to your question is, obviously, yes. The Europeans should send as many extraordinarily expensive civilian aircraft–well noted for their ability to take hits from missiles and other ground-based fire–as possible directly into active civil wars and land them in territory controlled by the same heavily-armed group that recently bombed a civilian airliner. Moreover, I would consider it your moral obligation, as a highly trained pilot, to volunteer to pilot one of them. No question at all. The obvious moral syllogism that goes from the obligation to protect people in need who arrive at your border to sending tens of billions of dollars of assets to be blown up on a suicide mission is left as an exercise for the reader.
As for the question of whether it is “fair” that the able-bodied can get help while the infirm suffer, of course it is not. You can see the same unfairness when disasters such as Hurricane Katrina strike in this country. Those with able bodies and financial means were much better off than those with neither. What–short of having better levies or earlier evacuation–could have changed that? Natural disasters and civil wars create circumstances where it is very hard to provide “fair” outcomes.
More practically, it is very difficult–in situations of chaos and incomplete information–to distinguish between those with bona fide need and those simply looking to take advantage of an opportunity. Requiring people to leave their homes and belonging behind and make a dangerous and uncertain journey is an (imperfect) proxy for ensuring that people have a genuine need. It also has the effect–which I take it you would judge to be a benefit–of increasing the fraction of migrants likely to become productive workers and reducing the fraction likely to become dependent on government aid.
“… shouldn’t the Europeans be flying 747s …”
Why the “Europeans”? What’s wrong with rich Arab countries? They too have a 747 and A380’s. Not only that, they have the land and the money (far more than Europe or the US does) to host anyone wanting a better life and is willing to show it. Not only that, integration with the Arab countries would not be as challenging.
@Neil: Trolling? I cannot speak for Phil but I see this post as being politically in-correct and showing it. For once it would be great to see an Arab country stop funding “Madrasa” that teach radicals Islam, or kick out those to run them. If they cannot, tell us where they are and the West will do it for them. Instead, they hid behind it, claiming otherwise.
Donald Trump is sounding smarter and smarter…
Europe is committing cultural suicide. If and when sending 747s and A380s becomes politically acceptable to people like Neil, then I expect Europe’s traitorous leaders to do it.
I think Phil’s point is that admitting refugees is an extraordinarily arbitrary way of helping people. He is right.
Our immigration policies have a way of generating unintended consequences. We have H1-B visas for non-citizen computer science PhD’s. As a result, Americans and green card holders major in Accounting or Law so as not to compete with foreigners, thus exacerbating these shortages. We admit refugees and people fleeing political persecution. As a result, people make up histories of persecution or commit acts resulting in their being persecuted in their countries of origin. We task overworked civil servants with distinguishes “sincere” refugees from fakes.
Unintended consequences? People respond to incentives. Always have, always will.
@Brian Gulino: “overworked civil servants”
I’ve never seen one.
It’s enough to pick them up in Turkey, actually.
Tom: they shouldn’t have to travel all the way to Turkey from Afghanistan. Afghan airports are now safe enough for commercial airline service. Why not then for the EU humanitarian 747 charters?
True, true.
You previously asked about ISIS-members claiming asylum in Europe. I saw an article on a related topic in the local paper today: 286 Swedish men and women have joined ISIS since 2013 and traveled there to fight; 120 of them are now back in Sweden.
Why should Europe open his borders? Europe was never able to integrate properly these population. Most of the asylum seeker are not even Syrian. All the economical migrant from North Africa are now “Syrians”.
Europe was also never able to integrate properly Jewish populations, too.