We might have some sympathy for those who favour mass immigration if they were to lead by example.
Angela Merkel, for instance, could have taken five or ten strapping young men from the Middle East or North Africa into her own home. Then she could have assessed what was involved in accommodating such migrants and, absent any major problems, could have reasonably encouraged others to do likewise.
| Migrants on route to Merkel’s Germany |
But quite often those who demand great transformations in society are not the ones that will be most adversely affected by the consequences of the changes they promote.
It is hypocritical to advocate great sacrifices by society when these sacrifices impose an economic and social burden on others, but not on oneself.
To redress that situation Merkel, Frances Fitzgerald, Enda Kenny, and the like, could take refugees into their own homes, at no cost to the exchequer, and as an example to be followed by the masses.
Not just politicians. Journalists and other commentators and campaigners who want lots of refugees and migrants moving into Europe could show their sincerity by welcoming some of the migrants into their own homes. And the clergy too, could provide accommodation for refugees, since so many of them are among the most zealous supporters of open doors immigration policies.
Here in Ireland we are pledged to take in 4,000 refugees. Surely there are at least 4,000 campaigners for liberal immigration policies among the political and media elites, as well as in the organisations that are so quick to berate the rest of us for being mean spirited towards these throngs of young men on the move from muslim lands.
Such a high proportion of the population – so we are told – support mass immigration, that surely it shouldn’t be difficult to find 4,000 who will each accept a refugee. The more enthusiastic campaigners could take in a whole family of them.
Maybe we would end up with many more than the 4,000 for whom we have already signed up. It could run to tens of thousands, or more.
And the best part is that it would be no burden on the State or on the general population. Problem solved! Not even the fiercest opponents of mass immigration could object.
Meanwhile the hosts, kind hearted souls that they are, could prepare themselves to provide exceptional hospitality by studying the religion and culture of their future guests in order to learn how not to offend them in any way – often a difficult task when trying to integrate the competing interests of different peoples.
They could thus learn what their guests’ attitudes and expectations are in relation to women, for example, or to other religions, and could adapt their lifestyles accordingly.
In this way we could accommodate the greatest number of refugees with the minimum possible negative impact on society.
Germany, with its countless refugee welcome committees, could have followed this course rather than making an open invitation to entire regions of the world – an invitation which it recently renewed. In the end they could have welcomed as many migrants as have come, without so much social strife.
Maybe they could even have avoided the mass sexual assaults and attendant government and media cover-ups that occurred in Cologne and other German cities, since the immigrants would have been more dispersed, with less facility to form into gangs.
Why would what we are suggesting have been better for Germany, as well as the rest of Europe? Among other reasons, the idea is rooted in Christian charity, and is dependent on individual responsibility and self-sacrifice.
The alternative, chosen by most governments, is based on statist ideology. The executive authority, insulated from the people it is supposed to represent, decides everything. It dispenses the resources of the country without the consent of the people, and thus deprives them of the supernatural merits that they could otherwise acquire by their own charitable actions.
To those who argue for mass immigration:
Show us your sincerity. Bring immigrants into your comfortable and loving homes, instead of demanding that they be accepted in Europe – accepted and then dumped on a society that may not be inclined to invite huge numbers that they don’t feel up to the challenge of accommodating.
Who knows? Perhaps you could even dispense with the necessity for, and cost of, the frequently denounced and much despised Direct Provision for asylum seekers.
Your argument might make sense if the solution being called for was that refugees be housed in people's spare bedrooms for free… but it isn't. The solution is primarily that public resources to be used to provide accommodation for them. Its the same way that calling for more investment in education does not require you to first make a private donation to a university or else be called a hypocrite. Or that calling for more police on the streets means you first have to first start patrolling the neighbourhood yourself in a batman costume in order to "lead by example".
There is already much local demand for public resources, including for the education and policing that you mention. The question is whether we should be increasing the burden on the already over-stretched public resources.
The accusation of hypocrisy is directed towards those who avoid the adverse consequences of the policies they advocate — policies that are harmful to others. Angela Merkel, for example, doesn't have to use public transport, and has sufficient security around her that she is unlikely to be groped and sexually assaulted in public.
You wrong, intentionally or not you're wrong. You stated clearly: Germany invited them. Now let Germany to deal with their guests don't put that burden on shoulder of Irish people who have nothing but to lose from this nasty adventure.
It is true that Germany invited millions of migrants and should deal with them. But now many Irish are jumping on the bandwagon and demanding that we accept many more refugees or migrants. The people making these demands should take responsibility for them, rather than dumping the burden on the rest of society.
If you really want to avoid this type of problem, you should ask America and so called UNO to stop invading those countries by way of creating Dash, Talban ISIS and so on groups. The fruits goes to American CIA and few businessmen, but sufferings for all of us EU and others.