Role of the Western world in the refugee crisis i

[mencken]

1) Should the Western world try to stop countries from falling apart (we have not been very good at it, but what is the alternative? More failed states means ever more refugees).

I do not see how this is actually possible in practice. You cannot make a first-world nation out of third-world human capital.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

They should only be allowed asylum in rich countries if they would otherwise qualify for permanent residency. If they do not qualify, refugees can take asylum in overseas territories (e.g. St. Helena, Reunion, Diego Garcia, ...)

[mencken]

OK, thought experiment. You're an Eritrean refugee following the UN's rule that you reach the first safe country you can and file for asylum. You flee Eritrea into Ethiopia, a country with long-standing tensions with your homeland and humanitarian crises of its own. You proceed north into South Sudan, which is in a state of anarchic state collapse and civil war. You proceed north into Sudan, a country run by an indicted war criminal wanted by the ICC with a history of genocide in within the past decade. You continue north into either Libya, which is in a state of anarchy and civil war, or Egypt, which has undergone two revolutions in the past four years. You get on a boat and end up in...Italy? That would be your stopping point, but Italy is a Schengen country, so once you're there, why not move to some place where you can actually find work?

Switzerland should make its policies for the benefit of the Swiss, not for the benefit of random Eritrean refugees.