When Dastard Migrants Become Watchers of the Wall…


Contrary to widely held beliefs, I’ve learnt in the last few months that migrants are not necessarily the most welcoming people when others decide to join in—with the Syrian refugee crisis having somewhat confirm this in an obvious but shocking manner for me.

As a migrant in the United Kingdom from Africa, I have a bunch of migrant friends. These are people who just came into the country, those who’ve been here for many years and those who were born here but are not necessarily from here because their parents migrated from Africa or somewhere else in search for a crunch of the available western opportunities.

My experience has taught me that the last two sets of people out of the three categories mentioned are not really brutal with their disdain for others to come in—nevertheless, they are not as charitable with the idea of allowing others to come in as they should be, considering their own history.

The Syrian refugee crisis has attracted huge global media attention and with such unending coverage, it’s inevitable that the conversation has caught up in various corners of the world—including our homes and work places.

Several people are worried and ironically, a large percentage of these people in Europe are not worried about the safety and suffering of the refugees who are fleeing the immeasurable viciousness of ISIS being entertained by a war they had no say in it.

Syrian refugees

Syrian refugees

The worries of the Germans, British and the others whose countries the refugees are walking in or are supposed to walk in are perfectly explicable even if illegitimate. A lot of these people are worried about the toil the mass influx of these refugees will have on their already struggling infrastructures and diminishing standard of living.

It’s pretty much expected that they would have these concerns—yet, a huge number of the indigenous people have opened their arms to receive these refugees for the simple fact that their misery cannot be overlooked, irrespective of the expected inconvenience of their arrival.

READ ALSO:  Dr Mensa Otabil Demonstrates How Religion Poisons Everything- Calls On His Congregation To Disregard Research On Gays That Contradicts The Bible

Shockingly among the worried souls are migrants who have come to these western countries to seek better lives—hiding behind a bulwark of selfishness and greed to some extent advocating for Jingoism.

Three of my migrant friends in the UK, specifically from Ghana, Pakistan and Nigeria have raised objections and concerns in relation the arrival of the Syrian refugees.

These three are not the only ones who have become dastard watchers of the wall and their objections are not grounded or influenced by some sort of extreme genuine patriotism—rather, their obvious greed to block others from coming in to compete for food and opportunities.

In separate conversations with these people, they all grounded their worries in the premise shared by the indigenous—-that, UK is already struggling to cope and therefore, the borders should not be loosely opened for refugees, irrespective of what is hunting them. Of course this is a reasonable position but if postulated by those who actually belong here, I wouldn’t necessarily brand them greedy—but insensitive or inhospitable.

However, when migrants who flew in here ride on the back of this same legitimate wave, it becomes inherently evil and their voraciousness can’t be missed. You came into the UK from a stable country yet people who have no stable home and are under unvarying threat of being killed ought not to be allowed in—because, your comfort in this new country must be positioned in such a way that it becomes important than the atrocities they face.

It’s not just immoral for any migrant to become a watcher of the wall in this circumstance; it’s also evil and defeats the increasing call for migrants all around the world to be respected. If you cannot respect the fact that those in real need to come in must be welcomed, then you should not be respected to be in too…

READ ALSO:  Security Expert Claims The Ghana Police Service Doesn't Need Help From The Military To Arrest The Recent Marathon Armed Robberies In The Country

[Tweet “If you cannot respect the fact that those in real need to come in must be welcomed, then you should not be respected to be in too”]

Even a migrant with little understanding of the plight of refugees should not be excused for making such an unsympathetic comment—that because a person fleeing imminent danger or death would discomfort her ‘better’ life which she would probably never have in her home country, this endangered person should be left behind the wall.

Game of Thrones; wall between the Crows and the Wildings

Game of Thrones; wall between the Crows and the Wildlings

Those familiar with HBO’s Game of Thrones can place the above on the same table with Jon Snow’s opening of the gate for the Wildlings—and the opposition from the Night’s Watch. It’s slightly different here in the sense that all those who raised the objections in GOT were actually indigenous and it can be argued that they had birth given rights to their territories.

Wouldn’t it have become grossly inhumane if a Wildling who had been let in earlier objected to the opening of the gate for others because he feared that, he would have to spend a little extra time in the queue when he needs to see the doctor?

I am not in anyway suggesting that if the indigenous raised this same concern, it suddenly becomes right—what’s wrong in this instance is wrong irrespective of who is calling the shot.

However, it goes beyond just being wrong if a person who ought to know better based on his own experience and position on the immigration spectrum decides to put such unashamed, hostile, greedy cards on the table—obviously hard-hearted about the outcome for those who justifiably have a claim to where he sits than he ever can make.


manassehatsu says:

I have to disagree with you on this one too. How do you tolerate the intolerant? Most of these refugee don’t believe in the laws or the system that made the land safe for them. They don’t believe in the secular system which makes the western world a great place to live. Soon they will be demanding that western women cover up when they come through the neighbourhoods that were in existence before they arrived in the country. Their daughters and female member of the family will be treated as chattel contrary to the laws of the land. And if any newspaper questions their religion, it will be bombed, shot at or defaced. These are not the people you want to build a society with because they don’t believe in your free society.
If security and safety is what they need, then make them secure in their own lands. Those three friends of your don’t believe the western system/secular ought to be destroyed. They may not share all the beliefs of the western world but majority of it. Which makes them compatible in the west. These refugees don’t share the same values of the western society. They bring their tribal and superstitious nonsense into the western community and then demand that society changes to accommodate them.
We have a case here in Canada where a woman refuses to remove her niqab to be sworn in as a citizen. She insists on keeping her entire face covered except her eyes for the ceremony. Which is against the Canadian citizenship law. She taken the Canadian government to court and so far the bill to the tax payer is 275,000 dollars.
Since you are a GOT fan, here is an analogy; bringing in the refugees is tantamount to letting in the wights or white walkers into westros

I perfectly understand where you are coming from when you say these refugees may want to come in with their way of doing things; religion, culture and mannerism—instead of adopting the western concepts which supports pluralism.

My argument was from the angle that, is it not much of a double standard to be let into the door as a foreigner/migrant and then shut the door, preventing other foreigners from coming in—in this case refugees?

For all you know, my friend from Pakistan is not any different from these refugees when it comes to evaluating their ideologies—religion, culture and those core values.

Yet, she says refugees are not allowed. How different will it be if any of these refugees (when they were not refugees) applied for visas to come into the UK? Surely, they would have all the things you noted—and yet they would have been allowed in, at least (provided they met the visa requirements).

However, here is the case these people are saying they should not be allowed in—are you saying if someone from Northern Nigeria who swims in equal dogmatism wants to come in, we should say NO because she/he may not want to adopt? If you are not saying so; why should that be the measure for the refugees in this case?

Also, are we not supposed to give the dying person the needed first aid before asking, what happened and what’s next?

manassehatsu says:

I think we ought to identify what sort of foreigner we are talking about. Foreigners who share the values of the western society should be welcomed. Those who hate the west and want to see it destruction should not be allowed in. It is that simple.
Yes we are suppose to give the dying person the needed first aid and after send him on his way. Particularly when the dying intended us harm.
When these people apply for visas to come to the west, I hope their applications are vetted deeply to ferret out whether they mean us harm or good.
Someone from Northern Nigeria who is a fanatic of Islam should not be allowed to come to the west. What for? Should he stay in his squalor with his Allah? Why should we provide a safe place for someone doesn’t believe we deserve to live in safety?
These refugee should be put in camps for a while, processed and then find them safe passage to other arab lands. Or get rid of ISIS and the Saudi wahabists in the middle east so they can go back.
They cannot be allowed into the west when their intention is to do harm.