Exodus

The Middle East has constantly been a zone of conflict and controversy. From the Crusades in the late 10th Century, to the bombing of ISIS in Iraq and Syria today, the Arab World has been in disarray. Now, we have to bear the biggest migration crisis since World War Two, 350000 people from Syria alone are seeking asylum, and there are both plenty more from other war-stricken zones and also those who haven't seeked asylum. Millions are homeless, thousands are dead, and countries are torn. There is no end in sight, only hope that leaving will bring them to a better land; faithful, fairer, free.

The UK has decided the best way to incorporate and solve the migrant problem though going straight to the source. The country currently accepts 5000 refugees from Turkish refugee camps, those who are most in need of help. The rest of Europe, unfortunately, doesn't get a choice. The refugees travel over the Mediterranean and brave the seas to reach the mainland. Some refugees go to Hungary, Serbia, Bulgaria, Romania, Austria, and the largest proportion going to Germany. But at what point do these refugees stop being war-escaping victims, but masters of opportunity. Travelling through 11 countries to reach Sweden because they have the best social welfare inside the Schengen Area makes you an economic migrant, not a refugee. This problem is also exacerbated by the amount of Turks or Middle-Easterners who simply want a free pass to a more democratic state. Now we have a major problem, with millions of unassimilated refugees collecting in ghettos across Europe, with no intention of going back. 

Another split in the cultural dimensions of the union of Europe is in population differences. Italy and Germany are aging populations. Simply, this means they have, and will have, a large majority of their population as over 65. They can't work, and further take money from pensions that the younger, smaller proportion, are working to get. This leads to incredible instability and will lead to the country losing their population, slowly, but surely. The refugee crisis opens an opportunity for them; to incorporate the young asylum seekers means they can work and hopefully even out the age differences. On the other hand, the UK, Denmark, Sweden, Hungary (etc...) are not at that state of agist demographics. These countries, and countless others, are in a fortunate position of self-sustainability population-wise, and don't need a hyperbole of refugees living and settling in their countries. Since the EU is a free-movement zone, once a refugee is in, they can travel anywhere, and like stated before, some go to the countries with the best social welfare. These people deserve freedom, but to what extent?

Morality is the crux of human development, whether stand in times of controversy or sit in times of comfort. The issue with the refugee crisis is that the solution is simple, but the execution is morally hard. Do we stop people running from an area of conflict, or do we allow them to join us to unite for a better cause? Using pure logic, a computer would chose the former, whereas the person you would want leading us would chose the latter. Because human lives are worth more than a computer can understand; each one is just as precious as the last. A simple analogy would be with the contrast between Trump and Trudeau. What Trump says is factually correct, and he very well might be correct in his belief of making America great again, but is that in spite of millions of Mexicans being worse off? And Trudeau is morally pure, wanting to accept and assimilate 25000 "new Canadians" from Syria, but will that be possible without tension or harm to the nation? The choices of going either way are difficult, because there is no answer, no results. The UK, in my opinion, has chosen both the safe and sensible option, going cyborg. In the UK, we can carefully incorporate refugees into the country, knowing they need help, and also protecting them from crossing the Mediterranean. Personally, I would accept more than 5000 refugees, knowing they need help. But I don't know all the facts and figures, and my opinion would be bias towards morality, which unfortunately some members of the government seem to neglect. Morality isn't a choice to turn off or on, it's the decision to accept other people matter, other people love, other people hurt. 

Today, we have to bear the biggest migration crisis since World War Two. This War saw a brave few stand in times of controversy and in times of challenge. They fought and died so we lived in a world without fascism and dictatorship, without racism and without hurt. Those men and women fought so we can make the choice whether to accept morality, because without them there would be no decision. In World War Two, migrants travelled from Europe to Africa, escaping the Nazis and war. Europeans needed help, and Africa did what was needed. They did what was hard, and they achieved what was great. They helped in our time of need. It's time we pay them back.

The men and women who served didn't fight and die to see their country rejecting the freedoms they fought for. They died for a choice, and that choice is ours' now; let's not let them down.