The migrant crisis becomes an international problem.

Link: Austria welcomes new migrants from Syria.

At times I am tempted to avoid posting on certain issues for fear of alienating my audience.  We all have strong opinions about particular issues, but some subjects can be more emotionally charged than others.  The heartbreaking photo of the three-year old Syrian boy who drowned trying to reach Europe, and washed up on the shore in Greece, has really energized the western media.  The horrible reality is that young children die unnecessarily everyday, some by starvation in Ethiopia and Bangladesh, others as victims of war in Afghanistan, Syria and Nigeria.  The immediate response to this particular photo will be typically knee-jerk and focus on a quick-fix for the symptom, without addressing the root problem.  Because this young boy, who was traveling with his family from war-torn Syria to an unknown future in Europe, drowned and has his picture taken, all the major governments in Europe met to discuss their particular response to the issue of undocumented migrants, and the only question the media wanted answered was, "how many of these people are you willing to accept responsibility for and allow into your country?"  In reality, what the activist European and American press wanted was an announcement that the European Union intended to establish a blanket policy for accepting all applicants for Asylum and Amnesty, no questions asked.  Would this provide an answer to the growing number of migrants from the Middle East, Africa, the Indian Subcontinent and Southeast Asia who are looking for a new place to live?  Yes, but at the same time it would bankrupt the EU and destabilize the cultural balance and identity of its member states.  Anyone who seriously wants to address this problem must address not only the symptom, but also the root cause.  These people come from somewhere; why are they leaving?

I live in Texas, therefore I am very familiar with the issue of undocumented migrants/immigrants.  The term has changed over the years, as liberals decided that the terms "illegal" and "alien" were too harsh to use when discussing human beings.  Again, just another distraction from facing the actual root of the problem.  The United States of America, through a variety of mechanisms, financially supports the United States of Mexico.  We accept their unemployed, and we provide a market for the narco-trafficking that has made Mexico its super highway.  The Mexican nationals who live illegally in Mexico return a staggering amount of money back to Mexico to support family.  This financial windfall has become a pillar of the current Mexican economic system.  Simply put, roughly five to ten percent of Mexicans control the wealth of Mexico; it has always been this way, and the average Mexican has no reason to believe that it will ever change.  Mexico is a wealthy country; although its petroleum deposits have started to dry up (all the easy stuff has been pumped out; only the hard-to-reach deposits remain), Mexico continues to have a tremendously bountiful agricultural sector, not to mention car-manufacturing and a growing textiles and high-tech industry.  The government keeps a tight control over much of the economy, which allows a small percentage of Mexican families, utilizing endemic corruption, to steal much of the nation's wealth.  The under-and-unemployed just cross the northern border into the United States to find work and create a life for their families.  Mexico is in need of a real revolution, to rebuild the government so it works for the people, not vice-versa.  The people need to become so desperate, that they take the issue into their own hands, and drag the thieves, corrupt politicians and narco-traffickers into the streets, and distribute a bit of mob justice.  But this will never happen as long as the United States is willing to accept, feed and house the struggling Mexican under-and-unemployed, before they have reached the necessary point of desperation.  This is a lesson that some in the United States are beginning to learn (thanks, Donald Trump), but I just don't see Europe ever having the courage to take the steps necessary to defend itself.  Until the migrant believes that Europe offers no sanctuary, then the numbers will continue to grow.

In reality, it may be too late for the United States.  President Obama will no doubt use Executive Action to sign an Amnesty Bill into law that provides a path to citizenship for at least twenty million Mexican nationals living illegally in the United States.  Mind you, Obama isn't interested in providing a path to Legal Permanent Residency, his intent is to create citizens and new voters for his Democratic Party.  But that is a story for another day. When we speak of addressing the genesis of the migrant problem in Europe, we must examine the circumstances that created this particular flow of refugees.  The war in Syria, which has been raging for more than five years, has been displacing hundreds of thousands of people.  Europe and the United States have welcomed many of these refugees already, and Turkey is already dealing with a refugee crisis.  But the migrants aren't only coming from Syria.  The majority actually come from Africa, and pay to be ferried across the Mediterranean in all sorts of dangerous, unseaworthy craft.  Many are hopeful of finding a home and a steady job so they can support their immediate family, and eventually send for the rest.  South Africa has been dealing with a refugee crisis since the end of apartheid; Nigerians, Ghanians, Zimbabweans, Congolese, all headed to South Africa, convinced that a good job and a new life awaited.  Australia has been dealing with refugees from Southeast Asia since the end of the Vietnam War.  The reality is, the prosperous western nations of the world do not have enough wealth to support its refugees.  The math just doesn't add up, which is very frustrating, because the planet is nowhere near reaching the limit of its ability to support the human population.

Accepting the refugees as new European citizens will only guarantee an increased number of refugees.  Europe's generosity is actually to blame for the direction of many of these refugees to begin with. Europe has always been willing to take Turks, Somalis, Algerians, Albanians, Palestinians, and others who are fleeing conflict, searching for the opportunity for a new life.  But the problem has become so big that the only solution is to deal with it at its source.  Syria is in upheaval because of the spread of ISIS; the Iraqi Refugees, especially from the north, are also beginning to make their presence felt. Since the entire world acknowledges what a horrific threat ISIS is to free people everywhere, then why hasn't some European or United States statesman risen to the occasion, and led an allied military campaign to destroy this human pestilence?  Its not as if ISIS is willing to confine their expansion to the Levant; they have created cells as far away as South America, Canada, and The Philippines.  Their stated goal is our destruction, so why haven't we solved the Syrian/Iraqi refugee crisis and the ISIS threat with a united military effort?  In Africa, the refugee problem stems from what appears to be an inability for an African government to function outside the boundaries of institutionalized corruption.  Even humanitarian aid has a habit of ending up in the hands of one smuggler or another.  Since the end of apartheid, the ANC has started to follow in the footsteps of the Mugabes and Mobutus, with government ministers using public funds as a private bank account.  If a nation does not have the resources to support economic growth, stagnation and recession occur, and the people will have no jobs.  We can't invade Africa and force corrupt-free governments on the continent; it must be something that is decided at home.  The same is true for Mexico.  I have often heard that the United States should just invade Mexico, use the military to root out the narco-traffickers, and make Mexico work for the Mexican people once again.  But its not our place; the people of Mexico have to decide when the time has arrived for a political sea-change, even though it does impact our national security when terrorists are able to utilize the same undocumented immigrant pipeline to enter the United States as the Mexican worker.

It's heart-warming to see those in need receive succor.  I'm pleased that the various European governments have made the decision to address the migrant crisis this week.  But what about next week, and next month?  What about next year, when we may be dealing with hundreds of thousands?  The total lack of shame on behalf of the wealthy Arab nations as they refuse to accept refugees, is very telling.  They understand that once the spigot has been turned on, its difficult to shut off.  Again, I argue, wouldn't it be in everyone's best interest if we destroyed ISIS together, while it is in its infancy, and bring some relief to the people who have yet to become refugees, and also give the current migrants a place to return to?    

Why I Avoid Flying

I remember the days when I would get excited thinking about taking a flight.  The idea that anything could possibly go wrong never entered my mind.  Even as I grew older and started traveling frequently for work, I never minded flying.  When I was still a relatively young man, though, my attitude changed just a bit.  I was living and working in Africa, and it was necessary for me to fly to different countries for projects and seminars.  As I point out in my book, I discovered that Africa is where old planes go to die.  Once a plane has outlived its usefulness in North America and Europe, many times it ends up in Africa.  Let me tell you, Africans know how to keep a plane functional, even if comfort has long since ceased to be a concern.  Aficionados of older planes, including some of the really old prop jobs, can always be found in African airports, taking pictures and marveling at the ancient birds that still manage to reach the clouds.  Whenever I had the opportunity, I chose to fly South African Airways, because in those days, it was a first class airline.  Unfortunately, because of

apartheid, SAA was only allowed to land in Nairobi, and that was for refueling purposes only.  On flights to Europe, SAA was obliged to fly out over the ocean to avoid flying over any African countries and possibly attracting a Mig or a surface-to-air missile.  I remember driving to Gaborone, Botswana, Lusaka, Zambia, and most frequently, Harare, Zimbabwe, to catch flights to other African destinations.  I can't recall ever being overly concerned about the state of the aircraft, although the behavior of some passengers certainly scared the hell out of me.  I remember one occasion when a gentleman attempted to start a fire on the plane, in order to cook his dinner.  I never did find out what victuals he had in mind.  On another occasion, in Entebbe, Uganda, I watched the pilot and co-pilot come on board wearing parachutes.  None of the passengers had parachutes, but for some reason, we all seemed just fine.  Sometimes in Africa, you have to adapt to your surroundings, and do as the locals do.  Most Africans I knew believed in pre-destiny, so if the plane was going to crash, then there was nothing that could be done to prevent it from happening.

Flight Data Recorder ("Black Box")

Do you remember when a plane crash would result in the search for the black box, which would be listened to by the experts?  The investigators would listen to the black box recordings, form a hypothesis for what caused the accident, and then release the information to the public.  On some occasions, we would get to hear excerpts from the black box recording.  My, how things have changed.  I realize that Malaysian Airlines flight 370 has not been located, so therefore the black boxes are still missing.  But the black boxes for Malaysian Airlines 17 and the Air Asia flight 8501 have been retrieved, and I have no idea what was found on either recording. Why have things changed?  Are we no longer allowed to know what the investigators find on the black box recordings?  What could it be that would cause such secrecy?  With Malaysian Airlines 17, we already know the cause of the disaster, so what else could they be hiding?  Why not release a transcript of the black box recording?  And Air Asia 8501 - we were on pins and needles, waiting for the experts to locate the black boxes and then listen to the recording.  The boxes were found, and the recordings were accessed.  And as far as I know, we have no specific detail regarding the conversation on the box.  Forgive me for my mild paranoia, but why are the choosing to kept the contents of the recordings a secret?

I just doesn't add up.  Too many problems with airliners lately, and no accountability when they start to disappear or get shot down.  I don't have a fear of dying, but I freely admit my desire to avoid "death by plane crash".  The more that we are provided quick explanations for plane mishaps, the better I feel about flying.  But too many plane accidents go unresolved lately for me to feel comfortable flying.  That doesn't mean I won't fly.  I will be flying in February, but I won't be comfortable, that's guaranteed.  Every time I try and discuss this issue with friends, they retreat to the comfortable, stand-by cliché that, "Air travel is much safer than riding in a car".  Heck, that's probably true.  But normally, people get up and walk away from car accidents.  How many people do you know who have walked away from an airliner crash?  Not only does plane travel seem to be a bit less safe as of late, now I have concerns about what the National Transportation Safety Board has been hiding regarding the various black box recordings we haven't been allowed to hear.  And if these issues weren't enough, I fear that sky-terrorism is about to make its presence

PanAm Flt103 in Lockerbie, Scotland
bombed by terrorists in 1988;
Source  UK Gov/Crown 

known...again.  Many of you were too young to remember, but in the 1970s and 1980s, terrorist groups made a habit out of hijacking commercial airliners.  Thankfully, this form of terrorism seemed to go out of style, but something warns me that air travel will be less-safe in 2015 than it has been in years.  So, to be perfectly honest, I'm not really comfortable flying.  I have to make this trip to DC in late February, and I actually considered driving.  But I'm not really gung-ho about driving half-way across the country, a three-day trip, all by myself, especially when the flight is only five hours long.

I have great respect for airline companies and manufacturers, and I also admire commercial pilots.  It's an industry which truly mirrors the growth of our society.  In less-than 120 years, we have moved from the Wright Brothers to the Airbus 380 (which I like to call, "the village with wings").  I don't fault the industry for the recent plane crashes, and I know that companies like Boeing, McDonnell-Douglas and Airbus are constantly looking for ways to increase air travel safety.  But sometimes it's impossible to remove the human factor; in other words, if someone wants something to happen badly enough, then that someone can probably find a way to achieve their goal.  If a terrorist group decides to hijack a plane, I believe human ingenuity will eventually overcome all of the built-it safeguards and security.  I also believe that my reticence about flying can change in a heartbeat, if the news stories about plane crashes become fewer and far between.  At this point, that is where my hope lies.