How to help the 90% who cannot reach Europe?

Refugees seeking safety and others fleeing from poverty and despair are challenging Europe as we know. The well fare system as of today in many European countries will most likely not survive this challenge. Desperate families are paying smugglers fortunes draining the family’s assets and possibilities for recovery when they choose to send the father or one of their children on a path full of dangers as a bridgehead, hoping they get foot inside Europe hereby maybe allowing the family to follow.

Europe can help! 

Helping people is a core value for societies based on Christian values. For each refugee making it inside Europe 10 more need help in the conflict areas. We must not close our eyes for this problem. When conflicts threatening the safety of the families hopefully end many of the refugees express a true will to go back and help rebuilding society. Chances are however, that a large portion of the highly educated and resourceful people for various reasons - despite this will - get stuck in Europe. Even though this might be beneficial for Europe, this is a big problem for rebuilding society at their home country, and leaves the not so fortune that were left behind in the lurch once again. Many know of the large challenges in successful integration avoiding the big and many problems associated with large differences in the various cultural backgrounds, religions, educations and languages involved.  Problems like crime, sexual violation, begging, homeless, religious conflicts etc. Even though most European countries probably can afford the large cost of such necessary integration one must ask if this is the best both short and long term solution for

a)      the few that make it through the needles eye,

b)      for the rest left behind or

c)       the European societies.  

What should Europe do?

We often hear from our politicians and main stream media that either we close our borders or we accept the increasing migration. When discussing numbers of migration and its impact on European societies, it is important to compare the migration with the number of births occurring in each particular country. In Denmark for instance about 60.000 citizens are born every year. If the migration over a number of years is say 25.000 pr. year, then eventually 25/(60+25) or 30% of the population will be of foreign background. Of course this assumes equal fertility rates in the different groups, no family reunification, and nobody immigrating again and as none of these assumptions hold reality is much more complex.  

There is a third approach.  

EU through UNICEF should immediately take action to :

  • Massively support existing safe areas in the near regions.
  • Take responsibility for new safe areas in the near regions under EU/Un leadership and by EU expense.
  • This might involve creating areas/ form of co-renting zones on long term contracts from neighboring countries to conflict areas.  

    UNICEF Has the knowledge and is already operating in the areas of concern.


What are the benefits of this approach?

  1. First of all this allows Europe to help the maximum amount of refugees with a legitimate need for safety and proper living conditions.
  2. Refugee families will not have to send their children out on dangerous paths, but can stay together as a family in a safe environment.
  3. EU/UN can ensure proper education, teach democratic understanding and prepare the citizens for rebuilding society.
  4. Building the local temporary societies will demand much work, and the refugees will be motivated for helping. For many this work will restore a very important feeling, that they have direct influence on their own life and situation. This gives life quality and keeps skills up to date, and is in sharp contrast to the endless waiting and waiting at some refugee camp in Europe without any possibility to influence their own situation.
  5. Resourceful people are nearby ready to move back once a conflict area again becomes safe.
  6. The materials used for building temporary towns can to a large extent be reused when families again are allowed to move back to their home towns and cities.
  7. Instead of this issue creating disunity in European societies, this approach will allow all responsible Europeans an opportunity to stand together in helping other people in need.
  8. Europe will avoid the many conflicts and problems associated with a sudden large scale mixture of cultures and can focus on helping refugees
  9. The neighboring countries will have a stable income and be motivated for helping rather than feeling overwhelmed by the burden.
  10. Rather than paying neighboring countries a sum for running a camp(as now) not knowing where the funds end, EU will by this approach have full control over the flow of funds.

What are the down sides?

Each country should contribute a certain amount, say 0.1%  GDP.  EU/UN will need to make long term commitments in the areas of operation.  But keeping the alternative of migration into Europe might show even more expensive with equal long term impacts and helping much less people in need. This approach includes building infra structure and ensuring the safety of people, and the will to ensure this with military means might be necessary.  



See more at :





Glenn Arthur Jørgensen    Contact the author of the petition