REFUGEES : LIABILITY OR ASSET ?
[To the Editor of THE SPECTATOR] SIR,—Miss Beryl Savage suggests that I am "carried away by " my pro-refugee enthusiasm into unreasonableness. But she is carried away by her anti-refugee enthusiasm into inaccuracy. It was not a question on my part of " asking why the Home Office appears determined to refuse even temporary admittance to any refugees who have not at least their expenses guaranteed." (My italics.) " At least " suggests a minimum demand. But the Home Office demand is the absolute maximum, for what is required from the guarantor is an assurance of every penny that may be expended on the refugee from his old home in Germany to his ultimate new home in whatever part of the world he may ultimately settle. There must be the assurance that the refugee will be able to leave Britain again, and there must be the assurance that no farthing of expense can fall on public—that is. Government—funds.
Britain is a great and wealthy country with a noble tradition of hospitality to both political and racial exiles. Amid the millions she is spending today on the instruments of death, one would have thought she might have made her public as well as private contribution—if only as conscience money !— to these people in immediate and largely desperate need. I repeat : not to do so may be discreet, but it is neither Christian nor charitable. Even Miss Savage can hardly contest that!
Previous page
