The Right Thing for the Wrong Reasons done the Wrong Way

<a href="" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Source</a>

When you do the right thing for the right reason, no matter what happens, you can defend it. When you do the right thing for the right reasons but do it the wrong way, you can still get a bit of a pass because you can justify why you acted the way you did.

But when you do the ‘right thing’ for the wrong reasons in the wrong way, it is better if you did nothing at all, because the repercussions are devastating.

You don’t become the great Saviour, you become an Opportunist.  You become the kind of person who causes retraction and disassociation even from generally positive actions.

This is the prologue to Angela Merkel’s Open Border Policy

<a href="" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Source</a>

In some twisted sense of overwriting Germany’s Nazi past and current Neo-Nazi sentiments, without plan or organisation, Merkel threw open the borders to allow any and all so-called ‘refugees’ or ‘migrants’ into Germany.

There was no vetting, no ‘transit point’.  There was no place where these people assembled and were monitored. Merkle opened the borders thinking a halo would descend from heaven onto her head.

As ridiculous as this was, her virtual ‘demand’ that all other European Union Nations open their borders was met by the building of walls, by  the citizens virtually chasing refugees from their territory, and the United Kingdom’s departure from the E.U.

And events, As time passed events such as that which occurred in Cologne became common.

<a href="" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Source</a>

The events of Cologne on New Year’s Eve and over the next few days, confirmed what many had expected.

Sexual assaults and thefts committed by these so called refugees and migrants on German women was not as shocking as they should be, for many expected this.

For who were these so-called migrants?  Where did they come from, why did they come and what were they in Germany for?

<a href="" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Source</a>

If Merkel had acted for the right reasons, all the migrants would have been brought to a holding centre. They would have been slowly but thoroughly vetted, and those found to be questionable would be sent back.  For the right reason of opening the borders was to save those at risk, not allow in criminals and terrorists who were seeking a new base.

If she had opened the borders for the right reasons, she would have conducted the immigration in the right way.  But she didn’t.

<a href="" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Source</a>

She simply opened the borders and demanded everyone accept those who arrived without an eye blink, a question or a pause. For this was not an act of kindness, this was a political strategy.

As other nations built their walls and turned back those who sought to enter, Merkel had to shut her mouth, for if she made another ‘demand’ there wouldn’t just be a Brexit, but a wholesale departure from the European Union.

In March of 2016, Slovenia, Croatia, Serbia and Macedonia closed their borders to migrants.  The Right wing Alternative for Germany won seats in three regional elections.

In July  a 17-year-old so called  Afghan asylum seeker attacked 20 passengers with a knife on a train.

Six days later, a Syrian asylum seeker set off an explosive device, killing himself and injuring 12 others in the southern city of Ansbach.

<a href="" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Source</a>

On December 19, a failed asylum seeker from Tunisia drove a truck into a Christmas market in Berlin. Twelve people were killed and  fifty six were injured. The asylum seeker’  was later killed in a shootout.

In August of 2017 Merkel met with European and African leaders in Paris to discuss ways to stem the flow of migrants. Reception centers in African countries were discussed.

<a href="" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Source</a>

The timing of this is significant, for if Merkel had been serious, had wanted to help migrants for the right reasons, she would have gone about it the right way, and reception centres would have been set up in North Africa first.

By doing the ‘right’ thing for the wrong reasons in the wrong way Islamaphobia, xenophobia, increased, and the neo-nazis have gained power.

And Saint Angela loses her wings.


What do you think?

Written by jaylar


  1. I have tried to look at the whole issue within an unbiased lensed, but which ever angle I look from there seem to be enough case for argument.
    But let me just say prestissimo, when this refugees crisis began, the truth was I was against the way Merkel opened the borders of Germany without due recourse to the prevailing laws of the land. But I was also against the “harsh” way some other European countries did turned down the asylum seekers.
    If your argument for this piece is the motive behind Merkel’s action, I think you will be drawing a conclusion that cannot be substantiated without a fact.

    • I am on the same page as you. It was the way Merkel did it, the way she opened the borders, the way she demanded other countries take them. Other countries reacted as an attack on their soverignty. Look at Brexit.

      Had it been done for humanitarian reasons, not Merkel’s halo, and done right… much of what has been negative would not have existed.

  2. I think most of the world’s people are really thinking hard about this. I must admit that In politics, interest is a top priority, everywhere. In such a case, I think every leader should make a policy that takes into account the various aspects comprehensive, and those of us who accept the policy should also be wise in addressing every leader’s policy. However, every policy has its pros and cons, there are consequences and risks.

    • Countries do. There are laws, policies, etc. Even in a 3rd World Country like Jamaica we have policies and practices. What she’s done is off the grid.

  3. I always get worried when somebody uses the term “so called”, because this usually means that they have made assumptions without being in possession of all the facts. In this case, one might draw the conclusion that you believe that the vast majority of asylum seekers in Europe are undeserving and have no right to try to escape from oppression or grinding poverty. One might also think that a high proportion of these people wish to do harm by committing terrorist acts. So what is your proof that this is so? Or are you making the mistake of drawing conclusions that are not supported by the facts – of assuming that because some people in a given community are bad then the whole community must be bad?

      • Does it? What proportion of terrorists acts are committed by immigrants as opposed to “home grown” terrorists? And even if some terrorists acts in western countries have been committed by immigrants – which I do not deny – would that justify refusing admittance to genuine asylum seekers?