Imagine a situation in which a group of human rights activists—such as the ones who send humanitarian boats from Cyprus to Gaza—dock a large ship somewhere in Africa. A month before, they announce their intention to save Darfurians and other political refugees. Tens of thousands stream to the port, board the ship, and sail to the United States. In New York harbor, they swim to the shore. What would the US Border Guard do?

Naturally and legally, the refugees would be prohibited from entering the United States. Naturally because everyone’s obligation to help is limited; in fact, there is no such obligation at all. Help is commendable while absence thereof is non-condemnable. Legally because every country guards its borders with a visa system. Refugees cannot act criminally: just as they cannot kill border guards and rob stores, they cannot enter the country illegally. Crossing the border illegally is a crime on a par with theft: the migrants steal a valuable franchise—a residence permit.

During WWII, the British prevented Jewish refugees from entering Palestine without visas. Switzerland, the United States, and scores of other countries closed their borders to refugees without visas. Either recognize that policy as criminal and demand reparations from them or accept the harsh legal notion of visas. But once the visa requirement is abandoned for refugees, tens of millions would stream into affluent lands. During the Iran-Iraq war, tens of millions people could have been classified as refugees; Turkey would have been rather unhappy to accept them all.

The process of granting visas separates refugees from economic migrants. Some imagine that Darfurians are refugees; by that token, Dresdeners were also refugees—both started hostilities and suffered from them. But fine, let’s treat them as refugees. But here we have half of Africa streaming into Sinai. If they think themselves refugees—fine, go apply for an Israeli refugee visa in a consulate. No African country borders Israel—the migrants have ample opportunity to apply for visas while in Egypt. Instead, we have here a Robin Hood story: common criminals who pretend to rectify human rights abuses.

Normally, illegal migrants are deported to their home countries. Here we have a situation when they don’t have passports. Any legal proceedings around them are senseless: even in Israeli jails they are far better off than in their home jungles. Leftists have educated the African mob, and they enjoy idleness on charity and governmental funds. Children of African migrants study in Jewish schools: not only do they consume scarce resources (university tuition fees keep rising), but the quality of education declines to accommodate them.

In the worst case, if Israel decides to accommodate the illegal migrants—thus inviting many more of them—why allow them in Tel Aviv, where they occupy bomb shelters which Jews might need badly one day? Drop them in Umm al Fahm, and let Israeli Arabs enjoy their new neighbors.

Where is the UNRWA? Scores of UNRWA personnel are stationed in Israel, and many UNRWA camps are located within Israel and near her borders. Why not dump the Africans in UNRWA camps? This is the very organization which deals with refugees—enjoy. What is the problem with loading them on trucks and driving them into Gaza?

We already have here a hundred thousand Ethiopian Christians and pagans. There is no need for the Jewish state to become a dumping ground for hostile, culturally divergent, economically worthless, HIV-ridden criminals.