[Skybird]

It might only be academic in this case, but still - it's just that I cannot understand you. I fail to see the parallel you draw between the Gurkhas and the Afghans there.

If an African guy would lend a hand to a British development worker in Africa, this hardly earns him the right for asylum in Britain - Britain came to the help or aid of that African country, so what claim has that country or guy to make against Britain for owing it/him something? But if a guy from Puerto Rico serves in the US armed forces for some time, that service is not for Puerto Rico but the US, and it - deservedly - earns him citizenship after some time. Obviously, both cases do not compare! The first example is about serving that African country, or one'S own interest to have a regular income. The second is about serving America. Two totally different motivations and view on things! Voluntariness is not a thing of interest in this, it has no relevance for this whole question. I am quite certain that many of those Afghan interpreters did not even sign in due to wanting to serve Afghanistan's future, but because of the money the get payed for their job. That is okay, no moral objection. It's just that this also is no argument to imply that Britain/Germany have the obligation to accept them in Europe now.

Yes, we agree to let them (and their very closest relatives only) in. It just is an intellectual "quarrel" I have with you over your strange comparison to the Gurkhas. The Gurkhas came to the explicit and dedicated service for Britain. The interpreters came to the service for Afghanistan's future (if they were idealists) or their own interest to have a job and have an income. They did not come to the service for Germany or Britain, quite the other way around - Germany and Britain came to the service of Afghanistan (or so they argue).