Purgatory : Refugees
Alan Cresswell
Admin, 8th Day Host
So, in the UK at least refugees have risen in the news with an increase in the trickle of refugees crossing the Channel in inadequate boats.
I propose that we need to revamp our refugee system: how we define refugees (anyone willing to take the risks of crossing the Channel in a small boat is clearly fleeing something significant, even if they don't fit the precise legal definition of refugee), we need to rethink the controls so that we can cut criminal traffickers out of the process (many of which then feed people into modern slavery), and we need to rethink how we welcome those who have sanctuary in our lands. My thoughts are below, have at it ...
I'm working from an assumption that there's a moral duty for wealthy nations such as the UK to offer sanctuary to those fleeing war, persecution, poverty, environmental catastrophe etc. Especially when our actions as a nation and individuals have contributed to the conditions that people can no longer live in. That we should be a nation that provides a welcome to those who have no where to go, a nation better represented by Premier League clubs opening their grounds to tours by refugees than professional wind-bags mouthing off against such acts.
I'm also sure that the best possible solution is to eliminate the drivers for refugees - to stop supplying weapons to groups engaged in war against their neighbours or their own citizens, to write off debts and trade fairly so that we can help life other nations out of crippling poverty, to reduce our excessive use of resources and the resulting pollution that's driving the environment into increasingly less fit for humans, etc. But, I recognise that these aren't going to be easy, and even if we change today there's going to be a significant lag before people start to benefit, and in the meantime there will be millions of people who need to move elsewhere.
Currently our nation has a policy that is directly contrary to providing sanctuary to those who are in need. With a massive crisis on the doorsteps of Europe (the war in Syria) the UK has welcomed no more than a handful of refugees, far fewer than the other nations of Europe. With little in the way of official means of bringing people in need into the country, those fleeing put their lives in the hands of people smugglers at great personal cost. For a fraction of the costs of the navy patrolling the Channel, a ferry could be hired to safely bring people into the country cutting the illegal activities of people traffickers out from under them.
Also we have a bizarre policy of not allowing those seeking asylum from working, instead the government (national and local) pays to provide them with barely adequate housing and food. Letting them work would reduce the costs to the nation of providing a place of safety, and provide them with the dignity of providing for themselves and their families. And, in some cases these are qualified people (doctors, nurses etc), even though they might need some assessment to confirm those qualifications before they can work in those fields.
I propose that we need to revamp our refugee system: how we define refugees (anyone willing to take the risks of crossing the Channel in a small boat is clearly fleeing something significant, even if they don't fit the precise legal definition of refugee), we need to rethink the controls so that we can cut criminal traffickers out of the process (many of which then feed people into modern slavery), and we need to rethink how we welcome those who have sanctuary in our lands. My thoughts are below, have at it ...
I'm working from an assumption that there's a moral duty for wealthy nations such as the UK to offer sanctuary to those fleeing war, persecution, poverty, environmental catastrophe etc. Especially when our actions as a nation and individuals have contributed to the conditions that people can no longer live in. That we should be a nation that provides a welcome to those who have no where to go, a nation better represented by Premier League clubs opening their grounds to tours by refugees than professional wind-bags mouthing off against such acts.
I'm also sure that the best possible solution is to eliminate the drivers for refugees - to stop supplying weapons to groups engaged in war against their neighbours or their own citizens, to write off debts and trade fairly so that we can help life other nations out of crippling poverty, to reduce our excessive use of resources and the resulting pollution that's driving the environment into increasingly less fit for humans, etc. But, I recognise that these aren't going to be easy, and even if we change today there's going to be a significant lag before people start to benefit, and in the meantime there will be millions of people who need to move elsewhere.
Currently our nation has a policy that is directly contrary to providing sanctuary to those who are in need. With a massive crisis on the doorsteps of Europe (the war in Syria) the UK has welcomed no more than a handful of refugees, far fewer than the other nations of Europe. With little in the way of official means of bringing people in need into the country, those fleeing put their lives in the hands of people smugglers at great personal cost. For a fraction of the costs of the navy patrolling the Channel, a ferry could be hired to safely bring people into the country cutting the illegal activities of people traffickers out from under them.
Also we have a bizarre policy of not allowing those seeking asylum from working, instead the government (national and local) pays to provide them with barely adequate housing and food. Letting them work would reduce the costs to the nation of providing a place of safety, and provide them with the dignity of providing for themselves and their families. And, in some cases these are qualified people (doctors, nurses etc), even though they might need some assessment to confirm those qualifications before they can work in those fields.
Comments
http://alienfromzog.blogspot.com/2015/06/immoral-hazard.html
I would particularly like to emphasise this link in that blog post: https://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2013/12/17/the-hidden-stories-of-the-people-britain-will-deport-tonight.
The other noteworthy point which is also circulating on Twitter at the moment is that a nation that panicked about toilet rolls shortages seems incapable of imagining what real hardship feels like... Also on Twitter; Farage is working hard as a one-man fear campaign, I see. Desperate to make himself relevant to his devotees.
It all makes me very angry and ashamed to be British.
AFZ
Alas, under the present *leadership*, it's unlikely to improve. If OTOH there is ever a significant change in the way this country is governed (i.e. by a party other than the Selfservative & Delusionist Gang), we may see a difference in attitude, although, as Alan says, it'll take a while.
I expect to hear of gunboats off the shores of this fair county (Kent) any day now, Horrid Foreign People Not Like Us for the sinking of...
I think however lonely the path, this has to be pursued on purely humanitarian rather than instrumental grounds, because doing the latter is what got us to where we are currently.
Still, the parties of the people who voted against it are not in power.
BIB....I thought you were a supporter of the EU. What do you think these people have to fear whilst in France ?
Not speaking the language? Racism? Lack of family members? Lack of an existing immigrant community to help them integrate?
I never knew that people were so badly treated in the EU.
Plenty of countries have a racism problem. France has a particularly bad one because there is no official monitoring so it can go on without hindrance. Other EU countries (particularly Poland and Hungary) have racism issues, as well as other human rights problems. Nobody ever claimed the EU was perfect or that its member states were.
Never the less these people are not fleeing from the French.
The EU has a scheme for moving refugees from the first border they crossed to other nations to settle down. A scheme that hasn't worked very well, but at least exists, and the UK has taken significantly less than our share of that burden (not doing our bit is part of the reason it hasn't worked very well). That sort of pan-European support for refugees is one of the things that the EU should be ideally placed to sort out.
I'm suggesting it is in Australia's national interests to accept a larger number of migrants, irrespective of their reasons for migrating. It is probably in the UK's national interests as well, but I don't know for sure.
I think I heard people say the humanitarian reasons should be given prominence. I say that a great many people will not accept humanitarian reasons, and that in a democracy, you need more than one argument to get things up. I say that if you want to help refugees you need to participate in the figurative political street fights.
If so then it would be startling, if not shameful, for any Christian to be hostile to refugees seeking sanctuary.
See Sweet Honey in the Rock
Once they are in a safe dcountry like France they are no longer regugees fleeing for their life. They become an illegal economic migrant if they want to illegally entered the UK
I would be happy for the UN to be in charge of the distribution of refugees.
These are people we are thinking of. Not a swarm of Portuguese-Men-of-War*.
Take refuge in the word "illegal" if you want. It won't shield you from the force of the word "immoral". Eventually.
*The jellyfish.
Very sensible. You've not missed anything apart from a string of racist bile.
I did wonder, in the silence after turning the radio off, what would happen if the indigenous Australians were to suggest that being open to refugees might be a good idea.
I agree that immigrants have contributed much to the UK, and that it is in the interests of a country (whether Ireland, UK, Australia or any other) to accept a certain level of immigration.
But asylum seekers are almost by definition migrants through force of circumstance rather than migrants by choice.
It seems to me that the humanitarian argument is an argument for offering temporary refuge to those in need of it.
And the self-interest argument is an argument for accepting permanently (making your own) those immigrants who have most to offer to the receiving country. (Whether that's in terms of skills and education, or personal qualities of intelligence and diligence and law-abidingness, or desire to assimilate into the receiving culture).
And whilst coincidentally it may happen that the person you help out when they're in need turns out to be just the person you wanted to know anyway, it doesn't follow logically that this will be so.
Perhaps those in metropolitan areas could make such a suggestion, but I'd not be surprised if those living outside those areas have given no thought to the issue.
Britain is not remotely welcoming to refugees but there is one major attraction: the English language. Given that English is the most common second language in the world, it's not surprising that people who are running away from everything they know might want some hope of being able to communicate when they arrive. And as Alan said there are other factors like pre-existing communities. Not to mention the idea that refugees fleeing are able to be well informed on asylum procedures of their destination is plainly ridiculous.
I think this thought experiment is clarifying here... imagine that suddenly the UK wasn't safe for you and you had to flee... where would you go? Where would Mrs-Dr-AFZ and I take the 2yr old & 8m old Zogglets??? For me, the English language is important, due to my complete lack of language skills. So if small boat was my only means, that limits me to the Republic of Ireland! Which would struggle to cope with more than a few thousand UK refugees. If air travel is an option, that opens up a lot of the world but the USA and Australia are not welcoming! Although, to be fair, I might be OK, as I'm white! Canada might be an option but will they not accept me because France is much closer???
A very small amount of thought takes one to realising that the rationalisations for our nation's cruelty hold very little water... in fact they are as leaky as many refugee boats...
But the most disgusting thing I have heard in a while was a Kent MP's argument on the radio news. Basically she said if you didn't support a tough approach (whatever the hell that means - although we can guess...) then you were supporting modern slavery and exploitation.
The problem ultimately, is that we see refugees as less than fully human, as worth less than 'us.'
Back during the 2005 election, I saw a piece of graffiti in Bristol that read "Refugees are not the problem, deport the politicians!" Far be it from me to generalise or dehumanise (even politicians) but ultimately it is about the powerful shifting the blame for all sorts of ills to the powerless. The powerless people are fully human and not responsible for the actions of the powerful. If someone wants to argue from a moral and/or Christian perspective that we in wealthy countries shouldn't take refugees then that's the argument you need to overcome...
AFZ
I would be happy for the UN to be in charge of the distribution of refugees.
Scotland undertook to take 2000 Syrian refugees through the UNHCR scheme by 2020, reached that target by 2017, and has continued to take in more. The UN moves families whose health makes it risky to remain in the camps. None of these families could have made the long trek across Europe.
We have three families of Syrian refugees in our village, one in my street, who were flown here by the UN from refugee camps in Egypt. There are more Syrians in the nearest town, and in Aberdeen.
It has worked very well; they arrive to welcome signs, furnished homes, access to translators, and, most importantly, health care.
Here is one of my local refugees, telling his story.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIP_qysJbl8
I'm pleased that you support this, Telford. Obviously it means that the host country has to invest in housing, education, translators, support workers, health care etc, but we gain people who are an asset to the community.
Establish communities I can understand. You said English is the most popular second language. Yes that is true. The Germans and the Dutch in particular speak excellent English. So whilst I kind of agree with you as a whole I wonder if English is a significant a factor as you say. You know more about than I do but I wonder if a ready made community is the real draw.
*Thus redeeming itself from expelling my mother.
PS Two search and rescue boats are now out under the RAF tracks, and the Border Force is still in port, but will be heading for SAR HQ. Isn't the web wonderful?
This is not true.
Excellent article, thank you.
It is very painful isn't it.
A thug fleeing milkshakes and Twitter is a very long way from a genuine refugee...
Just to be clear here, if Mr Yaxley-Lennon does indeed have legitimate concerns about his and his family's safety (I remain skeptical but OK...) there is no doubt that he has all the rights and protections he needs under UK law. The. Very. Opposite. Of. Refugees'. Experiences.
AFZ
Do be careful @Penny S - they may be tracking you...
I'd love to have been able to find out what his food was like, and, indeed, I did have the opportunity of visiting the camp with church peeps from England and France. Alas, lack of mobility meant that it probably wasn't a Good Idea...
There was also a wonderful 'pop-up' Orthodox Church in the camp, made from bits of anything-they-could-find, but complete with icons etc. (and a priest, too, IIRC).
IOW, these were all ORDINARY PEOPLE trying against desperate odds to live their lives.
O to be able to put Johnson, Patel, Mrs Elphicke, Farage etc. behind a wire fence, and see how they manage to survive...
If he was then indeed murdered, that was proof that he was being truthful...
ₐNo, I don't mean the stupid jellies v jellyfish, but they are a different creature. Actually, they are a colonial organism. Really quite interesting.
If they've disappeared, it'll save them having to arrest Ms Patel as a Horrid Brown Person Not Like Us...wasn't she the one who said she'd deport her own parents if necessary?
Whatever you think about the refugee question, this one makes no sense at all. If people are going to be in the country (whether it's for a couple of years while the situation in their homeland stabilizes, or they're here for the long term), it makes no sense at all to prevent them from working. I can only assume that this is intended as some sort of blunt tool to deter economic migrants - if you know that what you can expect when you seek refuge is a camp and a bowl of rice, then people who are poor-but-safe in their homes aren't going to bother.
I think there may be a couple of other arguments there. One is a 'good' argument and the other is a 'bad' argument, though both are flawed.
The 'good' argument is it could stop the refugees being exploited, though there's plenty of evidence that many refugees are exploited and some end up as effectively slave labour. The 'bad' argument is it appeases those who fear migrants taking 'their' jobs.
That said, giving refugees a sense of worth by employing them in at least some capacity beats both arguments.
This cannot be borne! Send the HBFPs back, or put them in concentration camps!
So your assumption @Leorning Cniht is probably correct...
Unfortunately yes. Though having cut off the supply of eastern European migrant workers the Faragists might want to think about who's going to pick our fruit and veg because sure as eggs are eggs (assuming someone collects the eggs) the Faragists won't be working in the fields.