Category Archives: Immigration and Refugees

Should immigrants become like us?

 

 

A good friend of mine posted this with a number of Canadian flags attached:

“You came here from there because you didn’t like there, and now you want to change here to be like there. We are not racist, or phobic, or anti-whatever-you-are, we simply like here the way it is and most of us came here because it is not like there, wherever there was. You are welcome here, but please stop trying to make here like there. If you want here to be like there you should not have left there to come here, and you are invited to leave here and go back there at your earliest convenience. ”

To this I asked my good friend some questions and made some respectful suggestions: What about your ancestors (like mine) who came to Canada from a foreign country? No one said they had to convert to the dominant religions. Did that mean they wanted this to be like there? Mennonites in fact were allowed to come and did not have to serve in the armed forces. They were allowed to keep their faith, beliefs and practices. Does that mean they did not love Canada too? I really don’t want to insist that all immigrants are just like me. I much prefer people to come as they are with all of their differences. Maybe we can even learn something from them? Wouldn’t that be amazing?  Maybe we can even get along even though we are different from each other.

I think Bob Dylan got it right:

 

“I don’t want to fake you out

Take or shake or forsake you out

I ain’t lookin’ for you to feel like me

See like me, or be like me

All I really want to do

Is, baby, be friends with you.”

The Wall Hoax

My son Stef made a very interesting comment about immigration. He pointed out that the UK had a big illegal immigration problem, at least according to the people who voted for Brexit. They believe it is THE problem. Yet, England is an island surrounded by ocean.  No immigrants swim across those cold waters.   A moat is much more effective than a wall. How is a wall on the southern US border going to be more effective than a moat? The answer of course is it won’t. It will be ineffective. The border wall, not climate change, is an expensive hoax.

When it comes to immigrants and refugees we really can do better

 

I have been spending a lot of time on immigration and refugee issues. I am doing that because I believe it is one of the defining issues of our time. All over the world there seems to be a sharp turn towards anti-immigrant and anti-refugees sentiments. I wonder why that is the case. I think it might be because there is a lot of misunderstanding about the issues. As comedian Jim Jefferies keeps saying, “I think we can do better.” Maybe we have something to learn from the comics.

The American Department of Homeland Security which is responsible for border security, claims it is not turning away asylum seekers and the only purpose of the metering process it has started recently is to ensure that the ports of entry facilities are not swamped. It is also true that the Border authorities are also facing an unprecedented rise in asylum requests. The total number of credible-fear referrals for interviews — or migrants seeking asylum — skyrocketed from about 5,000 a year in fiscal year 2008 to about 97,000 in 2018. At the same time, the number of total apprehensions along the Southwest border dropped in the same period, from 705,005 in 2008 to 396,579 last fiscal year, according to Homeland Security and Border Patrol statistics.” That is a lot of people. But Americans have handled more in the past. the numbers are not unprecedented.

However Trump’s policies are making things seriously worse and dangerous for asylum claimants. As Katie Waldman a spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security (‘DHS’) said, “The bottom line is that we have a deeply flawed immigration system, smugglers and traffickers know the flaws well, and they seek to exploit these vulnerabilities in the law, as well as physical vulnerabilities to enter and remain in the country illegally.”

It is interesting that DHS border officials know there is problem and they know that their own policies are making things worse. This is what DHS’s own Inspector General found,  ““while the government encouraged all asylum seekers to come to ports of entry to make their asylum claims, CBP managed the flow of people who could enter at those ports of entry through metering, which may have led to additionalillegal border crossings.”Metering was intended to slow down asylum seekers and it has had the opposite effect. The thing everyone has to remember is that asylum seekers are desperate. Many believe they have not other choice to protect their families,

I am not obsessed with Trump either. He is part of a general movement to oppose immigrants and refugees and the one we hear most about here in Canada. His policies just like policies in many other countries, are designed to slow down asylum claims. He, like so many people around the world, think “their country is full.”

Reporters Jervis and Carranza reported as follows about the border procedures:

“Investigators interviewed one woman who said she was turned away three times by a border agent before deciding to take her chances with illegal entry, according to the report. Two other migrants told them they crossed over illegally after being turned away at the bridge.

A Border Patrol supervisor told the investigation team the sector sees an increase in illegal entries when migrants are metered at ports of entry. “While the stated intentions behind metering may be reasonable, the practice may have unintended consequences,” the report said.”

          Hector Silva, the pastor who runs the shelter, near the McAllen-Hidalgo International Bridge, described the plight of asylum seekers this way,

 “Very few migrants are being allowed to cross over the nearby McAllen-Hidalgo International Bridge…Those turned away from the bridge — either by border patrol agents or Mexican immigration officials — are susceptible to criminal gangs that roam the area….

The gangs have kidnapped migrants and held them for thousands of dollars in ransom, beat them up or swindled them out of money, Silva said. Instead of exposing themselves to those gangs, some migrants are looking into illegal crossings.

The entrance they had hoped for doesn’t present itself, so they risk other ways in: over the river, over mountains, with smugglers…it becomes very difficult for them. ”

Two of the asylum seekers inside the center checked their cell phones every day for news from their relatives Street gangs in their home towns made them pay a weekly “war tax” on their businesses left behind and threatened to kill family members back home if payments were not made. They left behind 2 daughters aged 9 and 17 because of the dangers of the journey. They had hoped to get them as soon as their claim for asylum was made. They had to make some very difficult decisions. What is very clear is that they have not been coming to the US just because they think it is a better place to live, as some critics have claimed. These are desperate people.

Another asylum seeker, Maria Alfaro, aged 51, from Honduras, said she was afraid to cross the international border because she had been warned about the lengthy backlog and because she did not want to be turned away and then snatched by the cartels at the border. As Jervis and Carranza reported,

“She was kidnapped in Chiapas, Mexico, during her journey to the U.S.-Mexico border last year, a harrowing ordeal she said she doesn’t want to go through again. She escaped after a shootout broke out between her captors and Mexican authorities. Afterwards, she headed toward Reynosa for U.S. protection.

“I came here to seek asylum,” Alfaro said. “But there’s no where to go.”

Migrants waiting for asylum across the U.S.-Mexican border expressed similar fears and complaints about their state of limbo. For many, waiting in line to request in asylum didn’t seem like the wisest long-term strategy. ”

As a result Trump’s policies cause the asylum seekers to cross the border without permission to avoid the predators at the border.

It is certainly true that Trump’s policies are forcing many asylum seekers to wait it out in Mexico notwithstanding the dangers. That is usually because of the cost. Smugglers can charge as much as $7,500 per person to help cross the border and many of them just can’t afford to pay. So they take their chances with the local criminal gangs instead. They are truly caught between the devil and deep blue sea.

Marlin Martinez has showed up to the camp every day for the past three weeks with her three children, ages 9 to 12, hoping to apply for asylum in the U.S. Each day, Mexican immigration officials have told her to come back the next day, she said.

Martinez, who was fleeing a violent ex-partner and street gangs in Honduras, said she will hire a smuggler to get them across, as soon as she raises enough money to pay them.

“We didn’t come here to violate any laws,” she said. “We came to seek asylum. It’s in God’s hands now.”

It is true that some claimants are paying smugglers to cross while others just can’t afford it so they stick it out in Mexico as long as they can. But the longer they wait the more dangerous it is. And we always have to remember that people fleeing a country on account of violence are lawfully allowed to enter the country and make their claims for asylum in the United States just as they are in Canada. That is not illegal. That is legally permitted.

As if all of that is not bad enough, some asylum seekers pay the money to smugglers who cheerfully take their money and then bolt without giving any help at all. The life of asylum seeker is not an easy one.

A lot of people in “host” countries like the US wonder why so many asylum seekers and immigrants come to the USA when it is obvious to them that they are just not welcome in the US.  It is not quite as clear and obvious to asylum seekers. First they are often fleeing severe violence, along the way they are constantly harassed and victimized by criminal gangs, and many people along the way give them false information. How rational would ourdecision making be under such circumstances?  As reporter Ed Lavandera said, “the people who recently arrived at the border were often directly threatened by gangs and as result believe that the onlything they can do is to drop everything and run north.” The people are desperate, not just for themselves but their families as well. Many of them are travelling with young children. Many of them have left relatives behind that might be attacked by the criminals in order to extort money from the asylum seekers.

As Lavandera reminded, “these are the people that Trump has painted as criminals, rapists, murderers, and “very bad hombres.”  Trump says that of course not because it is true. He really does not care about the truth. Trump says that to scare American voters so that they will turn to him as their savior. That is what populists and demagogues do. They try to scare people so they will turn to a strong man.  When you look at the millions of people in America who support him you have to conclude he pretty good at fear mongering.

Mary Bauer a lawyer who advocates for asylum seekers holds no punches in her criticism of the President and his followers. She has met many of them. Her organization has helped many of them. As she said,

“They are not the people that Trump describes. They are not murderers and rapists. The people we are seeing on the border are desperate people who are terrified. They want to present to the US authorities at border entry points. They would like to apply for asylum but cannot because of administration policies. The majority of undocumented people now in the US are coming through airports, people who are overstaying their Visas. All of the rhetoric from Trump about who those immigrants are and why they are coming and what they are seeking is just wrong. It’s just damned wrong! Immigrants are much less likely to commit crimes in the US”

When Donald Trump says he just wants people to come into the country legally he is not telling the truth (again). He is not allowing people to come and make asylum claims. His policies bar the way for people. He is actively trying to keep out asylum seekers. As Bauer said, “He (Trump) has tried to attack the system of legal administration at its root to make it unavailable for people to come here legally.” Added to that, when he says the country is full he is clearly saying he is opposed to all immigration.

I remember an odd argument I had with an elderly woman in the hot tub in Arizona.  I made some intemperate sarcastic remark about Trump’s proposed wall and she slid over to get right in front of me, pointed her finger up against my face, wagon it vigorously as she spoke. She said, she was not opposed to immigrants. She just did not want then to come in through the back door. She wanted them to come through the front door or not at all. That seems reasonable. At least it seems reasonable until you learn how difficult Americans have made it for people to come in through the front door. When the front door is barred, and people are desperate for survival, when wolves are circling the house keeping a close eye out for vulnerable people, and when their desperation is often partly caused by the owner of the house, it is hardly surprising that some people want to come in through the back door. Desperate circumstances create desperate people.

Christiane Amanpour recently interviewed Michael Chertoff, former US Secretary of Homeland Security. He admitted that a barrier on the southern border was of little importance. It was a part of what is needed, but only a small part. Technology is what American border authorities can use more of, not walls. As Chertoff said, “It is certainly not worth shutting down the government for.” Chertoff added that the only intelligent way to deal with this problem is to let the experts say what tis needed to boost security. Bigger and better walls, let alone beautiful walls, are not what are needed. He pointed out as so many have pointed out, that drug dealers want volume and to do that they must use the entry points and transportation systems. The rational way to deal with too many refugees is to ease the pressure on them back home. We in the west, not just Americans either, should be investing in a return to the rule of law and should be helping to create economic opportunities back in their home countries where most of them want to stay so that they won’t want to come our countries to stay.

Walls? We really can do better.

Trump’s border policies are not working well

 

Immigration and asylum seeking is a hot issue where we just came from, namely   Arizona, but it is a hot issue everywhere.  It seems to bring out the best and the worst in people. In Europe it helped fuel the rise of populism in England, Germany, Netherlands, Hungary, Poland, France,  Romania and many other countries. Everyone knows how flammable an issue it is in the United States. It is even volatile here in meek and mild (we thought)  Canada. Everyone has an opinion and often it is a hot one.

Ed Lavandera, a reporter with CNN, was disgusted by the family separations he saw on the southern US border. Dee Margo, the Republican Mayor of El Paso, the largest city on the border said, “This is not who we are as a nation.” Mary Bauer, a lawyer with the Southern Poverty Law Center said, “The number of family separations are much worse than we thought. 10,000 people are now detained across the U.S. as a result of deliberate U.S. policies of the Trump administration.” She called it a “deliberate and nefarious policy.” Thousands of children have been locked up in detention facilities and many of them will bear the scars of that trauma for the rest of their lives. As Bauer said, “This does not have to be. This is the result of calculated, deliberate, intentional acts to separate children from their parents and to use children essentially as bait, to lure their parents into the deportation system.” What would you do if your child was locked up somewhere and you could not visit the child and you knew the child was likely suffering trauma as a result of being locked up in a strange country without any family around to help?

We have to remember that most of these immigrant families have recently come from Central America, not Mexico at all. Many of them have made long journeys at considerable risk and expense. According to Lavandera, many of these desperate people have been exploited by smugglers who had fed them misinformation and charged them significant  sums of money for their “help.”

This confirms what Rick Jervis and Rafael Carranza reported in USA Today.They reported on an asylum seeker Lillian Menendez from Honduras. Trump Administration policies, initiated by Attorney General Jeff Sessions, at the time, were to make it very difficult for asylum seekers to enter into the United States to make their claims for refugee status as they are allowed to do by international law. Jervis and Carranza reported as follows:

“Over the past year, Lilian Menendez has evaded street gangs in her native Honduras, paid $5,000 to free her kidnapped brother and made the perilous 2,000-mile journey from her home country to this border city. Now, Menendez and husband, Osman Guillen, face perhaps their most daunting task: Turning themselves in to U.S. authorities to seek asylum.

Rebuffed at the international bridge that leads to McAllen, Texas – and to U.S. sanctuary – Menendez said she was calling relatives to scrape together the $10,000 smugglers are demanding to float them across the Rio Grande, where they can turn themselves in to Border Patrol agents and begin applying for asylum. “I’m at the point of desperation,” said Menendez, who has been staying at a migrant shelter near the border since Jan. 1. “The idea was to cross the bridge and ask for asylum. But they tell us we can’t.”

Under international law, migrants have for years flocked to the U.S.-Mexico border to legally seek asylum and be allowed entry. But in recent months, Trump administration policies have slowed the flow of asylum-seekers into the U.S., leaving many migrants stranded far from home, vulnerable to violence in dangerous border cities and unable to request asylum.”

That is now the America way. Because of Trump’s policies the asylum seekers are stuck in Mexican cities near the border entry points while they wait for their chance to make their asylum claims (many of which are entirely legitimate). Unfortunately, at the those cities criminal gangs are ready to prey on them like crocodiles lying in wait for hapless wildebeest . It is a heartless policy that puts asylum seekers directly into harms way.

All of this has come about on account of the America “metering” policy whereby the American authorities will only process a low number of asylum claims each day, keeping the claimants at the mercy of criminal gangs while they wait for their case to be heard by American Immigration Courts. This procedure has resulted in lengthy backlogs of claims, and clearly the American authorities are doing this just to make it more difficult for all asylum claimants to assert their claims. As Jervis and Carranza said,

“Determined to find a way in, migrants like Menendez are increasingly turning to criminal smuggling rings to get to the U.S., where they can then request asylum and, the hope is, seek safety. The backlog in processing asylum seekers is inadvertently bolstering the illicit and dangerous trade, according to migrant advocates and experts, creating an increased demand for human smuggling and illegal border crossings at a time when President Donald Trump has threatened to close the border.

A few months ago, President Trump ordered more troops to the border to help lay down concertina wire. There were as a result  4,350 active American troops, in addition to all the regular border patrols, on the southern border.  According to migrant advocates as well as analysts this military build-up has made more asylum seekers search out “help” from illegal smugglers to guide them across the border instead of waiting any longer.

According to Guadalupe Correa-Cabrera, a political scientist at George Mason University in Virginia and author of Los Zetas Inc., “In the Rio Grande Valley, independent smugglers are charging exorbitant prices to sneak desperate migrants across the river and into the U.S…From Central American smugglers, to independent smugglers along the border, all the way up to the cartels: Everyone’s making money.”The clear result of Trump’s policies is that criminal Mexican gangs are making lots of money at the expense of mainly poor and helpless asylum seekers fleeing violence in their own countries. And does any of this make America safer?

As a result many smugglers are shifting these migrants to the New Mexico and Arizona borders where advocacy groups are better equipped to help the asylum seekers while they are making their lawful claims. However the terrain at the border is more hostile with large deserts, mountains, and farther away from major cities. Because of the lengthy delays at border crossings, criminal gangs are increasingly preying on waiting migrants and more asylum seekers are taking serious chances to get across the border. As Correa-Cabrera, said, ““You’re starting to see more families trying to make it through more dangerous areas”.

Is this really the American way?

The Big Beautiful Border Wall: Where facts go to die

 

One of my readers claimed that El Paso demonstrated that a wall was necessary on the Mexican/U.S. border. He was echoing what Donald Trump said. I think both were wrong. Trump said he wanted to build a “big beautiful wall.” It was a crucial part of Trump’s election platform in 2016, and is likely to be so again in 2020. No doubt he will claim that Democrats are weak on border security.

Trump justifies his demands because there is so much crime on the southern border, he claims.  It is an emergency he says. Is it? Lets look at some of the issues.

In his State of the Union Address, Donald Trump, playing on the fears of Americans, as he always does when he discusses immigration, said that a good example of why the wall was urgently needed was because of how well it worked in El Paso. It directly led to drastic reductions in crime, Trump claimed.  El Paso was crime infested before the wall and it turned the city around.

Beto O’Rourke the former candidate for the US Senate in Texas, and current candidate for the Democratic Presidential nomination, who narrowly lost in the 2018 mid-term elections, formerly represented El Paso for 3 terms in the House of Representatives. He is a resident of El Paso. Unlike Trump, he knows El Paso.

First, O’Rourke pointed out Trump’s characterization of Mexicans as “murderers and rapists” when he launched his campaign for election of President in 2016 was completely false. As he pointed out, the crime rate of immigrants in the United States is lower than for Americans born in the country! That is a pretty powerful statistic that clearly belies Trump’s claims. This includes so-called ‘illegal’ immigrants.

Secondly, O’Rourke said, “El Paso has been the safest city in the United States not despite the fact that it a city of immigrants, but because we are a city of immigrants.”

I watched a very interesting interview on Amanpour & Company.  Christiane Amanpour interviewed the current mayor of El Paso, Dee Margo. Margo is the Republican mayor of El Paso. When he was asked to comment on Trump’s recent comments about El Paso he was clearly amused. When asked to look again at Trump’s statements on the video monitor, he smiled and said, he loved looking at Trump’s comments. He obviously had little respect for Trump’s views even though they both belong to the same party.

Margo pointed out some very interesting facts. To begin with, El Paso is the largest city on the US/Mexico border. It has 2.5 million people.  El Paso is deeply entwined with Mexico he said and has been so for 400 years.  He said he told Trump that if we wanted to understand the border and its issues he should come to El Paso. Trump declined to come to El Paso because he was too busy to learn about the border. He was there to harangue about the border and facts would have got in the way of that.

Margo is no believer in open borders. I have never encountered anyone who is. Even Democrats are not in favor of open borders despite what Republicans say. Margo said he believes physical barriers are a part of border control. They have a role to play. But the wall, Margo said, is not a big deal. Margo pointed out that there are already 78 miles of border fences in the El Paso region. He prefers the word “fence” to “wall’ as he believes it is more accurate.  Those fences are not continuous however, and never have been.

In 2008 under President George W. Bush the border fencing in the region was enhanced. They added about 10 miles of chain-link fence Margo  said. Before then the fence had many holes in it. Or as many say, it was “porous.”

McAllen Texas, and San Diego, California, and El Paso Texas, are all border cities.  All of them are safe cities, according to Amanpour. Again, Margo did not disagree. In fact they are safer than comparable cities further inland, he said. According to Mayor Margo, “El Paso is ranked as the safest city in the United States for cities with a population over 500,000 people!” It is not crime infested and never has been, before or after the enhancements to the wall in 2008.

Margo denied that the main reason it was so safe was the wall. He said it had an excellent police force that emphasized community policing that had been very effective for years.

Margo pointed out that El Paso’s crime rate was much higher in the 1990s and partly this was because the wall was porous. He said that back then Mexicans would cross the border through these big holes not for the purpose of drug trafficking or smuggling or making illegal stays, but rather criminals came in to steal cars and take them back to Mexico. They were not leaving anything in Texas–neither drugs nor people. They were taking out cars. That was one of the reasons for the wall improvements. It made Texans feel safer and did have some effect on reducing these crimes.

The crime rate in El Paso declined sharply until about 2006.  In other words, it declined before the enhancements to the fence were made in 2008! Again that was largely because of effective policing, Margo claimed. After the fence improvements were made in 2008 the crime rate did not drop. It actually went up, though only slightly. Yet the crime rate remained low and fairly consistent. There were no dramatic changes after the fence improvements were made, he said. Those improvements had a negligible effect but to the extent they had any effect crime rates went up not down.   Yet, Margo admitted, some citizens felt safer as a result of fence improvements so he did no oppose those improvements.

Margo made it clear, that contrary to statements made by President Trump, El Paso was not crime ridden before the fence improvements were made and it is not crime ridden now either. Those fence improvements have had little effect on drug trafficking and illegal border crossing. The reason for that course is that almost all illegal crossings and all crime occur at border entry points.

The border that Mayor Margo described was very different form the one Trump described. That is hardly surprising. Trump and the truth keep little company. El Paso has 6 bridges across the river to Mexico with 20,000 people crossing the border legally every day. Trade between the 2 countries has been important for centuries. He added that the people of El Paso would like to increase legal immigration from Mexico and other places. They need people because the unemployment rate is so low. They are often frustrated at how immigration policies based on fear and prejudice often interfere with this.

It is true that many people have been gathering at the border in recent months to claim asylum, but that was largely influenced by Trump’s policies. His policies have been making things worse not better. More on this later.

Who are the Good Guys?

 

We tend to think of ourselves as the good guys. In fact this prejudice—and that is all that it is—is not based on evidence it is based on bias. We naturally think of ourselves as the good guys even when we are not.

For example when the Trump administration retaliated in April of 2018 against Syria’s suspected chemical weapons attack on Syrians within their own country, by launching missiles, President Trump boldly and proudly asserted, “This is about humanity, and it cannot be allowed to happen.” The fact is that the US cares about the Syrians only when they are bombing their own country. They don’t care about those fleeing the country. Those Syrians are subject to the Muslim ban.

As National Public Radio (NPR) in the US reported, “In 2016, near the end of Barack Obama’s presidency, the U.S. resettled 15,479 Syrian refugees, according to State Department figures. In 2017, the country let in 3,024. So far this year, that number is just 11. By comparison, over the same 3 1/2-month period in 2016, the U.S. accepted 790.”

“Lebanon, a country smaller than Wales hosts over a million Syrian refugees, who make up a quarter of its entire population. Between them, Kenya and Uganda also host a million refugees—almost as many as the total number of asylum seekers to enter all twenty-eight of the EU’s member states during 2015, the peak of the ‘European refugee crisis.”[1]And these are not rich countries. But they are, in this respect at least, “good guys.” The United States, and Canada for that matter, not so much.

One of the problems with the refugee crisis is that the “countries of first asylum” are expected to host the refugees according to EU policies. As Betts and Collier have shown, “the overwhelming majority of the world’s refugees are in countries that neighbour conflict and crisis. These ‘countries of first asylum’ in developing regions today host 86% of all refugees, up from 72% a decade ago.  In consequence, it is the countries with the leastcapacity to host refugees that bear the greatest responsibility.”[2]

Yet to whom does the world pay attention?  The refugees in the developed world of course. They want to boast about how generous and good they are. Around 0.5 per cent of the world’s refugees resettle to developed countries. Less 10% of those refugees move there spontaneously as asylum seekers.  As Betts and Collier said, “Those people arriving in Europe or North America are often extremely vulnerable and their lives matter, but so do the lives of the nearly 90 per cent left behind. Today the world spends approximately $75 billion a year on the 10% of refugees who moved to developed regions and only around $5 billion a year on the 90% who remain in developing regions. This works out to a ratio of about $135 spent on a refugee in the developed world to every $1 spent on a refugee in the in the developing world.”

Who are the good guys again?

[1]Alexander Betts and Paul Collier, Refuge, (2017) p. 128

[2]Alexander Betts and Paul Collier, Refuge, (2017) p. 128

Listen to the Banshee Cries or the Better Angels of our Nature

 

Former Canadian diplomat Paul Heinbecker analyzed the current refugee system, which I have called monstrous this way: “The people who are refugees whether they are clinging to the hillsides in Bangladesh in the monsoon season, or dodging barrel bombs or poisonous gas in Syria, pouring into Uganda from Sudan by the hundreds of thousands, or escaping from the predations of criminal gangs in Central America, they all have precious little prospect of freedom from want.”[1]

They also have precious little chance of obtaining freedom from injustice. And we must remember that often these people fleeing violence and oppression are the most vulnerable people in the world—women and young children. Many of them take the most desperate measures to escape dodging predatory criminals along the way only to end up in the most inhospitable countries where they are shouted at by locals to go back home, treated like criminals, locked up in cages, forced to sleep in the cold on the hard stony ground, and in the most egregious cases even separated from their children under the most trauma inducing circumstances while billionaire politicians lie to them that they are illegal when they are not, are and not wanted when often they are. Some countries of the west are now reengaging in the worst practices from their past that are the most despicable in their histories.

Paul Heinbecker summed up “the times” this way:

 

We live in a time of disruption: With apologies to Charles Dickens, our are the best of times and the worst of times; ours is the age of information and of ignorance, and era of widening community and deepening xenophobia, a period of technological progress and political regression. People in general and Canadians in general have never been more prosperous, have never been more educated; (whether they have been better educated is perhaps another question) have never been healthier or longer-lived; have never been better connected with the rest of the world, and by far for the most part, have never been safer. People are in Canada, and indeed in the US have a much better chance of dying at the hands of their spouse than dying at the hands of a terrorist.[2]

 

So we can all make choices. We can join the side of information or ignorance. We can join the side of widening community or deepening xenophobia. Its up to us. We can follow the banshee cries of political leaders like Ted Falk or Donald Trump who warn about the gathering brown hordes on our borders or listen to the better angels of our nature. The choice is ours. Make yours.

[1]Paul Heinbecker, “Five Freedoms: Freedom from Lies”, CBC radio, Ideas, April 11, 2019

[2]Paul Heinbecker, “Five Freedoms: Freedom from Lies”, CBC radio, Ideas, April 11, 2019

A Monstrous Refugee System

 

The issues of immigration and asylum seeking are hot issues that often lead to extreme views. That is why I want to deal with these in small bite size chunks.

The system is desperately in need of reform. It was created in 1951 and its been adjusted from time to time since then, but it really was created in a different era to deal with a different set of problems. It was created after the war and the awful truth about Nazi death camps was revealed fully to the world. Then it became uncomfortably obvious to everyone that the west disgraced itself during the war when various states including Cuba, the United States, Canada, and various European countries realized what they had done when they had refused to allow Jews to disembark from the ship the M.S. St. Louis onto their shores in order to find a safe haven from the threat of appalling persecution. Many countries had refused to allow them into their countries and when the ship returned to Europe it later became apparent that hundreds of Jew had subsequently died in the concentration camps. The consciences and reputations of the western countries were irretrievably besmirched. It was one of the most sickening results of the war.

Added to that, the 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees was really designed to help and protect the people in the countries of Eastern Europe  who found themselves behind the Soviet Iron Curtain.  The western countries were led by the US who was concerned about opponents of the Communist regimes who were being persecuted by Communist regimes. It was felt that these people should have the right to live elsewhere and to be well cared for while a new home could be arranged.” This made sense in 1951 as the Cold War was starting. It makes a lot less sense in the 21stcentury.

That convention signed by 145 countries created an international organization—the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (‘UNHCR’). By that convention the signatory countries including the United States, Britain, Canada and most other countries of the west committed themselves to reciprocally allowing people that were fleeing “persecution” onto their territories for the purpose of gaining asylum or safe haven. Countries had a legal duty to help as a result of that Convention.

As Betts and Collier have stated, “Reflecting its intention, the legal definition of a refugee was someone who is outside her or his country of nationality and faces a ‘well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.’ It was unambiguously a product of its time and place, explicitly temporary and at the time intended only to apply to people in Europe.”[1]

Ever since people have realized that the criteria are too narrow and do not adequately deal with modern conditions. As Betts and Collier opined,

Time did not stand still. Refuge is as relevant today as it was in the late 1940s: the numbers speak for themselves. But both the causes of flight and the appropriate responses to flight have changed radically. Some refugees are indeed fleeing persecution by their state. But the overwhelming majority are now fleeing disorder: the fallout from state breakdown. Some refugees still need temporary food and shelter and some need to be resettled permanently in a new country.  But most need a haven where they can earn a living until they are able to return home once order has been restored…The Convention and UNHCR are still there, ever less appropriate for modern needs.  In the absence of root-and-branch reform, they have drifted into piecemeal adjustments.” [2]

Those adjustments while often worthy of support have created an ugly and ineffective monstrosity of a structure ill suited to deal with the current “refugee crisis.” Yet we have no choice but to ‘dance with the girl we brung.’ The result has been, as Betts and Collier put it,  “What began as coherent common rules for responding to persecution have evolved into chaotic and indefensible responses to the problem of mass flight from disorder.”[3]

Many of the changes over the years were made by well-meaning people who wanted to massage or manipulate the archaic system so that it could better serve modern needs that everyone in the arena realized were desperately needed. But the ultimate result was far from elegant or even effective or equitable. As Betts and Collier put it, “With wide variations in legal interpretation, policy coherence has been lost. Court rulings have become eccentric: refugees in identical circumstances will be granted asylum in the courts of some nations but refused it in others; even within the same country, they will be granted asylum in some years but not in others.”[4]

That sounds like a monstrosity to me. Monsters rarely deliver justice.

[1]Alexander Betts and Paul Collier, Refuge: Rethinking Refugee Policy in a Changing World, (2017) p. 4-5

[2]Alexander Betts and Paul Collier, Refuge: Rethinking Refugee Policy in a Changing World, (2017) p. 4-5

[3]Alexander Betts and Paul Collier, Refuge: Rethinking Refugee Policy in a Changing World, (2017) p. 4-5

[4]Alexander Betts and Paul Collier, Refuge: Rethinking Refugee Policy in a Changing World, (2017) p. 4