Tuesday, September 26, 2006
I've just been reading about the so-called 'Immigration Debate' and I can't help but be rather bemused by the rhetoric behind the politics of it all. There seems to me to be very little justification for the harsh immigration procedures that have been and are still being ushered in by our government, the basis seemingly being the populist, if rather badly informed, tabloids. It doesn't even seem to be party-political these days, with parties seemingly wishing to point-score on who can be the harshest on probably our society's most vulnerable grouping.
The benefits of immigration, on the other hand, seem overwhelming: immigration is a significant driver of our economic growth, bringing culture, talent and diversity to a nation that has historically lauded itself as a safe-haven for all. Immigrants make up massive shortfalls in our service industries as well as compensating for the massive (but less spoken of) emigration of British nationals abroad.
Talk of benefits-scrounging seems over-egged in that people who do enter the country as asylum seekers are not allowed to work here legally, and, in any event, the benefits given to immigrants does not even meet the minimum income guarantee which we give to our elderly people. And there's also the (not so) small detail that there is, in fact, no truly viable and legal method for those entering this country to claim asylum. It is a marker of our present politics that people have to commit an immigration offence simply to claim asylum here and gain protection from persecution abroad.
Instead of being a bastion of egalitarianism, we now have an immigration system that is ill-prepared to deal with the immigrants that come from within the EU (the bureaucracy is truly staggering), let alone those originating outside of it, and that frequently desecrates the human rights of entire families who haven't even committed 'immigration offences' in their own right.
We have our government trying to sidestep the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights as well as the Refugee Convention and which continues to pump billions of taxpayers money into a system that is widely regarded as failing by people on all sides of the debate. And the judiciary seem less than willing to challenge even blatant breaches of human rights, allowing themselves to acquiesce to our government's quasi-political 'memorandums of understanding' with some of the worst human rights abusers on this planet, to allow people to be deported.
And so one has to ask oneself why our politicians and so many people in Britain are so against immigration and, specifically, immigrants, be they refugees, asylum seekers or so-called 'illegal overstayers'. I can hazard some guesses though I wouldn't like to be accused of being unfair. However, with a Home Secretary that is legally required to have a presumption for deporting those 'without legal authority' to be in the country, it seems that we may be losing all touch with any overarching, principled system based on reality.
So, why don't we just open up our borders? It seems to me that it would cost us less (even taking into account the NHS, benefits, &c. that may be required), help our nation prosper and, ultimately, truly make us a safe haven in a world where we continue to be the 4th most propserous nation on earth. Any dissent must surely be borne of the strongest possible basis to ensure that we don't end up persecuting the very people who we should be sheltering and valuing as human beings.
posted by Steven at Tuesday, September 26, 2006
|
