Saturday, August 08, 2015

Asylum [In The UK]; What Exactly Are The Truths (2)

Read a previous related post here to better understand this

First, it is wrong to assume that someone fleeing to a place of safety must stay at their first port of arrival. Although that's what the 1951 UN Refugee Convention proposes - you can agree [with me that] 1950s is a long way back - it in no way works in today's world. And when looked at critically and from the many better an more researched understanding of human rights today - indivisible, insoluble - that suggestion isnt practical. Moreover, a lot of better definition and advanced solution has been established since this convention through various policies and case laws.
Second, it is insulting to say "lets re-conolize them" (this is in response to a comment on facebook) while still arguing that we "must not bear the burden of our ancestors". When Britons - and indeed most of European colonialists - migrated in centuries past, they didnt ask for permission... and yes, they can (and perhaps should) bear the burden of their ancestors because most of the wealth of these colonialists - countries were extorted from the colonies; not earned to be sincere.

Third, UK is not full nor bursting at the seams. There's enough space. In fact, economically, the more people you have, the better you could be, because they will contribute economically though work, taxation and increased demands and eventually, supply. For instance, while some people in the UK sat and whinged about no jobs, Pakistanis and Polish migrants found gaps in the economy to set up shops where eventually those Britons buy from while still accusing these industrious migrants of stealng their jobs. 

Take for instance; although the USA is about 5x the population of UK, its GDP is almost 7x that of UK. Also UK is not going to burst at the seams because Jordan for example, which is tinier, poorer and smaller, have taken almost nearly 700,000 asylum seekers and refugees by January 2015; far more than UK in the last year alone; yet Jordan is still functioning. Sweden, Germany, Italy has all taken far more displaced people and even been able to process most of them quicker and more efficiently considering the load. 

We [in the UK] fail because our governments put profits above everything; hence G4S has millions in contract to handle undocumented migrants while Atos messes up our vulnerable fellow citizens. Sweden was processing hundreds of asylum seekers a day... but we have them locked up - a simple waste of human resources.

If financial reason is why these people prefer UK, still it'd massively beneficial for us than not. The irony is we accuse them of coming for benefit then turn around to accuse them of coming for economic reasons - do I understand economic to be that they are coming to work, make money and have a better life? In essence, they will contribute to the economy and not just that, but increase our market base; this will be beneficial for all of us because we can then produce more and sell more and employ more and collect more in tax, etc, etc. Why is this so difficult to work out?

But demonizing refugees and asylum seekers depicts the clear malice of giving a dog a bad just to... It doesnt make sense. In Germany, asylum and refugees are allowed to work which they are more than ready to do thereby reducing their reliance on the State. Also, Germany encourages citizens to house them at a very low price and at the same time, improving integration. 

Here in the UK, we refused asylum seekers to work, lock them away in detention centres and pay millions to private companies to detain them or house them in squalid accommodation which govt pay extortionate rents for. Then we complain that they get £35 voucher to survive on in a week. Its appallingly inhumane and tyrannic in every way.

No comments:

Subscribe by Email