Why don’t they just come here legally?

They are called illegals, migrants, aliens, refugees, immigrants, asylum seekers, invaders, displaced – each word carrying with it a subtext of who they are, what they want, and where they fit. They have been accused of bringing disease, ‘poisoning the blood’ of a nation, participating in a massive invasion that aims to bring about violent anarchy, and even eating people’s beloved pets. In this discourse each of ‘them’ rarely has a face, a name, and much less their own story (unless they do something terrible that pushes their name and face into the headlines).

The question ‘Why don’t they just come here legally?’ is asked over and over. Again, there is a subtext to that question – an implication that if ‘they’ were good people, they would seek out and follow the rules. The question also assumes that there are legal, and presumably safe, channels for those in genuine distress to request and receive asylum in a safe country, as allowed for under international law, primarily under the UN Refugee Convention. However, the reality is that even those countries that recognise and uphold the Refugee Convention, (and there are many which do not), maintain byzantine systems, set up to make it as difficult as possible for someone, especially an asylum seeker, to petition for and be granted the right to start a new life in a safe country.

The vast majority of those ‘safe’ countries require visas for individuals traveling there from much of the world. The quickest way to ensure that a visa is denied, is to respond truthfully – that the motive for travelling is to request asylum upon arrival – and when a visa is denied on those grounds, the individual is almost always put on a blacklist for future requests.

Continue reading “Why don’t they just come here legally?”

Is European democracy too immature to address freedom of religion or belief? 

While the situation of people in other countries is too rarely a priority electoral issue, some politicisation of human rights is nevertheless common. From the perspective of an advocate for freedom of religion or belief, when done correctly and appropriately, party-political engagement on this human right can of course be expedient. At its best, it can elevate public attention to often severe injustices occurring abroad, and lay a strong policy platform for how they will be addressed post-election. But, at its worst, political positions and electoral tactics can be employed that lack sincerity, nuance, and even basic good will. 

Mistakes in this area are perpetrated by both conservatives and progressives. This piece summarises some of the things that these political blocs tend to get wrong and right, respectively. It is meant both for the benefit of voters, making them more aware of the calculations and strategies happening behind the scenes in party HQs; and also, to hold up a mirror to those directly involved in campaigning, challenging them to think more critically, and constructively, about their approaches. 

Continue reading “Is European democracy too immature to address freedom of religion or belief? “