Date: May 23rd, 2017
Motion: THW hold a referendum on policies, practises and quotas regarding asylum-seeking
Role: PM (gov.)
The question of refugees is a pressing predicament of our times. They keep pouring in, and we don’t know what to do with them. If it was a THR/THW/THB that Question subjected to a debate society, the pro and con sides, the champions and brakers and the accusers and defenders would all be out there and ready with ammo to shoot at the other party with. At least now that the internet is filled with ”hate speech” and a lot of Western democracies have ”protest” or ”populist” parties that try to stem the tide of asylum seeking in a given country.
I think that it’s clear that the question is not as simple or simplistic as the man on the street would let you understand. There are several aspects of the issue that have to be taken into account.
Only a minority of people fall into the neat categories of ”pro-refugees” or ”contra-refugees”. These two opposites could be described as those who will blindly say ”yes” or ”no” to someone who is seeking asylum. I think these camps only account for about ten per cent, or 10 %, of the population, respectively. Only 10 % of people say a ”blind” YES to refugees, and only 10 % of people say a ”blind” NO to refugees.
The rest, the majority of people, base their opinion on statistics. They want to know lots and lots of things about refugees; basically, the same kind of data that we get and know about native citizens of a given country. Ordinary people want to know how (well) refugees a) integrate into society, b) find employment, c) marry across racial and religious boundaries, d) drink, e) smoke, f) have a presence in penitentiaries, g) go for higher education (universities, polytechnics, etc.), h) know birth control, i) travel abroad, j) vote at elections, k) know what to eat to avoid obesity, l) remain as citizens after the initial benefits have been spent and m) pay their taxes.
And so on and and so on. Ordinary people are not blind naysayers to asylum seeking, nor are they blind yeasayers to it either. If the group that is coming in behaves in a lot of ways like the native population does, the natives are more prone to have positive and permissive views of immigration. If the group that tries to sneak in behaves in a lot of ways unlike the native population and breaks its norms flagrantly and over and over again, the natives are prone to have negative and dismissive views of immigration.
I think that this simple framing of the field has the benevolent impact of establishing the fact that people cannot be divided into ”racists” versus ”good people” or ”tolerantsia” anymore and any longer. The margins get divided into the fringe ”lunatics” of blind naysayers and yeasayers, WHEREAS the middle majority may be characterised as the ”statisticians” or the ”immigration-critical” or the ”fool-sufferers”.
A lot of people in the West consider it their moral duty or obligation to be ”pro-immigration”; the reason being the fact that the West (Europe, North America, Australia) has enjoyed the highest rate of development and economical prosperity of all nations in all of the hemispheres on all of the continents. However, this is a general ethos of blind yeasaying. Empathy, guilt and solidarity are the watchwords which are used time and again to justify a mass influx of strange people into countries where they have fit in, whether they want or not, willy-nilly.
The reason why populist regimes pop up in unexpected places has to do with this kind of blind yeasaying. People know what the media think and tell us, but independently they have A MIND OF THEIR OWN and their minds on the statistics. If they suspect and see it confirmed that foreigners commit more crimes than natives, their view of seeking asylum is likely to be antithetical, no matter how hard the blind yeasayers are trying to prove the opposite to be ”true”!
I think that it’s vital that authorities on immigration begin taking into account the true status of seeking asylum and immigrants. They cannot rely on people’s support for it anymore. They need to prove that asylum seekers a) settle, b) establish themselves and c) begin to build their new country of choice — rather than a) maintain ties with their old country, b) support its burgeoning terrorist networks and c) refuse to even learn the language that the host country speaks. It is a question of whether the newcomers are a workhorse that feeds the breast whose tit it sucks on, or are a Trojan horse that only exists in order to attack and subvert the order that exists at the receiving end.
So far, work-based ”trickle-down” immigration has been a far greater net contributor to national economies than asylum-based ”floodgates-up” immigration. Nation-states and authorities and civil servants should make sure that the gap between these two should be as narrow as possible, in order to retain the status quo as close to the status quo that existed in the receiving ends before the mass influx of immigrants.
Arvio: Vaikka pakolaisuudesta on selvästi jakautuneet mielipiteet, liberaalit väittelyseurat eivät halua väitellä asiasta polarisoidusti, jotta eivät kenties leimaantuisi. Tässä on reippaasti kantaa ottava puhe turvapaikkapakolaisuutta vastaan, sillä voidaan ajatella mahdollisen kansanäänestyksen jakavan kansan juuri niihin, jotka rajoittaisivat tulijoiden määrää asetuksin ja niihin, jotka sallisivat tulemisen kansainvälisten sopimusten viitoittamalla tiellä. Pääministerin kuuluu olla kärjekäs ja painokas, vaikkakaan ei räikeän puolueellinen, ja muut voivat jatkaa haluamallaan tavalla.