How our asylum policy must change to best help those who need it most
#185
My Dear Friend of Democracy,
There is a terrible war in Sudan. Thousands are dead, millions displaced.
But there seems to be hardly any debate in the whole of Europe, no outcry, that we urgently need to help the people there and take in refugees.
Why?
Because political parties don't like to commit political suicide. You simply can't win any support from the majority of voters at the moment by demanding more humanitarian aid and the additional admission of refugees.
One could blame the shift to the right in society for this.
But this explanation falls short.
The deeper cause lies in an asylum policy established over decades and in which we have become comfortable. We were okay with it. Not so much those for whom it was intended.
What do I mean by that?
Access to the right to asylum has been severely restricted for a long time. The simplest way to exercise this right, namely to get on a plane and go to Germany or to take a ferry across the Mediterranean to reach Italy, was and is not possible. Instead, a long, arduous and dangerous journey had to be undertaken to apply for asylum.
As a result, it is not always the weakest and the poorest who came and are still coming.
By these restrictions, we, the prosperous north, could continue to live in the belief that we were being charitable since most of the refugees who made it to our countries were allowed to stay. Those who could not or did not want to pay traffickers, who could barely scrape together the money for a one-off flight or trip, but for whom that was of no use because their nationality did not allow boarding or travel by ship, these people hardly mattered to us. We just never met them.
And so we lived in an illusion of charity. However, we had made the humanitarian act of granting protection largely impossible.
The self-deception, at least in Germany, ended in 2014. Many people have managed and continue to manage to find their way to us despite high hurdles. And suddenly, it became apparent that our willingness to help is limited. That many more people want to come to Europe, and many people here in Europe do not want them to come.
It became clear that we cannot help everyone. An illusion was shattered. The self-deception of a limitless willingness to help became apparent.
Here comes the positive side of this topic.
As we all know, there is always an opportunity in recognizing uncomfortable truths. There is a chance to do better in the future. By identifying the limitations of our ability to help, we can focus on those who need help the most.
For this to happen, a new three-part social consensus is needed:
We need a steady immigration of workers (the key word here is labour shortage).
We must also facilitate immigration for those who are worst off. Those who are starving, those threatened by torture and death. Help must come quickly and easily to manage for those in need. They have to be brought to Europe by plane, by ship. They must not only be allowed to come, we must get them.
And we have to say to people, and I suspect it will be the largest group, you want to come to us, we understand that, we like living here ourselves, but it's impossible. Our capacity is limited.
Such a consensus and honesty would make a new willingness to help possible. Political debates would then only be about how large the first and second groups should be but no longer about the fact that these three groups exist. Of course, there would still be complex debates. Because at least the distinction between group number two and three is not easy; in fact, it would be heartbreakingly difficult.
But there is no other way.
Because that's the point: If we don't face the reality of our limited possibilities, we'll set our priorities wrong. Limitations always create an awareness of how to use scarce resources in the best possible way. If, on the other hand, we continue to act as if there are no restrictions, people will continue to die in Sudan, and hardly anyone on the rich continent of Europe will be interested in it.
See you in Europe,
Johannes
I like your numbers 1. through 3. .Yet I'ld like to add a 4.
We need to tell arrivals, that we expect them to respect "the law of the land". And we need to feel good about stating this.
What is "the law of the land"? It obviously consists of the constitution and our laws. But it also consists of local customs.
While obviously every arrival is free to stick to his/her religion, we want to see the face of people we talk to, we shake hands, we do not want ghettos to develop etc.
Admonishment of this kind are necessary for only a very small share of the arrivals, but they remain necessary. And that is also true to protect the arrivals that strive to become part of the Gerrman society. We owe it to them.
Equally the burden is on us to extend our helping hand for arrivals who want to feel at home here.
I agree with the other comment mentioned here. At the end of the day, we are all human, with human instincts and an innate desire to help others. However, immigrants coming to a new country should respect the rules of the host nation. Everyone should be free to practice their religion and customs within their own homes, but not impose them on society or expect others to follow the same rules. It’s interesting how, in many religions, followers believe they are the "chosen" ones responsible for helping others reach heaven.
Also, if someone commits a serious crime and harms members of society, there’s no reason for taxpayers to bear the cost of keeping that person in the country. A good analogy is if someone comes into your home, you ask them to take off their shoes, and they refuse, then hurt your family. You would likely kick them out!