Immigration Woes

Immigration is firmly on the agendas of nations this week.

The US has announced it will build a three-layer, 370 mile fence, with a further 500 miles of vehicle barriers along it’s 2000 mile shared border with Mexico. President Bush will also send 6000 National Guardsmen to patrol the borders.

In retaliation, Mexico has threatened “it would file lawsuits in U.S. courts if National Guard troops detain migrants on the border and some officials said they fear the crackdown will force illegal crossers into more perilous areas to avoid detection.”

Over in England, Prime Minister, Tony Blair, has suggested that all foreign prisoners be deported no matter what dangers they may face in their home countries. This comes on the heels of a High Court decision to allow nine Afghans asylum seekers to stay until it was safe to return to their country. The nine, who hijacked a plane and brought it to England, in 2000, had their convictions quashed in May 2003 by Appeal judges on a technicality. From the BBC: “The three judges at the Court of Appeal said on Friday a mistake in directing the jury was the only reason the men's appeal had succeeded.”

In France a new immigration law that favours skilled workers over the unskilled has been passed in the lower house. The new law “requires immigrants from outside the European Union to sign a contract, agreeing to learn French and to respect the principles of the French Republic.”

Here, in Australia, any new Papuan asylum seekers will be processed off shore, as per the policy of the Government.

On one side of the argument, these policies are being seen as racist, xenophobic and an attack on people’s human and civil rights. On the other, these policies are being seen as security measures against terrorism, against criminal elements.

Let me be absolutely clear on one thing: asylum seekers are not refugees. The United Nations High Commission for Refugees sets the policy for who is and is not a refugee. Signatory countries apply that policy.

It remains a country’s sovereign right to decide who can and cannot enter the country. Refugee status may be granted, but another country can accept those refugees.

For America, besieged by vitriol and hate from Islamic fundamentalists and imported criminals, building this fence is the best chance they have of stopping the influx of illegals from Mexico. It is too easier a route for terrorists to enter.

For Mexico, they’re gonna have to suck it up and deal with their internal problems that lead to its citizens wanting to cross the border and not blame someone else.

For England, it is as Tony Blair remarked when the judgement on the Afghans was handed down: “an abuse of common sense”. As to deporting foreign nationals when their incarceration expires, is there some reason why a country should keep someone who does not respect that country’s laws?

For France, it is an attempt to lure skilled and professional workers to the country rather than illegal migrants who simply want a better life. France and England have already signed an agreement to stop migrants coming through their respective countries.

For Australia, it’s more of the same. Outrage that the government could be so callous as to refuse entry to asylum seekers and process them off shore. Approval that the Government enforces strict Customs and Border control.

Of course, Australia is a notoriously difficult country to get to. It’s a long way from anywhere, it has vast tracts of empty and dangerous land. Should you manage to get here illegally, you have to contact your particular ethnic community for help. And it is increasingly difficult to get that assistance. Jail terms, expensive fines and deportation are the punishment should you be caught helping illegals.

According to the United Nations, the world-wide movement of people is increasing as drought, famine, civil war or despotic rule, creates abject poverty, starvation, homelessness and hopelessness.

Are these five countries creating Fortress Europe, Fortress America and Fortress Australia or are these measures turning their backs on the humanitarian crises that are unfolding?

Is the answer to simply throw open the borders of countries and let whomever wander through as they please? Some more radical groups want this; are they wrong?

What is the solution to illegal migration? Even if we find it, will we be allowed to implement it given that the ‘politically correct, whiney-assed, new age, touchy-feely’ assholes of the world will cry ‘racism’ instead of ‘sovereignty’.

Egalitarianism is all well and good in theory, but for too long that concept has been abused by those would manipulate the system to their own ends. Action, whether it is right or wrong for lawbreakers, has to happen. From there, the evolution of laws will progress to satisfy not only the governments, but the citizens of the country. Illegal immigrants should not have a say in how or what those laws are.