[Sri Lankan civil-war refugees aiming for Australia, knowing that they will not be welcomed by the government.]

I am left unconvinced by the case for controlled immigration, but that is the reality in most countries. This implies that there are quotas and discrimination in terms of movement into Canada. However, if we are to have immigration subject to such control, if we are to limit the places allowed for the foreign-b0rn, then we are left with three major ways by which we can choose those who do come in: we can have a wholly “first come first serve” approach, allowing doctors, refugees and simple labourers in the same line; we can give places to those who benefit us the most); or to those who need it the most. In reality, we end up using all three of these approaches in the compromise over the control immigration.

When it comes to those whom we allow it because we deem them to be in need of our help, different countries define eligibity using different standards, but always it is implied that we should give asylum to those who need it the most — assuming  that we want to create the most benefit with the quotas we are forced to work with.

Yet, some seem to disagree. From the BBC:

The Home Office has been accused of telling gay and lesbian asylum seekers to avoid persecution back home by keeping their sexuality secret.

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees [UNHCR] claims the UK is turning international convention “on its head”.

[...]

“Would we have asked a Jew to hide in the attic to avoid being sent to the concentration camps?,” [a UNHCR spokeswoman] told the BBC.

Though I have no doubt that the persecution of the LGBT community is to be opposed, there are people in far more dangerous situations, such as (historically) those Jews the spokeswoman mentioned. If we take just about any country where the LGBT community suffers government discrimination — sadly, the list is long –, we can find many groups of people that are more at risk or that suffers in the present, rather than if they act in a certain way (it is possible to be chaste, but it is not quite possible to change one’s ethnicity). It is particularly hard to be homosexual or transsexual  in such countries — I have no doubts about that –, but what if homosexuality stood out in a crowd, like ethnicity can? To compare the Holocaust to what the LGBT community experiences is a stretch, since homosexuals are not actively sought for nor are they treated so harshly.

When one makes comparisons, it is only sensible to take something that is comparable in most respects so as to not create distortions. The problems of the LGBT community stand on their own, they do not need comparisons to the Holocaust — comparisons made more for the sake of emotional imagery/media attention than rational discussion. By simply comparing their situations, the spokeswoman relieved herself from the need to create a reasoning that stands on its own merits (the fault is perhaps on the BBC if it distorted the focus of her explanations). “We must do this with the LGBT because we should have done this with the Jews under Hitler” is not very convincing.

Quite simply put: if we are to limit the amount of places we give to asylum seekers, then those who come in should be those groups which suffer the most. Considering the percentage of humans which fit in the “LGBT” tag and considering the suffering that seems to be inflicted on the community (something that is, I admit, impossible to clearly measure), it seems that only a minority of LGBT will end up suffering intolerably. The rest, it seems, manage to hide it — some Jewish communities did the same. It is a sad fact that a homosexual in hiding is alone, while at least minority cultures have a community to help them out, but that is still nothing in contrast to the many slaves, neglected orphans, war and rape victims etc. So many people live in fear knowing that those who want to kill them can find them without any difficulties  — they are more deserving than those who can manage to go by without worries as long as they act normally. I know that “act normally” is easier said than done, but it is far easier than hiding one’s skin, gender, name etc. The desire for sex is not like that for eating, for we can live without sex and it can be replaced with other things that satisfy us in profound ways (such as arts, learning and friendship).

All of the above only matters if we believe in quotas, but there are those who ask: why not just invite them all? Well, xenophobia is in large part to blame. Then there are arguments based in economics, but they are at best murky. I believe that the flow of immigrants should be made smooth so as to not create major disruptions, but as long as things are regular and we assure that unemployment remains stable, there is little to worry about. Those who come in want work, so, at first, they do take up jobs, but they spend this money and create work for other people. Imagine a simple economy made up 50% of farmers and 50% of artisan; if the population doubles, then there will be twice the need for food, so half of these people will need to go into food (since one citizen produces food for two in this society) and the other half will offer services to the farming half in exchange for food. There are more details to this example, but I think it illustrates the absurdity in the belief that immigrants come here and “steal our jobs”. There are other ideas as to what would happen if we allowed open immigration, but, because immigration has been controlled for as long as transportation has been so easy, there is no hard evidence as to what would happen if Western countries opened the gates to Africa, South America and Asia. (I recommend that you research this matter in more depth, but I will leave this issue here).

The most compelling arguments have to do with the design of tax and welfare system: without citizenship as we know it, anyone could come in and profit from our social services at our expense. I can sympathise with those who believe this to be a problem, but even if this concern is justified (IF), then it should be noted that there are ways by which we could redefine the role of citizenship: we could allow anyone to come in and work, without visas, and, after they have shown some commitment to the country in terms of paying taxes, we could allow them to obtain access to the services their taxes fund. “Commitment” could be defined in many ways: perhaps after a person has been paying taxes for a certain number of years, or perhaps as soon as they can prove that they have paid taxes for a month. There are many ways by which this could be achieved and I will not explore this here, but it is clear that we can do this if we want. So, there is little substance to arguments from those angered by the possibility of people benefiting from a health-care system they do not contribute their share to.

I believe that most of what we are left with is ignorance and prejudice , but some good arguments can probably be made in favour of quotas on immigration; those I know, however, are too weak to justify such a serious limit as a limit on the movement of peoples.

-Dussault

No Comments »

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

Name

Mail (will not be published)

Website