In defence of Refugees
First, let's start off by debunking some refugee myths.
Myth: NZ has a soft touch policy on refugees, once you apply you're pretty much guaranteed to get in.
Fact: NZ only only accepts 17.6% of those who apply for refugee status. This ranks us 13th out of 18 Asylum-accepting countries ranked by the UN. A comparison to supposed 'hardliners' like the United States makes us look heartless. The US accepts 43.9% of those who apply. Our intake is also below the global weighted average of 30.35%
Myth: We're being flooded by refugees
Fact: Nothing could be further than the truth. NZ has 1.77 refugees per 1000 people. The global average is 15.14 per 1000 people, almost 15 TIMES the per capita amount of refugees in NZ.
In fact, even Fortress Australia has more refugees than us, with almost 3 times as many refugees per 1000 people!
Myth: Refugees are unproductive drains that Labour uses to flush our taxpayer money down.
Fact: Refugees are more likely to be productive citizens than citizens of their host country. Largely because the decision to move is entrepreneurial. Second, just because they are refugees doesn't mean they are poor. Asylum seekers seek asylum due to political persecution, not because of economic difficulty. That they are likely to come from poor countries does not mean they have no money.
However, undoubtedly their productivity will be hampered by language difficulties and traumatic past experiences. That's why money is needed to assist refugees (even white english speaking ones) to help them adapt to their new communities. Compare this to a normal citizen where the government would pay for their entire education rather than just part of it.
Even if you don't accept the above surely it is outweighed by the advantages we get from the refugee system.
Given the wild inaccuracies floating around, you'd think it would be relatively easy to put out Winston's fire. Well, the Greens are the only ones defending the Refugee system and they're not doing a good job. Largely because they seem to support a lot of the regimes refugees flee from.
If you don't want to destabilise these regimes then you take away a big plank of the case for refugees. Fundamentally the case is two-pronged: self-interest and humanitarian interest.
It's in our own self-interest to accept refugees. By accepting them we encourage dissent in the face of oppression. People are less willing to dissent if there is no way for them to run away from the authorities. Having a large proportion of the population running away from you (like in Sudan) is also humiliating and makes your government seem less legitimate.
Later on, when political reform takes hold you also have political figures in exile overseas ready to step in.
Second: in humanitarian terms, it surely must be a moral good for us to take in people who are being oppressed by their governments. No, we cannot take in everyone, that's why we differentiate, and only take in those who have been targetted by the oppressive regime in question.
That's not to say that there aren't problems with the refugee system. There are, Saddam loyalists should never have got through. However, these could be exceptional cases and the statistics would seem to indicate that. The high rejection rate suggests rejecting too many asylum applications rather than accepting too many.
Myth: NZ has a soft touch policy on refugees, once you apply you're pretty much guaranteed to get in.
Fact: NZ only only accepts 17.6% of those who apply for refugee status. This ranks us 13th out of 18 Asylum-accepting countries ranked by the UN. A comparison to supposed 'hardliners' like the United States makes us look heartless. The US accepts 43.9% of those who apply. Our intake is also below the global weighted average of 30.35%
Myth: We're being flooded by refugees
Fact: Nothing could be further than the truth. NZ has 1.77 refugees per 1000 people. The global average is 15.14 per 1000 people, almost 15 TIMES the per capita amount of refugees in NZ.
In fact, even Fortress Australia has more refugees than us, with almost 3 times as many refugees per 1000 people!
Myth: Refugees are unproductive drains that Labour uses to flush our taxpayer money down.
Fact: Refugees are more likely to be productive citizens than citizens of their host country. Largely because the decision to move is entrepreneurial. Second, just because they are refugees doesn't mean they are poor. Asylum seekers seek asylum due to political persecution, not because of economic difficulty. That they are likely to come from poor countries does not mean they have no money.
However, undoubtedly their productivity will be hampered by language difficulties and traumatic past experiences. That's why money is needed to assist refugees (even white english speaking ones) to help them adapt to their new communities. Compare this to a normal citizen where the government would pay for their entire education rather than just part of it.
Even if you don't accept the above surely it is outweighed by the advantages we get from the refugee system.
Given the wild inaccuracies floating around, you'd think it would be relatively easy to put out Winston's fire. Well, the Greens are the only ones defending the Refugee system and they're not doing a good job. Largely because they seem to support a lot of the regimes refugees flee from.
If you don't want to destabilise these regimes then you take away a big plank of the case for refugees. Fundamentally the case is two-pronged: self-interest and humanitarian interest.
It's in our own self-interest to accept refugees. By accepting them we encourage dissent in the face of oppression. People are less willing to dissent if there is no way for them to run away from the authorities. Having a large proportion of the population running away from you (like in Sudan) is also humiliating and makes your government seem less legitimate.
Later on, when political reform takes hold you also have political figures in exile overseas ready to step in.
Second: in humanitarian terms, it surely must be a moral good for us to take in people who are being oppressed by their governments. No, we cannot take in everyone, that's why we differentiate, and only take in those who have been targetted by the oppressive regime in question.
That's not to say that there aren't problems with the refugee system. There are, Saddam loyalists should never have got through. However, these could be exceptional cases and the statistics would seem to indicate that. The high rejection rate suggests rejecting too many asylum applications rather than accepting too many.
posted by Dileepa at 11:12 am
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home