Yesterday we flew into London from Istanbul. At the Passport check desk we were held up for quite some time answering numerous questions about our trip; how we were funding it, our jobs at home and what our intentions were for visiting London. Because most of our planning has been on the fly we haven't booked our next plans yet and we only know the date we leave for home. This is apparently a very bad idea, according the official we spoke to, and she kept referring to it as 'traveling undocumented'.
This culminated in our being given a 'special' entry stamp and advice to carry copies of flights, trains, buses, hotels etc (apparently copies on your smart phone are no good). No harm done of course, but the whole process got me thinking about the philosophy that underpins a countries visa, entry and immigration policy and drives the sort of interrogation we received.
No other country we've visited gave us the third degree about our visit. Crossing borders in Eastern Europe, meeting officials who looked like they'd been on duty since the Iron Curtain was up, no one questioned that we were travelers just looking to check out the country. In London though...
What I came up with was somewhat paradoxical; countries with the most wealth, trade and opportunities are going to be extremely protective of people entering and trying to work while those with less developed economies are presuming people are not coming for work. I say paradoxical because I would imagine that the larger, more developed economies have a greater capacity to absorb and utilise new workers. Furthermore that these new workers would likely go on (if allowed) to be tax payers, consumers and spenders, thereby increasing the size of the economy.
Is this then why countries like Australia, the United States and the UK have tight border controls and asylum seekers and refugees must make dangerous attempts to illegally enter; because of some fear that they will be a drain rather than a contribution to the country? That they will steal jobs and take welfare payments and beg on the streets?
Such assumptions feel to me like they are made from a fairly oversimplified, ignorant and dehumanizing basis. People who end up with the label 'refugee' or 'asylum seeker' are not all the same. Before they were forced to leave their homes and their countries they were members of a society. I can imagine that many were highly qualified, gainfully employed people, others maybe not so much. Doctors and lawyers but also clerks, waiters, students and people who work the checkout. Given the opportunity they would all likely continue to utilise their skills, learn new ones or contribute in some way to the new home they find themselves in. To presume they would be a drain ignores our very human need to be part of a society that accepts us and to feel that we are a valuable member of that society.
Myself, I'm not seeking refuge or even work in the UK and I'll probably never have to flee my home in Australia because of persecution. My experience is not that of a refugee but it emerges from the same philosophy that international borders must be 'protected' from undesirable people. My musings are over what constitutes whether a person is desirable or not.
My discussion here has been more emotive than substantive. I've not particularly considered the hard figures of cross border movements and economic costs and I will continue to look into these factors. I hope though that I've raised some ideas that question who the often faceless refugees around the world are, as well as who they might one day become if we allow them to into our communities.
No comments:
Post a Comment