The fate of immigrants to Europe
Last week a fire in a detention facility for illegal immigrants near Schiphol airport killed eleven of the detainees and wounded some others. The national newspaper Volkskrant had an editorial arguing that this was fate and that we should learn to live with it instead of be indignant or even sad that this tragedy happened: learn to live with things like this was the implicit message.
Thomas Spijkerboer, professor of immigration law and the Free University in Amsterdam, wrote a piece in the OpEd section of NRC which is the best response to this so far. Spijkerboer argues that it is not accidental that the detainees died, just like it is not accidental that each year thousands of illegal immigrants die trying to reach their destinies. They are returned to the Sahara desert or simply shot in the case of Marocco, if they are not abused, raped, robbed, drown in their crowded boats on the Mediterranean, or even made into slaves on the way there. Illegal immigrants and refugees face such horrible risks all the time. The reason that they are exposed to these risks is because of our borders, our immigration laws and our policies for guarding and upholding these.
Spijkerboer made a subsequent point that is very interesting. He argues inter alia that we are to blame. We bear responsibility for these risks. The situation in the home countries of most migrants, legal or illegal, is such that they want to get out. It is a choice between certain poverty, prosecution or even death and the (small) chance of a better future. Obviously, many, if not most people when faced with such choices will opt for the risk. This is especially true in the case of refugees. But we cannot say what certain philosophers and others subsequently would say: well, these migrants made their choice knowing all these risks, so now they should simply take responsibility. We announced the risks of getting caught, you opted to take the gamble and if you loose - tough luck! Spijkerboer argued that this is inadequate because it is our attitudes, our laws and borders that make the risks and costs so high for migrants. If we had other laws, the risks would be less. He does not call for opening the borders (though I think the logic of his argument would demand this), but claims that because we made those risks as high as they are, we bear responsibility for the hundreds of people dying each year. (Spijkerboer claims the number is 3 per day on average).
I think Spijkerboer is on to something and I fully agree with him that the callous attitude of indifference towards the fate of these illegal migrants is immoral. However, the argument is fishy. It is interesting to note the similarities and differences between Spijkerboer's argument and Pogge's argument that the West is harming the poor in the third world. We could interpret Spijkerboer as saying that we are harming the illegal migrants that die or are hurt otherwise in their quest to come here with our borders. However, just like Pogge's arguments this seems to me is incorrect for the same reasons: we would have to ascertain what fate the migrants would have face in comparison to some other situation and it is unclear what the relevant other situation in this case should be. (No borders? Lax immigration laws? A just world order?) So I don't think we are harming the illegal immigrants in this strict and technical sense.
However, we cannot say that the poor are fully responsible for the consequences of their own actions. We bear some of the responsibility as well. Imagine a misanthrope hanging a million dollars on a tight rope over some ravine and inviting people to come and take their chances Would we really say that the poor sods who fall of the rope trying desparately to get the money only have themselves to blame? Even is this were the only way to get money? Wouldn't the misanthrope behave in an irresponsible way by tempting the poor people in his neighborhood with the money? In other words, just like the misanthrope should not create these risky options for his neighbors, so should we not rigg the options such that migrating becomes so risky. This is not a negative duty of not harming others, but a positive duty it seems to me.
In the mean time, some humility and concern befits us towards illegal migrants.
Thomas Spijkerboer, professor of immigration law and the Free University in Amsterdam, wrote a piece in the OpEd section of NRC which is the best response to this so far. Spijkerboer argues that it is not accidental that the detainees died, just like it is not accidental that each year thousands of illegal immigrants die trying to reach their destinies. They are returned to the Sahara desert or simply shot in the case of Marocco, if they are not abused, raped, robbed, drown in their crowded boats on the Mediterranean, or even made into slaves on the way there. Illegal immigrants and refugees face such horrible risks all the time. The reason that they are exposed to these risks is because of our borders, our immigration laws and our policies for guarding and upholding these.
Spijkerboer made a subsequent point that is very interesting. He argues inter alia that we are to blame. We bear responsibility for these risks. The situation in the home countries of most migrants, legal or illegal, is such that they want to get out. It is a choice between certain poverty, prosecution or even death and the (small) chance of a better future. Obviously, many, if not most people when faced with such choices will opt for the risk. This is especially true in the case of refugees. But we cannot say what certain philosophers and others subsequently would say: well, these migrants made their choice knowing all these risks, so now they should simply take responsibility. We announced the risks of getting caught, you opted to take the gamble and if you loose - tough luck! Spijkerboer argued that this is inadequate because it is our attitudes, our laws and borders that make the risks and costs so high for migrants. If we had other laws, the risks would be less. He does not call for opening the borders (though I think the logic of his argument would demand this), but claims that because we made those risks as high as they are, we bear responsibility for the hundreds of people dying each year. (Spijkerboer claims the number is 3 per day on average).
I think Spijkerboer is on to something and I fully agree with him that the callous attitude of indifference towards the fate of these illegal migrants is immoral. However, the argument is fishy. It is interesting to note the similarities and differences between Spijkerboer's argument and Pogge's argument that the West is harming the poor in the third world. We could interpret Spijkerboer as saying that we are harming the illegal migrants that die or are hurt otherwise in their quest to come here with our borders. However, just like Pogge's arguments this seems to me is incorrect for the same reasons: we would have to ascertain what fate the migrants would have face in comparison to some other situation and it is unclear what the relevant other situation in this case should be. (No borders? Lax immigration laws? A just world order?) So I don't think we are harming the illegal immigrants in this strict and technical sense.
However, we cannot say that the poor are fully responsible for the consequences of their own actions. We bear some of the responsibility as well. Imagine a misanthrope hanging a million dollars on a tight rope over some ravine and inviting people to come and take their chances Would we really say that the poor sods who fall of the rope trying desparately to get the money only have themselves to blame? Even is this were the only way to get money? Wouldn't the misanthrope behave in an irresponsible way by tempting the poor people in his neighborhood with the money? In other words, just like the misanthrope should not create these risky options for his neighbors, so should we not rigg the options such that migrating becomes so risky. This is not a negative duty of not harming others, but a positive duty it seems to me.
In the mean time, some humility and concern befits us towards illegal migrants.
posted by Bruno at Thursday, November 10, 2005
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home