Host Country and Live of the Tax Payers Money - Essay Example

Are refugees a problem, should they be send back to conflict ravaged countries where they come from, or shall we let our social care and the system help them adapt into the host country. Is everybody who claims to be a refugee allowed to come into a host country and live of the tax payer’s money? Refugees have been a social and political issue since the beginning of time and while it is in the human nature to want and help the less fortunate it is also in the human nature to be suspicious about somebody claiming to be something the are not. Therefore the refugee question is very important for the social development of all countries not only the host ones. A country that has once had a negative attitude towards social issues in general may start changing by regulating pending refugee issues by accepting them or allowing the safe return of the people in exile. As a matter of fact there are two principal issues regarding the social status and the refugee status as well. The biggest problem that refugees face nowadays is the fact regarding refugee status due to political opinion. The right to this is stated and confirmed by the international law in the 1951 UN Refugee convention, but many countries try and deny refugee status to certain individuals regardless of the fact that their lives might be in danger or not. Of couse the second blade of the double pointed sword is that even though the law must be respected, granting refugee status to someone due to reasons of political opinion creates a security issue for the host country since many criminal elements always pass through with the endangered people. On the other hand many refugees find it hard to adapt to the new situation in the host country that leads some of them into comiting crimes or starting ethnic conflicts within the host countries. It is therefore crucial to explore the international convention on refugees, the way they adapt in host societies and the dangers they face in order to fully understand what has become a common phenomenon in modern society. Just as the Italians are today, the Romans were very proud of their possible Trojan origin. (1) Virgil is the most celebrated supporter of this theory and his epic poem the Aeneid describes the journey and the adventures of King Priam’s son Aeneas and other survivors of Troy whom he finally connects with Romulus, Remus and the founding of Rome.(2) It is therefore ironic that the Romans who were proud of their refugee origin and conscious of the fact that their nation was formed due to the tragedy of war, went on to conquer and make thousands of refugees as soon as they had the possibility. It is even more ironic that as soon as the Romans conquered a great city like Troy, they behaved in exactly the same manner the Greeks did when they finally conquered Troy; sacking burning and cursing the city of Cartage. An even more ironic and tragic example of human nature’s lack of understanding and short memory, is that of the Jewish people. Since Abraham left Ur more than 3000 years ago the Jews, being one of the oldest nations on earth have spent more then two thirds of their history as refugees.(3) As soon as the Jewish state was re-formed in 1948 the new Israeli government made one of the worst refugee blunders. The 800 000 Palestinian refugee exodus in 1948 is one of the most obscure and discussed periods of Israel’s modern history. Those who defend a radical Israeli point of view will say that those people were scared away by their own leaders so the Jews could later be blamed for the exodus. Those who have a radical view point on the Arab side say that those people fled in panic in front of pillaging and raping Israeli troops. Of course, any objective person should know that the truth is somewhere in the middle. The revisionists of Israeli history claim and offer proof that Israeli troops did attack the villages, not openly and it was concealed from the Israeli people, but the attacks did take place and that is a fact. (4) On the other hand, Arab community leaders did add to the panic and behaved irresponsibly in many cases. Some go as far as to accuse the Palestinian leaders of taking money from the Israelis or say that they contributed to the panic in hope to attract international attention and then just couldn’t believe it when the Israelis imposed a return ban. The issue is still unresolved and one of the most difficult matters regarding the international law regarding refugees. (5) The 1951 convention is a direct product of the refugee crisis that followed WWII. And has been legal reference regarding the fate of millions that were forced to leave their homes. One cannot say that the convention is infallible and as a mater of fact it has undergone many changes especially regarding the obligations of countries in relation to the acceptance of refugees. (6) The dry foot law in the US regarding the right of any Cuban that touches US soil the right to asylum has been severely criticized by those who are afraid of the criminal elements that come with the masses of refugees. The same fear was expressed by many in the European Union during the Balkan wars; many criminals did get refugee status and have abused it. Another big problem regarding the convention is how to determine whether a person is really in danger and needs asylum or is just looking for a way to immigrate into a host country. In other words if someone can prove that his/her life is in danger due to direct or violent opposition to the regime one is pretty much obligated to grant asylum but when it comes to the matter of political opinion the matter becomes more complicated. The following are three examples show three ways in which the 1951 UN Convention works, might work and works half ways. The example of how the Convention works in order to protect those in danger due to political opinion is the Goodwin Gill precedent. In the case of Canada (Attorney General) v. Ward in 1993 several precedents were established that define the right of a person to seek refuge due to political opinion. As a mater of fact this case established that political opinion can be a reason for a person to seek refuge even though the political opinion itself is not openly expressed. Emily Carasco states that: as with membership in a particular group, political opinion has provided fertile ground for the development of refugee law. Debate has centred on the question of the parameters of the term political opinion. (7) The crucial point and debate of the trial was when the Canadian Supreme Court compared and discussed two approaches taken by respected commentators and chose what is regarded as the less restrictive approach by Guy Goodwin Gill. According to Gill: “Political opinion can generally be interpreted to be any opinion on any matter in which the machinery of state, government, and policy may be engaged.  The political opinion at issue need not have been expressed outright. (8) On the other hand the approach by Ghral Madsen concentrated on the Preamble to the Refugee Convention stating that a person may justly fear persecution if threatened with measures of persecutory nature because of his exercise or insistence on certain of the rights laid down in the declaration.(9) In choosing the Goodwin-Gill approach the court added two qualifying glosses: 1. the political opinion need not have been expressed outright and 2: the political beliefs ascribed to the claimant need not conform to the claimant’s true beliefs.(9) Political opinion is most often considered in the context of a clash with governmental policy or position but in Ward the Supreme Court interpreted the term broadly to include any matter in which the machinery of state, government, and policy may be engaged.(9) The importance of such a precedent is enormous. As we have seen the superpowers abuse and break the international law due to legal precedents, the needy can also use the law in order to protect themselves from the bureaucratic machineries and the abuse of the mighty host countries that simply fear people with violent histories which is generally the case in at least 80% of the refugees. As it was important for Mr Ward’s defence the statement by Mr Goodwin Gill is much more important for millions of people whose lives are in danger. (10) The fact that it was chosen to be the better option in regard to the application of the International Law and giving the term “political opinion” a broader sense gives hope to those who know that their countries officially allow political opinion but can avenge at night. The regime of Serbia’s dictator Slobodan Milosevic indicates how this might work. Milosevic maintained the appearance of legality throughout his ten year rule. He was accused of faking the election but nobody could prove it, for a country at war Serbia was very organized and the police functioned to perfection but the crime rate soared. Milosevic allowed his paramilitary units to do pretty much whatever they pleased when returning from the war zone, but no one could prove it. He would simply say that the country is at war and that the police are investigating any criminal actions. He was accused of eliminating political opponents but no one could prove it. He didn’t allow political opinion but no one could prove it. This is precisely where the genius of his deception lays and that is precisely the case where Goodwin Gill precedent might have saved a life had the circumstances been different. Mr Milosevic allowed political opinion and the freedom of expression, officially. Index Theatre of Belgrade constantly preformed satires of Mr Milosevic and other politicians saying pretty much what the word in the street was: he is a dictator and a war criminal and the rest are puppets. They were never repressed in any way. He allowed other artists and journalists to mock and criticise him but in some cases they were taken in by the police for interviews and left with broken ribs. In any case that was always in accordance with the law and any police brutality was “investigated.” The case of the journalist Slavko Curuvija ended up in tragedy. He was murdered in 1999 on his doorstep. (11) As soon as the news spread the reaction all over Serbia was the same. He finally overreacted and Milosevic gave the order. Had Curuvija managed to escape to Canada a day or two before Milosevic gave the order for his assassination the Goodwin Gill precedent would have been crucial for his case. Since nobody could legally prove that the government of Serbia actually repressed people due to political opinion there was no official reason for Mr Curuvija to seek asylum in Canada according to the Ghral Madsen argument. On the other hand according to the Goodwin Gill argument; since journalists and politicians were detained in Serbia and questioned by the state apparatus it gives grounds for the grant of an asylum. If the state does get involved in matters of political opinion in any way there is a danger. Mr Curuvija, however never got a chance to even try and defend his case. We have seen examples of how political opinion can be used in order to save a person’s life as well as we have seen how a person may get killed by the regime that has all the appearances of a democratic one but eliminates opponents at night. For the refugees themselves however the problems begin when they arrive and try to adapt to the situation in the host countries. Once again the conflict in former Yugoslavia gives us an excellent study case due to the specific situation of the former country as well as the cultural diversification it used to enjoy. Yugoslavia used to be the most democratic communist country during the 45 years of cold war, they joined neither NATO nor the Warsaw Pact and the country enjoyed a long time of peace and prosperity. Nevertheless as the cold war ended in 1990 the situation in Yugoslavia became more and more turbulent which finally resulted in a war that brought a mass of refugees that tried to establish themselves in many countries of the world. The case is so specific since the refugees that came out of Yugoslavia came from all social and intellectual backgrounds and went to all kinds of different countries. The Jews went to Israel, the Serbs and the Croatians went to Germany, US, Canada and Australia where they both have a well established Diaspora, the Muslims went both to the west and to some Arab countries or Turkey while most Albanians went just next door to Italy. Many Bosnians of all denominations and ethnicity went to Serbia which is the country that received most refugees from the former Yugoslavian republics, but the war brought chaos to many European countries with the masses of refugees that started arriving in 1991. Read More

Just as the Italians are today, the Romans were very proud of their possible Trojan origin. (1) Virgil is the most celebrated supporter of this theory and his epic poem the Aeneid describes the journey and the adventures of King Priam’s son Aeneas and other survivors of Troy whom he finally connects with Romulus, Remus and the founding of Rome.(2) It is therefore ironic that the Romans who were proud of their refugee origin and conscious of the fact that their nation was formed due to the tragedy of war, went on to conquer and make thousands of refugees as soon as they had the possibility.

It is even more ironic that as soon as the Romans conquered a great city like Troy, they behaved in exactly the same manner the Greeks did when they finally conquered Troy; sacking burning and cursing the city of Cartage. An even more ironic and tragic example of human nature’s lack of understanding and short memory, is that of the Jewish people. Since Abraham left Ur more than 3000 years ago the Jews, being one of the oldest nations on earth have spent more then two thirds of their history as refugees.(3) As soon as the Jewish state was re-formed in 1948 the new Israeli government made one of the worst refugee blunders.

The 800 000 Palestinian refugee exodus in 1948 is one of the most obscure and discussed periods of Israel’s modern history. Those who defend a radical Israeli point of view will say that those people were scared away by their own leaders so the Jews could later be blamed for the exodus. Those who have a radical view point on the Arab side say that those people fled in panic in front of pillaging and raping Israeli troops. Of course, any objective person should know that the truth is somewhere in the middle.

The revisionists of Israeli history claim and offer proof that Israeli troops did attack the villages, not openly and it was concealed from the Israeli people, but the attacks did take place and that is a fact. (4) On the other hand, Arab community leaders did add to the panic and behaved irresponsibly in many cases. Some go as far as to accuse the Palestinian leaders of taking money from the Israelis or say that they contributed to the panic in hope to attract international attention and then just couldn’t believe it when the Israelis imposed a return ban.

The issue is still unresolved and one of the most difficult matters regarding the international law regarding refugees. (5) The 1951 convention is a direct product of the refugee crisis that followed WWII. And has been legal reference regarding the fate of millions that were forced to leave their homes. One cannot say that the convention is infallible and as a mater of fact it has undergone many changes especially regarding the obligations of countries in relation to the acceptance of refugees. (6) The dry foot law in the US regarding the right of any Cuban that touches US soil the right to asylum has been severely criticized by those who are afraid of the criminal elements that come with the masses of refugees.

The same fear was expressed by many in the European Union during the Balkan wars; many criminals did get refugee status and have abused it. Another big problem regarding the convention is how to determine whether a person is really in danger and needs asylum or is just looking for a way to immigrate into a host country. In other words if someone can prove that his/her life is in danger due to direct or violent opposition to the regime one is pretty much obligated to grant asylum but when it comes to the matter of political opinion the matter becomes more complicated.

The following are three examples show three ways in which the 1951 UN Convention works, might work and works half ways. The example of how the Convention works in order to protect those in danger due to political opinion is the Goodwin Gill precedent. In the case of Canada (Attorney General) v. Ward in 1993 several precedents were established that define the right of a person to seek refuge due to political opinion.

Read More