We have a moral obligation to take more refugees

3
0
The Gillard Government made a commitment in 2010 to release all children from immigration detention by June 2011, but still 1000 children languish in the harsh environment of immigration camps around Australia. The Refugee Action Collective organised a protest on July 9, 2011 outside the Melbourne Immigration Transit accommodation which is used for the detention of unaccompanied minors.
The Gillard Government made a commitment in 2010 to release all children from immigration detention by June 2011, but still 1000 children languish in the harsh environment of immigration camps around Australia. The Refugee Action Collective organised a protest on July 9, 2011 outside the Melbourne Immigration Transit accommodation which is used for the detention of unaccompanied minors.
The Gillard Government made a commitment in 2010 to release all children from immigration detention by June 2011, but still 1000 children languish in the harsh environment of immigration camps around Australia. The Refugee Action Collective organised a protest on July 9, 2011 outside the Melbourne Immigration Transit accommodation which is used for the detention of unaccompanied minors.

The Government’s continued stubbornness to lift NZs paltry refugee numbers is driven by a fear that the unarticulated anger at foreign speculators driving up Auckland’s property bubble will find voice if National increase the refugee numbers.

Winston Peter’s can’t seem to tell the difference between a refugee or a migrant so I can’t expect middle NZ to be able to tell the difference either. National lifts refugee numbers and suddenly that fury finds a vent in NZ First.

The problem with Auckland’s property bubble of course has nothing to do with refugees so using them as a scapegoat is as pointless as it is ugly. The reason we should take more refugees in of course is because…

a) We have an obligation as a good global citizen to lead on this issue.

b) We do bugger all in real climate change policy so we have an obligation to take climate refugees.

c) We are currently helping bomb the places people are fleeing from!

It just seems churlish to help bomb these people but not help relocate them.

3 COMMENTS

  1. First point is spot on, but..

    “We do bugger all in real climate change policy so we have an obligation to take climate refugees”

    On the other hand our country alone has almost no impact on the global climate, so do we really have that obligation?

    “We are currently helping bomb the places people are fleeing from!”

    1. We are not bombing anyone, at most we have helped with a drone strike or two. 2. Are they fleeing those countries because of western bombings, or because ISIS and other militant groups are destroying communities and driving them out?

  2. Although I am usually for more restrictions on immigration, given the housing crisis in Auckland and other issues, I think the government’s position to not increase the refugee quota is shameful, a disgrace. It is rather low by international comparison.

    We have the worst refugee crisis for decades, with many fleeing war torn Syria and some other countries, and that alone should urge the government to allow for more refugees to be accepted.

    Perhaps priority should be given to those Christian minorities in Syria and Iraq, facing special persecution by groups such as ISIS, and one must ask, how “Christian” are those in government, who call themselves that?

    It seems the government prefers the better off to immigrate, such as British and Chinese property buyers and speculators, than taking in a few more refugees.

  3. Zero refugees…..if we take even a few, we raise the expectation and ultimately non deliverable dream of many thousands and in the consequence do more harm than good

Comments are closed.