Migration and asylum, especially the wave of movement from poor countries to wealthy countries, has been a hot topic of ethical and political debates. Even today, the fate of elections in European countries and even in a large and wealthy country like Australia depends on the immigration policies of different parties; unfortunately, human rights activists are too busy with individual cases in the field of asylum and migration and are less involved in discussions on identifying the damages, finding legal solutions, or ethical principles in this area.

Migration and asylum, on paper and according to signed conventions, may seem like a humane agreement, but unfortunately in practice it has always been subject to government policies and personal exploitation. According to the 1951 agreement, a refugee is someone who can reasonably demonstrate that they are being persecuted or in fear of persecution due to their nationality, religion, race, or membership in a particular political group, and is now unable or unwilling to return to their country because of this fear.

Nowadays, several wealthy countries have agreed to grant asylum to such individuals. These countries, which have been flooded with refugees, examine the individual’s reasons for seeking asylum through meetings and an administrative process in order to grant them the right to asylum.

It can be boldly stated that this agreement, due to its vague and closed definition of refugees, has become a tool for opportunists to take advantage of one side and the migration policies and preferences of host countries on the other side. Seeking refuge has become a game of “blue lion” where countries can open or close it, decrease or increase it whenever they want.

Since deporting rejected applicants back to their own country can trigger social sensitivities, wealthy countries have accepted refugees as part of their immigration policies.

The immigration departments of these countries view refugees not as asylum seekers, but rather as individuals who have applied for migration through asylum, and therefore respond to applicants based on their own discretion and needs.

This policy has emptied the concept of asylum and these countries use their own criteria for immigration, such as expertise, youth, and even non-political status, to accept asylum requests. In the meantime, the church, under the pretext of supporting vulnerable refugees, practically opens the door for some opportunists to temporarily convert to Christianity in order to have their asylum requests accepted. Since these cases are private, there is no one who can prove it, but it is something that almost everyone admits to.

The consequences of these policies have resulted in the opposite outcome: genuine refugees are forced to make the difficult and often impossible journey to Europe illegally from countries such as Afghanistan, Iran, Iraqi Kurdistan, or Syria (many of whom have lost their lives in the process), or remain in Turkey for years under horrific and inhumane conditions, waiting for their asylum requests to be accepted and for a chance to fly to a third country. These seemingly compassionate and refugee-friendly countries officially ask Turkey and Greece to prevent the entry of smuggled refugees and only accept a very small number of them themselves.

This is happening while some opportunists, by creating fake and appealing stories about the immigration policies of wealthy countries, easily come to these countries through the asylum channel and direct flights. Therefore, asylum and immigration are highly class-based phenomena. Wealthy countries accept middle or affluent classes of third world countries, who have enough money to travel and temporarily reside in these countries, under the name of asylum and as a means of helping refugees. These individuals take advantage of the limited channel that has been opened for real refugees and in practice, weaken and depoliticize the opposition outside the country. Some of them temporarily join opposition parties outside the country to get their asylum requests accepted, and after a few self-promotions and receiving an answer, they leave political activities and thus harm the political space and these parties. That is why, despite the entry of thousands of political and social refugees from Iran during these years, political parties outside the country have not grown at all! After a short period of time, many of

Some may object that migration for a better life is a “right” for anyone, or that conditions in Iran are so difficult that anyone who leaves Iran has the necessary qualifications to claim asylum. This objection is essentially an excuse and self-deception.

The main issue here is that these abuses have made it difficult, and sometimes impossible, for genuine refugees, especially those who arrive in Turkey, to be accepted.

Western countries claim that they receive enough refugees every year and therefore have no reason to accept refugees from Turkey! However, refugees are actually seen as migrants, not based on their actual circumstances and reasons, but based on the migration preferences of the host countries. Many opportunists are aware of these migration preferences and flock to these countries to seek asylum, while real refugees are still on their way or have to endure terrible conditions in Turkey for years.

The concept of seeking refuge being tainted also brings a bigger blow to political activists inside Iran. Activists who are under persecution in Iran and cannot directly fly to Europe, must endure the terrible living conditions in Turkey and wait for a long time. Therefore, the difficult conditions of seeking refuge, in practice, lead to their satisfaction with staying in Iran and enduring the possibility of imprisonment. Additionally, the fictional storytelling has caused less attention to be paid to the experiences and violations of human rights in other asylum cases.

This is not the first time that human rights have been polarized and victimized by government policies in the world. The guest worker policies, especially pursued by West Germany, the Netherlands, and France in the years following World War II, have effectively created a lower class of workers from Turkey, Morocco, or Algeria in these countries who were constantly at risk of being expelled due to their status. On paper, these workers may be cheaper than native workers, but they still manage to obtain much better and more suitable conditions in the host countries. The governments claim that we are defending a multicultural and multiracial society!

Michael Walzer criticizes these policies, writing: “These guest workers experience the government as an all-encompassing and terrifying power that shapes their lives and controls all of their movements without ever asking for their opinions. Migration is only a superficial option and deportation is a constant and practical threat. These workers, as a group, are a class without a voice or opinion; they are both exploited and oppressed as a class and are unable to organize and defend themselves.”

Of course, in the media, these guest workers are referred to as a symbol of a free world and a multicultural society. After the collapse of the Eastern Bloc, workers from Eastern European countries also became victims of this plight as guest workers. The economy of these countries has been paralyzed due to uncontrolled migration of young labor, while these workers are constantly at risk of being expelled from the country and losing their residence rights as soon as they lose their jobs, they must return to their home country.

We are witnessing both in the field of migration and in the field of asylum, the politicization of immigrants and refugees. By adopting discriminatory policies in asylum affairs, immigrants have become passive, apolitical, and opportunistic substitutes for political refugees who are now forced to endure the most difficult conditions in Iraq, Turkey, and Armenia. This geographical division between wealthy and poor refugees has emptied the concept of asylum of its meaning and given it an ugly and repulsive face. Immigrants are also constantly at risk of being expelled and lose their ability to politically organize and defend themselves.

Both refugees and immigrants expect to integrate into the host country, which means being equipped with language education and job readiness, and also accepting the current circumstances without any hesitation.

In practice, the term integration means that immigrants and refugees are asked to strive to become ordinary citizens. Such a person must always avoid abnormal actions, which are also referred to as “political struggle”, in order to be ordinary.

Resources.

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy – Immigration

دهم ماه مه سال ۲۰۱۰

May 10, 2010

<

The link provided is to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on immigration.

2. دو

Walzer, M., 1983, .

دوایر عدالت

Spheres of Justice

نیویورک: کتاب پایه

New York: Basic Book