ASYLUM POLICY
Common Objections Answered
this article by Alistair McConnachie appeared in the April 2005 issue of Sovereignty
"But these people have rights!"
All we hear about is the "rights" of asylum seekers. What about their responsibilities? What about their responsibility to arrive here truthfully? What about their responsibilities to get their own homelands in order? What about the rights of those of us already here, who do not want to see our society transformed?
"We should believe them when they say they are 'persecuted'"
One man's persecution is another man's justice! Who are we to side with someone just because he claims to have been "persecuted"? Criminals and wrong-doers always claim "persecution". The IRA always claims to be persecuted by the British State. Claims of "persecution" are not enough. We have to establish the objective truth.
"We should have 'compassion' for these people"
Emotive energy unleashed is dangerous. Like a warming campfire, the flames have to be surrounded and controlled by the stones of cold logic -- otherwise it will run wild and burn down the forest. When you link "compassion" with the dangerous and illogical act of opening the borders to the rest of the world, then that is not compassion -- it is destruction unleashed.
"Everyone who wants to live here should be able to live here!"
This is the irresponsible and destructive position of the open-borders lobby, masquerading as compassion. It's like saying, "Everyone who wants to live in my house should be able to live in my house." How soon before life, for you, became intolerable!
"We've a responsibility to the world's suffering people!"
There is no limit to pain in the world. There are potentially hundreds of millions in the world today who could conceivably claim to have a fear of "persecution", which itself can be defined very widely. These people are limited only by their ability to get here -- a task which becomes easier every day.
Given these two facts -- the prevalence of potentially eligible refugees, and the ease with which they can arrive in Britain -- the questions are: Do we limit the numbers? If we are agreed that the numbers must be limited, then what is that limit? What criteria do we use to set that limit?
These are the questions which the open-borders lobby don't want to engage, because setting criteria, means choosing and judging, which contradicts their belief that "everyone is equal".
However, we recognise that many so-called asylum seekers are economic migrants seeking a better way of life. Therefore, a programme to stop the flow also needs to tackle the international poverty which drives them here.
CHALLENGE ECONOMIC MIGRATION THROUGH
BUILDING SELF-RELIANCE WORLDWIDE
The best way of improving the situation of the poor of the world is not through letting them all come here, or even through charity, but through politics.
We believe in self-determination for the UK and we believe in it for all countries.
Some people promote debt-relief. However, to be effective, the cancellation of debt in any country has to be part of an overall strategy to enable the country to stand on its own feet. It has to be part of an overall strategy to build long-term self-reliance.
Simply abolishing a country's debt in the short-term, but keeping it chained to the debt-based money system in the long-term, is to keep it enslaved to the global financial system.
Thus, in coordination with debt-relief we promote the following measures, which were advocated in 1998 by economics author James Gibb Stuart in regard to Malaysia, and which are applicable to all countries:
- A measure of foreign exchange control
to prevent a nation's reserves, its financial lifeblood, from being sucked out by speculators.
- Reverse the progressive liberalisation of financial markets
as this advance towards a global economy can rob developing peoples of the benefits of their own national resources.
- No privatisation of national assets as a device for paying off government debt.
Such assets belong to the people, and should not be put up for auction, where market forces can consign them to foreign ownership. British experience of privatisation proves that selling assets to reduce national debt is only a temporary expedient. They can only be sold off once, and when they are gone, the cycle of debt and borrowing continues.
- Avoid further borrowing, particularly in US dollars.
The recent round of currency devaluations has shown this to be a treacherous device whereby international entrepreneurs can buy up the local economy at bargain prices.
- Create own money debt-free.
Money incentives to stimulate commerce, agriculture, industry and social programmes, need not be in the form of expensive US dollars. All recognised, legitimate governments can create their own debt-free money and use it for essential national objectives.
These 5 acts: Stopping the haemorrhage of national reserves by means of exchange controls; reversing the liberalisation of financial markets; rejecting the privatisation of public assets; avoiding foreign loans or further borrowing; and steadfastly maintaining social programmes, with government created debt-free money if necessary - are essential acts of national economic sovereignty.
These are the mechanisms we encourage worldwide in order to build the self-reliance and economic independence of countries, thereby ensuring a decrease in economic migration.
An Asylum Policy which restores integrity to Britain's migration policy can be found here.
|
