A safer solution for migrants
The desire for a better life for one’s family is a universal one, and it’s an imperative that is driving millions around the world to seek a new home in a country other than the one in which they were born. This rising tide has battered the shores of countless countries, not just those of the affluent West. Indeed, for all the talk of a migration ‘‘crisis’’ in Europe, the vast majority of the world’s refugees are housed in developing countries, not in the West.
In an effort to find a humane solution to what seems an intractable problem, the United Nations has come up with a Global Compact on Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration, due to be adopted by about 180 countries in Marrakesh, Morocco, this week and signed next week. Many of its aims are admirable, from reducing the root causes of migration, to making it safer for people who choose to move across borders, and ending the horrors of human trafficking.
But as the deadline for adoption approaches, some would-be signatories are getting cold feet: the United States, Australia, Hungary, Italy, Switzerland, Israel, Austria, the Czech Republic and Slovakia have all pulled out, and the National Party says New Zealand should too. The Greens, on the other hand, think signing up is essential to our being a good international citizen. So far, the Government has been non-committal, saying the matter is still in the hands of Crown Law.
The sceptics fear the compact will result in an open-door policy that would deprive individual nations of the right to decide who should and shouldn’t be allowed across their borders. The compact would not be binding on those states that sign it, but that has not appeased the doubters. Australia has said it fails to distinguish between legal and illegal immigration – a claim rejected by New Zealand Foreign Minister Winston Peters – and on Monday Belgium’s ruling coalition collapsed over the reluctance of one party to sign.
Supporters of the compact argue, correctly, that migration is now too complex a problem for any country to solve alone, and an international framework is needed. Some, however, have also sought to dismiss critics as far-Right demagogues riding a wave of xenophobia. Such attempts to shut down discussion of legitimate concerns should be resisted.
Undoubtedly, some of those implacably opposed to increased immigration have an unpalatable view of people who don’t look, think or worship as they do. And some of the claims about the compact from National and others are not borne out by the text of the document.
But not everyone who harbours doubts about migration policy can be dismissed as a knuckledragging redneck. Many voters in New Zealand and around the world are uncomfortable with the idea of vastly increased immigration, and politicians who articulate their concerns cannot always be dismissed with the ‘‘populist’’ putdown du jour.
Yes, the world has to confront the growing pressures of migration, and the UN should be commended on making a start. But New Zealand and others on the road to Marrakesh should be wary of signalling their good intentions without first listening to what their voters think. Angela Merkel could tell them where that leads.
Some of those opposed to more immigration have an unpalatable view of people who don’t look, think or worship as they do. But not all who harbour doubts can be dismissed as knuckle-dragging rednecks.