We Welcome Asylum Seekers. As Long as They Live Somewhere Else.
We learn from the Newham website, that Mayor Fiaz is none too keen on housing asylum seekers in the Royal Docks. She echoes the statement from London Mayor, Sadiq Khan.
“Following announcements by the prime minister Rishi Sunak and Home Office officials for plans to ‘house’ thousands of asylum seekers in vessels moored in locations across England, including Newham’s Royal docks, Mayor Rokhsana Fiaz said:
“The Prime Minister’s actions are a cynical and repugnant response to the desperate plight facing people fleeing war, famine and torture. As a borough that welcomes refugees compassionately, we will resist these plans using all and any powers at our disposal. That’s why we support RoDMA’s position in declining Home Office plans to moor a vessel in our historic Royal Docks.”
The statement goes on, “These plans will also have a calamitous impact on the services we can provide as a Council, with our health partners and our voluntary sector. This government simply ignores the financial impact on us.” Therein lies the rub.
Fiaz will not come out and say “we don’t want them”, but in essence that is just what she has done. Having made the obligatory statement in support of asylum seekers, just to ensure that we don’t think that she is like those awful Tories, she then goes on to say what the real reason is that she opposes housing them in Newham is, there will be a cost, both social and financial. Those costs, apparently, do not accrue to authorities outside of London.
For instance, in a much-quoted case, the village of Linton on Ouse in Yorkshire, population 1100, is slated to receive 1500 young, male asylum seekers in an old RAF base. Just like mayors Fiaz and Khan, the locals are not pleased. But presumably, it is better to house them there than in Newham.
In words not dissimilar to those used by Mayor Fiaz one of the banners of the protesters’ states “Wrong Plan, Wrong Place”.
We are reminded of those Democrat run cities in the USA that trumpeted their support for “asylum seekers” crossing the southern border and declared themselves to be “sanctuary cities” which would not co-operate with the federal government in either processing or enforcing immigration rules. Their support for the “asylum seekers” was unwavering as long as the “asylum seekers” stayed in Republican southern cities. When they started to arrive in northern Democrat cities, their cities, the situation changed.
Refugees and asylum seekers have become shibboleths for the Right and the Left. They elicit knee-jerk responses either for or against.
They also become the proverbial footballs of a political discourse that contains no nuance and no desire to understand.
For instance, it is possible that all of the following statements are true.
Some asylum seekers have a well-founded personal fear that they will be subject to the most awful and inhumane treatment.
Some are displaced people.
Some are liars.
Some are criminals and chancers.
Some are escaping poverty.
There should be different responses to each of them. Determining which is which currently takes about six years.
Politicians who boast about their caring credentials and who then refuse to accept the consequent responsibility do not deserve our respect. It would be a little easier to respect our political leaders if they didn’t speak in pre-packaged soundbites that either demonised or canonised groups like asylum seekers and who were actually committed to fixing the problems.
What we get are NIMBYs with a caring smile.