See previous post on this topic. Some more recent items:
Justin Welby in the Telegraph Put humanity at the heart of our asylum system (I have not yet located a copy of this outside the paywall, but it is quoted extensively in the article below from Archbishop Cranmer.)
Paul Butler in the Independent ‘Rwanda refugees plan flies in the face of Christian teachings’ – Bishop of Durham
Arun Arora in The Northern Echo The Government policy that tears at the nation’s soul
Archbishop Cranmer How many millions of asylum seekers should the UK welcome?
Vatican News UK-Rwanda asylum deal raises human rights concerns
…Botswanan activist and lawyer, Alice Mogwe spoke with Vatican News on this latest deal between the UK and Rwanda, reflecting on its implications from the perspective of human rights. She is the President of the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH)…
Contains link to audio interview (9 minutes)
Note this paragraph:
Concrete recommendations
In lieu of the controversial agreement, the FIDH president invites governments to stop focusing on the consequences of migration but rather coordinate efforts to stem the causes of migration.
“Nobody wakes up one day and decides to leave their country if there is good governance, if there is a rule of law, if human rights are in fact being protected and respected,” she says.
More so, she calls for a revision of the Asylum agreement, stressing that states need to comply with international human rights standards.
“What will happen to those who are vulnerable?” she asks. “What’s going to happen if children are separated? What’s going to happen if people fail to be recognized as refugees in Rwanda once they reach there?”
Cranmer illustrates why it is harder for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven than for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle. The thing is, most of us don’t think of ourselves as rich.
It’s also illustrative of an alarmist hit piece buttressed by non sequiturs. I note some of commentators under the article use the term woke. The pejorative use of the term speaks volumes with regard to political orientation. The term woke has been culturally appropriated from African American idiom, and then turned back mockingly on racialized minorities in order to undermine the seriousness of the issues minorities face in the first place. I gather the pejorative use of the term is all the rage on the right in the UK, no? For a view on this matter see Dana Brownlee’s article… Read more »
The history of the word “woke” is a little more complex, I think. In its original sense, let us say woke(1), it refers to the consciousness by oppressed minorities of their oppressed status and unequal treatment. It was then appropriated by more privilege and powerful groups to signify their acknowledgement of the expression of that recognition and to indicate their support let us call that woke(2). It was then used by others to call out the hypocrisy of those using it in that second sense to claim a superior moral position by the mere recitation of verbal formulae purporting to… Read more »
Nope, it’s simply cultural appropriation, notwithstanding the rationalizing of subsequent derivative usage.
I think the origin of the term woke is tangential to the Christian responsibility for the rich (us) to share with anyone in need.
An interesting illustration of precisely the phenomenon I explained. The word “appropriation” is indeed apt but not in quite the way you might like. Members of the majority appropriate the grievances of the minority and use that appropriation to signal their own virtue relative to other, lower-status, members of the majority, reinforcing that higher status by telling other people what to do or not do.
Commentary on this appropriation and the power play within the majority group (which brings no benefit to the vctimised minority) is dismissed by words such as “Nope”.
“Nobody wakes up one day and decides to leave their country if there is good governance, if there is a rule of law, if human rights are in fact being protected and respected,”
This is of course quite wrong. Lots of people move from one country to another for other reasons, such as economic advantage. What else was free movement within the EU about?
Re: the piece from Vatican News, the short interview (audio less than 10 minutes ) with Alice Mogwe is excellent. Ms. Mogwe with her legal expertise and experience knows exactly what she is talking about, putting the issues in their proper context and perspective. It is always better when the frame for theological reflection is an evidence based argument, such as the one she is making here.
You think the statement I quoted is true and based on evidence? I think that on the contrary it is patently false. I won’t name them, but I am acquainted with people who have migrated to the UK from the US, Canada, Australia, France, Germany, Netherlands, Poland and Japan. In none of those cases did their home country at the time lack good governance, the rule of law or fail to protect human rights. I’m also acquainted with people who fled nazi Germany, communist Hungary, communist Czechoslovakia, the Soviet Union, islamic Iran, and communist China when those countries did indeed… Read more »
I do. I think your point is obfuscation. The subject is asylum seekers and government policy with regard to international law. Mogwe is not talking about immigrants with capital and skill sets who make desirable immigrants for G7 countries, nor the movement of sought after skilled labour within economic treaty countries, not the ability of prosperous middle classes to winter in Spain or Florida. I have some direct experience with refugees. Their world is beyond the comprehension of those taken in by the kinds of populist arguments made by politicians in your country and mine. If only the vulnerable and… Read more »
Maybe we have radically different views about the nature of truth and evidence. If Mogwe had been talking about a particular subset of migrants, she could and would have said so. The issue is not whether refugees live under incomprehensibly awful conditions, but whether all migrants are refugees from incomprehensibly awful conditions. It seems we agree that they are not. Mogwe’s words, as quoted, suggest that they are. If you want to say that she overstated, or oversimplified, her case, and that she might have done better to say that some, many or even most migrants are refugees, together with… Read more »
We certainly have differing views of the same interview. Alice Mogwe responds to a specific question about the UK scheme clearly and concisely referencing international law –all within the first 45 seconds of the interview. I like the fact that religious references are sparing and subordinate to her argument. In addition to legal expertise she has what we call here ‘street cred’. I don’t see that in your rejoinders. In any event, quod scripsi scripsi, et quod scripsi scribentes.