Monday 14 September 2015

Refugees and Asylum Seekers: The Conservative Approach

Recently Refugees and Asylum Seekers have been much in the news with the terms being much abused in the process. I thought it might be of interest to look at some realistic options and some unrealistic options for the future.

First of all we need to define what a refugee is, according to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR):

The 1951 Refugee Convention spells out that a refugee is someone who "owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality, and is unable to, or owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country." "

It goes on to say:

" But refugees and migrants, even if they often travel in the same way, are fundamentally different, and for that reason are treated very differently under modern international law.
Migrants, especially economic migrants, choose to move in order to improve the future prospects of themselves and their families. Refugees have to move if they are to save their lives or preserve their freedom. They have no protection from their own state - indeed it is often their own government that is threatening to persecute them. "

So in short a refugee is someone with a genuine reason to fear for their life and who believes that they must flee their own country in order to live. Are the people we are currently seeing on our TV screens refugees?

No, a refugee cannot country shop, under International law they have a right to safety but not much else. It is not a crime to seek asylum, however it is a crime to break the law, even immigration law and not only is criminal behavour being allowed it is being encouraged. When a country refuses to enforce it's own laws it seems a bit ridiculous to expect others to obey it.

So what can be done?

Here we have two separate issues:

1) Refugees fleeing from genuine danger


2) Economic migrants fleeing economic disaster

Each require different approaches.

1) Refugees

The vast majority of refugees want to return to the life they had, in their own country amongst their own people. And that should be our objective as well. Only in the most extreme cases should that principle be violated.

A.We should endeavour to keep people as close to their own country as possible.

B. We should encourage countries with similar ethnic, racial or religious beliefs to accept as many temporary or permanent refugees as possible. Even if we have to help them financially.

C. Only when it is impossible for refugees to return to their own country should permanent settlement be an option.

D. Any Refugees allowed in should be temporary, with a long period, 25 years, before they can claim Permanent Residence or Citizenship.

2. Economic Migrants

Any Migrant who breaks the law, including immigration law should be deported. Only those who arrive legally as part of an orderly immigration policy should be allowed to stay, all others have broken the law and should be deported. Including those who have already arrived illegally.

If the West exists on the Principle of the Rule of Law, then it applies to our Governments and to all equally, Native born, Immigrant, Refugee and Economic Migrant. If we are the only ones who the Government expects to obey the Rule of Law then the Government is on the side of injustice.

Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Multiculturalism and Mass Immigration II


  1. Very sensible and very well put, Mr. Moncrieff.

  2. Agree with everything you wrote!

  3. Good post Mark. Did you see the following article which reveals that 80% of the 500,000 who have flooded into Europe this year are not even from Syria:

  4. Mr. Richardson

    No I had not seen this at all, but it's hardly surprising.

    Just another case of Liberals lie.

    Mark Moncrieff