White South Africans in US: Are they refugees or just economic migrants?
· Citizen
The stories of some of our white people heading to the United States have been going on long enough that the sensationalism has died down and we can explore philosophical aspects of it more candidly. And yet, the more candid we get, the less the case for broad white refugee status makes sense.
Visit asg-reflektory.pl for more information.
One must accept that there will be instances where there are people who are actively targeted and they should get protection. The reality of farm attacks isn’t something to be ignored and so too other attacks shouldn’t be ignored either. Are farm attacks any more targeted, frequent or violent than some urban home invasions? Are they cause for fear as much as being a politician on the wrong side of the flavour of the day in rural KwaZulu-Natal? Methinks not.
Unemployed to refugee?
Still, the US is a sovereign country and can set its own refugee parameters even if it includes people with the means to fly the family to the other side of the world to quickly pop in to Dis-Chem. The wildest reasons I’ve been reading include those of people who just can’t get a job after years of trying. Presumably, the refugee status was granted due to BEE blocks preventing them from earning a living – one small step for the unemployed white man. One giant leap to definitional persecution for white-mankind.
In a country where the unemployment rate is 33.6% and white people make up 7%, you’d expect one or two white people in that unemployment bracket… perhaps even three. Refugee though? Doubtful.
One must understand that obviously people want the best for themselves and their families. That’s natural. And many people leave South Africa for good jobs. Even Trevor Noah did it. That’s not to be ridiculed. What is in question is whether doing that through a refugee programme is legitimate when you’re no more than an economic migrant.
But SA does it as well
For South Africa, this is an important question speaking to internal philosophical consistency; to how many people we have granted asylum when their motive was purely economic? We can’t say much of those fleeing to the US when we’re accommodating the same behaviour from our northern neighbors.
The refugee system, though important, has been abused by many around the world. Unfortunately, that happens at the expense of legitimate refugees and the system itself. Moreover, it festers an ugly culture that turns into groups like Operation Dudula – something people worryingly consider necessary.
It’s difficult to explain to somebody who hasn’t had a job in three years that it’s not right for them to use a refugee system to get a job or a chance at a job when they’re not really a refugee. Desperation can make any person formulate interesting justifications to themselves.
Similarly, it’s difficult to explain to somebody who hasn’t eaten in three days why robbing a spaza shop is not right. They care about their own survival, not that of the system, especially not when they believe that that system has failed them.
So, are the whites who went to the US on the refugee programme really refugees? In the main, no. Possibly by the stretch of the imagination. Is it understandable why they went? To them, yes. They saw an opportunity, were convinced of its legitimacy (or frankly couldn’t care about the ethics) and took it.
Questions will be raised on how good that opportunity really is in due time but for now, South Africa has its own issues to worry about and we can learn from this. Economic migration is happening through the refugee system globally. It may be awful to deny people access when they’re claiming persecution but as we can see, persecution isn’t always what it’s claimed to be.