NationStates Jolt Archive

Granting asylum to certian refugees, be it for political or religious reasons, seems to be a very good idea. Not least because the thought of someone being tortured or put to death for their political or religious views is distasteful to most of us in the west. But it just occured to me - in the crazy people ban watermelon thread - that even though granting asylum is obviously motivated by the best of intentions, in the long run it might actually do more damage than good.

Specifically I am wondering if by doing this, the west is inadvertantly giving the disfunational and dictatorial regimes elsewhere in the world an easy ride. After all, who is most likely to seek and be granted asylum in the EU, US or AUS/NZ etc, but the same type of free thinkers and dissidents who would otherwise be forced to work for the overthrow of the repressive regimes that they are seeking to escape from? In other words, asylum acts as a type of safety value: it syphons off those individuals who are most dangerous to the status quo in nations like Iran, allowing the government to become even more fanatical and dangerous because those who would normally act as opposition have fled the country instead.

So maybe, even though it would be far crueler in the short term, the best policy would be stop granting asylum to dissidents and subversives. Because in the long run they will form the kind of opposition that will lead to long overdue reform.

I think you don't appreciate the full impact exiled intellectuals can have.
In many cases, they will inform the international community of the crimes of the regime in their home country, thus discrediting nations that are for the most part relying on international help for their economy.
Also, these activists will focus the public on the problems of their nations and steadily increase the pressure on those governments to cease criminal activity and violations of human rights.

No, most violent regimes are far happier if they can just kill off those dissidents, preferably having them disappear and do away with them in as quiet a way as possible, and do suffer from the actions of their exiled subjects.

I to an extent agree with Cabra West's point: it may well be that under certain circumstances, there simply isn't the possibility for opposition to be developed within the oppressive country. It is only in 'freer' states that grant the dissidents asylum that their voices can be heard.

That said, I dislike the fact that at times this is abused. Notably, there were times when it was clear that Afgham asylum seekers whipping up political pressure over the Taliban were doing so in order to exacerbate underlying tribal tensions. Just because someone speaks out against what is generally regarded as a 'bad' regime does not necessarily mean they are themselves devoid of axes to grind.

Some interesting thoughts from the original poster, though: if only there were more well-thought debate like this, rather than knee-jerk responses to immigration.

Basically, dissedents can do more from outside a corrupt dictatorship than inside them.

I think you don't appreciate the full impact exiled intellectuals can have.
In many cases, they will inform the international community of the crimes of the regime in their home country, thus discrediting nations that are for the most part relying on international help for their economy.
Also, these activists will focus the public on the problems of their nations and steadily increase the pressure on those governments to cease criminal activity and violations of human rights.

No, most violent regimes are far happier if they can just kill off those dissidents, preferably having them disappear and do away with them in as quiet a way as possible, and do suffer from the actions of their exiled subjects.

I did consider that, but in all honesty I do wonder to what extent the exiles actually bring about change. They are after all now living in a country where they are surrounded by and large by people who are not that concerned with living conditions elsewhere. I also think that it fails to consider how many of these dissident intellectuals would behave if they remained in their native lands. Obviously their criticism would be muted, but it seems to me that often the most effective change comes from within a country and not from outside. By granting asylum, we are depriving any potential revolutionary movements of their natural leadership, which may significantly slow the pace of reform.

As to being happier if they can just kill the dissidents, while it is true that there are always going to be international pariahs like North Korea who care nothing for the opinion of the rest of the world, I imagine in cases like Iran or Saudi Arabia, who choose to remain at least partly engaged with the rest of the international community, then asylum is a godsend, because it allows them to rid themselves of trouble makers, without having to risk as much damage to their reputation as killing them might cause.

Specifically I am wondering if by doing this, the west is inadvertantly giving the disfunational and dictatorial regimes elsewhere in the world an easy ride. After all, who is most likely to seek and be granted asylum in the EU, US or AUS/NZ etc, but the same type of free thinkers and dissidents who would otherwise be forced to work for the overthrow of the repressive regimes that they are seeking to escape from? In other words, asylum acts as a type of safety value: it syphons off those individuals who are most dangerous to the status quo in nations like Iran, allowing the government to become even more fanatical and dangerous because those who would normally act as opposition have fled the country instead.

I disagree. These people would most likely be killed or imprisoned at home (which wouldn't change much), whereas in their adopted country they have far more power. Look at how the Iraqi exiles lended legitimacy to that war - they wouldn't have been able to have that much of an effect had they stayed there. (Of course, they war might have happened anyway, but that's a discussion for another thread.)

I did consider that, but in all honesty I do wonder to what extent the exiles actually bring about change. They are after all now living in a country where they are surrounded by and large by people who are not that concerned with living conditions elsewhere. I also think that it fails to consider how many of these dissident intellectuals would behave if they remained in their native lands. Obviously their criticism would be muted, but it seems to me that often the most effective change comes from within a country and not from outside. By granting asylum, we are depriving any potential revolutionary movements of their natural leadership, which may significantly slow the pace of reform.

As to being happier if they can just kill the dissidents, while it is true that there are always going to be international pariahs like North Korea who care nothing for the opinion of the rest of the world, I imagine in cases like Iran or Saudi Arabia, who choose to remain at least partly engaged with the rest of the international community, then asylum is a godsend, because it allows them to rid themselves of trouble makers, without having to risk as much damage to their reputation as killing them might cause.

It was Kurdish exiles in Western coutries that drew the attention of the international community to the artrocities commited against them by Husseins regime and to the oppression they were suffering from by the Turkish government. Had they remained in the country, they would have most likely been either dead or otherwise silenced.
Lenin, for example, had been in exile before the revolution in Russia. While the humanitarian aspects of that part of history can be questioned, he at least abolished bondage in Russia and initialised long overdue changes to Russian society.

Extremist governments tend to seek social isolation for their population, no contact with any other society whatsoever, for two reasons: not to stir civil unrest by bringing in ideas from outside, and to avoid uncensored reports and news to the international community. Exiles generally do both.

As a descendant of refugees, I have to say that asylum is a good idea. If it weren't for West Germany's policy of accepting any East German refugees as German citizens, my grandparents and mother may well have stayed in the East.
Asylum provides a chance for people that live in conditions that they consider intolerable. Besides, East Germany kicked any dissidents that were too famous to lock up in solitary confinement out of the country anyway.

I'd have to say that it was a good idea that the U.S. granted asylum to Einstein.

Perhaps if the U.S. had granted asylum to the Jews that tried to get in at the beginning of Hitler's reign of terror, the world might have found out about his concentration camps sooner.

Yes, it is.

Certainly much better than the alternative we have. (Throw them in prison indefinitely, or send them to Nauru where they're thrown in prison.)

Yes, it is.

Certainly much better than the alternative we have. (Throw them in prison indefinitely, or send them to Nauru where they're thrown in prison.)
Except they end up coming here after 2 years going on the Doll getting Purple Nissan's with Chromes and selling pot.

Except they end up coming here after 2 years going on the Doll getting Purple Nissan's with Chromes and selling pot.Only the ones you notice...

Only the ones you notice...
Sorry i forgot about the ones that become Taxi drivers and prey on little girls.
So many of these guys are Rapists it aint funny.

Sorry i forgot about the ones that become Taxi drivers and prey on little girls.
So many of these guys are Rapists it aint funny.I don't know what it's like in NZ, but what you're describing is completely opposite to a lot of asylum seekers in Europe.

I don't know what it's like in NZ, but what you're describing is completely opposite to a lot of asylum seekers in Europe.

I've never heard of any of that happening here in NZ, and would doubt that it's anything but the media focusing on one or two cases. Mostly, refugees become valuable members of society because they are grateful to be here.