Peter Singer demonizes refugees as “queue jumpers”

by Chris Bertram on June 13, 2016

Peter Singer, consequentialist philosopher and patron saint of “effective altruism” [has expressed himself](https://inews.co.uk/essentials/news/politics/peter-singer-need-think-right-asylum/) on the question of rights to asylum and refugee status:

> Singer has urged a rethink of global asylum policy. He wants to stop refugees able to travel to the country of their choice from being able to claim asylum at the expense of those unable to make the journey. He worries that the current system enables people to “somehow jump the queue” – adding that although Britain has a “moral obligation” to accept refugees, this does not include everyone who makes it to the UK.

> “I don’t think Britain has a particular obligation to accept those who manage to set foot on British shores,” he tells i. “I think something needs to be rethought about this idea of the right of asylum as it’s now being applied.”

> The same goes for his homeland, Australia, he adds, where the government is often criticised for not taking in more Rohingya refugees fleeing persecution in Burma. “Taking those who manage to get on boats to Australia provides an incentive to make these dangerous journeys during which some get drowned. [The refugees] in the UNHCR camps in Lebanon or wherever are in just as much need of a place to go as the people who are landing in Australia or Greece.”

Here, the perfectly valid point that the those in refugee camps in poor countries are just was worthy of help as those who arrive in rich ones is placed in service of the demonization of those who arrive in boats as “queue jumpers” and the endorsement of the ridiculous argument of right-wing politicians about “incentives” to make dangerous journeys. The reason people make those dangerous journeys is because the governments of wealthy countries, using mechanisms such as carrier sanctions and visa restrictions, have blocked safe and inexpensive routes of escape from dangerous places. They do this not in the service of a fair conception of the distribution of humanitarian burdens but because they don’t want to deal with the numbers and would prefer to maintain the existing unfair distribution where most refugees are in poor countries. Singer is correct that we can distinguish between the right to asylum and the right to settle in a particular place. Perhaps when the governments of wealthy states are willing to have a proper discussion about what a fair pattern of settlement would look like, we can also reassess other elements of the system. Pending that commitment to justice on the part of the wealthy, stigmatizing those who make it across from Libya, Turkey or Haiti as “queue jumpers” is the mark of someone who has lost his moral compass.

{ 58 comments }

1

david 06.13.16 at 9:23 am

if Singer cared about demonization and guilt-through-association, he would hardly be Peter “newborns lack personhood” Singer, would he

anyway there’s a word for an extraterritorial jurisdiction in a poor country that is governed by a rich one for the benefit of the most favoured guests of the latter; it starts with ‘c’ and ends with ‘olony’. Which is really the crux of the issue. A country can enforce certain conditions on facilities in its physical territory because that’s where its power is. Otherwise, it must take what it can get. Australians can argue with other Australians about how many refugees to take in, but it can’t argue very well with Lebanon on the same terms. You can outvote the conservatives in your own country but not the conservatives in another country.

Sovereignty is incompatible with egalitarian individualist utilitarianism. But who thought it would be anyway? Why is it surprising that it is so?

2

Dipper 06.13.16 at 10:33 am

OP – Perhaps when the governments of wealthy states are willing to have a proper discussion about what a fair pattern of settlement would look like

so Prof Bertram you’re a closet Brexiter? Because it is clearly impossible to have that conversation whilst 500 million people have a right to reside in the UK at any time?

3

otto 06.13.16 at 10:35 am

Does Singer really “demonize” these refugees?

4

ZM 06.13.16 at 10:46 am

I think Julian Burnside QC has been one of the strongest people speaking out against arguments about queue jumping in Australia. To give context to Peter Singer, while disagreeing with him, queue jumping has been one of the main arguments against accepting boat people in Australia, the next main argument is about refugees drowning at sea.

It is a shame Peter Singer is making this argument, since despite my sympathy for refugees waiting in camps, it isn’t really a situation where queue jumping arguments fit. Queue jumping is a good argument for people not jumping the queue in the supermarket or bank or airport or something. But it’s not a good argument for people who are fleeing from persecution in fear of their lives, and there is no queue, and people can wait in refugee camps for over 20 years. All the Syrian Refugees if they didn’t cross into Europe would have overburdened the first country they got to and waited in the non existent queue anyhow, most refugees are in neighboring poor countries, which is unfair global burden sharing.

Chris Bertram you make a good argument about countries needing to discuss what a fair pattern of settlement would be.

The current high numbers of refugees calls for some sort of global agreement about temporary and permanent resettlement.

I would like to see global policy which had numbers and was fact based. With climate change there is an idea of a global carbon budget, and a time frame in which that can be emitted. I would love to see refugee policy start talking more about the numbers and the time frame in which the global community thinks it is fair and right to resettle these numbers of people. Like a commitment to resettle 50 million refugees in 15 years, or something like that. And countries can pledge the numbers they will take over the period, with international negotiations where wealthy countries can be pressured to fairly share the burden of settlement since at the moment it’s poor countries who have the highest numbers of refugees in temporary camps.

5

Thomas Beale 06.13.16 at 11:45 am

The reason people make those dangerous journeys is because the governments of wealthy countries, using mechanisms such as carrier sanctions and visa restrictions, have blocked safe and inexpensive routes of escape from dangerous places. They do this not in the service of a fair conception of the distribution of humanitarian burdens but because they don’t want to deal with the numbers and would prefer to maintain the existing unfair distribution…

I don’t buy this. The main reason for blocking easy access to ‘normal routes’ from certain places is because they are at war or in some other way likely to contain individuals that represent a real danger to the potential receiver countries. The first thought probably isn’t ‘we must contain refugee numbers’, it is ‘we have no idea who might get on those planes, but we have to assume it could include willing ready and able jihadis, given their declared aim to destroy us in our own countries’.

Secondly, a fair conception of dealing with dealing with victims of war can’t be primarily founded on a refugee / fair settlement concept – i.e. assuming that the original countries are permanently failed states. It has to be founded on the idea that those states have to be rebuilt and that interim measures to enable that are needed (e.g. including militarily protected safe zones in those countries, e.g. Libya to name one). Doing otherwise is to assume that the world will convert over time to a few ‘safe areas’ and outside, permanently lawless warzones.

6

Thomas Beale 06.13.16 at 11:50 am

@ZM/4 – the real problem with the ‘queue jumping’ notion is that noone knows who exactly is in those boats. Some (maybe many) are true victims of war; others are opportunists; a small number are likely to be combattants. If there are refugee camps to which real refugees can go with less or equal effort as the black-market boat route, one does have to ask why people go the boat route, which in the current North Africa/Europe situation appears extremely risky (I think I heard 1/10 at least die).

7

Layman 06.13.16 at 11:53 am

“The first thought probably isn’t ‘we must contain refugee numbers’, it is ‘we have no idea who might get on those planes, but we have to assume it could include willing ready and able jihadis, given their declared aim to destroy us in our own countries’.”

Important historical question answered! Allied countries refuse to accept Jewish refugees from Germany because of fear of German jihadis hiding on ships among refugees! Allies cite German aim to destroy us in our own countries!

Pfui.

8

Peter T 06.13.16 at 12:04 pm

Thomas

On your first point – these restrictions have been in place for decades, and predate the “war on terror”. Second, the operate not to prevent people coming from certain countries, but from the international hubs, such as Singapore and Bangkok in Asia. They are not targeted. In fact, most refugee claimants arrive in Australia by air.

On your second post, these people are mostly fleeing persecution, but are not just looking for temporary refuge. They want to build better lives. One can wait many years – some refugees have waited 50 or more – in a camp. It’s not a life. A patch of sand in Libya, surrounded by razor wire, occasionally bombarded by some faction or other, services courtesy of struggling charities, is something people would equally flee from, even at considerable risk.

9

ZM 06.13.16 at 12:10 pm

Thomas Beale,

“@ZM/4 – the real problem with the ‘queue jumping’ notion is that noone knows who exactly is in those boats. Some (maybe many) are true victims of war; others are opportunists; a small number are likely to be combatants.”

In Australia people who arrive on boats are detained for processing until their claims for asylum are proven. If they are not proven to be refugees they are indefinitely detained or returned home. This actually presents issues as genuine refugees can spend a long time in detention waiting for their claims to be processed, which can be bad for their mental health.

At the moment though there is off shore detention in Papua New Guinea and Nauru, which has a *lot* of problems. The PNG Supreme Court has just found this to be unconstitutional as well.

10

ZM 06.13.16 at 12:22 pm

Peter T,

Actually as far as I know there are restrictions on air travel for people from Iran and Afghanistan and similar places, which means people from these countries cannot travel by air to Australia as easily (I am not sure of the exact nature of the restrictions).

Also I have heard that the majority of refugee claimants who arrive by air are not found to be genuine refugees, whereas the majority of refugee claimants who arrive by boat are found to be refugees.

11

NomadUK 06.13.16 at 12:58 pm

Bleary-eyed, I read ‘Pete Singer’ as ‘Pete Seeger’ and was having a hard time reconciling the positions stated with his songs and politics supporting the poor and downtrodden. That, and Pete Seeger is dead.

Anyway, back to discussing how the West can best absolve itself of responsibility to those fleeing horrendous conditions resulting almost entirely from Western policies.

12

Thomas Beale 06.13.16 at 1:01 pm

@Layman/7 – er, what?

@Peter T/8 – I understood OP to be talking about the ever changing rules on flying and other routine travel routes to and from places like Iran etc, as ZM/10 says. You (and the OP) may be talking about a different system of long-standing restrictions.

Also, we’ve seen many interviews in which those fleeing answer in the affirmative to the question ‘do you dream of being able to return home one day?’ There’s a certain tendency in Western countries to think that people born and brought up in Syria, Egypt, perhaps any so-called poor African country sees ‘Germany’ or ‘UK’ as the place they really want to be and live, rather than a functioning version of their own country or some neighbouring one with a more compatible culture. I don’t claim to know any scientific studies as to the proportion of forced emigres who say this, but it’s certainly not zero, and may be in the majority.

@ZM/9 – hence why I specifically mentioned the current Africa/Europe situation. The Australian situation is certainly different. FWIW, I completely disagree with the Aus offshore prison camp system. In my view it’s a symptom of an inability or lack of interest to have meaningful regional dialogue on refugees in SE Asia coupled with an utter lack of moral imagination on the part of Australian politicians, particularly in modern times (e.g. since Howard govt at least).

13

The Temporary Name 06.13.16 at 1:28 pm

[aeiou] What if the asylum-seekers have cuddly puppies? Are the puppies expelled too?

14

Layman 06.13.16 at 1:32 pm

@ Thomas Beale, nations have been refusing refugees since nations came into being. I doubt that’s because they were all afraid of jihadis.

15

Val 06.13.16 at 1:41 pm

ZM did you see ‘The Miracle of Kobani’ on Four Corners tonight? I’m not sure if it would be available to people outside Australia as it seems to be an ABC (Australian Broadcasting Commission) program although made by an Israeli film maker. Anyway it was a devastating program, just brought tears to my eyes. They featured the father of Alan Kurdi, the little boy who was found washed up on the beach, and of course showed that heart-breaking photo again. The father, Abdullah, lost his whole family. He has gone back to Kobani now but his life is empty – the most meaning in his life is visiting the graves of his family.

People who stayed in Kobani fought off ISIS through guerilla warfare – and, it seems, with the help of air strikes – I won’t get into that debate, but I note that. Opinions there seem very divided about those who left, at least those who tried to get to Europe. Most refugees stayed in Turkey for the duration of fighting, but there seem to be some strong feelings against those who went to Europe. It’s complicated, but it brings home how irrelevant these ideas about ‘queue jumping’ or the rights and wrongs of flying vs boats are. The reason the Kurdi family tried to go to Europe was that they had been denied a visa to Canada, where Abdullah’s sister lives. They had all expected to go there, and when the visa was denied, wanting to help, she had given them some money for a boat passage to Europe.

Kobani had a population of about 50,000 and during the ISIS occupation apparently all but about 2000 left. The devastation to the town was horrific, though people are now rebuilding. Who’s to say what any of us would do in that situation? You’d hope to do the ‘right thing’ but who’s to say what that is? I’ve only once in my life had to flee from danger, in the Ash Wednesday bushfire, and my only thought really then was to get my children to safety, whatever I had to do, so I don’t judge people who are fleeing terror.

16

Val 06.13.16 at 1:53 pm

I should say of course that not all the Kobani population except 2000 left the town. Many of course were killed. Some of the refugee children interviewed in Germany had lost their whole families in the ISIS invasion.

17

Val 06.13.16 at 1:57 pm

Ze K @ 16
People seeking asylum are not violating the law. Whether their claim for protection is valid is decided by the country where they seek protection. I am not aware that they are obliged to seek protection in the first country they arrive at, even if that first country is a signatory to the UN convention on refugees. Is there evidence for this statement?

18

Chris Bertram 06.13.16 at 2:14 pm

Yes @Val is correct, there is no obligation on the refugee to seek protection in the first “safe” country they pass through. There is, however, an agreement among the EU countries that the first EU country a person passes through is the one with responsibility for them. But this is an obligation on countries not on refugees: i.e. if you pass through Italy on the way to the UK and then claim asylum in the UK, the UK can return you to Italy. There may be very many good reasons not to stop at the first country: language, presence of relatives, etc

19

novakant 06.13.16 at 2:15 pm

Countries like Jordan, Lebanon, Iran, Syria, Pakistan have taken in millions of refugees over the last few decades, millions of refugees from Palestine, Afghanistan, Iraq … refugees created by the cynical geopolitics of the world’s big powers, starting and stoking conflicts, exporting arms and perpetuating structural injustice. It just goes to show the immense selfishness and narcissism of people in the Northern hemisphere that only now we are talking about a “refugee crisis” – tough luck, idiots, actions have consequences.

20

Dipper 06.13.16 at 2:37 pm

so what do we do about people fleeing Eritrea?

Eritrea seems to be a country taken over by gangsters who use mass coercion and slavery to extract wealth. see http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13349078.

– if we accept mass refugees we are effectively providing support for the current government’s policies as anyone who resists or opposes can simply be encouraged to leave.
– if we don’t accept mass refugees and don’t intervene against the government we are condemning possibly thousands of people to slavery without end.
– if we intervene we are acting as colonial powers and whatever goes wrong after the intervention will be down to us.

Suggestions?

21

Callum 06.13.16 at 2:59 pm

Dipper @21, can you spell out your first bullet further? I don’t find it nearly as likely as the second and third one. I can think of lots of analogous examples that make it patently horrific, but maybe you know something about the Eritrean case which would make it OK.

22

Chris Bertram 06.13.16 at 3:06 pm

@Ze K, you clearly don’t know very much about refugee and asylum law, yet you continue to make confident assertions about it. Either inform yourself better, or you will stop commenting at CT. The correct position is outlined here:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/libertycentral/2010/sep/21/claim-asylum-uk-legal-position

23

Lynne 06.13.16 at 3:33 pm

ZM @ 4 put her finger on it when she said you can’t talk about queue-jumping when

I haven’t read Singer’s piece yet but I wonder if he isn’t aiming to shock when the pearl of truth is, as Chris says in the OP, the unshocking fact that “those in refugee camps in poor countries are just was worthy of help as those who arrive in rich ones”.

24

Lynne 06.13.16 at 3:35 pm

Curses, I tried to bold something and instead cut it. Grr. The first line should have been ZM put her finger etc… you can’t talk about queue-jumping when *there is no queue*.

25

Matt 06.13.16 at 3:43 pm

There are vanishingly few, if any, cases in immigration (and refugee) law and policy where “queue jumping” is a reasonable charge or worry. In the vast majority of cases when someone raises it, it shows that he or she either doesn’t know what they are talking about, or are being dishonest. In this case, I assume it’s the former, but still, Singer should do better here.

Imagine that many safe, non-poor countries were moving aggressively to re-settle and protect people from unsafe and unsatisfactory camps – places of first refuge – in Jordon, Libya, Turkey, Lebanon, etc., and that this movement was strong enough to give good reason to think that those who entered a camp would have access to safety and security within a reasonable amount of time. Maybe in such a counterfactual situation we might call people who entered countries directly through unauthorized means “queue jumpers”, but of course we have nothing like this situation, and even there, it wouldn’t be completely obviously clear. In most, in fact nearly every, case where “queue jumping” is raised, there is no queue, and the reasons why we typically find queue jumping problematic in normal life do not apply. Minimal effort on Singer’s part would allow him to know this. It’s too bad he’s not worried enough to find out.

As for transit through one country on the way to another, there is no definitive international rule on this. The most common position is that if a refugee has been granted effective protection in one state – typically by being formally recognized as a refugee – then he or she must use normal immigration procedures to move to another state, if the 3rd state does not grant admission. However, it’s important to see that the “effective protection” here is usually though to entail a right of residency and re-entry, a right to work, guarantee of personal security, and some guarantee against return to a country of persecution. Most states don’t find mere transit through another state to be sufficient to establish that protection is available, though, as Chris notes, there are regional agreements (in the EU, and between the US and Canada, for example) that place some obligations on receiving states. For discussion of this issue, it’s good to look at Guy Goodwin-Gill and Jane McAdam, _The Refugee in International Law_, 3rd ed., pp. 149-51, among other places.

26

Kim 06.13.16 at 4:43 pm

Firstly, it is pretty difficult to make out the exact details of Singer’s position from the linked interview. For a better account of Singer’s views on the present situation, it may be worth reading an article he wrote last year (https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/escaping-europe-refugee-crisis-by-peter-singer-2015-09), or his chapter on refugees in ‘Practical Ethics’, which I cannot much recall.

Secondly, it is evident from the aforementioned article and chapter that Singer is believes that affluent countries morally ought to accept far more refugees than they currently do.

Thirdly, he (justifiably) thinks it is wishful thinking to expect or hope for that to happen anytime soon, given the popular/electoral that face most Western government (particularly in the UK). So it makes sense that his suggestions fall within the boundaries of what is currently politically viable. (Firstly, “affluent countries should be giving much more support to less affluent countries that are supporting large numbers of refugees”, secondly, “affluent countries [should] fulfill their responsibility to accept more refugees from the camps”.)

Now, I think it is important to appreciate that Singer is mainly aiming to influence public policy and debate for the better. This is why he is not writing in a philosophy journal. This is why he does not devote his interviews and articles to ruminating on ‘what a fair pattern of settlement would look like’ or urging a ‘commitment to justice on the part of the wealthy’. (He does some of that in his ‘Practical Ethics’ chapter, and concludes that Western states ought to accept massively more refugees.)

Apparently he thinks that concrete and viable policy prescriptions will have a better chance of making headway among Western policymakers. Can you really fault him?

Personally I think it is nice to see a philosopher making highly practical and pragmatically-minded arguments on (relatively) popular news platforms. It is probably the kind of strategy that academic philosophers should adopt more often if they want to make a greater impact on society. Singer is incredibly unusual in having done so well in this regard… maybe we can learn something from his approach.

Thirdly, to be fair to Singer, the putative moral badness of ‘queue-jumping’ appears to do little work in Singer’s views. He doesn’t use that phrase in the article or chapter that I mention. It seems he is more worried about the thousands that die attempting to cross the Mediterranean, and so on.

27

Philip 06.13.16 at 5:34 pm

@Ze K, from the article Chris linked to.
‘There is no obligation under the refugee convention or any other instrument of international law that requires refugees to seek asylum in any particular country.’

and

‘The short answer is that anyone is allowed to claim asylum anywhere, but states may lawfully remove asylum seekers to safe third countries on the grounds that they could have claimed asylum there. ‘

This means that a refugee can legally claim asylum in any country but the state may sometimes be able to legally deport them to a third country for their claim to be processed.

See also article 31 of the UNHCR, which basically states that if someone enters a country in a manner which breaks that country’s immigration laws and claim asylum they should not be treated or penalised as an illegal immigrant.

ARTICLE 31. REFUGEES UNLAWFULLY IN THE COUNTRY OF REFUGE
1. The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of Article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.
2. The Contracting States shall not apply to the movements of such refugees restrictions other than those which are necessary and such restrictions shall only be applied until their status in the country is regularized or they obtain admission into another country. The Contracting States shall allow such refugees a reasonable period and all the necessary facilities to obtain admission into another country.

This has been a source of controversy in the UK where refugees have been prosecuted for use of false documents.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/aug/24/syrian-refugee-jailed-uk

In short there is no obligation on a refugee to claim asylum in the first safe country they travel to, they have the right to claim asylum in any country, and if they enter a country clandestinely or using false documents they should not be treated as criminals.

28

Matt 06.13.16 at 5:38 pm

Kim said:

I think it is important to appreciate that Singer is mainly aiming to influence public policy and debate for the better.

Sure. We can grant that. But, using inaccurate and out-right harmful dog-whistle terms like “queue jumping” is an extremely unlikely way to do this. In fact, the opposite is likely. He really needed to think things through more than he did hear. Whatever his intentions, and whatever the venue, it’s not a good performance.

29

efcdons 06.13.16 at 5:49 pm

@29

Article 31 seems to be more limited than you make it out to be.

“The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of Article 1…”

So once the migrating person is no longer coming directly from a territory where their life of freedom was threatened it appears as if a Contracting State may impose penalties for illegal entry.

30

Philip 06.13.16 at 6:07 pm

efcdons, if they are not arriving directly then article 33 would relevant for removal to a third country, rather than undertaking criminal proceedings. A bit ore information here: http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/support-services/advice/practice-notes/statutory-defences-available-to-asylum-seekers-charged-with-document-offences/

31

Thomas Beale 06.13.16 at 6:49 pm

I have to say that although Singer’s use of the term ‘queue-jumping’ may be imprecise, he’s clearly referring to a virtual or putative ‘queue’ i.e. assumed order of processing of those claiming asylum by whatever means (going to camps, going to a safe country directly, applying from within home country…). This was always understood to be the ‘system’ in Australia historically and as far as I have ever understood it, it’s a reasonable way to talk about the Australian processing approach (whatever its moral characteristics may be). I suspect Singer is using the term carelessly, perhaps thinking that the ‘queue’ exists for the current UK / EU / ME refugee situation, when it probably doesn’t.

Accusing him of ‘harmful’ and ‘dog-whistle’ tactics is looking for a fight where there is none. At the most, it’s a sloppy attempt to conceptualise the current system (aka shambles) for processing refugees in the UK.

If you accept that there should possibly be some order of priority of processing refugee applications, then his point is in fact correct – the persons who manage to physically get to target country X have no innate right to be treated as the first in a putative queue of applications; others fleeing the same horrors may simply be incapable of doing the same, and get stuck in some intermediate location.

32

Philip 06.13.16 at 7:17 pm

Ze K, in all practical senses they are not violating the law, they may be removed to a third country but should not be prosecuted as criminals. Describing refugees as illegal immigrants is part of the argument that claims they are not genuine refugees because if they were really in danger then they would claim asylum in the first safe country and therefore they are really economic migrants. I am not saying you were making that argument but it is why I feel it is important that refugees are not described as illegal immigrants. I don’t really want to discuss this anymore and derail the thread further.

33

cassander 06.13.16 at 9:30 pm

>those who arrive in boats as “queue jumpers”

There’s a queue, they’re jumping it, or trying to, by ignoring the law and physically coming to the countries in question. how are they not queue jumpers?

>and the endorsement of the ridiculous argument of right-wing politicians about “incentives” to make dangerous journeys.

How does giving privileged status to those who make the journey not incentivise that journey?

>The reason people make those dangerous journeys is because the governments of wealthy countries, using mechanisms such as carrier sanctions and visa restrictions, have blocked safe and inexpensive routes of escape from dangerous places.

All wealthy countries limit immigration, that’s why there’s a queue in the first place. Unless you take the argument that it is immoral to limit immigration at all, you can’t say it’s immoral to reject large numbers of refugees.

>would prefer to maintain the existing unfair distribution where most refugees are in poor countries.

You mean, they’re in their own countries? Again, this is not supportable unless you morality the logic of any immigration restrictions whatsoever.

>Singer is correct that we can distinguish between the right to asylum and the right to settle in a particular place.

theoretically yes, but given the uproar around suggestions of deporting asylum seekers and illegal immigrants, not in practice, it seems.

>Pending that commitment to justice on the part of the wealthy, stigmatizing those who make it across from Libya, Turkey or Haiti as “queue jumpers” is the mark of someone who has lost his moral compass.

No, it’s simply an accurate description that you’re trying to moralize in service of propagandist ends, much like the campaign against the phrase illegal immigrants.

34

tony lynch 06.13.16 at 10:48 pm

Utilitarianism’s moral compass is invariably filled by prejudice, as it has to be. For what it counts are agent speculated future events. It seems clear to me that all utilitarians have missed Hobbes’ and Locke’s point about the partiality of human judgement. We tend, often unconsciously, to overestimate the good we do for others, and underestimate the good they do to us, we overestimate the harm others do us, and underestimate the harm we do them. With that in place and the utilitarian calculus then Singer follows.

35

Liviu D 06.13.16 at 11:11 pm

Philip, you get law right, there is no obligation, of course, for a refugee to apply for asylum in the first safe country she lands, but under article 31(1) she has to show that it comes ‘directly’ from a territory where her life or freedom was threatened. In the practice of the immigration authorities I am aware of, the ‘onus probandi’ is on the person claiming asylum (and by no means is taken lightly). Because ‘western states’ do not have many borders with territories where life of persons is threatened, it is not easy to show that as an asylum seeker, you came ‘directly’, especially when you do not use a boat or a plane to come (when you come by boat, you can establish this nexus somehow easier, if you live in a coastal territory where there is such a treat, so ironically, the ‘boat people’ coming in Australia would have a stronger claim than-saying people coming by land in Bulgaria, from Eritreea). What happens if the seeker could not satisfy the immigration authorities that she came ‘directly.’ First thing she will get deported, with the observation of the principle mentioned by Ze K. She may also be prosecuted, usually at the discretion of local law enforcement officers (many states make a criminal offence the illegal crossing of border, so in principle you can be prosecuted for such a crossing, if you cannot show a text that exclude the application of the criminal law’s provisions- -Art 31(1) is such an exception). Some do prosecute, some do not (personally I do not see any point in prosecution, but for prosecutors, files where they can get a conviction, add to their professional dossier), but even in case one is prosecuted, the execution of any punishment is quite impracticable, so the person is just deported and banned to entry for a number of years.

36

RJL 06.13.16 at 11:56 pm

Just because international law doesn’t place asymlum seekers under an obligation to claim asylum in the first safe country, doesn’t mean that those countries’ own domestic law doesn’t put immigrants under a obligation to either a) enter with a valid visa, or b) claim asylum as soon as they enter. Anyone travelling through a country whose domestic law requires (b) without complying with that law has entered illegally. Why is it objectionable to state that?

37

MFB 06.14.16 at 6:16 am

The issue seems clear-cut, and it also appears, from the comments, that there is not the slightest possibility of having a debate about this.

From one side, “What a wonderful professor, who wants to barricade us against the terrorists with spicy food who steal our jobs !”

From the other side, “What a dreadful professor, who wants to barricade us against the people who cook us spicy food more cheaply than the dreadful locals do!”

Both sides, naturally, claim to have justice and morality on their side. It would seem that the former argument is obviously odious. The latter argument seems less odious (but is still opportunistic and connected to an international system which is intrinsically odious). But there seems to be no debate about the issues.

38

Chris Bertram 06.14.16 at 8:58 am

“In the practice of the immigration authorities I am aware of, the ‘onus probandi’ is on the person claiming asylum (and by no means is taken lightly).”

That probably is a reasonable account of the *practice* of many immigration authorities. However, the test required by the law is “reasonable degree of likelihood”, a test that takes account of the evidentiary burden many people fleeing persecution face.

39

ZM 06.14.16 at 10:14 am

Val,

No, I didn’t see the ‘The Miracle of Kobani’ documentary on 4 Corners, it sounds interesting though. I might try looking if ABC iView has it to watch. It is terrible to think a small city of 50,000 people was reduced to 2,000 people so quickly.

I was with a friend at a talk on refugees a few weeks ago, and we were briefly speaking to one of the speakers, Petro Georgiou, afterwards, and he did say he thought Syrian refugees were a special sort of case, because many of them are well educated and could easily be migrants through Australia’s normal migration program. I wonder if this has also facilitated Europe being comfortable in accepting refugees from Syria compared to other Middle Eastern countries.

The Peter Singer article doesn’t really go into detail on what he thinks should be a global policy response on refugees. It would be interesting to see what an “effective altruism” approach to the problem would be, I get emails from Peter Singer’s The Life You Can Save (even though I actually support other charities, so its not very consistent of me) and they are very good with numbers. The article says he gives 40% of his income to fight global poverty annually, so he is very active.

It would be good if there was global response to settle the high numbers of refugees within a reasonable time frame. Especially when climate change is estimated to cause so many more refugees and displaced persons in the next 35 years, from over 50 million now, to around 250 million by 2050. Resettlement of refugees and displaced persons will be an issue that the global community is going to be faced with for decades. Hilary Clinton has spoken about this, on the other thread someone was saying she has pledged to take more refugees if she is elected President, and Trump has already came out against that.

40

John Quiggin 06.14.16 at 12:59 pm

As is made clear here, there is no “queue”, at least as regards refugee admission to Australia

http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1415/RefugeeResettlement#_Toc410727179

41

Thomas Beale 06.14.16 at 2:30 pm

@44 sorry to be picky, but I understood the ‘queue’ concept to apply to the receiver countries (Australia; UK in this current discussion), not the UNHCR register. If a receiver country has any kind of operational policy for selecting refugees from the various categories and sources (UNHCR-registered camps, boats, directly from warzones, 3rd countries etc), then by definition there is a notion of ordering. If the policy says (just for argument’s sake) ‘immediately process and grant or refuse a visa to anyone arriving directly on our shores’ that must imply that people coming in boats are jumping ahead in the order of processing compared to if they stayed in a camp in a 3rd country. As far as I know this isn’t the policy anywhere, but conceptually, the notion of ‘jumping the queue’, however distasteful it may seem, is a logical outcome of certain policy approaches. Australian politicians have talked for years about how boat people won’t ‘jump the queue’.

Happy to be corrected, but I don’t think the above reference does so.

42

Matt 06.14.16 at 3:11 pm

As far as I know this isn’t the policy anywhere, but conceptually, the notion of ‘jumping the queue’, however distasteful it may seem, is a logical outcome of certain policy approaches.

Thomas, as you yourself note, what you suggest isn’t what actually happens anywhere. It’s not a real situation. Therefore, people who don’t do what we might want them to do in a hypothetical situation are not “jumping the queue.” That they _might_ be doing so in some other situation is completely irrelevant. I really don’t get the point your trying to make (or why you think it helps Singer’s case.)

Even in the scenario you mention, in many cases where people are fleeing persecution, there is no refugee camp to go to. This can be so for many reasons. Or, there may be no clear or safe way to get to one. Signers of the Refugee Convention have an obligation to not return people fleeing persecution no matter whether they have been resettled from a camp or have arrived in another way. That some countries would rather just be involved in resettlement doesn’t change that at all.

I’m going to politely suggest that you don’t know much about this situation or about refugee law and policy, and that because of that, you might address these issues in a different way.

43

cassander 06.14.16 at 4:44 pm

@JQ

>As is made clear here, there is no “queue”, at least as regards refugee admission to Australia

That’s precisely the point. There is a queue for normal immigrants, or at least a waiting list. There isn’t one for asylum seekers. Refugees, legitimate or not, are jumping it by applying for asylum rather than going through the normal process.

44

D 06.14.16 at 6:59 pm

I often wonder what motivates such strong feelings of anger toward so-called ‘line’ or ‘queue’ jumpers. As has been pointed out, there isn’t a queue for many classes of migrants, which seems to differentiate immigration queues from most other queues, like at a supermarket checkout or airport security. There, at least, there is a strong sense that a queue jumper is denying a social norm that reflects views about how one’s position in line ought to be determined (by order of arrival). But, we often recognize exceptions to queues based on need, for instance, at airport security we let those who are running late jump ahead in line. So order of arrival can be overruled by need, and some migrants are clearly needier than others. (This is aside from the cultural variations in the norms governing queues, which those who have traveled extensively have no doubt experienced.First come first served is often overlooked.)

Another thing I don’t quite understand is the reaction of so many of us who have never used the immigration queue against perceived line cutting/queue jumping. Although this may just represent how deeply entrenched our sense of fairness is with respect to queues, why do we feel so aggrieved by this? Why does Singer, for instance, take time to point out this aspect of fairness? (Admittedly, he could argue that a well-ordered queue has a better coordinating function than a disorderly free-for-all.) Does it matter that we have to care for this specific refugee rather than (or before) any other? The candidates for feeling ‘rightfully’ aggrieved are those who “followed the rules,” but given the exceptional nature of refugees/asylum seekers more generally, those following the rules were in a different situations than the refugees.

45

ccc 06.14.16 at 11:04 pm

The “queue jumpers” rhetoric is bad and wrong. It fuels xenophobic fantasies that refugees are dishonest, immoral etc. Singer also entangles himself in non-utilitarian (because arbitrarily bracketed and implicitly nationalistically weighted) resource allocation talk. Utilitarianism is a global moral theory. The possible difference in utility from sheltering refugee 1 (who got here) instead of sheltering somewhat more needy refugee 2 (still in a massive refugee camp in a country near Syria) is very small compared to a very, very long list of non-optimal resources uses in the UK and other countries.

46

Lowhim 06.14.16 at 11:21 pm

All right, I’ll bite. Sure “queue jumpers” is misguided, but I would be all for having a way for refugees in camps in Turkey/Lebanon having a chance at coming here (rather than stopping those who have made it to Western Borders). It’s not as if a critique of the refugee policies of all the nations mustn’t be looked into and if the demand (for refugee status) there isn’t met it wouldn’t decrease the amount taking perilous journeys over sea and placing their lives int he hands of smugglers. (I’ll leave out foreign policy for now)

47

Anon 06.15.16 at 2:21 am

@tony lynch

Utilitarianism’s moral compass is invariably filled by prejudice, as it has to be.

This comment genuinely confused me-why are utilitarian views “invariably” filled by prejudice? Maybe we have very different understandings of utilitarianism, but from my knowledge of Singer’s version of preference utilitarianism, the rightness or wrongness of a moral action is determined by the preferences which it satisfies or frustrates, irrespective of whose preferences these may be. I’m not sure where the prejudice is coming in here, as Singer quite clearly says that it does not matter whose preference it is.

48

Philip 06.15.16 at 8:11 am

Ze K, some refugees want to go home and don’t lose this desire over the many years it can take until they have that opportunity, others might feel the home they left no longer exists for them to return to, some want to build a new life somewhere safe as soon as possible, some just want to be reunited with their families somewhere, there is no one thing all refugees want.

49

Chris Bertram 06.15.16 at 9:15 am

@Philip Indeed. The woman who cleans our building came as a refugee from Chile in the 1970s. Her children grew up here and are British. When she visited Chile after Pinochet fell it was a different, unfamiliar place, and the UK now felt like home. This experience is not untypical.

50

Philip 06.15.16 at 9:48 am

Chris, my grandfather was Polish and came to the UK after fighting for the British army in WWII. He married an Englishwoman and built a life from scratch in the UK, he didn’t participate in the local Polish community or teach my mum any Polish. He sent money to his relatives at Christmas and would be upset after speaking to them on the phone, returning even to visit would have been very traumatic and unsettling for him. I work with asylum seekers and refugees now and most want to get on with their lives in the UK and apply for family reunion some feel like they can’t manage this in the UK and do apply for voluntary return.

I do agree with the rest of the sentiment of Ze K’s post @ 51 though. With refugees the salient factor is the reason they are leaving their country not the reason they are applying for asylum in another country, and this what needs to be addressed not making it harder for refugees to come to Western countries. It is something that gets confused in the whole they are not genuine refugees they are really economic migrants argument, which is also why I object to them being described as illegal immigrants because it undermines their status as refugees. It also links in with the idea of queue jumping as that assumes the refugees in camps all want to find work in the West.

51

hix 06.15.16 at 9:18 pm

It would be great comedy if it were not so tragic how right wingers complaining about refugees routinely claim contrary to facts one could just go to the next embassy and get into some asylum waiting list.

52

Ken_L 06.16.16 at 3:27 am

Singer ‘worries that the current system enables people to “somehow jump the queue”’, which is plainly a criticism of the system, not the people. He did not use the term “queue jumpers” and it’s simply wrong to claim he’s “stigmatizing asylum-seekers”.

In fact his inaccuracy is in suggesting there’s a system at all, when in fact there’s nothing but entrenched chaos. His message that governments need to take the problem seriously and rethink their approach to it should be heartily endorsed, not undermined with nit-picking distractions about the way he presented it.

53

Thomas Beale 06.16.16 at 9:35 am

@Matt/46 I didn’t claim or imply having any legal expertise on refugee law. What I know about refugees is anecdotal, having met and worked with many, and being a legal immigrant myself. My point was about the ongoing confusion about the use of language such as ‘queue jumping’. As an original resident of Australia and a current one in the UK I do know about the use of terms like ‘queue jumper’ in politics and the press.

There are two mutually incompatible ways of using this language. An objective use of it is a conclusion to premises consisting of statements about real world facts, more or less as @cassander/47 stated, to put it in the shortest possible form. A subjective use of / reaction to the term is exemplified in @ccc/48.

Meaningful debate about the validity of discourse using such terms, and any moral judgments that may follow can’t even start unless everyone is on the same page, or at least agrees to distinguish the two uses of this and other problematic terms.

54

ccc 06.16.16 at 4:31 pm

Thomas Beale: re: your “objective”/”subjective” take on queue jumper talk. I think much everyday use of the phrase is thick, describing and scorning at the same time. E.g. when there is a real queue of people outside a store and someone then steps into the queue near the start instead of going to the back and someone says the person is a “queue jumper”. If the term is commonly used thickly in that way then it is smarter to pick other words if you only want to make a description.

From a moral perspective there is also no good reason to assume (like @47) a queue between only the two groups refugees and (prospective) immigrants. Morally the refugee is no more a “queue jumper” visavi prospective immigrants than a new born british child is (those damned queue jumpers from the womb!) or for that matter any person using resources in ways that are suboptimal compared to the clear benefits of providing shelter for a refugee.

Make believe nationalistic mythmakers grab every chance to amplify Us/Them attitudes and portray refugees as dishonest/immoral/thieving/… Singer should avoid phrases (or half baked interview arguments) that may fuel that.

55

dax 06.17.16 at 9:41 am

@42. “the test required by the law”

Whose law? Presumably international law? So presumably a treaty?

Sorry, but I go bonkers at talk of “the law”. It’s always somebody’s law.

56

TMD 06.17.16 at 10:15 am

It is factually inaccurate to claim that there is “a queue” or “a waiting list” for “normal immigrants” – most countries have literally hundreds of different queues, depending on prospective immigrants’ nationalities, skills, financial resources, family connections, etc. Depending on which of these queues somebody joins, waiting times can vary from several days to several decades. “Queue jumping” rhetoric misleadingly suggests the existence of a single orderly queue that refugees are somehow undermining; instead, what they are really asking for is that a few additional queues be added to the hundreds already in existence.

People who talk about “queue jumping” rarely specify even vaguely how long refugees should expect to wait before they are declared “legal.” (Months? years? decades? centuries?) Not surprisingly, this gives rise to the suspicion that their real objection is not to “queue jumping,” but to the mere idea of certain types of people coming to their countries at all.

(Not that I think Singer falls into this category – ccc’s “half baked interview arguments” seems to me a pretty accurate description of his quoted remarks. Still, he is a prominent enough figure that he should know to be more careful and think about how his choice of phrases might contribute to the growth of a type of politics diametrically opposed to what he himself would support.)

57

TMD 06.17.16 at 10:34 am

…and if you really have to think about queues, don’t think about queues at the supermarket, think about queues for medical treatment. There are separate queues for patients with broken legs, patients who have just had a heart attack, and patients who want liposuction. Someone on the waiting list for liposuction doesn’t get to complain about a heart attack patient “jumping the queue.”

58

kidneystones 06.17.16 at 11:46 am

@52 Yes. Well. First, of all none of can go back to anything. I and many people I know have been living outside our birth nations for decades, many decades in some cases. The fact is times change. In some cases, the rate of change is very slow – the lands where times stands still. However, in any city/place where economies expand and people move we find new communities – new restaurants, etc.

The place we left begins disappearing the moment we leave. There’s nothing at all odd about feeling strange when returning ‘home,’ because ‘home’ no longer exists.
It would be very odd to ‘return’ to a place and discover it pretty much exactly as we left it.

That, I call creepy.

Comments on this entry are closed.