[update below]
French polymath social scientist and physician Didier Fassin—who is based at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton—has an essay in The Nation dated April 5th, in case one missed it, “From Right to Favor,” on the refugee crisis in Europe—or the “so-called refugee crisis,” as he calls it—which he asserts is “a moral issue before it is a demographic one.” This is one of the best intellectual reflections I’ve come across on the subject, so I wholeheartedly recommend it. Didier Fassin is one of those incredibly smart and talented scholars, who is worth reading on any of the wide range of subjects he writes on.
On the (so-called) refugee crisis, Think Progress has a dispatch (May 2nd) by reporter Justin Salhani, “Refugees are rejuvenating dying Italian towns.” It concludes
Economic projections aside, the affect of repopulating dying villages has also had a profound affect on the people of these villages.
“Thank God they brought us these people,” Luigi Marotti, a 68-year-old who takes care of the Roman Catholic Church in Calabria’s town of Satriano, told Bloomberg in February. “Satriano was dead. Thanks to them it’s alive again. The village can start growing. If they leave, I don’t know where we can go.”
If any of the refugees don’t want to stay in Italy, they should come to small-town France, which could also use the shot in the arm—and Béziers in particular, which really does need it. If the mayor there is uncomfortable with the idea, he’ll come around…
UPDATE: Jean-Marie Guéhenno, president and CEO of the International Crisis Group, has a post (May 13th) on the Carnegie Europe web site, “Conflict is key to understanding migration.”
Thanks Arun. From Right to Favor is a must read ! I learned a lot, in particular as regards the CNDA.
Superb article with a galore of facts backing its assertions. Sadly, this illustrates quite well that the generation of WWII has now by and large passed away and its lessons have been forgotten. Hard not to despair of humanity.
From the article: “refugee [according to the Geneva convention] is any person who “owing to 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 or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country.””
As far as I am concerned, Didier Fassin is mixing apples and oranges in his article. To persecute is a very specific action. Let’s quote the Webster, to persecute is: “to treat (someone) cruelly or unfairly especially because of race or religious or political beliefs”
The key point here is that the individual has a specific characteristic and because of it, someone may treat her cruelly or unfairly.
To inhabit in a warzone is not in itself a valid criteria to be granted asylum. Thus the victims of german or allied bombings in WWII do not necessarily qualify for asylum because violence against them is indiscriminate. Nobody is trying to persecute them, they just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. However jews,homosexuals, gypsies were specifically targeted by the german government because of their religious belief or their race (we would say ethnicity today). They fall perfectly within the definition of a refugee.
I know some of your readers will find the distinction absurd but it seems to me that the whole system rest on it for goods reasons. Millions of people across the world are victims of warfare, in many cases, they move in refugees camps administred by the UNHCR and located near but not in the warzone. If we adopt the author’s line of reasoning, then they should be all considered eligible to asylum in Europe. We might as well give up on the idea of border control in that case.
At that point, I know someone is thinking “Good riddance! Mobility across international borders should be human right”. Perhaps….but I wonder what these refugees will do in economic black holes like Beziers. And we all know what a spectacular success integration was for the last wave.
ZI: It is now well-established in international refugee law that individuals fleeing war are entitled to refugee status, as, among other things, the state from which they are fleeing cannot guarantee their protection (for a source on this, see here). It is indeed the case that third countries, e.g. in Europe, are not obligated by international conventions to grant refugee status or asylum to those who have fled from one country to a bordering one. It’s a political question, if Europe (but also the US and others in the civilized world) are fine with Turkey dealing with 2.2 million Syrians all on its own (e.g. see this piece in Al-Monitor yesterday) or, in the case of EU member states, if they’re going to tell fellow EU members Greece and Italy that they’re not willing to help share the responsibility for the mass of refugees and asylum seekers who, for the sole reason of geography, find themselves in those two countries. If such is the case, then the whole European project will collapse, and with consequences that won’t be good for anyone.
In addition to being a political question, it is also, as Didier Fassin emphasizes, a moral one.
My specific reference to Béziers was somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but only somewhat. There is no a priori reason why Béziers and other such towns in France wouldn’t be revitalized by refugees in the same way as the “economic black holes” in southern Italy are being, or as has been the case in many declining cities in the US that have witnessed an influx of immigrants over the past three or four decades. On this, David Laitin and Marc Jahr had an op-ed in the NYT exactly one year ago today (here).
Thoughtful comments by ZI, but good s/he is anonymous.
Unconventional ideas not allowed most places!
Digital-Info: I don’t get your comment at all. I allow all comments that do not flagrantly violate my comments policy. As for ZI, the argument that s/he is making is hardly unconventional. And even if it were, so what? What would be the consequences if s/he were to sign with his/her veritable name?
As for anonymity, I am personally opposed to this. I accept it on my comments threads if the person is not trying to argue with me (if so, I will eventually ask him/her to identify him/herself, on the thread or in an email). I always sign comments with my name. If I have an argument to make, I assume it and defend it. I don’t see why others can’t do the same.