Arguing and Justifying

To many, refugees look like any other "charity case", and we like to imagine ourselves as participating in the benevolent act of welcoming them to our country. But a second look, informed by the historical and present-day facts and events shows the error of assuming that they receive status and apparently offer nothing in return. In fact, the author of this text argues, refugees arrive in the country generally as a last resort, and although they are in desperate need of assistance, they are in fact essential not only for the economy, but for the diversity upon which contemporary society thrives. A further look at global economics demonstrates that our standard of living is partially dependant on the types of corporate forays into the cheap labour wells and the unregulated environmental buffets of the Third World that create refugee problems. Our very social structure is built upon the fruits of previous and ongoing First World control over distant lands. This book aims to demonstrate that refugee claimants don't simply move to Europe or America to gather up the gold that lines the streets; indeed, the resistance of even the most heavily-persecuted claimants to the idea of leaving their home, their family and their friends is, in the vast majority of cases, monumental, and their knowledge of Canada (where most of the interviews for this project were conducted) tends to be extremely sparse. Studies have shown that in virtually every respect, refugees make for "better Canadians" than Canadians do: less likely to go to prison; less likely to be unemployed; more likely their children and to a higher degree; less inclined to use social services; and more likely to employ other Canadians. This shows, the author asserts, that the number of restrictions toward necessary migration is unnecessarily high, and indeed the arguments generally employed to erect or bolster these restrictions tend to be founded on false premises. Rather than a text about why we should adopt a liberal policy towards immigrants and refugees, this is a book which forwards one underlying hypothesis: that people have the inalienable right to move around as they wish, for whatever reason they think appropriate. Borders between states are, the author maintains, an aberration, the idea of nation is reprehensible in its consequences, and restrictions imposed upon people who wish to travel from one region of their world to another are absurd and hurtful. Robert Barsky puts forward the theory that the category "refugee" shouldn't exist and that people employed to limit the movement of persons from one place to another should be occupied with other matters, such as the problem of assisting those who would like to move to another region but cannot on account of limited resources. Barsky maintains that we can and should be doing better than we're doing and that eliminating barriers from persons who would move if they could might be a small step in that direction, if only becasue it would mean that populations wouldn't necessarily have to be subjected to the lunatic ideas of power-mongerers or hurtful economic systems, because they would simply move to another, more comfortable, space.