The case for asylum seekers

What does a Western country say when it accepts an asylum seeker? An asylum seeker is more than just a refugee. He is not saying "I have no place to live, please let me come in". Rather, he is saying, "I will be immorally punished in my home country."

There are two issues here:
1. The asylum seeker will be punished for something the West does not consider punishable. For example, a political view.

2. The asylum seeker will be punished in a way that the West does not view as fitting the crime. For example, tortured or executed.

In both cases, the receiving Western country is actually saying: we are more moral than your home country. Your home country does not fit our standards. We are better.

The asylum seeker, in seeking asylum in such a country, is accepting upon himself the his new host country is indeed better. He is accepting their moral values.

The host country should not have it any other way. If an asylum seeker comes into the country, but admits openly that his own country's norms are ok by him, then there is no reason he should be given asylum.

For example, there was a case recently in the Netherlands when a person came in seeking asylum, and a couple of years later killed his sister in order to protect his family's honor. The man was recently sentenced to 12 years in prison.

Putting aside the discussion on whether or not such a punishment fits the crime, as well as the discussion on whether the Dutch taxpayer should now be paying for this murderer's welfare - what will happen in 12 years' time?

This man has already shown that he does not think the Netherlands is a more moral country and that he accepts his own country's moral norms. In other words, he has abrogated his right to asylum.

Will the Netherlands kick him out?

No comments: