This column is written by the Otago University Debating Society, which meets for socail debating every Tuesday at 6pm in the Commerce Building.
Affirmative, by Old Major
Why should we accept more refugees you might ask? Charity begins at home you might say. The government should be feeding starving New Zealand children your inner Andrew Little might yell (although probably not yell, Andrew Little doesn’t seem to have a vocal range beyond that of a dull monotone). Anyway, the point is why should you care about foreign refugees who, if we were to allow to come here, would cost the New Zealand tax-payer money.
We already do accept refugees and have done so for a long period of time. A couple of hundred years ago the New Zealand locals accepted economic refugees from the United Kingdom (otherwise known as ‘’colonialist-settlers-who-then-proceeded-to-steal-Maori-peoples’-treasures-and-oppress-them’’). Since then we’ve continued to accept refugees, just at an ever diminishing rate. In 1944 we accepted 800 refugees from Poland. In 1987 New Zealand had a policy that we would accept 800 refugees a year. Ten years later this was reduced to 750 people and, until 2015, that number remained unchanged. Last year, though, the government announced that New Zealand would accept 750 refugees from Syria over a three year period. 150 of those places are from the normal annual quota, so New Zealand will be accepting only 600 people more than we otherwise would have. This isn’t enough. We can do more and should do more.
‘’Hold on a second,’’ you might think, ‘’look at how things turned out for Maori in the 1800’s following the massive influx of foreigners. Why would modern New Zealand want to repeat that?’’
‘’Very good question Mr. Trump,’’ I might reply.
New Zealand is a wealthy country. We also have a stable government and strong, established social institutions. This means that we do have the capacity to accept more refugees. Any government policy has an opportunity cost (the next best thing you have to give up to be able to carry out the first policy) and at the point that we do accept more refuges there will be something else we have to forgo. But, on a rough balance, spending money to provide people with a safe country to call home is probably a pretty efficient way to use government money to do good.
Syria is a cluster-fuck right now and if I were living there I’d definitely want to leave. Refugees don’t want to come to countries like New Zealand to indoctrinate us, or to commit terrorist acts. That’s what they’re fleeing from!
If you still need convincing, consider that Australia currently takes five times more refugees and asylum seekers per capita than New Zealand. So let’s one up the Aussies and say to the refugees of the world: ‘‘where the bloody hell are ya? Get over here!’’
Negative, by Squealer the Pig
The question of taking refugees isn’t an independent one, and it’s important to note the message that New Zealand sends when it fails to take substantive action on the Middle Eastern crisis, and instead treats the symptoms of a disease that requires immediate, interventionist surgery. The long-run aim of the international community must be a safe, secure nation in Syria that respects the rule of law, and the health and prosperity of its people. The truly compassionate policy is the one that enables the safety of the millions of people who live in Iraq and Syria: a true homeland for a people whose rights have been flagrantly violated.
When an opportunity to effectively topple the Syrian regime existed, the world failed to act. In doing so, isolated dictatorial oppression has evolved into a crisis which is continuing to exapand beyond the Levant with no resolution in sight.
A refugee policy must be temporary, and coupled with intent to end the original cause for the existence of the refugees. Unfortunately, many countries have chosen to supplant responsible geopolitical action with piling ambulance after ambulance at the bottom of the diplomatic cliff, rather than taking a stand at the precipice. When New Zealand chooses to take thousands of refugees over the coming years, we reinforce those principles which have left hundreds of thousands dead. When the West takes millions of refugees, we make it easier for the Arab region to ignore their responsibilities in dealing with the crisis.
We should be pressuring our government to take a tough but necessary stand on the security of the region, not merely take an easy route out.
We need to use our position on the Security Council to actively encourage intervention. ISIS needs to be defeated in open military combat: a campaign that needs leadership from the heavily armed and funded Sunni Gulf States. The Assad government’s use of chemical weapons against its own people necessitates its removal from power. These are actions that could be taking place, but aren’t, because much of the West is claiming that the acceptance of refugees solves the humanitarian crisis.
The neighbourhoods of Damascus and Homs can be rebuilt, and people can move home to streets that the people of the Levant have inhabited for centuries. Our refugee policy hides our obligation to re-establish those communities, and enables the wholesale destruction of a culture that is intrinsically valuable to millions of people who need long run hope.