Is West’s response to refugee crisis driven by compassion or prejudice?

We all like to think of ourselves as compassionate, doing our best to help those less fortunate than ourselves. The current refugee crisis affecting large parts of the world is very much proving to be a test of this compassion.

In the West, refugees and migrants seem to have been constantly in the news over the past few years, often accompanied by hostile comment. In the United Kingdom, in the 12 months prior to the 2016 Brexit referendum, anti-migrant headlines were a recurring theme in some of Britain’s newspapers. Terms such as “flood”, “surge”, “tide”, “swarm” and “invasion” helped to depict refugees as a threat to Britain’s security and way of life. This sort of coverage was undoubtedly a factor in persuading many British voters to follow the exhortations of the Brexit campaign to “take back control”.

More recently, the UK’s Conservative government has reflected these populist views by controversially trying to export to Rwanda those refugees entering Britain by small boats. The home secretary, Suella Braverman, has insisted that Rwanda is an ideal place for them to be housed, providing them with excellent facilities and opportunities for integration or resettlement. However, she then demolishes her own argument by also insisting that sending refugees to Rwanda would be a deterrent, helping to achieve her objective of stopping the “invasion” of asylum seekers. She can’t have it both ways. It’s either a great opportunity for refugees or a deterrent to them, but it can’t really be both simultaneously.

It’s been an equally depressing story in the United States, with headlines focusing on the Mexican border and the legacy of Donald Trump’s infamous wall to keep migrants out. The Statue of Liberty has a famous plaque containing the evocative words: “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.” Clearly, these noble sentiments don’t always apply to people coming from Central or South America.

Similarly, in many parts of the European Union, right-wing parties have been hostile to unauthorized asylum seekers arriving from Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq and other war-torn places in the Middle East, Africa or Asia. There is one notable exception, however. Ukrainian refugees have been welcomed with open arms throughout Europe, partly because of their need to escape a war zone, but of course they also happen to be white, non-Muslim Europeans. This clearly unequal treatment of refugees raises some uncomfortable moral questions for Western democracies.

In the UK, in addition to the exception made for Ukrainian refugees, there is a further anomaly. The government has told Hong Kong people that they are welcome to settle in Britain, escaping from what it sees as an “authoritarian” and “repressive” regime. If, like me, you don’t recognize this description of Hong Kong, you may be baffled as to why the residents of one of the world’s safest and most prosperous cities are being welcomed to British shores, at the same time that wretched, destitute people fleeing war zones in Africa and the Middle East are being targeted for deportation to Rwanda. It appears that the British government’s anti-China political posturing is much more of a priority for them than any genuine humanitarian considerations.

Maybe we shouldn’t be too surprised by these anomalies or by the current hostility to accepting certain types of refugees. Throughout history, this has been the norm whenever populations have been displaced because of war, revolution or natural disasters. How receiving countries perceive and treat refugees has always varied according to many factors: why they are seeking refuge; how many there are; racial and cultural similarities or differences; the economic strength and social infrastructure of the host nation; political concerns. All these factors influence whether refugees will be welcomed, taken in begrudgingly, or turned away. In the fourth century BC, Aristotle was an early proponent of this pragmatic approach to accepting or rejecting citizens coming from elsewhere. In Politics, he argued that accepting new citizens was purely at the discretion of the receiving state, according to the best interests of that state. However, elsewhere in his writing, he also made out the ethical case for compassion and generosity. Therein lies the modern dilemma facing all countries being asked to receive refugees: pragmatism and self-interest versus compassion. Sadly, there are many occasions in history when pragmatism, self-interest and also prejudice have triumphed over compassion and generosity.

The world’s most notorious refugee crisis was undoubtedly in the 1930s and 1940s when millions of Jews in Adolf Hitler’s Europe faced first persecution and then genocide. Before the outbreak of World War II in 1939, both Britain and the US were reluctant to accept too many German Jews, and only limited numbers were admitted. This may have been due partly to latent feelings of traditional antiSemitism, but also to fears of economic and social disruption, and worries about the potential for spying and sabotage in the tense years prior to the war. In 1938, there was worldwide publicity of the Kristallnacht (Night of Broken Glass) violence when Jewish homes, schools, synagogues, shops and businesses throughout Nazi Germany and Austria were viciously attacked. In response to public outrage, the UK did now relax its approach and allowed in approximately 10,000 Jewish children from Germany, Austria and Czechoslovakia in the Kindertransport program. However, parents or guardians wishing to accompany them were refused entry and had to remain behind to face further atrocities, concentration camps and death. It was only after the war ended and the full horror of the Holocaust became apparent that large numbers of European Jews were finally given the help they had so desperately needed. This history of how Jewish refugees were treated at such a horrific time perfectly encapsulates the dichotomy between self-interest and prejudice on the one hand, and compassion on the other.

Many now look back with shame on the inadequate response of Western governments in giving refuge to German Jews in the 1930s, particularly in the light of what happened in the Holocaust a few years later. We would all do well to reflect on this as we determine our response to the world’s current and future refugee crises. Pragmatism, self-interest and prejudice should never stand in the way of compassion.

The UK government has told Hong Kong people that they are welcome to settle in Britain, escaping from what it sees as an “authoritarian” and “repressive” regime. If, like me, you don’t recognize this description of Hong Kong, you may be baffled as to why the residents of one of the world’s safest and most prosperous cities are being welcomed to British shores, at the same time that wretched, destitute people fleeing war zones in Africa and the Middle East are being targeted for deportation to Rwanda.