The author of this article has been
a stateless asylum-seeker for the last 19 years.
It's NOT a nightmare - it's a reality - living in a soap opera scripted jointly by Kafka, Machiavelli, Dante, de Sade and Torquemada being inflicted on asylum-seekers by governments, and those are the good days!
Most of the time - psychologically - it's a daily trauma of survivorship in what can justifiably be called the atmosphere of an open-air concentration-camp. It’s soul-destroying and dehumanizing.
We arrive in a host country, usually after a vast amount of personal trauma, uprooting, & total disruption of our lives. Many of us have been only psychologically abused and/or tortured; others have been physically and psychologically abused and/or tortured.
In general, the present methods of reception & dealing with asylum-seekers by the host-countries are Machiavellian, inhumane, sadistic & medieval. For asylum-seekers it's a continuation of the terror we have recently escaped - whatever the degree of that terror plus the new problems of adapting to a new life-system which induces yet more insecurity & vulnerability, although of a different nature, over an extended time period. This causes increased levels of Dissociative Disorder and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (see Annex).
|
Host countries and aid organizations, due to their treatment of and attitude to asylum-seekers, frequently cause far more traumas than those originally undergone by us within our own countries & during our escape. |
We asylum-seekers need - very urgently, sometimes desperately - (even if temporarily) a feeling of acceptance & safety. We also need to find a creative outlet for our energies (i.e. work) in order to re-find our self-worth, to help us integrate into the society of the country of adoption, as well as to contribute to our own, our family's and our adoptive country's psychological and economic well-being (Integration into a new society or country is always a difficult matter, even for voluntary migrants, foreign workers, etc.).
By denying asylum-seekers our inalienable right to try to find work, by forcing on us a situation of non-status and other humiliating denials of our basic human-rights, only adds to the damage already inherent in our situations. It appears that individuals have to comply with laws, but governments do not.
If any economic and/or other help is given, it's given reluctantly and in a manner which induces the feeling of rejection and charity, and often also the insinuation that we are guilty because we are seeking asylum.
It is a much saner policy (politically, economically & in human-rights terms) to accept asylum-seekers by giving us, IMMEDIATELY, permission to search for work, plus any other assistance (such as providing psychological & physical healthcare, help in finding adequate accommodation, language classes, job-training, children's education, etc). This will allow us to recover our health, our self-worth, & our meaning in life, and to stop this deliberate policy of marginalization, demonization, dehumanization and criminalization of our status. It is unacceptable to be treated with such deliberate callousness, or to be made into scapegoats for political, racial, religious, xenophobic or other forms of abusive discrimination.
From a purely logical perspective - apart from the human-rights issues - it is in the best interests of the host countries to allow us asylum-seekers to work, pay our taxes, integrate into society (temporarily or permanently), and also so that we can continue - if possible - in our trade or profession, so that we don't lose touch with new learning experiences, (technology) and other progressions in our work-spheres, without which it later creates a situation where it is always much more difficult to re-adapt / retrain and find work. This is a win-win situation for all parties.
|
We have the right to be treated as law-abiding individuals on our own personal merits. We are not a burden on any state; in fact, quite the reverse. We are an asset, currently and for the future, and should be welcomed.
|
Most refugees are capable of supporting themselves and their families, and many of us could - at a later stage - employ locals too. However, we are rejected, harassed & not allowed to get on with restructuring our disrupted lives. Under the current system (assuming that the host country does pay anything, which many countries don't) the host-country wastes tax-payers money by paying long-term social security benefits to people who neither want nor need charity. We certainly do need short-term help until we become self-supporting again, and we certainly have the motivation & incentive to work extremely hard. This would also reduce the stress we are under during the administrative process of normalizing our situation in the host country.
We as asylum-seekers have had the initiative and courage to escape from our specific tragedies, and have endured a lot. Why should we be denigrated & suffer collective-punishment under the deliberate & malicious classifications and epithets assigned to us.
A large proportion of asylum-seekers will later choose to return to their homelands when it's safe to do so. They want to be with their families , friends, neighbors, in their own culture and language group. Others are by temperament more internationalists, and adapt better to their adopted country on a long-term or permanent basis.
All human beings, by nature, require healthy and creative outlets for self-expression, otherwise the psychological effects are dangerous. Loss of the will-to-live, of autonomy, of direction, of self-esteem, thus inducing apathy, more psychological problems (apart from the ones we have due to being asylum-seekers) physical ill-health, drug, alcohol , other addictions, criminal or other antisocial behavior, violence within the family group and/or externally, depression, suicide. The list goes on and on and on.
Administrative Silence
In many countries in Europe there is a phenomenon known legally as administrative silence i.e., the administration simply ignores visits, letters, phone calls, faxes, e-mails, and all other known forms of communication by members of the public, lawyers or anyone else. This practice is used primarily against the citizens of the countries concerned, not only against foreigners and asylum-seekers. Basically, there is no concept of the fact that civil servants (whatever their occupation or seniority) are employed by, and are in the service of, the public. The public is NOT there to serve the administration. What these individuals and/or governments are showing is outrageous arrogance & contempt for their citizens & others.
Everyone is entitled to receive, and if necessary to demand, respect & courtesy from government (and other) institutions and agencies, and from their employees at an individual level.
Max Weber, the German sociologist of the 19th century describing the characteristics of burocracy, stated that, "a clear separation of personal and institutional interests gives a new meaning to the power of silence and exclusion." Since then, this attitude has been refined and honed and abused by governments, institutions, etc.It's used as a weapon against citizens and foreigners alike.
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, the 19th-century French writer, stated
quot;Government is an unnecessary burden at best, and more likely a tyrannical noose around its subjects' necks. To be governed is to be at every operation, at every transaction, noted, registered, enrolled, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished."
For the terminology administrative silence read psychoterror tactics.
i.e., putting peoples lives on hold, to whatever degree and for whatever length of time, whether due to inefficiency, negligence, a deliberate policy of stalling, inattention to the matter, sheer bloody-mindedness, or for any other reason.
|
Administrative silence falls under the heading of a major abuse of fundamental human rights. |
For example, in several countries the law offers a so-called remedy in cases of administrative silence. Apparently, if a request submitted to the administration is not resolved within three months, then the applicant may consider that their request has been rejected and such party may then bring the matter before the administrative court. If one attempted this method, no doubt the representative of the government would then merely try to justify the non-resolution of one's claim, while - by doing nothing - the applicant still hopes that their request or cause will be accepted and resolved, eventually, maybe, by the administration. This is no remedy at all - it's a sick joke.
I consider that the concept and the application of administrative silence is diametrically opposed to the concept of presumption of innocence and the right to a fair and swift resolution of issues. My premise is that specific legislation needs to be brought in to outlaw administrative silence and that it's the administration's duty & obligation to resolve the issues, to reply to the public - with precise details - and that if they don't do so then the applicant or subject of the issue WINS the case by default after a period of 2 to 6 months, different categories of administrative processes having different timetables within that framework; NOT that the administration has the right to subject their employers (the public) to power-games.
This is the brutal and sadistic Catch 22 principle of abuse of power and assumption of guilt tactic, where the administration plays with the dice always loaded in their own favor because of intra- as well as inter-office politics, fears of making a decision, plus the arrogance of power, etc. Each of these play their part in delaying - or denying - resolutions.
It's the administration - if they insist on fighting a default situation of their own making - which should then bring their lost case or cause to the administrative court and explain why they didn't comply with the legal timetable or pertinent laws.
I consider that it is a fundamental human right for everyone - not only asylum-seekers - to be informed by the administration what is happening regarding our specific situation. We are entitled to know, step by step, what correspondence or other communication has been entered into by the administration in respect of our case or cause or application, we are entitled to receive copies from the administrations of all communications in respect of our lives and to be kept updated on a regular basis, in detail.
Governments - obviously - have the right of discrimination and selection as to whom they receive in their countries, & non-citizens (foreign workers, visitors, asylum-seekers, etc.) have the right to know how their applications are faring, and to a speedy resolution. We also have the right to appeal to the relevant courts of justice in the case of non-acceptance of our applications.
It's overdue that all governments, justice departments, the UN, NGO's & aid organizations were educated to accept the fact that the right to life takes precedence over all and any laws, and the refusal or negation of this right can arguably be classified as a crime against humanity.
|
Any form of negation of the right to life is - implicitly and explicitly - a death sentence.
|
In far too many countries, too many lawyers, judges, and others in the legal professions are likely to be pressurized by their government to ignore human rights laws in the name of political expediency. The other part of this crime is that too many of these people - as individuals, and also as part of a group and a system supposedly dedicated to upholding, enforcing and strengthening the rule of law - comply with politicians wishes, rather than being independent and ensuring that human rights laws prevail, despite the politicians & despite politics. For those who fall into the above-mentioned category, this is abject cowardice; an abdication of personal & collective responsibility within that profession; contempt for the inherent meaning of the law and of the principles of justice; contempt for the spirit of the law and of justice; and the grossest contempt for and of life itself.
|
One cannot speak about the protection of human rights with credibility when one is confronted with the lack of consistency and courage displayed by the international community and its leaders.
|
Since national and international human rights are supposed to protect individuals and groups against governmental abuses, governments cannot determine for themselves if and when they apply. It's like asking the wolves to protect the goats!
|
Governments, institutions and other authoritarian bodies do not act cynically. They act with inhumane, calculated, cold-blooded, ruthless, amoral, deliberate forethought.
|
Vast numbers of the present members of many governments and humanitarian agencies - plus other citizens of their countries (including the Italian-born King of Spain) - were given assistance & asylum by other countries at various times in very recent history. These selfsame individuals - many of whom are now in power in their own countries or within aid organizations - treat current-day refugees in their countries despicably & brutally. Why?
When governments - especially those in the wealthier countries of the world - claim that their processes take so long (be they court-cases or other administrative matters) because the system is overloaded, and/or we are understaffed, and/or any other reasons - let's be very clear that this is not a lack of political will or any vague excuse - it's a very specific and deliberate action by that government to withhold funding and other resources from those projects. This is not avoiding - but evading & obfuscating - the real questions and issues. The reality is that it's control and manipulation by the state in favor of the incumbents in power, certainly not in favor of or in behalf of the citizens who elected them and pay their salaries, and to whom they are accountable.
Forced expulsion & forced repatriation, under any circumstances - and especially where the lives of asylum-seekers would once again be at risk, is totally unacceptable.
Gas-chambers are no longer fashionable, nor are they commercially viable. Why don't host-countries just reintroduce the guillotine? This has multiple benefits:-
It would save taxpayers having to foot the bill for transportation and other expulsion costs.
It could be the base for a new entertainment industry which is beneficial to the local economy. It's wholesome family entertainment, with reduced entrance fees for children, and which at the same time educates the entire population as to how we asylum-seekers should be viewed and treated. It would also be a rare and wonderful display of honesty to show the world openly what the local political and social agenda really is, so that the citizens and the outside world can never again claim we didn't know what was happening. The end result for us asylum-seeker is the same - torture and/or death.
Guillotining us would save us from these agonies, uncertainties, terrors & stress, so this system for eliminating us could thus be marketed by each host-country's government, media and civil population as a humane act, so keeping their individual and collective consciences clear.
|
The reality of the current situation is obvious, but I don't subscribe to it! Isn't it time in civilized and enlightened Europe, USA, Australia and elsewhere, to change these laws and this inhumane and barbaric reality?
I feel obliged to record the problems encountered in the hope that these matters may be rectified for the benefit of current and future asylum-seekers. We are looking for constructive solutions to our problems, and we need some assistance, not homilies. We don’t expect perfection in administrative systems, in laws or in individuals, but we certainly require and demand a betterment of quality in all matters discussed herein, from all the parties concerned. All civil servants, at all levels, need to be educated to the fact that their citizens generally - and in this particular instance specifically.
|
Asylum-seekers - are not fighting AGAINST anything or anyone; we're struggling - peacefully - FOR our human rights.
|
That concept needs to be understood at a very profound level so that the civilian, burocratic & political mind-set can change.
I think it is quite clear that this is not a document of criticism, per se; it is an attempt to bring the state of affairs to the attention of those who have the power - and especially to those who have, primarily, the integrity, humanity and goodwill - to improve the situation. .
The World's Most Unnecessary?? Protest.
CANBERRA, Australia
A 48-year-old Pakistani man was granted permanent residence in Australia several years ago and has been trying to secure visas for his family ever since. Not realizing that his case had been approved, the man lit himself on fire in protest at the entrance to the parliament building in Canberra. A witness said, "He was rolling around on the ground . . . but he stopped moving by the time anybody went out there with a fire extinguisher." The man was reportedly upset that his family had yet to receive visas, but according to local papers, the protest was unnecessary because the visas had already been okayed. The man remains in critical condition in a burn unit at Sydney's Concord Hospital. This is an example of what happens when governments use administrative silence tactics
|
Having Health in Mind.
Eur-op news issue 2/2000.
Mental diseases are often linked to unemployment, social exclusion, homelessness or drug & alcohol abuse. Effective methods to prevent mental problems need to become a more pressing issue within EU policies. The Council has asked the Member States to collect relevant data, to implement action promoting mental health & to stimulate research. The Commission should incorporate activities on mental health in the future action program for public health & implement an EU health monitoring system. OJC 86,2000
|
In Europe and America they came for the Communists
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
Then they came for the Roma,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Roma.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the Negros,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Negro.
Then they came for the Asians
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't an Asian.
Then they came for the Arabs & the Muslims,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't an Arab or a Muslim.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't in a union.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant
Then they came for the asylum-seekers,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't an asylum-seeker.
Then they came for me,
and by that time no one was left to speak up.
(with thanks to Pastor Martin Niemoller for the original version)
|
Continued in Part 2
|