THROUGHOUT the relatively short history of our Republic, the Philippines has given sanctuary to several groups foreign refugees. In one instance, for example, we offered refuge to 6,000 “White Russians” (non-Bolshevik Russians) during the middle part of the 20th century. We also offered the same kindness to hundreds if not thousands of Christian Japanese refugees back in the early 17th Century.
There are plenty of other cases where the Philippines became a country that offered refuge to those escaping persecution and sometimes, extermination. So no one can really accuse us of not being sympathetic to the plight and concerns of refugees.
However, in an age when transportation costs are cheap and mass communication is all-pervasive, the definition of ‘refugee’ has grown to cover not only people fleeing war and persecution, but also poverty and social dysfunction.
But are poverty and poor social conditions really enough to make a person a refugee? The answer to that question depends on the observer’s emotional response. A “heartless” person might say “no” because he considers poverty and misery as being incomparable with wars and political oppression. In contrast, a “compassionate” person might say “yes,” because he considers poverty, war, political oppression and living in a crappy society as resulting in human suffering.
This conflict of definitions was played out along the US-Mexico border, where thousands of Central Americans, mainly Hondurans, attempted to breach the US border. Those who supported letting the immigrant caravan into the US argued that they were refugees, escaping crime and poverty in their own countries.
Trump and his supporters argued that they were not, and they were not the only ones who took that stand. Even Mexicans considered the migrants passing through their country to be unpleasant people. In fact, days before the migrant caravan reached the US border, the residents of the Mexican town of Tijuana tried to attack the Central Americans who had stopped by in their town. They would have succeeded too had the Mexican government and local constabulary not intervened.
As of today, many members of the migrant caravan are turning around and returning home, after they realized that the United States would not take them in. It’s also worth mentioning that many members of the caravans refused to stay in Mexico when the Mexican government offered to grant them refugee status.
This is not the behavior of refugees fleeing to save their lives. This is, however, the behavior of economic migrants. What this means is that the people moving up through Mexico towards the United States are escaping poverty and poor societies instead of war and persecution, but in the 21st century such distinctions are considered, by some, to be too obsolete.
Now, such definitions are creating deep divisions not only in the United States and the Western World (the main destinations for refugees and economic migrants), but also in transit countries, like Mexico. Whether the members of such migrant caravans are considered real refugees or just economic migrants pretending to be refugees, the main question on everyone’s mind is, who should take care of them?
Which countries should take care of the world’s hungry and poor?
For a very long time, the West had played this role, but with the United States rebalancing its global presence and the EU in disarray, the West can no longer afford to act as the global Good Samaritan. This explains Trump’s policies in the US-Mexico border, and if the US won’t do it?
Who will take up the role?
Africa and Latin America are net exporters of migrants. Asia? We have our own problems? The Middle East and the South Asians? Not likely.
So who’s left?/PN
