NEW DELHI: Recently, the news was dominated by a photo of a Syrian toddler's drowned body, cradled in the arms of a Turkish police officer. This powerful image brought attention to the issue of Europe’s refugee problem, rooted in the several wars and conflicts across West Asia, South Asia and Africa.

Hungary’s populist leader has disseminated viciously xenophobic and anti-Muslim rhetoric towards these refugees, who now seek to find refuge in parts of Europe. So far this year, more than 430,000 refugees have crossed the Mediterranean to enter Europe.

A migrant is different from a refugee or an asylum seeker in the sense that the former is defined by the primary priority to make economic ends meet as opposed to the latter categories that are more politically driven in nature. The EU’s Dublin Regulation allocates responsibility to the first country of entry that makes the general attitude towards migrants and refugees dis-favorable. “We used to think of migration as a human security issue: protecting people and providing assistance,” says Brookings Institution’s Senior Fellow Khalid Koser. “Now we clearly perceive—or misperceive—migration as a national security issue. And the risk of securitizing migration is that you risk legitimizing extraordinary responses.

It’s often said that nothing can be clearly distinguished as either black or white and most incidents and facets of the human nature fall within shades of grey. This situation may be understood as a reflection of the same contradictory rhetoric in the context of human rights discourse and the European Union’s no-barriers principle.

The world community has developed over time- from defining an individual solely based on caste, creed, norms and ethnicity to breaking those barriers and respecting an individual for whom he/she really is. To some extent, our embrace of LGBTQ rights can be accredited to overcoming the mental block of conventionally associating people primarily with sexual orientation. Similarly, accepting her right to abort a child divorces a woman from societal norms and encourages society to recognize her for who she is, as opposed to categorizing her as a mother who ought to have maternal feelings. Thus, we are emerging into a world where we respect individual choices and chart these to determine how a human being actually is, as opposed to using societal norms to define what choices they should make. The Human Rights discourse prevents “discrimination” on these multiple grounds but only contemplates intra-State violations and not inter-State ones.

However, the recent situation hovering the EU makes one question this rhetoric of inclusiveness and acceptance, without preconceived barriers. Does this inclusiveness stop at citizenship? Is there a line any government can draw?

International law and real politik are defining us now using another standard- again, one on which we have no control whatsoever. This takes us back to discrimination based on a category- albeit a newer one- going back thousands of years. This rhetoric is particularly interesting to note within the EC, which upholds a barrier free environment within the community but conflictingly draws a line at citizenship to avail of even basic human rights. Most migrants and refugees are either sent back to their home country or recipients of unduly harsh and cruel treatment including lack of shelter, food and medicine.

Another interesting point to note is that several citizens of these receiving countries, just like Denmark’s leaders, have responded to this refugee ‘crisis’ by disseminating discourse along the traditional lines of religion and creed, because of the limited exploitation along the language of citizenship.

Like human rights theorists, economists have tried to support barrier-free migrant mobility within the EU by attaching an economic value to human life. They oft’ cite Steve Jobs as a migrant success story to note that expanding markets within EC nations could benefit from the influx. However, this makes attaching value to human life a mandate to make it worth saving. Is it necessary to have immediate economic value to be able to avail of basic human rights? Then why don’t we universally legalize euthanasia and why do we have a problem with suicide? Thus, this conflicts with the very discourse generated by these countries themselves- the ones that save human life even against one’s own will to be saved.

Of course, the practical arguments by governments are worth noting vis a vis lack of resources and dearth of opportunity for locals. What human rights theorists ask them is, is the mere threat of losing a job to a migrant reason enough to deny a living person shelter and food? Shouldn’t we actually practice our own human value theories where the discourse encourages us to appreciate people for who they are rather than hold a pre-conceived notion to discriminate against them based on where they come from?

At the end of the day, it’s important to recognize that discrimination based on citizenship and human worth extracted through economics may render our human rights discourse futile and take us back thousands of years in terms of collective growth and appreciation for “who you actually are.”

(This is an opinion piece that appears on Young Citizen)

Latest News