Sir, - The distinction made between "economic" and "political" migrants is the greatest fallacy in the current immigration debate. It suggests that global economic and political systems are separate and unconnected. "Political migrants" are seen as legitimate and like an endangered species are supposedly protected by the Geneva Convention. "Economic migrants", on the other hand, are seen as "illegal" and are thus criminalised.
This view is a gross simplification of reality. The case of the Kurds is just one of many that can illustrate this for us. Neither the EU nor the Irish Government currently believes that Kurdish asylum seekers are genuine, despite the destruction of over 3,000 Kurdish villages by the Turkish army (much of which is made up of Kurdish conscripts). So why do we not recognise these political refugees?
The answer, as always, is economics. The West values Turkey's strategic position and "their" (Kurdish) oil. In return we usually turn a blind eye to human rights abuses there. The Geneva Convention, seen by some as over-generous, does not help the Kurdish refugees.
Political and economic forces are one and the same. Underdeveloped countries are poor because they are exploited by the wealthy. We are now a wealthy country. Despite what we would like to imagine, we are not an economically neutral country. Restrictive border controls exist to protect rich countries' ill-gotten gains, from its victims. To defend these border controls is to defend the inequality. No human being is illegal. - Is mise,
Colm O'Connor, St Kilda, Australia.