# 58 bodies in the back of a Dutch truck. **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [June 19, 2000, 8:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/58-bodies-in-the-back-of-a-dutch-truck/22839 "2000-06-19T08:39:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![ruadh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d2c977/32.png) [@ruadh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ruadh)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2001, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/58-bodies-in-the-back-of-a-dutch-truck/22839/41 "2001-04-05T22:28:48Z")
I wish this guy had gotten famous for something a lot less tragic. What a waste of a name. DDG, I must have missed your earlier post the first time around. I’m not sure about these particular immigrants but it’s actually not true that most refugees don’t have any skills, in fact a substantial proportion come from a middle-class (relative to the standard of their home country) background. One of the big issues in this country (Ireland) is the fact that they aren’t allowed to work while their asylum applications are pending - so in a country with a labour shortage, you have all these skilled professionals drawing public assistance. TomH, what’s the law about that in the UK? ---
**Author:** ![Coldfire](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a587f6/32.png) [@Coldfire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Coldfire)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2001, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/58-bodies-in-the-back-of-a-dutch-truck/22839/42 "2001-04-05T23:55:22Z")
Bastard. He should have been sentenced under _Chinese_ law. Fourteen years? Fifty-eight dead? That’s not a punishment. That’s a slap on the wrist. Then again, what would have been “just”? ---
**Author:** ![London\_Calling](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@London\_Calling](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/London_Calling)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2001, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/58-bodies-in-the-back-of-a-dutch-truck/22839/43 "2001-04-06T02:25:49Z")
Hoping to clarify a few things here, folks… These people weren’t leaving China because of any kind of oppression – they were purely _economic_ migrants. The difference is not insignificant. Also, they died because Perry Wacker closed the air vent once on the ferry – this is common practice for smugglers to prevent the UK authorities detecting the carbon dioxide (with the equipment that’s used at the docks). Wacker was convicted of _manslaughter_, not murder (‘reckless’ but without the ‘intention’ to kill). Unlike the Albanians and other economic refugees attracted to the UK because of the ready availability of housing and social security assistance (once they claim asylum), the Chinese come here simply to work (albeit in the black economy). Normal practice is for their families back home to borrow heavily in order for them to come here and then, by earning many times more than they would at home, the ‘illegals’ repay the debt (they usually work in Chinese restaurants). These people wanted to come to the UK to earn the money for themselves and their families that they couldn’t make in rural China – they were **not** going to claim asylum, IMHO. ---
**Author:** ![StGermain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stgermain/32/2868_2.png) [@StGermain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/StGermain)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2001, 6:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/58-bodies-in-the-back-of-a-dutch-truck/22839/44 "2001-04-06T06:11:25Z")
14 years. 58 dead. Lets see…that’s about 3 months per person. How is that justice? StG ---
**Author:** ![ruadh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d2c977/32.png) [@ruadh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ruadh)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2001, 6:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/58-bodies-in-the-back-of-a-dutch-truck/22839/45 "2001-04-06T06:17:55Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by London\_Calling \* > **These people weren’t leaving China because of any kind of oppression – they were purely _economic_ migrants. The difference is not insignificant.** In the case of China, I’m not sure the two are so easily separated. ---
**Author:** ![London\_Calling](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@London\_Calling](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/London_Calling)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2001, 9:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/58-bodies-in-the-back-of-a-dutch-truck/22839/46 "2001-04-06T09:25:47Z")
I’d guess, **ruadh** , that if they felt they had the grounds, they would claim political asylum straight off the bat. The fact that they usually don’t would suggest that, _in their view_ (and not, in any event, having the evidence to support a claim), they were not oppressed. Political asylum is usually, in the case of the Chinese, only something they consider if they are caught while trying to gain entry or if the Snake Heads tell them to (as when they fly them into UK Airports and can’t avoid the authorities). These people were not what we call ‘political activists’ but poor, single youngsters from rural Fujian Province looking to make better money, as the brother of one of the victims explains [here.](http://www.guardianunlimited.co.uk/Refugees_in_Britain/Story/0,2763,469274,00.html) In the eyes of the law, **StGeramin** , Wacker didn’t _intend_ to kill them which probably makes sense as it’s got to be rather discouraging for other Chinese thinking of making the trip. It was in Wacker’s _interests_ to ensure they made it here safely so as to encourage other Chinese to make the trip and, thereby making him and the others, more money in the future. I would imagine Wacker is less than popular with his former empoyers - prison might be the safest place for him. ---
**Author:** ![Coldfire](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a587f6/32.png) [@Coldfire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Coldfire)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2001, 12:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/58-bodies-in-the-back-of-a-dutch-truck/22839/47 "2001-04-06T12:20:46Z")
IIRC, Wacker had just founded the company himself a few months prior to the fateful trip. He was the only employee. In the end I don’t care whether they were economic refugees or not. What matters are the tragic circumstances of their deaths. And the shameless way Wacker tried to plead innocent, because “he had no idea there were people in his truck”. Then why close the vent, fucker? Afraid your tomatoes will dash off and haunt the ship? He got away with a LOT there. I agree it isn’t murder. Then again, it doesn’t make a lot of difference what it is either. What’s shocking is that someone’s prepared to treat 60 people as if they were crates of vegetables. ---
**Author:** ![Tansu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/67e7ee/32.png) [@Tansu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tansu)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2001, 12:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/58-bodies-in-the-back-of-a-dutch-truck/22839/48 "2001-04-06T12:45:13Z")
60 people in a truck that size only just have room enough to sit down, as shown by video evidence seen by the court (They got 60 Gurkhas into the truck, and they had enough space to sit cross legged). Wacker must have realised that closing the air vent would have had serious consequences to their health. He is entirely culpable, no matter how routine the practice is among other smugglers of people. ---
**Author:** ![Tansu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/67e7ee/32.png) [@Tansu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tansu)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2001, 12:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/58-bodies-in-the-back-of-a-dutch-truck/22839/49 "2001-04-06T12:48:01Z")
I mean that he is entirely culpable for the action of closing the air vent. ---
**Author:** ![StGermain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stgermain/32/2868_2.png) [@StGermain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/StGermain)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2001, 1:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/58-bodies-in-the-back-of-a-dutch-truck/22839/50 "2001-04-06T13:18:01Z")
**London\_Calling** - I’m not sure that they would automatically ask for asylum. These are not people who are used to thinking of the government, ANY government, as their friend. And in the end, what does it matter? They were searching for a better way of life. They ended up dead. And even if it wasn’t murder because Wacker didn’t intentionally kill them, I feel that 3 months per person shows that the courts didn’t feel these folks were worthy of more. Wacker showed that he didn’t regard them as people, but as cargo. His callous disregard for human life, and the consequences thereof, should have been recognized. Will there be a possibility of parole for this man? StG ---
**Author:** ![Coldfire](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a587f6/32.png) [@Coldfire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Coldfire)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2001, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/58-bodies-in-the-back-of-a-dutch-truck/22839/51 "2001-04-06T13:47:11Z")
I don’t know about parole in the Uk, St. Germain. But it’s entirely possible that UK criminal law has a “cap” on sentences for manslaughter. Maybe all the judge COULD sentence him to was 14 years. I know Dutch law has those maximum time-caps. Hell, a life sentence here means you’re out in 20 years. ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2001, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/58-bodies-in-the-back-of-a-dutch-truck/22839/52 "2001-04-06T13:52:07Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by StGermain \* > \*\*I’m not sure that they would automatically ask for asylum. These are not people who are used to thinking of the government, ANY government, as their friend. > > StG \*\* I’ve gotta agree with StG, here. Before I found my current career I worked for USAID for two years as a grunt on foreign aid work. One of the things I found most unsettling was the people I worked with from the poorest countries had absolutely no faith in their governments ability _or desire_ to perform any service for them. On the other hand, one of the overseas women (and my best pal at USAID) once told me she was doing research in Burkina-Faso on food supplies and famine. At one village of 100 or so people she was shown the village stores of grain after the growing season and it was about enough to fill up a station wagon. And that was supposed to last 100 people for six months. When she told them she thought that wasn’t enough and asked what they would do when they ran out of food someone hit her with this: **"When we’re starving, the Americans will help."** Maybe they we’re just playing to her as an American but christ, what a responsibility. So, to my original point, yes, I have anecdotal evidence that people in poor countries (or areas, I guess) have little to no faith in their governments. ---
**Author:** ![ruadh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d2c977/32.png) [@ruadh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ruadh)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2001, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/58-bodies-in-the-back-of-a-dutch-truck/22839/53 "2001-04-06T18:13:31Z")
How do we know they weren’t going to apply for asylum once they arrived in Britain? I mean, it’s not like we can ask them. They’re dead. ---
**Author:** ![TomH](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/90db22/32.png) [@TomH](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TomH)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2001, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/58-bodies-in-the-back-of-a-dutch-truck/22839/54 "2001-04-09T16:11:07Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by ruadh_ > One of the big issues in this country (Ireland) is the fact that they aren’t allowed to work while their asylum applications are pending - so in a country with a labour shortage, you have all these skilled professionals drawing public assistance. > > TomH, what’s the law about that in the UK? Sadly, it’s the same idiotic situation in the UK. We have qualified nurses from the Balkans drawing the dole as the NHS flies people out to the Phillipines to recruit. I believe it’s an EU requirement, related to the requirement that you have to make all reasonable efforts to recruit an EEA national before you can employ somebody else. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by London\_Calling_ > I’d guess, ruadh, that if they felt they had the grounds, they would claim political asylum straight off the bat. The fact that they usually don’t would suggest that, in their view … they were not oppressed Do you know what happens to Chinese people who make unsuccessful asylum applications in the UK after they are deported back to China? On the point about whether they were asylum seekers or economic migrants, I don’t think it has any moral relevance. The effects of poverty can be just as oppressive as the effects of persecution by the state, and I don’t see why we have a duty to help one group of people and not the other. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Coldfire_ > But it’s entirely possible that UK criminal law has a “cap” on sentences for manslaughter The maximum penalty for manslaughter in England & Wales is life. In this case, he was given only six years for the manslaughter and eight years for conspiracy to smuggle them into the UK. Why the sentence was so light, I don’t know. As L\_C points out, the judge may have taken into account the fact that the manslaughter was involuntary (i.e. there was no intent to kill), as well as the fact that the victims had knowingly placed themselves in a dangerous situation in the course of comitting a criminal offence (trying to enter the country illegally). [There are proposals to abolish manslaughter and introduce new offences of “reckless killing”, “killing by gross carelessness” and “corporate killing”, but nothing much has happened abot that yet.] ---
**Author:** ![ruadh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d2c977/32.png) [@ruadh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ruadh)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2001, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/58-bodies-in-the-back-of-a-dutch-truck/22839/55 "2001-04-09T22:58:18Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by TomH \* > **I believe it’s an EU requirement, related to the requirement that you have to make all reasonable efforts to recruit an EEA national before you can employ somebody else.** No, it’s not an EU requirement. I know that Germany has less strict rules about it, though I don’t know the precise details. Earlier this week an EU proposal was announced that would let asylum seekers work after six months. But Britain and Ireland will be given an opt-out. ---
**Author:** ![elelle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f0a364/32.png) [@elelle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elelle)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2001, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/58-bodies-in-the-back-of-a-dutch-truck/22839/56 "2001-04-09T23:52:44Z")
I hadn’t seen this thread on it’s initial round, and it made my heart break. Especially because the forward effort of the immigrants was for a better life; they had given up everything for the hope of an unknown future, in a better society. I can’t fathom what their last frustrated thoughts might have been. It happens here in the US though, too. Some new friends of mine are Mexican, and I’ve heard some sad tales about the Coyote border trade. The current going rate for a crossing is $2000, and, if you’re lucky, it’s three days without food and water. Sometimes you make it, sometimes you go back. The conundrum to me is, that although there’s the non-open hardship at the border, the jobs these people do are essential to the current economy. They work 12 hour days, without benefits, in positions most Americans decline. I would expect that’s the same situation in Europe. Where the hell is our compassion? ---
**Author:** ![London\_Calling](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@London\_Calling](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/London_Calling)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2001, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/58-bodies-in-the-back-of-a-dutch-truck/22839/57 "2001-04-10T01:08:46Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by TomH \* > > > [@](#): > > > > _Originally posted by London\_Calling_ > > I’d guess, ruadh, that if they felt they had the grounds, they would claim political asylum straight off the bat. The fact that they usually don’t would suggest that, in their view … they were not oppressed > > Do you know what happens to Chinese people who make unsuccessful asylum applications in the UK after they are deported back to China? **TomH** - I couldn’t find any UK stats on _approved_ asylum applications from China but the US figure for 1999 was 24% out of 5, 218 applications. However, according to [this](http://www.societyguardian.co.uk/asylumseekers/story/0,7991,434642,00.html)article, China is not considered oppressive by the UNHCR: Talking about Jack Straw: “He foresaw three separate lists. The first would be a list of “safe countries”, such as the US and EU countries, from which asylum applications would not be entertained. \*\*In the second list of countries, such as China, \*\*it would be presumed that an asylum application was unfounded and so would have to be made from outside the EU. **This list would be drawn up with the advice of the UNHCR.** Applicants from a country such as China might have to make their applications in a transit country. Asylum seekers in this group would also lose the right to claim asylum in an EU country and so could be turned straight back. **The third list would be made up of countries which were internationally recognised to be oppressive regimes** and from which asylum applications would be accepted within individual EU countries.” To answer your question: No I don’t know what happens to Chinese (refused) asylum seekers but until the UNHCR , Amnesty or another body reports there are problem, I’ll assume the Chinese Government accept that they’re failed economic migrants and as such, no threat to the regime. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by TomH \* > On the point about whether they were asylum seekers or economic migrants, I don’t think it has any moral relevance. The effects of poverty can be just as oppressive as the effects of persecution by the state, and I don’t see why we have a duty to help one group of people and not the other. > \*\* The 1951 UN Convention on Refugees as later incorporated in the Human Rights Declaration – and me – disagree with you. According to the [UNHCR](http://www.unhcr.ch/un&ref/un&ref.htm) refugees are defined as: “those who have fled their countries because of a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of their race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group, and who cannot or do not want to return.” Anyone falling outside that definition is not a ‘refugee’ – for example, economic migrants. I don’t understand your point on the morality of accepting economic migrants. If one accepts that poverty is relative, the logical conclusion of your argument is that the whole world should all be able to live in Beverley Hills (assuming they want to). No country accepts refugees on the basis of poverty alone – I believe conventional wisdom suggests easing poverty in other countries through the Overseas Development Office (Claire Short) is the best way forward i.e. helping people to help themselves. ---
**Author:** ![ruadh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d2c977/32.png) [@ruadh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ruadh)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2001, 5:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/58-bodies-in-the-back-of-a-dutch-truck/22839/58 "2001-04-10T05:23:33Z")
Just a WAG, but isn’t it just possible China’s status in the UN might have something to do with its not being on that list? ---
**Author:** ![TomH](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/90db22/32.png) [@TomH](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TomH)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2001, 10:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/58-bodies-in-the-back-of-a-dutch-truck/22839/59 "2001-04-10T10:19:39Z")
London\_Calling, I think that we might be talking at cross purposes here. I don’t disagree that there is a well-understood, internationally recognised definition of “refugee” (incidentally, when was that term replaced by “asylum seeker” in British political discourse?), nor do I disagree that we have some kind of quasi-legal responsibility to take in refugees under several international agreements. What I object to is the suggestion that economic migrants are somehow not legitimate, or that fleeing political opression is OK but fleeing poverty is somehow wrong. I can understand the argument that international aid is the best way to help people who don’t have the basic necessities of life, but I don’t see why we should begrudge people who manage to get here from some of the poorest countries in the world the opportunity to make a go of it. > [@](#): > > If one accepts that poverty is relative, the logical conclusion of your argument is that the whole world should all be able to live in Beverley Hills (assuming they want to). I’m not sure I do accept that poverty is always relative. I think that somebody who isn’t able to procure for themselves the basic necessities of life – adequate food, water, shelter, basic health care and education, for example – can fairly be said to be poor in absolute terms. I realise that what constitutes the basic necessities of life is open to debate, but I don’t think we need to settle it for the point to stand (Cf Rawls’s “social primary goods”, you don’t need to know _exactly_ what they are to understand the Theory). > [@](#): > > No country accepts refugees on the basis of poverty alone This might be literally true, but many countries accept immigrants other than asylum-seekers (eg the US Green Card lottery), which means in practice accepting a fair number of economic migrants. As for the _Guardian_ article, the assumption that asylum applications from China are unfounded is arrant nonsense. UNHCR might might think that there is no _prima facie_ case for assuming that those leaving China have been the victims of political repression, but as **ruadh** suggests, I think that judgement is entirely politically motivated. The House of Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee certainly disagrees. I apologise for the long quote, but they identify so many areas of human rights abuse. The entire Report can be found [here](http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmfaff/574/57402.htm): > [@](#): > > over the last two years there has been a marked deterioration [in China] in respect of key civil and political rights including the freedoms of expression, assembly, association, conscience and religion … human rights abuses have reached such alarming proportions since late 1998 that [Human Rights in China] believes that the Government of China is currently conducting the most ruthless suppression of dissent since the crackdown on the 1989 demonstrations … > > We conclude that Chinese actions against democracy activists are entirely out of keeping with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, with its guarantees of freedom of opinion and expression, and of the right to take part in public affairs through free elections … > > the Chinese suppression of workers’ rights is not in keeping with the rights under Article 22 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to freedom of association and to form and join trade unions … > > Chinese practices in respect of national minorities are not fully in keeping with the spirit of Article 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights under which persons belonging to national minorities “shall not be denied the right… to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practise their own religion or to use their own language.” … > > Chinese practices in relation to religions and belief systems are not in keeping with Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which guarantees the rights to hold any religion or belief and to manifest it … > > the system of criminal justice in China is not in keeping with Articles 9 or 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, with their guarantees against arbitrary arrest or detention, and their guarantee of fair trials … > > there is _prima facie_ evidence that China has not complied with the provisions of the UN Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, notwithstanding the fact that China has both signed and ratified this Convention … > > Amnesty also told us that … and that mass executions occurred before public holidays, when death was sometimes imposed for “relatively minor crimes which would not attract such a sentence at other times of the year.” … > > We conclude that the restrictions on reproductive rights in China are not in keeping with Article 23 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which give men and women the right to found a family … > > restrictions on the media (including the electronic media) are not in keeping with Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, with its guarantees of free expression and of the right to seek, receive and impart ideas of all kinds regardless of frontiers and through any medium. And here’s an extract from [Amnesty International’s 2000 Annual Report on China](http://www.web.amnesty.org/web/ar2000web.nsf/countries/1ea7833d9a544056802568f200552912?OpenDocument): > [@](#): > > The human rights situation in China deteriorated sharply during the year. Those targeted in the crack-down included political dissidents, anti-corruption campaigners, labour rights activists, human rights defenders and members of unofficial religious or spiritual groups. Thousands of people were arbitrarily detained by police in apparent attempts to intimidate or silence them. Some were sentenced to long prison terms after unfair trials or sent to forced labour camps. Many were reportedly tortured or ill-treated. ---
**Author:** ![London\_Calling](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@London\_Calling](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/London_Calling)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2001, 7:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/58-bodies-in-the-back-of-a-dutch-truck/22839/60 "2001-04-11T07:23:28Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by TomH \* > (incidentally, when was that term replaced by “asylum seeker” in British political discourse?), nor do I disagree that we have some kind of quasi-legal responsibility to take in refugees under several international agreements. IMHO, if one accepts that what the Tory Party under Hague is engaged in “political discourse”, I’d venture the terms became interchangeable when the Tories and the tabloids decided to muddy the waters between legitimate **political** refugees i.e. asylum seekers and economic migrants. By including economic migrants with the genuine refugees the term becomes generic and all those who fall within it become equally ‘suspicious’. One might also argue this became a ploy after the passing of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. > [@](#): > > but I don’t see why we should begrudge people who manage to get here from some of the poorest countries in the world the opportunity to make a go of it. That’s very altruistic of you, Tom. However, I’d prefer to allocate resources (here) to those who genuinely need them (asylum seekers) and help others (economic migrants) to help themselves in their own economies. As per internationally recognised and accepted practice (including Amnesty). It also means the issue remains less of a political football and we can just get on with the job of helping people without the tabloids stiring up middle England Nationalism. > [@](#): > > I’m not sure I do accept that poverty is always relative. Sure poverty is also legitimately measured in absolute terms but not in relation to economic migrants. I agree with that internationally accepted notion. In using the term “basic necessities of life” aren’t you doing the same thing ? i.e. the basic necessities of life in Bangla Desh are different from those in more successful economies like the UK. We might not, in a utopian sense, like that but… Also: Yes, sure countries do accept economic migrants but only on their own terms and when it suits them. For example: Germany, at the moment, is almost desperate to recruit young blood into it’s economy because the birth rate has been so low the national insurance system (especially pensions) can’t be sustained unless the macro economy grows at a substantially faster rate – it needs economic migrants for it’s own self-serving reasons but that is a rather long way from the “moral” argument you put forward. It also has absolutely nothing to do with the Human Rights Convention. > [@](#): > > As for the _Guardian_ article, the assumption that asylum applications from China are unfounded is arrant nonsense. I, on the basis of what Amnesty report, can only agree with you on Human Rights abuses within China but I return to the distinction between political refugees and economic migrants. \*\*I’d urge you to consider[this](http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200001/cmselect/cmhaff/163/163ap58.htm) evidence \*\*to the House of Commons Select Committee by Alex Yuen quite enlightening on how the game actually works in practice. > [@](#): > > The House of Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee certainly disagrees. I apologise for the long quote, but they identify so many areas of **human rights abuse.** The entire Report can be found [here](http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmfaff/574/57402.htm): Aren’t you buying into the dangerous game played by the Tories and tabloids by mixing genuine Human Rights abuses with those seeking economic gain ? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/58-bodies-in-the-back-of-a-dutch-truck/22839.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/58-bodies-in-the-back-of-a-dutch-truck/22839.md?page=4)