It is commendable that David Cameron has promised to take decisive action to deal with the thousands of people fleeing Syria.
His plan to resettle 20,000 of these people over the next five years is to be welcomed—as is his decision to prioritize vulnerable children. It is, after all, a substantially improved stance. Not long ago, Cameron was dismissing the desperate attempts by migrants to cross from Calais to the U.K. as “unacceptable.” Until very recently, his sole emphasis was on blaming migrants and on fortifying Britain.
Cameron is also right to argue for a “comprehensive approach that tackles the causes of the problem as well as the consequences,” using both “head and heart.” Unfortunately, the approach he has actually presented falls short of this lofty aim.
Behind the Headline
To begin with, Cameron continues to make an outdated distinction between “economic migrants” and “refugees fleeing conflict.” The implication is that the latter deserve help while the former should be sent back to where they came from.
This distinction fails to grasp the complexities of current situations. People need to flee unsustainable living conditions whether they are related to political factors or conflicts of a more fundamental nature. If this crisis has taught us anything, it should be that we need new definitions for what it means to be in need of international help.
What’s more, Cameron gave no detail whatsoever about his plan. The voting public may be pleased to hear his big numbers but no mention was made of what will actually happen when these 20,000 people arrive in the U.K. A truly comprehensive approach would include specifics on the conditions of their reception and a plan for how they would be helped to integrate into their new homes.
