The logic of the government's position on asylum seekers is quite simple. They have participated in the construction of a discourse where it is the
asylum seekers themselves who are 'the problem', rather than the consequence of larger geo-political, economic and cultural problems, some of which
are exacerbated by the foreign policies of the UK government. By encouraging this discourse, perhaps they also hope to distract attention from some
of the failures of their own domestic policies.
As I understand it, it has always been the government's policy to take children into care where it is 'in the best interests of the child' - whether the
parent is an asylum seeker or not is irrelevant. Blunkett however made his threats specifically mentioning the children of asylum seekers - why?
Here is the justification for this policy that a New Labour supporter sent to me:
"'IF' asylum seekers appeal to stay here has been turned down and the asylum seekers have 'refused' to leave this country on the 'free' passage and
'free' resettlement package back to their own country provided by the British government and provided by the British taxpayer, and in refusing this help
to repatriate their benefits (also provided by the British taxpayer) have been stopped, then any children affected by 'THEIR' parents decision to make
themselves destitute have to be cared for and thus will be cared for by the state, until such a time when they can leave the country with their parents.
It is therefore the parental choice that has brought about their own children being placed in care for their own protection and NOT the UK government."
The logic of this argument is quite simple, if you are a failed asylum seeker, the state will make you destitute. Because you are destitute, they will take
your children into care until you agree to leave. It is like the same logic as the Bhuddist death penalty where you are thrown out of a window, it is the
ground that is responsible for your death...
"We speak and the word goes beyond us to consequences and ends which we had
not conceived of" Gadamer
---------- Original Message -----------
From: ColinNGordon@xxxxxxx
To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 06:11:39 EST
Subject: Re: Acronyms and Republicanism 'Nation'
> This claim about the UK government's intentions are very popular
> with its
> (left and right) critics and the mainstream media, and fit in with
> all kinds of rhetorical schemas about the slide to totalitarianism.
> In fact however the proposal is to take powers to take into care
> children of failed asylum seekers only in cases where this is in the
> child's interest.
>
> In a message dated 09/12/03 10:51:18 GMT Standard Time,
> meneilu2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
>
> > Subj: Re: Acronyms and Republicanism 'Nation'
> > Date: 09/12/03 10:51:18 GMT Standard Time
> > From: <A HREF="mailto:meneilu2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>meneilu2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx</A>
> > Reply-to: <A HREF="mailto:foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx</A>
> > To: <A HREF="mailto:foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx</A>
> > Sent from the Internet
> >
> >
> >
> > I would be interested in hearing people's comments on the assumptions that
> > go into the concept of 'nation' in the context it is used below, who is
> > included in this category, and who is excluded?
> >
> > The Australian dominant discourse currently seems quite keen on drawing
> > sharp boundaries about who can be considered part of their 'nation',
> > illustrated by the treatment of asylum seekers. The UK too is now
> > threatening to take the children of failed asylum seekers into care - a significant
> > breach from the principle that a child should only be taken away from their
> > family if it is clearly 'in the best interests of the child'.
> > It strikes me that once they can do this to the children of asylum seekers,
> > they can do it to anybody who becomes seen by the dominant
> > discourse/political establishment as a 'problem'.
> >
> > 'First they came for the children of asylum seekers, but I did not speak out
> > because I am not an asylum seeker...' (apologies to Niemoller)
> >
> > "We speak and the word goes beyond us to consequences and ends which we had
> > not conceived of" Gadamer
> >
> >
> > ---------- Original Message -----------
> > From: "Lionel Boxer" <lboxer@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Sent: Tue, 09 Dec 2003 12:42:24 +1100
> > Subject: Re: Acronyms and Republicanism
> >
> > >You are right, vacuous because I was pissed and emotive when I typed
> > >it; I had just returned from a drinking session with some
> > >monarchists !-) I am surprised the spelling was so accurate!
> > >
> > >Having said that, what remains if a nation's heritage is dumped.
> > > The risk is that whatever is the most appealing to the widest
> > >population becomes adopted for as long as it remains in vogue. Or
> > >am I still intoxicated with an out of date discourse?
> > >
> > >>From: "Mark Kelly" <mgekelly@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >>
> > >>I would have thought an important lesson of Foucault is that there is no
> > >>sharp disjuncture between 'controlled misinformation' and 'natural
> > >>evolution' - indeed, the latter phrase seems pretty vacuous to me.
> > >>
> > >>>Are these the result of controlled misinformation or natural evolution
> > >>of
> > >>a
> > >>>society? If these are the result of controlled misinformation then why
> > >>has
> > >>>no viable alternative been put forth and if the republican movement were
> > >>to
> > >>>be taken seriously should it be expected to provide a viable
> > >>alternative?
> > >>>Or, perhaps is Australia to be denuded of meaningful national symbolism
> > >>and
> > >>>clothed in the latest fashionable accessory?
> > >
> > >_________________________________________________________________
> > >Hot chart ringtones and polyphonics. Go to
> > >http://ninemsn.com.au/mobilemania/default.asp
> > ------- End of Original Message -------
> >
> >
>
> Colin Gordon
>
> Director, NHSIA Disease Management Systems Programme
> Health Informatics Manager, Royal Brompton Hospital
> Chair, British Medical informatics Society
> http://www.bmis.org
> 07881 625146
> colinngordon@xxxxxxx
>
> --- StripMime Warning -- MIME attachments removed ---
> This message may have contained attachments which were removed.
>
> Sorry, we do not allow attachments on this list.
>
> --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
> multipart/alternative
> text/plain (text body -- kept)
> text/html
> ---
------- End of Original Message -------
asylum seekers themselves who are 'the problem', rather than the consequence of larger geo-political, economic and cultural problems, some of which
are exacerbated by the foreign policies of the UK government. By encouraging this discourse, perhaps they also hope to distract attention from some
of the failures of their own domestic policies.
As I understand it, it has always been the government's policy to take children into care where it is 'in the best interests of the child' - whether the
parent is an asylum seeker or not is irrelevant. Blunkett however made his threats specifically mentioning the children of asylum seekers - why?
Here is the justification for this policy that a New Labour supporter sent to me:
"'IF' asylum seekers appeal to stay here has been turned down and the asylum seekers have 'refused' to leave this country on the 'free' passage and
'free' resettlement package back to their own country provided by the British government and provided by the British taxpayer, and in refusing this help
to repatriate their benefits (also provided by the British taxpayer) have been stopped, then any children affected by 'THEIR' parents decision to make
themselves destitute have to be cared for and thus will be cared for by the state, until such a time when they can leave the country with their parents.
It is therefore the parental choice that has brought about their own children being placed in care for their own protection and NOT the UK government."
The logic of this argument is quite simple, if you are a failed asylum seeker, the state will make you destitute. Because you are destitute, they will take
your children into care until you agree to leave. It is like the same logic as the Bhuddist death penalty where you are thrown out of a window, it is the
ground that is responsible for your death...
"We speak and the word goes beyond us to consequences and ends which we had
not conceived of" Gadamer
---------- Original Message -----------
From: ColinNGordon@xxxxxxx
To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 06:11:39 EST
Subject: Re: Acronyms and Republicanism 'Nation'
> This claim about the UK government's intentions are very popular
> with its
> (left and right) critics and the mainstream media, and fit in with
> all kinds of rhetorical schemas about the slide to totalitarianism.
> In fact however the proposal is to take powers to take into care
> children of failed asylum seekers only in cases where this is in the
> child's interest.
>
> In a message dated 09/12/03 10:51:18 GMT Standard Time,
> meneilu2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
>
> > Subj: Re: Acronyms and Republicanism 'Nation'
> > Date: 09/12/03 10:51:18 GMT Standard Time
> > From: <A HREF="mailto:meneilu2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>meneilu2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx</A>
> > Reply-to: <A HREF="mailto:foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx</A>
> > To: <A HREF="mailto:foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx</A>
> > Sent from the Internet
> >
> >
> >
> > I would be interested in hearing people's comments on the assumptions that
> > go into the concept of 'nation' in the context it is used below, who is
> > included in this category, and who is excluded?
> >
> > The Australian dominant discourse currently seems quite keen on drawing
> > sharp boundaries about who can be considered part of their 'nation',
> > illustrated by the treatment of asylum seekers. The UK too is now
> > threatening to take the children of failed asylum seekers into care - a significant
> > breach from the principle that a child should only be taken away from their
> > family if it is clearly 'in the best interests of the child'.
> > It strikes me that once they can do this to the children of asylum seekers,
> > they can do it to anybody who becomes seen by the dominant
> > discourse/political establishment as a 'problem'.
> >
> > 'First they came for the children of asylum seekers, but I did not speak out
> > because I am not an asylum seeker...' (apologies to Niemoller)
> >
> > "We speak and the word goes beyond us to consequences and ends which we had
> > not conceived of" Gadamer
> >
> >
> > ---------- Original Message -----------
> > From: "Lionel Boxer" <lboxer@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Sent: Tue, 09 Dec 2003 12:42:24 +1100
> > Subject: Re: Acronyms and Republicanism
> >
> > >You are right, vacuous because I was pissed and emotive when I typed
> > >it; I had just returned from a drinking session with some
> > >monarchists !-) I am surprised the spelling was so accurate!
> > >
> > >Having said that, what remains if a nation's heritage is dumped.
> > > The risk is that whatever is the most appealing to the widest
> > >population becomes adopted for as long as it remains in vogue. Or
> > >am I still intoxicated with an out of date discourse?
> > >
> > >>From: "Mark Kelly" <mgekelly@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >>
> > >>I would have thought an important lesson of Foucault is that there is no
> > >>sharp disjuncture between 'controlled misinformation' and 'natural
> > >>evolution' - indeed, the latter phrase seems pretty vacuous to me.
> > >>
> > >>>Are these the result of controlled misinformation or natural evolution
> > >>of
> > >>a
> > >>>society? If these are the result of controlled misinformation then why
> > >>has
> > >>>no viable alternative been put forth and if the republican movement were
> > >>to
> > >>>be taken seriously should it be expected to provide a viable
> > >>alternative?
> > >>>Or, perhaps is Australia to be denuded of meaningful national symbolism
> > >>and
> > >>>clothed in the latest fashionable accessory?
> > >
> > >_________________________________________________________________
> > >Hot chart ringtones and polyphonics. Go to
> > >http://ninemsn.com.au/mobilemania/default.asp
> > ------- End of Original Message -------
> >
> >
>
> Colin Gordon
>
> Director, NHSIA Disease Management Systems Programme
> Health Informatics Manager, Royal Brompton Hospital
> Chair, British Medical informatics Society
> http://www.bmis.org
> 07881 625146
> colinngordon@xxxxxxx
>
> --- StripMime Warning -- MIME attachments removed ---
> This message may have contained attachments which were removed.
>
> Sorry, we do not allow attachments on this list.
>
> --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
> multipart/alternative
> text/plain (text body -- kept)
> text/html
> ---
------- End of Original Message -------