(Back)What to do?
Recall conclusions of the Book of Solidarity
The main question in all this is how civil society can protect itself from being penalised for extending solidarity to undocumented migrants.
PICUM held a workshop on 8 April 2005 in Antwerp (Belgium) to define strategies to protect ourselves against such laws. Results of this workshop and an Action Plan will be published on this site on June 1st 2005.
In the mean time, it should be recalled that the main conclusion of PICUM's Book of Solidarity was that people support undocumented migrants regardless of the legislations that might prohibit this. For European citizens and organizations, moral and human rights arguments prevail over legislation.
It
should be noted that civil society throughout history has been powerful in
identifying policy needs. The fact that thousands of individuals and
organizations care about the plight of undocumented migrants, might lead to the
installment of a relief policy. In many areas where citizens have actively and
collectively demonstrated their support of a certain need, governments have
consequently made the choice to develop minimal regulations, to adapt existing
legislation, to financially support citizens’ activities, or even to consider
assistance as a task of the government.
Recall conclusions of the Book of Solidarity
On a conclusive note, it might be useful to recall some of the conclusions of the Book of Solidarity regarding penalisation of assistance.
In
some countries criminalizing measures seem to have perverse effects. They do not
stop people from providing assistance, but they force the people to do this
unseen, hidden. They force solidarity to be extended in an underground zone,
invisible for the public, invisible for the police, invisible for policy makers.
| * First of all
this is very much counterproductive as to what is aimed at: the extinction
of ‘an underground world’. |
| * Second it is a
missed opportunity in terms of developing effective policies: through
providers of assistance crucial information can be obtained about the
situation of undocumented migrants. |
| * Thirdly, if all the assistance provided is illegal, it becomes less relevant to distinguish between “less illegal” and “more illegal” actions. If there is no interaction with authorities and no transparency required (but rather the opposite), we noted that assistors are more inclined to blur borders between what in a normal situation would be judged as legal (providing health care and shelter) and illegal (forging documents and smuggling). |
