Refugees – sympathy or hard-headed pragmatism ++ 1967 wider definition

41 thoughts on “Refugees – sympathy or hard-headed pragmatism ++ 1967 wider definition”

1. An asylum lawyer has been interviewed and is quoted as saying that he believes 80% of asylum seekers are not genuine. I have long suspected this to be the case We need to be very careful how we use the word ‘refugee’ as most of the people coming to the Uk and claiming to be refugees are not With 380 million people potentially able to claim asylum here ,this ‘flood’ is indeed unsustainable. This country is already over populated,the infrastructure cannot cope now. I hope Suella Braverman is not just ‘a blot on the landcape’ as we need her,she talks a lot of sense. The UN Geneva agreement of 1951 is very out of date and needs to be reviewed urgently imo

   • Neptune in Pisces is compassionate and empathetic but it is not really always realistic. It wants to alleviate suffering but it does not have the focus or practical ability to do it in anymore than the most nebulous of ways.Neither Neptune or Pisces like boundaries and will seek to dissolve them so it’s no surprise borders have become very permeable while the planet is in that sign. Neptune also has links to deception either of the self or by others. At the moment the planet is in the past Decan of Pisces traditionally ruled by Mars which is a difficult energy and is probably going to ultimately bring disillusionment. I suspect that the wheels will really start to come off in Aries in 2025 which is masculine, ego centred and essentially self centred sign that tends to put the focus on the individual not the other. I suspect the question that is going to be asked is “Who is my neighbour and why should I care about him ?”. The positive thing about Aries is that it is a Cardinal sign that wants to act not to empathise endlessly so we may start to see some concrete responses to the migration issue Whether they will be positive remains to be seen. The danger is that Neptune in Aries may take matters to violent extremes. Whatever happens I can’t see the current scenario surviving this change.

2. According to wikipedia the 1967 Protocol on refugees was signed on the 31 January 1967 when the Pluto Uranus conjunction in Virgo was opposing Saturn and Chiron in late Pisces. It was therefore expressed a part of the idealism and desire for radical reform in that era together with a kick against the immediate post Second World War settlement;which set limits on refugee aid. That part of the chart has been triggered in recent years by the passage of Neptune through the last decan of Pisces. Neptune opposite Pluto matches the current dissolution in faith in certain ideas when good intentions are seen to have mixed outcomes. It is further emphasised by the classic mid life crisis Uranus Neptune opposition transit when people have to start reviewing their life’s actions and start acknowledging that there may be major disconnects between what one would like to do and what one can realistically achieve. That January 1967 chart also has a Moon Mars conjunction in Libra which perhaps indicates the volatile and angry emotions that the decision has subsequently generated among people. Like so many things from the late 1960s the dream was destined to turn sour sooner or later.

3. Interesting to see that transiting Pluto in Aquarius in the 1951 Refugee Convention Chart will be challenged for what its stands for in the next two years. As next year the energy of Pluto will start to dissolve a long held belief about home and abroad, as it transits the Conventions chart’s fourth house. Which represents the home and family life against their power – Sun in the 10th house – and belief. Whichever, way is goes, change is coming. You can take your choice about Suella Braverman; yet her own Sun/Moon midpoint, if calculated by sign, not the shortest route, is in Cancer. Ironically she is motivated by her own home interest – aren’t we all?

4. Jonathan Portes are you talking about Enoch Powell’s ‘Rivers of Blood’ speech?

5. I think Suella’s idea of trying to build international consensus to re-write the UN Refugee Convention, is the right one.

   It’s not just Europe and North America who are struggling with immigration.

   In South Africa, a new black anti-immigration party, Operation Dudula is challenging the ANC. Some of their members are violent and have burnt down businesses owned by immigrant Somalis and Nigerians.

   Saudi is struggling with illegal Eithiopians entering through Yemen. Saudi border police actually opened fire to deter them. Despite this, 450,000 illegal immigrants have crossed last year.

   Bangladesh is struggling with Rohingya from Myanmar.

   Brazil is struggling with Venezuelans crossing the border.

   There is a lot of silent support across the world for re-writing the Refugee Convention, but none dared speak up. I expect they’re glad Suella has.

6. One theory I have seen floated is this:

   The UK is now a hollowed out, post industrial society with very very little in the way of actual wealth creating economic productive capacity left.
   Basically, it has regressed to the pre industrial, feudal mode of production, in which land – and land ownership – is the prime mode of private profit creation. Except in the modern iteration of feudalism, it is farming out housing stock for rental income, rather than farming land for crop income, which is the main way of making a fortune.
   Hence you see that the really rich in the UK are all private landlords with big portfolios, connected with this fact is that most Westminster MPs, are substantial private landlords.
   The idea is, basically, to sweat rents to the highest possible maximal level. This is being achieved by the enormous level of immigration into the UK, 1.2 million last year. Thus rents, by the iron law of supply and demand are being pushed to the stratosphere. The landlords accrue more of the national income to themselves, and use it to expand their portfolios even further, hence, in the long run, all possible wealth in the UK will be captured by literal ‘lords’ of the ‘land’.

   • I would agree about the role of land and landownership in the U.K. and Ireland. It is a subject almost completely neglected by the media and little covered by historians. To understand the country and its politics you really need to have read Kevin Cahill “Who owns Britain and Ireland” or Guy Shrubholes “Who Owns England” . Rental income from property in the U.K. and Ireland was as important as the Industrial Revolution and the Empire as a source of wealth to the country’s ruling classes. If you read Jane Austen Britain’s colonial possessions or the Industrial Revolution only get passing mention whereas everyone in the books is obsessed with land ownership and the rental income it generates. In fact owning land in Britain or Ireland was the only real route to gentility which is why those who made money from the empire or industry nearly always sunk their profits into buying it.

     Land was and still is a major shaper of government policy in Britain where maintaining property prices seems to be a major unstated aim of both Conservative and Labour governments. Thus you get the insanity of people regarding things such as house price inflation as good while general inflation is thought to be bad. This nexus between politics, economics and land is almost never covered by the media. The entire tax and benefit system in the U.K. is similarly designed to extract money from employees, tenants etc and to funnel it into the pockets of landowners. This is not something new as the same process was going on at the time of the Peasants Revolt in 1381. In some respects this is internal driver for immigration to the U.K. as more bodies are required to facilitate the processs of bidding up rents and provides more income either in the form of tax or government benefits that can be siphoned into the pockets of landowners.

     In economic terms real and imputed rents are a significant part of the UKs GDP accounting for over £300 billion in 2021. This is why Britain’s GDP often shrinks and the economy goes into “recession” when land prices fall by more than ten percent even if other forms of output and general employment levels remain unchanged. Again immigration plays into that accounting process by nominally increasing a country’s wealth. This can easily be seen by comparing the UKs ranking in terms of total GDP where it is the 6th or 7th largest economy according to the World Bank whereas in terms of GDP per capita it trails in at 27th place. In these terms you can see why governments actually secretly are indifferent to immigration so long as it can reasonably be controlled while claiming to oppose it. The problem they face is disguising this fact from the general population who obviously are more concerned about jobs, wage levels, house prices and rents.

     • @Hugh, thank you for your thoughtful — as ever– historical analysis of this situation. It’s so helpful to view this situation additionally through the historical perspective. Though I read English history at university in London, that was many years ago and perspectives and interpretations have evolved over those years.

     • Hello Hugh, thank your for your analysis. If your theory is true, and it might very well be, it is a terrible thing. Almost a cause for despair, I would say. I do think that Pluto in Capricorn has been facilitating and supporting the (very rich) minority of landowners and landlords in making profits at the expense of the larger population. If only people would wake up to the reality of it!
       I really, hope that Pluto transiting into Aquarius – which will hopefully be concerned with equality instead of favoring the elite – will undermine this system.

   • There is land and then there is Landlords of housing stock. Those old “Landlords”whom the majority are not wealth in money, and are saddled with great houses, in need of keep, is completely different from many untitled people who have built up enormous wealth in housing. The old Lords, have farming tenants who actually serve this country with basic food. These farms and land has stayed farming land, because of a knowledge of farming and looking after land for food. If anything, the two should now be called different names. Landowners, and House owners with portfolios. This is an astrology site, yet the same old argument about ownership comes up on this site. Who is right or is wrong? Although Astrology should teach us that perhaps some are born to do and other are to be told what to do? Which can first the chicken or the egg? As an astrology chart indicates strength and weaknesses. Politics defines whether everyone should be the same. If you gave all your food away from your own home, the next day more would come; as word gets around. If you kept giving more food away day after day, then at some point, you would not only be able to feed those who come, but your own household as well. Marjorie’s title of this article has “pragmatism” in it. We all have to learn how to be pragmatic in order to survive. We all knock the old aristocracy, yet never thank them, that without these old families, their land may have been sold for housing. Where the builders and those who bulk buy, would take all the land for housing, thus leaving us unable to feeds ourselves.

     • @Helen. How romantic! How inaccurate! Whoever we should cry for, surely not landowning aristocrats, who are alive and well and flourishing? And what is their connection to refugees, astrological or otherwise?
       The Duke of Westminster, along with 3 other aristocratic families, owns the freeholds of most of central London, with centuries of huge sums gained from leaseholds. He is also one of the biggest farm land owners. He along with his aristo mates, received the most agricultural grants from the government, quango, and previously the EU. 42 of 92 existing aristocratic families have been deeply entrenched since the days of the Plantagenets. 30% of England, 50% of rural land is owned by aristocrats. Far from being saddled with it, they cling determinedly onto privilege, constantly fighting for advantageous inheritance and tax laws to keep it. Tenant farmers rent land from landowners, often aristocratic, under terms and conditions set out in their tenancy agreements in the same way that residents rent houses. The ones you are referring to are the very few, not the majority, which is why we hear about them. Many aristocrats are involved in property development.
       As you say, this is an astrology site, but it’s often useful to look at issues and events in context, historical and contemporary. Richard Portes and Hugh Fowler have highlighted a very interesting issue and explanation for the exceptional dependence on house prices in this country, which ties into the issue of refugees and immigration, analysed by Marjorie and others astrologically.

   • Exactly so. Succint summing up of the state of the UK carcass and its picked bones.

     • In response to Jonathan Portes on Landowners

7. The original 1951 Refugee Convention was limited to European refugees only, and concerned admission to European states only.

   The big mistake was the 1968 amendment which granted ‘universality’.

   Incidentally, 1968 was the year of the Powell Speech.

   A horoscope on the 1968 amendment would be more illuminating.

8. The demographic explosion after WW II has caused the population of Asia, Latin America and Africa to double every 35 years. The population of those countries is equivalent to 83% of the world’s total.

   As long as fertility rates remain high, and the mortality rates continue to decrease, many will leave their home countries in the hope for a better life in the “West”.

   In our rich countries, the increasing migration pressure logically ends up in rising nationalism and political instability. Always more and more citizens do not agree with a system allowing migrations to Europe /USA to exploit the wide-ranging economic opportunities created by the globalization.

   Is the North supposed to solve and overcome the demography in the South?

9. Thanks Marjorie. This is indeed a challenging global issue, and climate change will likely exacerbate it.
   I remembered the Aliens Act, 1905 (no, I’m not that old!) – which received Royal Assent on 11 August 1905. This was at a time when there were no formal passport controls. Migration from Italy had been going on for a long time, prompted by poverty there. Many went to the US, where they were not very welcome. They were mistrusted here and in Europe too. Then the pogroms in Russia and elsewhere brought Jewish refugees, some settling in the UK, others on their way to the US or South Africa.

   “This Act gave government inspectors the power to exclude paupers, unless they could prove that they were entering the country solely to avoid persecution or punishment on religious or political grounds or for an offence of a political nature. When the Liberals came in to power in 1906 they did not repeal the Act, but neither did they rigorously enforce it, and the number of actual exclusions was relatively small. The precedent had been set, however, for a century of increasing legislative controls on immigration.” National Archives

   The astrology of this Act is interesting. It has a t-square of Jupiter, the traveller, in Gemini, square Saturn at 0 Pisces, which opposes the North Node, representing people and associates, in 0 Virgo. This all chimes with the UNHCR Moon and Jupiter in boundaryless Pisces, the UN Refugee Convention Mercury 1 Virgo, and Suella Braverman’s natal Jupiter, 1 Virgo. Both UN charts have their Nodes in Pisces/Virgo. Potentially, a theme of ‘victim’ and ‘saviour’ emerges. Also the everyday world of 6th house Virgo versus the hidden, submerged and watery world of 12th house Pisces. All are having a Saturn in Pisces transit. Uranus arrives in Gemini in 2025.

   As far as the UK is concerned, Suella has Uranus 25 Scorpio square Mars 25 Leo. The Act has Mars 24 Scorpio, inconjuct Pluto 22 Gemini, which opposes Suella’s natal Neptune in Sagittarius – more people, more travellers. Tr Uranus approaches. I hope that at the very least there can be constructive discussions on all this, since I think things, globally, may grow very dark indeed unless we can all find a way forward.

   • The Aliens Act was specifically aimed at the huge surge of Jewish immigrants feeing the pogroms in Ukraine.

     As far as I know, it was never aimed at Italians. In fact, I’ve never read of a single instance of Italian immigration into the UK being decried by politicians, the press or others in the crucial 1890 to 1910 period.

     I don’t know where you got this from. Perhaps you are conflating the USA with the UK.

     • Jonothan – Italian migration to Britain covers many centuries. At that particular period, an upsurge was perceived to be problematic by some people – many of the newer arrivals were very poor and desperate and the 1905 Act addresses the issue of impoverished economic migrants. There had been tensions regarding Italian street musicians in the 1870’s, and later the new arrivals were suspected of bringing disease and crime. Irish economic migrants to Britain had faced tremendous prejudice in the 19th century, and were similarly very poor indeed. Until this Aliens Act, Britain effectively had an ‘open door’ policy, but no welfare state existed.

       “During the 1900s, Italians migrated northwards and westwards from
       London, either settling in urban centres or smaller towns. In 1905,
       however, with the passage of the Aliens Act, the British government had
       to deal with very large waves of migration from Italy and, as a result, had
       to introduce important regulation. From that time onwards, the prospective
       migrant would have to make sure they had a job and accommodation in
       the United Kingdom before immigration could take place. Through strong
       connections, many were able to secure jobs and housing and entire
       families left their Italian villages. As a result of this chain migration, many
       towns came to have their own distinctive Italian communities in the UK”
       CambridgeScholars.com

       • Scotland had Italian immigrants – I always assumed they came over during WW11 but maybe they came before. And they had the most fabulous ice cream shops. Just divine.

         • Yes, oh, the ice cream! Italian migration to Scotland begins late 19th century, I think partly linked with Catholic churches being built, and all the wonderful woodcarvers and makers from Italy. Principally, Italians from Tuscany went there – there is a town in Lucca where apparently 50per cent of inhabitants have Scottish relatives. Much further back, Mary Queen of Scots had an Italian secretary, and maybe lover, called David Rizzio who was murdered horribly. I think the links between our countries are fascinating and under-explored, historically speaking.

       • The Aliens Act applied to all foreigners who were not British subjects.

         Germans, Americans etc were subject to it.

     • You’ll find discussions in Parliament about Italian migrants at that time in Hansard. Here is one example, from January, 1902. Major Evans-Gordon MP addresses the House on the wider topic of migrants. His speech includes this:

       “….this movement is not confined to East London. There are districts such as that behind Regent Street and Soho, and at Saffron Hill, where there are large and increasing foreign colonies of the worse class. These are the haunts of foreign prostitutes and souteneurs of gambling dens and disorderly houses. A band of several hundred Italians, everyone with a knife, which he is too ready to use, is at this moment I believe causing great anxiety to the County Council, and it has only just come to my knowledge that aliens from Poland have established themselves in North East Lanark and are entering into competition with the miners there and lowering their standard of life and wages. Sir, where is this going to end?”

       • Above intended as a reply to Jonathan P.

10. One thing that has changed is the ease of choice in deciding where a person can be a refugee. When the Refugee Conventions were agreed, in the early 1950s, air travel was not really a thing, except for the richest in society. Refugees would have fled to the countries closest to their own (cf the examples in the post about Palestinian refugees in Jordan and Lebanon), and thus to societies that were reasonably similar enough, even though not identical. Now they have a choice of where they seek refuge status in. And crucially, because of the Refugee Conventions, that invests them with immediate rights in most of those countries. One can see the allure of taking that chance.
    I think that one of the basis of opposition for refugees in the UK is that the refugees will have come in via other safe states. Therefore the idea that the refugee can choose the state that offers the best options for them, and they can’t be refused, is what rankles the UK.
    To an extent, the refugee issue ties in with the trans right issue as well. In both cases, it is a case of self-identification. If one says that one is a refugee, it is quite hard to disprove it and one has to take them at their word. And then, at one’s own say-so to be invested with rights under an international convention, is what makes the refugee route so popular.
    I think what rankles with most countries with incoming refugees is the idea that, at least under the Refugee Conventions, the countries can’t refuse. They can’t say “No”. And the inability to say “No” can be very unpopular.
    I think that those who campaign for refugee rights should have the doors and windows of their houses taken off and their homes marked as open to all. Their homes should be treated as they treat their homeland.

    • It has probably not helped the refugees that some of them have gone on to disrupt their new countries. Just the other day, I was reading about how, after the Palestinians took refuge in Jordan, and Jordan generously gave them citizenship, in the 1970s, the PLO tried to overthrow the Jordanian monarchy and state. They were eventually chased out of Jordan, into Syria and Lebanon, where they went on to cause issues for the governments there.

11. Can we read about this stuff without an acknowledgement of the West’s own responsibility and complicity in creating this situation? Trying to bracket this off from history is pretty hard to take. So much of the wars and civil conflicts, not to mention climate change disasters, can be traced to rich countries whose wealth came from and still comes from the global south. Extract the wealth and cheap labour when you need it but the rest can drown in the sea or succumb to disease in detention camps? Really?
    As a species, we can and must do better. At present, companies and countries work together to cause mischief and mayhem to increase their power and profit. Somehow, we need to use our ingenuity to help refugees and stop supporting the regimes that create them. Some of this was done in the aftermath of WWII. We can learn much from that era of how to behave badly, as well as progressively. Our choices will follow us and future generations to come. Karma is always in the making.

    • Well said Anita.

    • Agree with you there Anita. As someone residing in global south (doing very well here, no desire to migrate. Thank you very much!), I cannot but reflect that from the 16th to the 19th century, flow of population was from Europe to Asia, Africa and the newly discovered lands of the Americas – north and south. What was it but not migration in search of opportunity, which came to be recognised as colonialism?
      Now, after more than 3 centuries of global resource extraction, the shoe is on the other foot and it sure is biting! (Apologies for mixed metaphors)

      The global South lives in an international order created by their former masters. Today, enterprise and capital pretty much operates in any country around the world and can repatriate their profits – typically to countries based in the global North (or, increasingly tax havens dotted in island nations). Would global economics appear the same if Googles and Facebooks of the world were forced to invest their profits in countries where they made it, instead of taking them to Ireland or wherever they take them nowadays? Would the need to migrate be as urgent?

      Multinationals exploiting cheap labour is an evergreen old story. You could even argue that the profits repatriated are nothing but the wages that would have been paid to labour were labour in developed countries been engaged in production. Multinationals do own/ lease vast swathes of land in countries of operation.
      Seen in another way, global migration is nothing but labour – as the last economic resource – going global and trying to level the playing field against exploitation.

      • To add on –
        The British especially do need to acquaint themselves with the history of British colonialism beyond “Oh, we gave them rail, mail, jail” – standing in for systems of transportation, communication and administration.
        East India Company was one of the first truly multi-national companies, set up with the express purpose of resource extraction and repatriation. A significant proportion of wealth of the royal and aristocratic families could be traced back to its operations in India. Many commoners who migrated to India to work in the army or civil services amassed wealth too. Robert Clive is a prime example.
        The blueprint of patterns of political collusion with local elite for profiteering that we see today in operations of many MNCs was laid down by the EIC.
        ‘The Anarchy’ by William Dalrymple, ‘Outsourcing Empire’ by Andrew Philips, ‘The Company State’ and ‘Empire, incorporated’ by Philip J Stern – all examine this history and provide valuable perspective.
        Without knowing this background to ‘wealthy European countries’, migration from the global South would always look like UK & Europe being under a siege by hungry migrants. After learning about history of colonialism, one might understand that the European welfare state was perhaps made possible on the basis of wealth amassed through global colonialism.

        • See post 17 September 2022 and comments.

    • Absolutely. Governments want to be seen to be tough on refugees but have zero interest in being tough on the causes of what makes so many have to leave their home, their country. War & Climate Change drive migration. It is only going to get worse.

12. Hard to imagine but for most of the 19th century Britain had no immigration rules so there were no real rules about asylum. As a consequence anyone could enter or leave the country. This is why you find people like Marx, Engels, Lenin and even Stalin in Britain at various times. Of course, while the state did not restrict freedom of movement it also provided little in the way of support either to existing citizens or to immigrants apart from the workhouse. People without family networks of support were likely to struggle. Unsurprisingly there was no rush from overseas to live in England’s Victorian slums.

    The modern asylum system was basically developed after the Second World War to deal with the millions of refugees created by that conflict. It is currently showing its age and its flaws. Whether it can survive is a moot point particularly as the economies of places such as the U.K. and within certain EU countries are starting to show serious cracks. Any prolonged economic downturn is likely to worsen that situation. The war in the Ukraine may also be a sign that the peace of Europe is becoming more fragile. Eastern Europeans particularly are far less tolerant of immigrants or asylum seekers than most of the old Western European imperial powers and perhaps understandably don’t see why they should be burdened with their colonial legacy or their guilt complexes about Empire, particularly as places such as the Balkans have their own experience of being forcibly occupied by other imperial powers. I am not sure there are any simple solutions though making migration a less economically attractive proposition is probably the best long term solution as it would sort those genuinely in fear of their lives from those simply seeking better opportunities. That is probably going to happen anyway given the economic and debt problems in the west. One only has to look at New York to see how quickly the political landscape can change when harsh choices about who gets what resources is posed.

    • Fascinating comments and debate on this issue.
      My own Italian family came over during the diaspora of the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
      My nonna came over as a 16 year old from below Naples at the turn of the 20th century and settled in Islington, not too far from saffron Hill.
      She had her radio confiscated during the world wars, even though her sons were fighting in the war.
      I’ve never thought about the prejudice she may have faced.

13. Migrants are indeed a pressing problem. Even more difficulty, though, comes when governments weaponise immigration as an issue to detract away from their own very real policy failures and money squandering, so that voters blame it on the immigrants rather than the political party in question.

    Sun Aries opposition Pluto is outspoken, yes, but could also be argued to think more about public profile (10th Sun) than the fundamental and difficult issues swept under the carpet (4th Pluto). Facilitated by that arrogant Mars, Braverman is a nasty piece of work. Rwanda, anyone?

14. ‘…………………………….. those with generous state subsidies with understandable concern from governments over costs and resentment from the public at being overwhelmed by outsiders when they themselves are struggling.’

    The problem is that the public who pay into the system to help create those ‘generous state subsidies’ are sometimes the ones who cannot reap the benefit/get the help they require when needed even though they have paid all their contributions? That’s what the man in the street complains about the most.

    • The question has been posed before in the U.K. that one can have open borders or one can have a welfare state with non contributory benefits but one can not have both. That is a question a lot of people in politics do not want to face. It is going to have to be answered some day.

15. What struck me was a modern Puss in Boots story….I think at one point it was “Turn again Whittington Thrice Mayor of London” and he thinks the streets of London are paved with gold…well for him it works out Ok

16. It’s very clear there is a world-wide problem with immigration. I take issue with the political rhetoric (incendiary language serves no one). This is a systemic problem and requires nations to work together on initiatives. I’m not against solutions like Rwanda or development aid to support countries bid to strengthen their economies but it needs to be coordinated and we need to accept that there’s going to always be a cost, whether people stay in their home country or choose the immigration path. I’d wager it’s cheaper to keep them at home but politically costly because the politicians chose to weaponise economic aid which has backfired but nobody wants to admit that.

17. The vision was very good and compassionate. The problems start when the compassion starts being misused. Migrants live on the kindness and generosity of liberal societies, and once there they multiply like there’s no tomorrow in the hope of perhaps changing the demographic. When Germany wanted to settle the Jews in the ME, the Islamic leader he was speaking with refused, and there was the holocaust. Non-liberal leaders are very clear about their priorities. Brunt is borne by the liberal, which gets abused by the migrants.

    • Completely agree