Labor, critical thinking and migration

Last Friday I spoke extensively about how we can get accounting students to think critically, while many others prefer not to do so.

I feel much the same about Labour. There is no sign that any of them can think critically.

I should probably define what I mean by critical thinking. I could offer my version, or one from another source. I found this from Monash University, and I like it:

Critical thinking is a form of thinking in which you question, analyze, interpret, evaluate, and make judgments about what you read, hear, say, or write. The term critical comes from the Greek word kritikos, which means “to judge or discern.” Good critical thinking is about making reliable judgments based on reliable information.

I also like this interpretation of what it means:

Therefore, to become a better critical thinker, you must learn the following:

• clarify your thinking purpose and context

• Question your sources of information

• identify arguments

• analyze sources and arguments

• evaluate the arguments of others and

• create or synthesize your own arguments.

It’s a relatively rare skill, because it requires the ability to observe carefully, ask what question is being asked, evaluate relevant data and its reliability and quality, consider alternatives, and then generate new ideas, which I prefer to consider better solutions. I’d like to think that’s what I’ve done in my career, and because I have, I know it’s certainly not easy.

So why am I critical of Labour? Let me use an example, namely the so-called small boats problem, which is itself part of the supposed problem of managing the perfectly legitimate right of people to claim asylum in the UK.

The context is simple. In a world in turmoil, people fleeing from war and persecution have the internationally recognized right to seek asylum wherever they choose. There is no evidence that they should seek asylum in the first country they reach: the choice is theirs.

The UK takes in only a small number of refugees compared to its European neighbours and many other countries, even though it accepts large numbers of non-refugees.

The UK is very clearly, and almost certainly unethically, using the physical barrier of the English Channel in an attempt to prevent access to the UK refugee system. Whether it has the legal right to do so is questionable. Other European countries have shown little sympathy for it.

The result was always predictable: those who want to seek refuge in a country where they speak the language take the risk of arriving here in small boats. European countries make at best half-hearted attempts to stop them.

British politicians claim that those who cross the Channel in this way are illegal migrants. There is considerable doubt about the validity of that claim. It simply seems wrong. No refugee can be described in that way. The law does not allow it.

So now we have a problem that is not properly formulated in international law (there are no illegal migrants) and to which a potentially illegal but pragmatic response has been given – which amounts to raising the drawbridge – without ever considering that the moat could easily be crossed. This exposes all the falsehoods in the arguments put forward and seems, at best, to disengage the politicians who made the claims.

The UK’s arguments, in other words, have failed. And so has the practice. Nothing the current administration can say or do can stop the boats arriving here, full of people with a legal right to have their cases heard. And that fact is well known to our neighbours.

What is the alternative argument? It is to comply with the law. That is, we can provide a safe route for those who want to come to the UK, where their case can be heard. In other words, and there is no way around this, we can give those who want to come here tickets to do so, not least because we know that most who come that far have a legal right to stay.

Therefore, we could also invest in processing the applications of these refugees as quickly as possible and ensure that those who have the right to stay can be helped into productive employment as quickly as possible.

This would significantly reduce the cost of the whole process.

It would also exploit the competitive advantage that refugees have always brought to the UK, as they are typically highly educated, productive, innovative and keen to integrate into our communities. What’s not to like?

At the same time, make this decision-making process fast and it might be possible to have other, neighboring countries, host it. If not, why would they?

So instead of treating this as a problem, it could be framed as an obligation to be fulfilled for the best benefit of all, with profits to be made, costs to be saved, and international relations to be improved. And no, a flood of applications will not happen: applicants still have to overcome enormous obstacles to get here, and no one wants to be a refugee.

What all this suggests is that if Labour had properly assessed the evidence and the inevitability of the situation it faced, it could have rejected the Conservatives’ policy entirely and announced new approaches that would stop the boats, end the actions of criminal gangs, vastly reduce costs, be humane, accept international legal obligations and turn the situation to its advantage.

But it seems that no one in Labour could solve this. That is quite depressing.

What we have here is Labour using the same false and failed rhetoric on this issue as the Tories before them, with all the hints of racism inherent in it, and the equally stupid claim that they will stop the smuggling gangs, which is about as likely as they can stop the flood.

In other words, precisely because Labour cannot think critically, or is too afraid to do so, and regardless of what it is, it has created a problem for itself that it will never solve. At the same time, it is playing to those who want to create artificial divisions in British society, when new narratives are needed.

If you can’t think critically, you’ll pay a high price.