Heated Debate in HRC yesterday morning! The delegates were actively discussing the issue of asylum systems for refugees with criminal records. Several amendments were submitted, including the amendment submitted by the delegate of Cambodia, asking to modify clause 2 (stricter citizen application process that prevents anyone with a crucial criminal background from being granted citizenship). The delegate of Turkey made a POI, asking whether any person with a criminal background would not be allowed into the country, and Cambodia replied that this was not the case, taking into account the spectre of different crimes and their importance.

The delegate of the USA then made a speech against this amendment, and, as the chairs said, “butchered the delegate of Cambodia with their speech”. They claimed that any person with a criminal record, no matter the crime in question, should not be granted authorisation to enter the country, because they would threaten the safety of the country. In retort to this, the delegate of Cambodia asked for a right to reply, which was granted, to defend themselves and their points. They reminded the delegate of the USA that the spectre of crimes should be taken into account, and that any human being should be granted asylum. 

The discussion then veered towards crimes concerning illegal substances, with the delegate of India making a POI, asking the delegate of the USA why they would claim that it is mostly immigrants who are behind such businesses (for illegal substances): “unless the delegation is racist, this delegation does not understand why they would assume that these illegal business are booming only because of immigrants”. This led to a heated debate, with the delegate of the USA stating that the question was irrelevant, as they were previously discussing asylum rights for refugees with criminal records. Yet India was not discouraged and stated that with such claims, the USA was pointing a target at immigrants’ backs by generalising them as criminals, and thus restricting the life they are going to live. Finally, before the debate continued in noteform, the delegate of the USA defended themselves by stating that their country has the right to be scared as such immigrants (those with criminal records) could overthrow the balance of the country, and therefore they had the right to be wary and cautious when addressing the issue.