It looks like some conservatives are keeping a weather eye on Australia’s territorial waters, as they prepare for an influx of illegal immigrants in the wake of changes to the mandatory detention policy. Apparently we are up to three boats bringing unauthorised arrivals since the new policy was announced.
Instead of comparing this year’s rate to previous years (e.g., five boats arrived during 2007), here is my reaction: so what? Even if there is an increase in the number of boats carrying unauthorised arrivals to Australian waters, why should I be so concerned about that?
In particular, why should I think it is better to have a policy with mandatory detention for all – even kids – that reduces the number of arrivals than to have a policy that treats people reasonably and humanely, even if it did mean that some more people might attempt to come here illegally?
For any unauthorised arrivals who have a legitimate claim to asylum, then I am happy if they find safety, security and prosperity in Australia. For unauthorised arrivals who do not have a legitimate claim, then they will be returned to their place of origin. For unauthorised arrivals who are a genuine security risk, they should be detained while their claims are assessed. I would prefer a system that achieves these appropriate outcomes over one that achieves the absolute minimal number of unauthorised arrivals.
My primary concern about the number of boats that attempt to bring people to Australia illegally is the safety of the passage – I would imagine that the last thing anyone wants to see is another SIEV-X. But attempting to prevent it by adopting a policy of locking up every man, woman and child who survives the trip makes no sense to me.
Toaf points out that, relative to other, less well-resourced parts of the world, our “burden” in terms of providing support to those in need of asylum is pretty minimal. I would rather see us consider how we can best identify and support those people who need it than argue about how to reduce the number of people who reach our shores.
Name those five boats Tobias and giving some details some details about them would be nice too.
Cheers and thanks for the link.
I don’t have the details – the Sydney Morning Herald reported those figures. It’s probably worth noting that there was the appearance of an upward trend in numbers of people prior to 2008:
There is some information in this report, but because the Department reports on financial rather than calendar years it does not match up directly with the SMH numbers. It does mention a boat carrying 83 Sri Lankans arriving at Christmas Island in February 2007. It’s also interesting to note that visa overstayers are by far the biggest contributor to our detention numbers. The 2007-08 report should be out soon.
As I said, however, I really don’t consider the number of unauthorised boat arrivals to be the standard we should use to measure our migration policy. I’d rather have a system that lets us support the people who need our help while still identifying those who do not have a valid claim.
The fact that we are an island nation does to some extent protect us from the unending number of people who want to flood into the western nations, this is a problem that is only going to get worse with the economic situation we are seeing now.
There is however a saturation point beyond which peoples compassion will evaporate and nothing hastens that like rising unemployment. That is the situation in places like the UK and it will happen here as well.
I suppose that what I am saying is that we must not let our own compassion create a situation of an overloaded life boat Australia or we will have some very serious social problems as a result.
“In particular, why should I think it is better to have a policy with mandatory detention for all – even kids – that reduces the number of arrivals than to have a policy that treats people reasonably and humanely, even if it did mean that some more people might attempt to come here illegally?”
Mate, that paragraph expresses my own sentiments more clearly than I have otherwise been able to. Well said. It’s time we looked at this as an ethical and humanitarian issues, not just a political one.
Iain, our compassion and our resources can stretch a lot further than they do at present, and those serious social problems you forecast are not an inevitable product of refugee intake. And this isn’t about taking people who want to come to our country – it’s about people who need to leave their own country. As Toaf says, this is an ethical and humanitarian issue – we need more understanding of the plight of others and willingness to accommodate people needing help into our society.
And this isn’t about taking people who want to come to our country – it’s about people who need to leave their own country.
Something we seem to have forgotten since WWII, when this truth was made so obvious.
Lessons of history and all that…
Iain Hall: “Name those five boats Tobias…”
Name just six, Tobias. Just six.
Gotchme, Ed!
Great point, Bruce. I guess that, aside from the magnitude of the genocide in WWII, the other distinction is that the perpetrators weren’t content with eliminating the Jews from their own territory and were engaging the world in a war as well.
When all we see from here is the people showing up on our doorstep, it seems hard for many to understand what they are fleeing from.
Tobias
The question that asked Toaf at my blog seems rather apt at this point, namely just where do we draw the line and say that we have been generous enough? How many refugees should we take?
Come on name a figure Tobias.
How many refugees should we take? Come on name a figure Tobias.
Given that these things fluctuate with local population and resource uses, I don’t think it sensible to expect anyone to just trot out a figure.
Rather I think it fair and reasonable for us lowly bloggers to speculate on what a formula for determining running immigration levels would look like. I suspect water supply and demand would factor in, possibly being the limiting factor.
On the other hand, illegal immigrants who aren’t refugees, such as those who watch Neighbours and decide to pop on over and let their visas expire, could become measured as an increased capacity if only we were to make serious efforts (for once) to send them back home to rain, soggy chips and warm beer.
It’s amazing how tolerant Australia is of English speaking illegal aliens, even if they can’t integrate properly into our pubs.
I was going to go with “infinity and beyond!”, but I like Bruce’s answer better.
Fixing a number is nonsensical; among those who need refuge, we should take as many as we can with the resources Australia has available, and we should help any who we can’t accommodate to find a new home elsewhere. I suspect it’s a moot point anyway – I would say that the number of refugees who reach our territory would not come close to the number we can reasonably accommodate.
[...] Indeed, if you want a take on what the “stupid lefties” in question actually think about the topic, I’d commend TZ’s post, So What? [...]
[...] wrote this at my old blog a year ago. I stand by it. It looks like some conservatives are keeping a weather eye on [...]