There are a number of perspective setting points that seem to get lost in the public discussions:
- The numbers of asylum seekers arriving as "boat people" is small compared with those arriving by plane and staying illegally beyond the terms of their visas - though at least they had to go through a visa process;
- The numbers of refugees trying to reach Australia is small compared with the numbers trying to reach many European countries;
- The argument that the asylum seekers are often economic refugees trying to "jump the queue" or bypass the normal selection or screening process may well be true, but needs to be balanced by recognition that refugees in camps near their initial countries are seemingly ignored by the rest of the world - both in terms of effective and timely processing of their needs and in terms of resolving the issues or conflicts that caused them to be refugees in the first place.
And the question of economic refugees raises an even bigger question. How do many countries that espouse equality of opportunity for their citizens justify a different stance for those beyond their borders? In a few generations time, will our great grandchildren wonder at our self-serving hypocrisy in the same way as we wonder at that of our slave owning forebears?
Contributors - jawbone
Trackback(0)
TrackBack URI for this entry
Comments (5)
Subscribe to this comment's feed
written by Khryses, 14:04 07 Jan 10
The argument that the asylum seekers are often economic refugees trying to "jump the queue" or bypass the normal selection or screening process may well be true, but needs to be balanced by recognition that refugees in camps near their initial countries are seemingly ignored by the rest of the world - both in terms of effective and timely processing of their needs and in terms of resolving the issues or conflicts that caused them to be refugees in the first place.
Now I think this is an important point, and certainly worthy of great consideration.
By ignoring and delaying processing the refugees who actually follow the guidelines we outline for bringing 'genuine' asylum seekers into the country - distinguishing here from the asylum seekers who respect the laws and cultural traditions of the country they seek asylum with and those who flaunt and abuse those laws to gain precedence over their more law abiding brethren - while on the other hand we allow illegal immigrants to 'jump the queue' (as well as gain all the limited publicity there is on immigration, particularly in the international sphere) we send exactly the wrong message to prospective asylum seekers.
"Break the rules and you'll be safe - at least as long as bureaucracy rolls on and you can keep claiming appeals. Follow them and you'll be stuck just over the border for years, poor and vulnerable."
I believe it's clear that we have to massively scale up the legal opportunities for asylum seekers to arrive in our country(ies?), while explicitly deterring others from 'cheating the system' and inserting themselves into national borders without said nation's permission.
I know from past discussions with you jawbone that you tend to claim that 'illegal immigration' in fact isn't, but:
As Mr Stewart Foster - Public Affairs Director of DIMIA at the time of speaking - pointed out back in 2004, 'illegal' is the correct description for illegal immigrants. As we are signatories to the Refugee Convention, it is entirely appropriate for us to explicitly refer to the "illegal entry or presence" of refugees who arrive in the territory of a country "without authorisation".
Yes, I read Media Watch too now and again.
Now I believe you had a 'bigger question' for us to field?
How do many countries that espouse equality of opportunity for their citizens justify a different stance for those beyond their borders?
I don't know about countries in general, but were I to try I would say that the answer is in the question.
'Equality of opportunity for their citizens' versus 'a different stance for those beyond their borders'?
Quite simply because they're different groupings, so they would naturally be treated differently.
Any democratic nation's government has a prime duty to put the good of their own citizens first - that is the promise under which they are elected, and the people who appoint the administration and pay for all their budgets should (logically I believe) be put first.
That isn't to say they should ignore those over their borders, but the very reason they are more fortunate countries that are in a position to help others is that they take care of their society, economy and population - at least in theory.
Killing the golden goose never helps.
-
- +0
-
-
written by jawbone, 14:32 07 Jan 10
Hey, I agree with you about much of the asylum seeker "problem" as it is popularly conceived is in fact misunderstood and that the far more fundamental one is that the more developed countries are not backing up the Refugee conventions they signed with sufficient action to deal with the many refugees or the issues that caused them to be refugees in the first place.
I think you are ducking the final question though:
By the word countries I was not really talking about governments - who as you suggest should be representing their people in some way - I was talking about the people themselves. How do we as individuals support equality of opportunity for some and not for others? Of course the size of the inequality and the potential impact on our standard of living is much greater when taking the whole world as the playing field. I am sure our ancestors had good reasons for regarding slavery as a non-issue too.
I think you are ducking the final question though:
How do many countries that espouse equality of opportunity for their citizens justify a different stance for those beyond their borders?
By the word countries I was not really talking about governments - who as you suggest should be representing their people in some way - I was talking about the people themselves. How do we as individuals support equality of opportunity for some and not for others? Of course the size of the inequality and the potential impact on our standard of living is much greater when taking the whole world as the playing field. I am sure our ancestors had good reasons for regarding slavery as a non-issue too.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Khryses, 23:02 13 Jan 10
For the most part I'm afraid your answer is simply because they do - for the most part, most people have a sort of benign goodwill towards other people throughout the world. They would like them to have a better life... so long as it doesn't inconvenience their own selves in any significant way.
Beyond that... the answer is a bit more complicated, but in large part can be summarised in two points. First is practicality - the fact that the 'more developed countries' you mention simply can't support the level of effort that would be required to implement this 'equality of opportunity' on a large scale in any positive way. The only way they could make said opportunities equal on a large scale would be to lower the overall standard to a common denominator.
Secondly even if we were able to adopt these increased opportunities in enough staggering - or as a high enough priority that we actually could introduce them en masse - the next problem is nationality. Are we allowed to violate a nation's rights in order to promote the rights of the people who live within it - for a nation's own good?
...and should we be?
Beyond that... the answer is a bit more complicated, but in large part can be summarised in two points. First is practicality - the fact that the 'more developed countries' you mention simply can't support the level of effort that would be required to implement this 'equality of opportunity' on a large scale in any positive way. The only way they could make said opportunities equal on a large scale would be to lower the overall standard to a common denominator.
Secondly even if we were able to adopt these increased opportunities in enough staggering - or as a high enough priority that we actually could introduce them en masse - the next problem is nationality. Are we allowed to violate a nation's rights in order to promote the rights of the people who live within it - for a nation's own good?
...and should we be?
-
- +0
-
-
written by jawbone, 08:36 14 Jan 10
Yes turning the benign goodwill into something active and actual - rather than some feel-good feeling - is the challenge.
I am sure that even with this any transition to equality of opportunity would both take considerable time and still need to be accompanied by an growth (albeit probably slower) in living standard for those in developed countries. Although redistribution of resources or more likely economic rights will have a negative impact on those who lose these rights, we are all in an economic environment that does and needs to reward growth in overall economic value.
As to your second point, personally I have increasingly less time for nationality. It is based on historical accident, is less and less relevant in today's economic and technological world and seems now largely used to justify all kinds of injustice.
I am sure that even with this any transition to equality of opportunity would both take considerable time and still need to be accompanied by an growth (albeit probably slower) in living standard for those in developed countries. Although redistribution of resources or more likely economic rights will have a negative impact on those who lose these rights, we are all in an economic environment that does and needs to reward growth in overall economic value.
As to your second point, personally I have increasingly less time for nationality. It is based on historical accident, is less and less relevant in today's economic and technological world and seems now largely used to justify all kinds of injustice.
-
- +0
-
-
Write comment
You must be logged in to post a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
I'll tackle each of your 'perspective-setting' points in turn, before I move on to what (to me) is the real crux of the issue (in Australia anyway).
...and? I agree that any perspective that has 'all' the 'asylum seekers' (a term that also bothers me, but we'll get to that later) arriving in flimsy little boats is flawed, but I believe this misperception also contributes to the general lack of an effective response to the issue.
If a person talks to many of the civil libertarians in Australia (and for geographical reasons, I imagine in the US) you're told tragic tales of epic journeys across the ocean in craft that leak more than they float, through storms and through calms, leaving their homes behind and risking their lives to make a new beginning for their families in a better place. A tale that touches the heart and can't help but undermine any argument that violating national sovereignty might be... oh, wrong?
"Most of them caught a plane here then hid when their visa expired" just doesn't have the same ring to it, and doesn't tend to elicit the same level of sympathy from the audience.
I don't really see this as making it a less important issue, and indeed it kinda undermines your line about
...and? This is certainly not a purely Australian issue - and I don't think anyone is claiming it is - but I don't believe I'm qualified to comment on the specifics of the European illegal immigration problems (made even more complicated by what is 'illegal' immigration within the bounds of the European Union), only the issue as a whole. What should best be done in Europe should probably be decided by the people who know and live there. Which isn't me, for the nonce.