Samantha Young said:

if the Government and sections of the media were truly concerned about illegal immigration, why is it that the tens of thousands (I read that figure somewhere but can’t back it up right now) of “illegal immigrants” that have over-stayed on work and holiday visas aren’t subject to the same attention.

And many ‘refugee advocates’ before you have made the same point, usually to demonstrate that Australians and/or their government, are just racist bigots (which I’m sure you are not saying Samantha, but it is surprising that anyone still runs this line - when the distinction between these two types of illegal immigrant are so obvious:

The visa overstayers enter Australia legally, having gone through customs, quarantine, and visa checks.  They do not arrive in circumstances which give rise for concerns about Australia’s health, security or indeed their own safety.  They prove their identity, and their entry into Australia is recorded.  They and their belongings go through metal-detectors and are subject to inspection by trained personnel.

Illegal immigrants arriving by sea, on the other hand impose huge logistical problems and security concerns.  They arrive on remote and harsh parts of the Australian coastline.  Unless rescued by the Navy, most of them would starve or die of thirst.

They have usually destroyed their identity documents, so our government has no way of knowing who they are.  If they reach the mainland, then there is the risk of infectious diseases for humans or livestock being introduced.

What I suspect worries most Australians is what the unanounced boat arrivals proves about the protection of our borders - that it is inadequate.

Angela asks

Can someone please explain to me slowly and carefully why someone HAS to have citizenship to have an opinion regarding a country’s national or foreign policies?

An easy laugh - as nobody has ever claimed this.

What they have claimed, and what I say too, is when a citizen in a democratic country has a right to vote as well as a right to free speech, and exercises one right without exercising the other, we are able to draw some conclusions about how seriously he holds his opinions, and how admirable he is for speaking about them.

Remember that Samantha opened this discussing by inviting us all to reflect

what courage Merlin must have had to stick to his plan and stand by his convictions to raise national attention to an important issue. Bravo.

Rowan really misses the point when he answers:

The reason is because there is a set within the right wing which seeks to find a fairly simple hook from which to hang criticism. The classic example is Michael Moore. Not wanting to re spark the “bowling for columbine” debate, there are some who’se entire rebuttal of his ideas is that he is fat. or John Kerry is rich, or Peter Garrett didn’t vote, or.. merlin isn’t a citizen. It’s a lot easier to discuss in a 2 second sound bite, and avoids the messy need to deal with the issues, rather than playing the man with a formulaic rebuttal.

I’ve never heard anyone criticize Michael Moore for being fat.  But suppose he were a campaigner against fast food companies?  or suppose Mr Garrett wanted to enter politics - wouldn’t it be entirely appropriate for us to inquire whether their own lives reflected their beliefs.

Isn’t it hypocrisy to say one thing, but do another?  Don’t we give greater credence to someone whose life (and perhaps death) confirms their sincerity; from one who does not live in accordance with his beliefs?

Merlin’s false claims to refugee status and his failure to exercise his democratic right to vote help us to distinguish what might otherwise have seemed a courageous attempt to draw attention to a national issue from a shameless and even cynical publicity stunt.

I’ll admit that was a throwaway, Alan.  I don’t think it misses the point however, as that attitude is alive and well.  I was glad to see you look past it and be able to debate the issues involved (that puts you above most of the RWDB’s I hear on a regular basis who do try to find the black and whites in a sea of grey).

<edit> re Michael Moore being dismissed as fat, try asking Google what Tim Blair thinks of him . </edit>

I agree with all of the statements you made regarding “legal” illegal immigrants, but I disagree about your conclusion.  Yes, there are many advantages to having your illegal immigrants come in via airports, but the problem is a question of balance.  I think we demonise “boat people”, and I think we do it not because of fears about quarantine and customs, (that may be an official concern) but quite frankly that wouldn’t fly in the electorate.  As I said earlier this is a complex complex issue, but our leaders tend to protect us from the complexity by boiling it down to simple problems.  And unfortunately I feel too much of the debate revolves around a feeling of us and them.  It’s not racism or bigotry, but fear that causes this.  I don’t think it’s because they are from a specific ethnicity or religion that cause us to fear them.  I don’t think it’s racism, it’s something more complex but I think it’s rooted in the “us and them” that seems to characterise the debate.

There are good reasons to have detention of asylum seekers, but I think there is a balance between control of immigration and compassion toward asylum seekers.  I think we have been too far toward control since Tampa and the Pacific Solution, and currently we need to move toward a more compassionate policy. 

For instance - allowing children out of detention in appropriate circumstances (obviously I wouldn’t advocate ripping children out against their will).  They are not a serious risk of absconding (unlike the visa overstayers) and they can be fostered out into the community.  Unfortunately I think that much of the apparatus and rules prevent this currently (like sticking detention centres out in the boonies) but these are only policy decisions.. If as much creativity and effort was put into working through those problems as was in keeping journalists away from boat landings, for instance, I have no doubt that the problems could be solved.

So ultimately I say embrace the complexity, look at all the facets and seek to be as generous and compassionate as possible within the confines of running an effective immigration system.

Firstly, the book I mentioned previously is available (in second edition) through the University of New South Wales press as part of the Reportage series:

BORDERLINE: AUSTRALIA’S RESPONSE TO REFUGEES AND ASYLUM SEEKERS IN THE WAKE OF THE TAMPA 2nd Ed
PETER MARES
0868407895, UNSW PRESS, October 2002, 260pp, PB , 213x137mm
Availability: Plenty Price: $29.95

Borderline was first published in April 2001, and immediately received widespread acclaim for its authority, its humanity, its passion and its fundamental honesty. The second edition of Borderline has been completely revised to include more recent events . It also includes much new testimony from professionals who have worked inside Australia’s immigration detention system and who now feel compelled to speak out about their experiences.

I would again like to recommend it to all of you. As the cover notes (which I posted previously) it “contains much of interest and importance even for those who might not agree with all of Mares’s opinions”. I can type out some of the information he presents to address previous posts, and will do so if time and copyright permit.

However, as I started reading, I was folding the corners of pages with interesting comments, analyses, quotes, etc., so I could collate and post them here for discussion. I had to stop folding corners, as there were so few left untouched, it wasn’t worth it! Next time, I’ll read it as a textbook, highlighting the most significant parts!

Some other books I haven’t read, but which are also published by UNSW Press, are listed below with links for those who are interested:

LIVES IN LIMBO: VOICES OF REFUGEES UNDER TEMPORARY PROTECTION
MICHAEL LEACH , FETHI MANSOURI
086840599X, UNSW PRESS, June 2004, 160pp, PB , 210x147mm
Availability: Plenty Price: $29.95

In this book, 35 refugees, all temporary protection visa (TPV) holders and mostly from Iraq and Afghanistan, talk directly about their quest for asylum in Australia. They provide poignant details of persecution in their home country, their journey to Australia, prolonged periods of mandatory detention, and life under Australia’s controversial temporary protection regime.

REFUGE AUSTRALIA: AUSTRALIA’S HUMANITARIAN RECORD
KLAUS NEUMANN
0868407119, UNSW PRESS, May 2004, 128pp, PB , 213x147mm
Availability: Plenty Price: $16.95

Refuge Australia debunks several commonly held assumptions about Australia’s humanitarian record. It demonstrates that Australian responses to various international refugee crises from the 1930s to the early 1970s were informed by self-interest rather than humanitarian concerns. It shows that Australia’s support for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the 1951 Refugees Convention was often at best half-hearted.

Comment

‘Neumann reveals the good, the bad and the ugly of how our nation has responded to the desperate and the despairing since 1938. This fine book is indispensable to the debate about refugees today.’ - Phillip Adams

About the Author

Klaus Neumann is a German-born historian currently based in Melbourne. He is the author of several books, including most recently, Shifting Memories: The Nazi Past in the New Germany.

Detailed Description

Four years after Samad Abdul bin Amjah had sought refuge in Australia, the Minister for Immigration told him to leave. By then he had married, had two children and found a steady job. His employer appealed to the Minister for leniency, but to no avail, and Amjah was deported from Australia.

Although this story may sound all too familiar, it actually occurred in the 1940s. Amjah’s is one of the many compelling stories in this new book by historian Klaus Neumann. Drawing on original archival research, Neumann has pieced together the stories of a remarkably wide range of people who sought refuge in Australia and its territories between the 1930s and the mid–1970s, and the government policies that developed in response.

Refuge Australia debunks several commonly held assumptions about Australia’s humanitarian record. It demonstrates that Australian responses to various international refugee crises from the 1930s to the early 1970s were informed by self-interest rather than humanitarian concerns. It shows that Australia’s support for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the 1951 Refugees Convention was often at best half-hearted.

Refuge Australia explores the government’s response to refugees fleeing Nazi Germany, to European refugees and displaced persons in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s, and to Asians expelled from Uganda in 1972. The book describes how Australia had to deal with hundreds of onshore asylum seekers well before the arrival of the first Indochinese ‘boat people’ in 1976, and that some of them were detained on Manus Island, Papua New Guinea.

Refuge Australia concludes by discussing the significance of a history of Australia’s humanitarian record. This history is often referred to in the media, but has not previously been brought together in one book.

Refuge Australia is a timely intervention in the debate about refugees and asylum seekers in post-Tampa Australia.

[quote author="Alan Dungey"]Peter Mares’ book may be a useful contribution to the debate, but when he starts with the pre-supposition that it is the
Quote:

response of the Australian government

rather than (say) the events to which the government was responding,

which have
Quote:

helped to generate unease in the community

my weary and cynical senses detect yet another anti-Howard polemic.

Actually, Peter Mares talks seriously a number of times about the different community reactions to “the events to which the government was responding”, particularly in relation to arrivals by boat v. by air and when discussing the background and country of origin of asylum seekers. It is clear that on a number of occasions any unease generated in the community was regarding how we could best welcome and care for those in need.

Mr Mares also discusses how decisions were made and how the policies evolved. He makes some positive comments about Phillip Ruddock and some negative ones about other parties and groups involved. He also wrote in one section that no political party (originally, at least, I don’t know about more recently) opposed mandatory detention, rather than simply saying that the Coalition didn’t oppose it. All these comments could easily be left out if Mr Mares did not want to present as fair a view as possible.

[quote author="Alan"]Strictly speaking, there are no refugees in detention in Australia.

All of those in detention are people whose claims to refugee status have been rejected, but who have nonetheless refused to return to their country of origin.

Where did you get that information from, Alan?

Article 1A of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (of which Australia is a voluntary signatory) states that a refugee is a person who:

[quote author="Article 1A of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees"]...owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable to or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country...”

Asylum seekers who enter Australia unlawfully (i.e. without a valid visa) are put in detention centres. The process of determining whether they are refugees commences (for them) after this. It is common knowledge that some of these claims are rejected. However, some are accepted and these people are recognised as refugees.

More reading and writing later!

Han

[quote author="Jason"]I’m not actually an expert on this, despite studying a discipline which covers the movement of people from place to place.

Jason, if you don’t mind me asking, what and where did you study? It sounds quite interesting and from your comments I now realise that this has been a topic of discussion for much longer than I had known…

Han :)

[quote author="Hannah Gordon"][quote author="Alan"]Strictly speaking, there are no refugees in detention in Australia.

All of those in detention are people whose claims to refugee status have been rejected, but who have nonetheless refused to return to their country of origin.

Where did you get that information from, Alan?

This is strictly true.  Amanda Vanstone said the same thing last week, and it played on the fact the Merlin used the wrong terminology.  Refugees aren’t kept in detention, only thse seeking asylum (or awaiting an appeal) and those awaiting deportation.  Had merlin written “free th asylum seekers” it would have been more accurate, but perhaps he ran out of gaff tape :)

It was unfortunate because it allowed Vanstone to sidestep the debate by simply saying there aren’t any refugees in detention centres..  That’s stock-in-trade for politicians who basically play one big long word game, so for a big brother contestant he should have been more careful with his words if he wanted to engage politically.  As it was the whole thing blew over fairly quickly, partly because it was easy to bat aside, and partly - lets be frank - because he was a contestant on a show that spends the majority of it’s time discussing farting and sex.

Thanks for the clarification, Rowen.

Alan, my apologies, it seems that you are technically correct. According to Peter Mares, the definition of an “asylum seeker” is:

[quote author="Peter Mares in Borderline”]...someone who is seeking protection as a refugee under the 1951 Convention, but whose application for refugee status has not yet been decided by the relevant authorities. Alternatively, an asylum seeker may also seek protection under other international agreements, such as the CAT (Convention Against Torture), CROC (Convention on the Rights of the Child) ir ICCPR (International Convenant on Civil and Political Rights)

So it seems that those in detention centres are asylum seekers and asylum seekers are potential refugees. I’m hearing politicians playing games with words…

Han

Hannah thanks for the information about the distinction between refugee and asylum seeker

Alan, my apologies, it seems that you are technically correct. According to Peter Mares, the definition of an “asylum seeker” is:

Peter Mares in Borderline wrote:
...someone who is seeking protection as a refugee under the 1951 Convention, but whose application for refugee status has not yet been decided by the relevant authorities. Alternatively, an asylum seeker may also seek protection under other international agreements, such as the CAT (Convention Against Torture), CROC (Convention on the Rights of the Child) ir ICCPR (International Convenant on Civil and Political Rights)

So it seems that those in detention centres are asylum seekers and asylum seekers are potential refugees. I’m hearing politicians playing games with words…

Han

But I wasn’t actually trying to be clever or technical.  Merely reminding everyone of one of the consequences of the fact that there have been no unauthorised boats arriving in Australia since December 2001.

The last person to have arrived by sea in Australia, claimed refugee status and had his claim upheld would have been released years ago.

Those who are left would be either recent arrivals (by air) or people continuing to appeal against the rejection of their claims.

The increased public dissatisfaction with immigration detention is probably due to its very success.

The number of people in detention is steadily falling.  According to the Immigration Dept.

Number of Detainees in Detention
November 2001 3400
November 2002 1282
December 2003 1097

I don’t think anybody actually likes detaining illegal immigrants.  Certainly not me.  In an ideal world, I think everyone who wanted to migrate to Australia should be allowed to do so, whatever their reason.

But even its critics have to credit the government’s detention policy with succeeding in what it set out to achieve - namely reducing the number of people arriving in Australia without permission.

(Interestingly, the Dept. of Immigration claims that the great majority of asylum seekers actually arrive in Austarlia with valid visas and pursue their claims at large in the community - so the policy was never about deterring people applying for asylum in Australia; or if it was, it has failed in that regard).

Given the choice between a resumption of people-smuggling and mandatory detention - the latter seems to me to be the lesser of two evils.

If anyone can suggest a policy which would continue to deter illegral immigration without detaining anyone - I’m all ears.

[quote author="Jason Poulos"]
Rowen, please do not take this personally, but to my way of thinking, when you resort to throwaway lines to make a point, a point which is often just a broadside at the “right”, it doesn’t do a whole lot to the position you hold, and it can read to me like the “left’s” equivalent of what you suggest the “right” does? Particularly as whenever - and the majority of the time - you do actually move beyond this approach you articulate your position intelligently and clearly, and demonstrate (to me) a sound understanding of current affairs – on some issues much more than I personally have.

This kind of intellectual smarty pants (again, please don’t take this personally) actually grates on me, as on this “left” and “right” dichotomy – a dichotomy I happen to think is becoming more and more redundant - I hover around the centre depending on whether the issue is to do with “people” or social issues, or to do with “economic/monetary” issues. Sometimes I may be conservatively to the right on an issue, and on other issues I can be much more to the left. However I always try first and foremost to be Christian.

he he..  reminds me of the Simpsons.. (what else)..
[quote author="Bart’s Comet"]Homer: Wait a minute: we all know the one thing we won’t need in the future!  Left-handed stores.  That’s you, Flanders!
[whispered to Rod & Todd] I’m terribly sorry.
[to everyone] Flanders is the only useless person here.  If anyone dies, it should be him.
[whispered] I’m sorry, please forgive me.
[to everyone] So let’s kick Flanders out.
[whispered] Sorry.
taken from snpp.com

you’re lucky I have a thick skin Jason :)

I actually stand by the original statement however.  Perhaps I was glib when I wrote it originally, but I think it’s true nonetheless.  As the mike moore/fat google link demonstrates.  I think the merlin non-citizen specifically is an example of this.  I don’t think it is confined to the Right however, as there are lots of lefties who are just as lazy and debate characterisations rather than issues.  Those who call John Howard racist, for instance.  He’s not.  But it’s much easier than dissecting his many and varied complicated prejudices each time they appear.

I also think the left/right split is less relevant in modern society, but it’s continued use IMHO is caused by the combative mentality in politics.  But that might be fodder for a different thread.  However I think you can still characterise positions as left and right on specific issues, and immigration/refugee issues still seems to fit.

Rowan, you observe:

I don’t think it is confined to the Right however, as there are lots of lefties who are just as lazy and debate characterisations rather than issues.

You’re tellling me!

And Michael Moore is a master of it.  Otherwise what is the relevance of pointing out the skin colour, sex, and alleged imbecility of his opponents in his book “stupid white men”.  No doubt the title is meant to be ironic, but I think the contents indicate a less than generous view of his pigment & oestregen challenged fellow-countrymen.

And who can ignore the constant media depiction of George W. Bush (a Yale MBA) as an idiot; or forget the the late President Ronald Reagan continually portrayed as a “senile old man”.

Don’t even start me on the frequent use in the media of the words “racist”, “homophobe” and “redneck” to describe ordinary Australians.

Well, Mike Moore has his detractors, but there are better targets than the title of Stupid White Men.  He spends the bulk of the book arguing that most of the problems in America are due to the influence of a very small section of the population, stupid white males.  He also argues they have that influence because of the system that promotes and protects white males at the exclusion of almost everybody else.  So skin colour, sex and imbecility are firmly in view when he looks at America’s problems, because he sheets much of it home to the very narrow section of the population that gets to make all the decisions.

(Granted he does give Condoleeza Rice and Colin Powell honorary SWM status.  And yes, stupid is a personal opinion, but he gives examples to back it up :p )

So, I’ll see your Mike Moore, and I’ll raise you a Rush Limbaugh :p

d’oh
[quote author="Ecclesiastes 10:2"]The heart of the wise inclines to the right,
but the heart of the fool to the left.

Is it just me, or does anyone else feel totally disenfranchised by the current political parties?

I’m neither left, nor right. A centrist with socially liberal views and conservative economic ideals, and a biblical evangelical. Who am I going to vote for?!?

-A-

While Alan may be surprised that I used the over stayed visa argument. I am equally surprised hearing the phrase of “Australia’s health, security”. If the distinction between these two types of illegal immigrant is so obvious, could anyone kindly give their answer to this one question.

If someone seriously wanted to pose a threat to Australia’s health and security, would they:

a. Try to enter illegally by boat on a remote coast and risk detention?

b. Come here for a “holiday” and be free to move around the country at will?

On the suggestion that we are doing such a good job at keeping unauthorised boats from arriving in Australia, isn’t that forgetting that the politicians are trying such tricks as retrospectively wanting to legislate that Australian Territories are not in fact part of Australia and by paying cash strapped nations to hide the problem from the electorate. No wonder the official figures are falling.

The challenge of what to do with people who arrive without the appropriate authorisation is an interesting one. If I had a solution that would please everyone I’d write a book about it and go on the chat circuit. For some, locking up people who break the law is the only solution, but I am sure there are other more compassionate ways to go.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Getting back to Merlin and Big Brother, regardless whether his sign should have had a more precise phrase to be accurate and to satisfy everyone now having a go at him - I still say Bravo.

What about the aspect of an individual being able to subvert a very powerful (millions watch it each week) base element of pop culture for a higher purpose. Should that be applauded and respected?

I can’t help but wonder, if I was in the Big Brother house and knew at some point I would be on live television, would I have the courage to hold up a sign about The Gospel? And if it had to be small and handmade in secret, what would it say?

Is it just me, or does anyone else feel totally disenfranchised by the current political parties?

Adam, you are definitely not alone. Political parties are made up who individuals who may have good intentions, but in the end the very nature of a “party” makes compromise inevitable. And I don’t mean that in a warm and fuzzy consensus way, more in a crushing of ideals and hope.