AUDIO
 |
Phillip Jensen speaks on Anger as part of a series on emotions in the Christian life, delivered at the Australia Day Convention 2010
|
‘So, whaddya reckon - should we let the refugees in or not?’
My year 10 Christian Studies class were – like most St Andrew’s Cathedral School students – good for a heated and rowdy discussion on most things. But I usually found them to be more socially progressive than me. Legalize drugs? Of course! Euthanasia? Abortion? Naturally! Whatever the individual wants. The individual’s right to chose was sacred above all things. (And let’s face it, it was fun to see what might shock the chaplain...)
But this issue, the coming of the boat people to our shores, had them coming from a different direction. There was genuine indignation:
‘They’re queue jumpers. Why can’t they get in line like everyone else?’
‘They ought to send them back to where they came from, and let them apply in their home country if they want to come to Australia.’
‘They will just come here and sponge off the government.’
‘They’ll take all the jobs’.
And someone with a little more wit than this offered:
‘Won’t more people mean a strain on our fragile environment? This country just can’t sustain all the extra people.’
Ah, this is a clever move: play off one liberal concern against another so we can pretend it isn’t about xenophobia at all! What had happened to turn my liberal-thinking students into such reactionaries? I summoned up my courage:
‘But look - how many people are we talking about anyway?’
‘Sir, my Dad says if you let one lot in, thousands will follow, and we will be overrun. And they’ll bring their troubles from home… We have a peaceful country. We don’t want the stress of it here.’
It was unusual for parents to be quoted as authorities by fifteen year olds, it has to be said. Why does the thought of people coming to our shores by boat make us so upset? I pressed the point:
‘You know that we are talking about a few hundred people at most. Overstaying British and Irish backpackers are a bigger problem for immigration. And these are people traumatized by terrible wars, or religious persecution – they can’t go back home, they’ll be persecuted. You can see that they are desperate – that’s why they are risking our shark-infested waters’.
I wasn’t winning this one, though.
‘Sir, they mostly turn out to be faking, anyway.’
Then I noticed one boy – a boy who was well-liked by his peers – sitting quietly at the front of the class, and a thought crossed my mind.
‘Vinh’, I said, ‘how did your parents get to Australia?’
‘By boat, sir’. His broad aussie accent had not a trace of South-East Asia in it.
‘Legally?’
‘Nah’
’How come?’
‘They were running from the Communists at the end of the war’.
‘And what do they do now, that they can send you here?’
‘They run some Vietnamese restaurants’…
I turned to the class:
‘Do you think we should send this sponger Vinh and his layabout family home then?’
We are rich, and extra-ordinarilyy wealthy (as a nation) and therefore we should embrace them. However, the problem is, what constitutes a refugee? Is it those who are escaping cruel regimes and dictators, those living in poverty or those affected by climate change or some other threat?
So I think that Christians should have compassion toward boat people. At the same time, I don't think it's honest to turn a blind eye to the consequences of this. Common sense suggests that softer attitudes towards the boats will encourage more to attempt this hazardous journey. Recent experience affirms this.
This is not to suggest that we should turn back the boats - I don't believe that. I believe we should extend a generous hand to those who seek refuge in our country. But we need to be honest about the consequences of this, as well.
It's also not quite true that boat people have only ever numbered in the hundreds. In 2001 over 5000 boat people came to Australia (source).
I agree with the essence of your position, I just don't think you should gild the lily too much.
Along side that is this page about visa overstayers which states An estimate of the number of overstayers in the Australian community is calculated every six months. Since June 2004, this estimate has remained below 50 000 against a total Australian population of around 21 million.
From another stats page, in 2002 27% of the 60,000 overstayers in Australia had overstayed their visa by 10 years or more.
I sure would mind being one of the 1036 people in detention for arriving by boat. Looks like a much larger amount of people are getting away with it because they're richer and can afford the flight.
But it is often in the best interestes of displaced persons and refugees to ensure that that don't loose all of whatever money they have left to ruthless people smugglers who have no qualms about risking the lives of men women and children in unseaworthy vessels, taking advntage of their desperate plight and hope for a better future.
I don't have an easy answer as to how to achieve this, because it is not an easy problem. But I don't want us to get to a point where we see boat people as more worthy of acceptance because they were desperate enough to risk their lives to get here. A refugee fleeing persecution, war or genocide is a refugee - whether they are awaiting processing by the IOM or UNHCR in a second country or aboard a leaking boat.
I spent several years as an aid worker in Asia and Africa and spent time in many IDP and refugee camps. The agencies who run these and process refugees/displaced people are always under-staffed and under-resourced and the process is long and drawn out as a result. Perhaps this is where we need to be focussing more of our effort - addressing the demand more efficiently at the source so that people don't resort to risking their lives.
In Saturday's Herald, David Marr said that in 33 years since the fall of Saigon and the first load of boat people arrived, Australia has taken in a total of 3.5 million new settlers. In this time there have been 19,500 'irregular maritime arrivals' to Australia.
Source
It is the only 'church-based' (rather than Christian agency-based) refugee ministry in Sydney.
More details in Southern Cross due out on Monday.
David Marr's pieces about Christmas Island are very powerful. Symbolically, we love the idea of processing asylum seekers offshore. And yet, to put such a facility thousands of kilometres away from public scrutiny - knowing what we know about how often we stuff up the business of detaining people - is a bizarre and expensive strategy. What is it saying about the Australian psyche?
I don't think anyone has suggested that.
Let's look at the numbers - assume worst case number of boat arrivals (5000) per year, all refugees, for the next 100 years. That would be 500,000 people. Based on a static population of 20 million for the next 100 years (which is highly unlikely), that would represent 500,000 people by 2109.
This extreme, nightmare (& impossible) scenario for Australia's xenophobes would equate to... 2.5% of our population, by 2109. Divide by a more reasonable factor of 5, and that's 0.5% population of refugees arriving by boat over 100 years. Yet it generates so much hysteria.
As for the "softer attitudes = more boats" line, this seems to be counter productive. What do we do? Do we ramp up the toughness factor - put women and children refugees in jail for indefinite periods of time, again? And then if boats keep arriving, somehow ratchet it up even further? Political auctions on "toughness" eventually reach a grossly inhumane peak which most people find unacceptable, & then you have to become "softer," i.e. vaguely humane, & the whole process starts again.
Speeding fines are a good illustration. The fines in NSW are quite heavy and should act as a significant deterrence.
But to work as a deterrence, the majority of drivers need to think:
"if I am caught speeding, it will cost me a lot of money, some points off my license and eventually the inconvenience, embarrassment and hassle if my license is suspended"
instead of:
"its late, there are no other cars on the road, there are no speed cameras on this road, I'm unlikely to get caught, and the limit is too low for this type of road, its just a revenue-raiser and I'm not going that much over the speed limit anyway"
Tough penalties never work if people don't think they will get caught.
Very occasionally when they do works (e.g. New York's 'zero tolerance' under mayor Rudolph Giuliani) the question of the justice of small / first-time offenders attracting heavy penalties needs answering.
We are inconsistent creatures. On the one hand we detest politicians who lie or use too much spin. Other days we seem content for them to 'talk tough' on some issues when deep down we know it doesn't make any real difference, and don't want to be told the truth:
what is the right thing to do,
that it will involve some sacrifice (albeit smaller than we think)
maybe that is too harsh...
Where I disagree with Andrew is this - once the people are here, I believe it is right for us to extend the hand of hospitality and generosity. We need to work hard to help those that are granted asylum to establish themselves as productive members of the community.
I can't agree with "The Pacific Solution" because it was horrifically expensive - over $1million/refugee in the end. That is simply ridiculous.
I am not in favour of some kind of open-border policy. I am pointing to the way this issue gets us riled, almost out of all proportion. Remember the 'children overboard' affair? The desperation of these people frightens us somehow.
In any case, I know Christians like to be dags, but if it's fashionable to think that putting refugees including women & children in jail for arriving on a boat was a bad thing, then maybe we can make an exception? :P
I bring it up because it's worth remembering that this isn't a theoretical debate - that *was* government policy, it's what we, as a nation, actually did, and I don't think we should forget that simply because it's uncomfortable, or deride it as merely "fashionable."
The desperation of refugees may frighten us somehow, but it is something one side of politics gets great political mileage from - note Philip Ruddock popping up saying we had "lost control of our borders" (as though invading hordes were on our rather deep doorstep) and the mythical 10,000 refugees were about to descend upon us - the horror!
The "pro-refugee" crowd (how can Christians be anything but?) has done wonders for refugees often in spite of Government policy and some public sentiment through community and legal advocacy.
I have no idea what the numbers are, but I'd like to think Christians were over-represented in that crowd.
If that makes them fashionable, so be it.
While a group of people who are united by their knowledge of Jesus Christ as Lord, cannot come up with a solution to the entire immigrant problem. It can come up with a solution for a family. I have seen this done recently in a small, very red-neck town in Texas. A Karen dentist told a local manufacturing exec about the Karen refugees escaping genocide in Burma. The manufacturer said he'd employ them. The churches in the town helped two families integrate into society by renovating houses for them and helping them navigate public schools. Now they are helping 150 Karens in that town. God gave them 5 talents and now they have more. My Aunt (Director of human resources at the plant) recently took the employees and their families to Sea World. It was one of the best experiences she has ever had.
The best solutions recognize the divine image of all involved. And after living here for three years, I've come to see Paul's advice to simply pray for government leaders, to be every bit as relevant today as it was 2000 years ago.
Well, KRudd seems to be looking for some political mileage from it too, with his "no apologies" language.
But I agree that the idea that we will be swamped is unhelpful. In reality we are never "swamped", because we grant permanent residence to a fixed number each year (about 14,000). If more come by boat, that simply means that less are brought in by the other channel (ie, the UNHCR).
As far as the cost, my suspicion is that refugees overall represent a net financial gain to Australia - especially the young, fit males who make up the majority of boat people. Certainly there is a very strong work ethic in the Sri Lankans I've encountered, and I suspect few of them come to Australia wanting to sit around on the dole.
1. How many people have died trying to enter Australia to claim asylum by air (the so-called "bigger problem for immigration") ?
2. How many have died trying to reach here by sea?
3. Will harsh deterrance of maritime entry deter people choosing the latter option?
4. Which policy is therefore the more humane one?
Sometimes you have to be cruel to be kind.
As for the latest Sri Lankan migration, am I the only person who thinks it a little odd that they choose to make such a dangerous journey to Australia, when Tamil Nadu, home to 90 million Tamils, is only a comparative hop away? Why has nobody talked about this. It seems to me so obvious that this is an economic migration, yet nobody in the media will make the obvious comment.
Yes we have a Christian duty to the strangers in our midst, but we are also responsible to our Maker for the consequences of the decisions we take (in this case encouraging thousands to undertake life-threatening journeys) and finally we have a duty to the truth - which seems to me that people come to Australia, rather than many closer possible sources of asylum - for economic, rather than political, reasons.
Given we are talking about Sri Lankans who live on an island how the heck do impoverished refugees get off the island accept by "leaky" boats whether they sail to India, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, or Australia?
they're not travelling to India - a safe journey which can be undertaken in a matter of hours.
They're coming to Australia, which takes days, because our country has opened the doors.
Travelling by boat is the great evil, because it = substantial risk of death.
We encourage that, or we discourage it. Our decisions have consequences.
Hooker puts an intriguing aside which seems possible to adduce in favour of one (Laws. Eccl. Pol. Vol 1, ch.10; (gleaned in this instance through O'Donovan: Iren. to Grot. p. 752)) as follows, though:
-------
"...The Strength and virtue of that law are such that no particular nation can lawfully prejudice the same by any their several laws and ordinances, more than a man by his private resolutions, the law of the whole commonwealth or state wherein he liveth. For as civil law being the act of the whole body politic, doth therefore overrule each several part of the same body, so there is no reason that any one commonwealth of itself should, to the prejudice of another annihilate that whereupon the whole world hath agreed. For which cause, the Lacedemonians forbidding all access of strangers into their coasts, are in that respect both by Josephus and Theodoret deservedly blamed (Josephus, Contra Apionem 2.36; Theodoret, Graecarum affectionum curatio 9), as being enemies to that hospitality which for common humanity's sake all the nations on earth should embrace. ..."
(Italics and references O'Donovan's; bolding mine.)
If we are talking asylum applications, and refugee status, it does seem that Australia - a vast continent the size of Europe minus European Russia (and London being closer to Moscow, than Sydney is to Perth), with a relitively small population - is a little harsh and mean spirited, in keeping refugees out. According to the UNHCR EU countries over the last 15 years have shouldered the bulk of asylum claims in the world. In this context, Australia should be more welcoming.
That being said, we could certainly take far more refugees than we currently do. And I don't think that would be a bad thing at all.
From what I've read, most of them actually fly to Malaysia or Indonesia, and use the boats only for the final leg of the voyage.
And the impoverished refugees aren't using the people smugglers, as the service is relatively expensive.
A huge chunk of our continent is completely uninhabitable. You really have to look at economic capacity rather than just landmass.
An open border policy could almost work in a capitalist sense. You would need a few things -
1. A very strong police force
2. A completely unregulated labour market
3. Highly restricted access to welfare services
I don't know that people would like the end result though - it would essentially be a class stratified society. You see something similar in the US south, where the relatively porous borders have resulted in a huge underclass of mexican workers, illegally working for very low wages.
In the Old Testament we read of 'foreigners' or 'resident aliens' to describe people who lived more or less permanently among the people of Israel after they they had been forced to leave their own village or tribe because of war or famine. So the word 'refugee' is, in many contexts, as good a translation as any of the O.T. word "ger" and it fits the United Nations definition of a refugee as someone "who, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution on the grounds of race, religion, political belief, nationality or membership of a particular social group is unwilling or unable to claim the protection of his or her own country."
In everyday life such foreigners could count on the protection of Israelite law. e.g. "Do not deprive the refugee or fatherless of justice ..." (Deut 24:17) Refugees were to be treated the same as anyone else in Israel, without discrimination. e.g. "When a refugee resides with you in your land, you shall not oppress the refugee."(Lev 19:33) The Geneva Convention Relating to the Staus of Refugees follows this Biblical teaching in Article XXXI when it states that:
"The contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who enter or are present in their territories without authorisation, ..." So don't lock away asylum seekers on Nauru for years as punishment for coming here.
Policing borders in Europe, is a EU wide matter more and more, as greater co-ordination has happened between countries in policing borders, such as extra funding for the Polish border guards in policing the Ukrainian border (which has been a route from Asian people smugglers into Europe), and Spain and Italy asking for help from countries like Britain and Germany in policing trafficing in the Med as Britain and Germany, are often the final desired destinantion of many African migrants. This is a complex issue, and one that cold statistics do injustice to as these are people, made in the image of God.
* the first issue in this debate seems to be whether a nation-state has the right to determine which "aliens or strangers" will be allowed to live within its borders. As far as I can tell, the Bible doesn't give us a definitive answer on this. As a matter of freedom, it therefore appears to be permissible, subject to the qualification that we are not to mistreat or oppress an alien (Exodus 22:21) and are to have the same law for the the alien and the native-born (Leviticus 24:23).
* the next question is "are people who arrive unannounced by boat people who we should allow to live within our borders"? Here, it seems to me that we are currently once again in grave danger of demonising them, and assigning all kinds of spurious motives to them in order to avoid having to properly assess whether they are people who genuinely need protection. I read somewhere recently that the amount of money that the people smugglers ask for to get someone to Australia is lower than the going rate for other western / developed countries. If so, a couple of key implications follow:
- the law of supply and demand would suggest that if Australia were really such a desirable destination, the going rate for passage to Australia would be at the higher end of the range, not the lower end;
- the people who do try to come to Australia are those who are most desperate, and who have scraped every last penny together in order to do so. They are hardly the "economic migrants" that the conservative side of politics is trying to make them out to be.
* As I understand it, the idea that the boats stopped coming as a result of the Pacific Solution is a myth. They continued to come for at least a year or so after the Pacific Solution was introduced. The "push" factors around the globe subsequently abated, and the boats have only restarted recently due to the appalling situation in Sri Lanka.
* For my part, I think that the current government's policies are just about right. The Scriptures do not allow us to support the inhumane treatment of aliens, and refugees are a global and regional issue that requires a global and regional solution.
1999: 86 boats (3,722 people)
2000: 51 boats (2,939 people)
2001 (August): Tampa & Pacific Solution
2001 (October): SIEV-X sinks (353 killed)
2001: 54 boats (4,141 people)
2002 (December): no boats for 12 months
2002-2003: no boats
2003-2004: 3 boats (82 people)
2004-2005: no boats
2005-2006: 4 boats (56 people)
2007-2008: 3 boats (25 people)
2008 (August): Rudd abandons Pacific Solution
2009: 23 boats (589 people) and rising dramatically
Click here for ABC fact sheet published in April '9
Click here for Parliamentary Library fact sheet
* do your statistics include boats that did not "arrive" in Australia because they were diverted to Nauru etc?
* how do those statistics (including Pacific Solution arrivals) correlate with arrivals in other countries over the same period?
* even if you are right, the Scriptures do not permit us to argue that the end (border protection) justifies the means (detention in harsh, prison-like conditions, callousness re the SIEV X, etc).
From blogotariat:
"If we adjust the 2002 number to account for boats that not only attempted to make the voyage, but ended up detained within the Pacific Solution system using the numbers provided by the Select Committee for an inquiry into a certain maritime incident 2002, we can add 1546 to the 2002 number."
(The whole of the blogotariat article - www.blogotariat.com/node/181321 - from which this quote is taken is definitely worth a read).
From Wikipedia:
"As of May 29, 2005, a total of 1,229 asylum seekers had been processed on Nauru. Most of those detained were eventually found to be legitimate refugees, sometimes after more than three years in detention."
(Note: Besides Nauru, the Pacific Solution also included Manus Island in PNG).
From the Australian parliamentary library:
"Between 2001 and February 2008 a total of 1637 people had been detained in the Nauru and Manus facilities. Of these, 1153 (70 per cent) were ultimately resettled in Australia or other countries. Of those who were resettled 705 (around 61 per cent) were resettled in Australia."
A persons perspective determines what they understand; which defines the problem they see; which in large part shapes the particular solution they advocate. Eg: Someone might have a problem with the ethics or legality of "mandatory detention" or the morality of "temporary protection visas". The solutions these people advocate would address these concerns.
I have a problem with "black markets" (eg: drug trafficking, organ trafficking, human trafficking). I firmly believe the most abhorrent injustice occurs in black markets (also called free markets because there are no property rights, no laws, no enforcement). As Christians concerned with injustice and mistreatment of the poor, we should have a good understanding of how they work and how to shut them down.
"Compassionate" policies concern me. I don't dispute the moral and ethical concerns they address, but if they fail to shut down a black market, if they actually encourage its growth, who is accountable for this mis-directed compassion and the resulting misery?
(cont'd)
As I see it, any policy that encourages 'demand' for people smuggling is a poor policy. People around the world want to come to Australia. They are either genuine refugees or illegal immigrants. Whatever their location or status they face a decision; to apply for asylum as a refugee at a UNHCR processing center (or embassy?) or pay for a service in a black market for transportation to Australia.
Government policy influences this decision. I think the numbers indicate Phillip Ruddock's policy influenced this decision for thousands of people. The Pacific Solution removed the incentive/motivation/reward to use the services of people smugglers.
At the same time Australia did not reduce its intake of refugees by a single person.
I am "anti black market". I am not "anti-refugee".
If we in act tougher policies then the people smugglers bypass Australia. This just means the refugees are travelling further in even more dangerous conditions to Canada or Europe.
In fact Sri Lankan refugees have been crossing the Pacific to get to Canada
You have to account for the 'push' factors such as conflict/war.
The argument goes that it is the defeat of the Tamil Tigers in June that has caused the upsurge in refugees from Sri lanka
Push factors? Pure spin (by Rudd). A political argument to convince the electorate his policy changes had no causative role in the increased boat arrivals. No causative role in re-activating an unscrupulous, unethical, unjust, cruel and vile black market.
I don't accept the argument that "push factors" suddenly appeared, by coincidence, a short time after Rudd's policy changes, and the resulting people smuggling test cases.
If more resources are needed by processing centers - I would be so happy for my tax dollars to be spent in that direction.
I completely get where you are coming from on the evils of people smugglers. One of the problems in the current political debate in Australia is that public opinion does not draw any real distinction between the people smugglers and the refugees - the tendency is to demonise the latter as well.
On "push" factors, it is important to remember that, under international law, the definition of "refugee" is in some ways quite limited. To be a refugee, a person must have a "well-founded" "fear" of "persecution" by reason of one of 5 specific grounds:race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership of a particular "social group”. The mere presence of war (civil or otherwise) in a country is not enough.
I think you will find that there is a strong correlation between the numbers of boat arrivals and:
- persecution under the Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein in Iraq in 2001/2;
- the subsequent American / international invasions that overthrew those regimes;
- the intensification in 2009 of the persecution faced by the Tamils in Sri Lanka.
This issue is, as people can see from the discussion, not an easy one to resolve. It is in fact a global problem - and in global terms is morally complex. I think all would acknowledge that.
What I have appreciated is that for the most part people have avoided saying 'this is the only Christian position'. What's more, we have seen hard, passionate argument put forward - which is only appropriate to the seriousness of the subject - without nastiness or rancour. As we know too well, this is hard to do on the internet. But when it is done, we all benefit (as I have) immensely.
I would like to clarify one final aspect of my position. I am not in favor of substituting "refugee demonization" with "smuggler demonization". My concern is the black market in which smugglers find a role. A service they can provide which is valued by people who hand over their money. The incentives. The rewards...
In issues like this, my actual perspective is in large part (too large?) an "institutional" one eg: Poverty is institutionalized in Africa. Alcoholism is institutionalized in remote Aboriginal communities. Innovation is institutionalized in Silicon Valley...
Many of the worst problems endured by the poor are institutionalized.
A great introductory book is called "Understanding the Process of Economic Change" by Douglas North. He is an economic historian who received a nobel prize a few years ago. Its a small book. Not so difficult to understand and the culmination of his life's work. I think its is both helpful and important. Highly recommended.
Thanks for the tip re the North book - I will definitely look it up....
After re-reading some of my own comments I just wanted to clarify that I am not trying to exchange one demonized group (boat people) for another (smugglers). I am advocating the position that "black markets" are unethical bastions of injustice and responsible for much mistreatment of the poor.
...an aside, and related to Michael's comments. Since becoming a Christian (a bit over a year ago) I withdrew from the blogosphere altogether - I decided it was (too often) just people fighting each other with words. I wanted no further part in it.
For a year or so I have been content to simply look and read www.sydneyanglicans.net. This was my first involvement. Praise God for a space where those on the center-left and those on the center-right can discuss an issue without 'demonizing' and hating each other.
I think we agree that it would be best that smuggling people in unsea-worthy vessels never occurred.
However I can't agree that the 'push' factors n Sri Lanka are mere 'Rudd spin'.
Over 250,000 people were displaced in the last stages of the fighting around Jaffna in May/June. If was merely the change in the TPV policy that as it has been put rhetorically 'put out the welcome mat' - why didnt we see an upsurge last year?
The BBC reports that about 240,000 are still in a vast camp: see these pictures.
I agree that Australia is an attractive destination but in my view this is primarily because (like Canada) we are peaceful/wealthy and have history of successfully settling minority groups and in the Tamils case there is a pre-existing community here (this is what the refugees themselves claim as the motivation for heading towards Australia and Canada in particular)
My primary doubt is that the TPV policy is a major factor, and wouldn't like to see it re-enacted.
November 19, 2008: The Royal Australian Navy rescues 12 asylum seekers from a sinking boat off the Ashmore Islands off Australia's north-west coast.
It is one of seven boats intercepted in Australian waters in 2008.
January 19, 2009: A group of 20 asylum seekers are taken to Christmas Island after their boat was intercepted off the Western Australian coast.
March 16, 2009: The Navy intercepts a boat carrying 54 people, thought to be Afghanis, near the Cobourg Peninsula.
April 2, 2009: Fifty-three people are found on a boat which has run aground on an island in the Torres Strait.
April 6, 2009: Authorities pick up 63 suspected asylum seekers in a boat off Western Australia's northern coast.
April 8, 2009: A wooden boat carrying 38 asylum seekers and one crew member is undetected until it arrives at Christmas Island.
April 15, 2009: A boat carrying 47 asylum seekers and two crew, believed to be from Afghanistan, is intercepted near Ashmore Island off the north-west Australian coast.
April 16, 2009: An explosion occurs in the early hours of the morning on board the boat carrying asylum seekers. At least three people are killed and 31 are injured. There is speculation the boat was deliberately doused in petrol. It is the sixth boat to arrive in Australia in 2009
...this ABC article was from April.
and
It would be interesting to know the origins of the asylum seekers Sri Lankan, Afghani or other across this entire period.
I wouldn't argue that 'pull factors' are irrelevant.
Is it your view that is took 8 months for the people smugglers to get organised to take advantage of the policy change?
After Rudd's policy changes there were a number of test crossings using mostly Afghani and Pakistani people (see above).
For smugglers it was a "product launch". They were back in business. Once again their skills and service had value. Once again they could market 'hope' for Australian Citizenship in a way that TPV's and The Pacific Solution had nullified. The ugly black market beast was awakening...
I think the current focus on the Sri-Lankans and 'push factors' ignores the increase in boat people for the last year following Rudd's policy changes.
However, at the same time, your comments about push factors are correct. Of course events like the Tamil civil war, pre-surge situation in Iraq and current situation in Afghanistan are "push factors" which increase the "demand" for asylum.
My position is unchanged in the adamant insistence that we must not turn a blind eye to the way people apply for asylum/citizenship because this awakens, facilitates and enables an abhorrent black market.
So I think the number of refugees Australia takes each year (our quota) should have a base line, but change in response to regional 'push factors'.
Alongside the change in quota should be an increase in resources to the relevant processing centers (middle east, south asia & SE asia).
It is crucial that we have healthy, informed discussion about illegal asylum seekers rather than remaining ignorant or naive about the situation.
However if people are here in our country where we can still freely explain the gospel, shouldn't we be asking ourselves how we are going to make the most of this opportunity?
I would agree that the real answer is a coherent multi-national regional approach.
To address the Sri Lankan issue - it would probably need to be led by India which already has 100,000 Tamil refugees in camps in Sth India.
From my limited reading of the Indian press there seems to be concerns there about allowing the Tamils to become Indian citizens.
It is my view that the six years from 2002 to 2008 had less than 10 unauthorized boat arrivals. Three of those years had no boats at all. In my view, a successful 'black market' shutdown despite many, many regional push factors...
In the three months following Rudd's policy change there was a similar number of boats. Obviously this has mushroomed in 2009. I don't have the exact numbers and whatever they are, I compare them to the numbers in comment #49.
But I agree with Alan. Talking about numbers gives a deep sense of unease for the reason he expressed:
That doesn't necessarily negate your point, but it suggests that causality is a bit more complex than entirely about Australian Govt policy.
I watched Ruddock interviewed on Sky this afternoon. He appeared to agree the only way forward is a regional solution, demanding that the Govt take that action.
Mike Steketee's article is similar to Michael Jensen's initial article... "look at the numbers". I will respond properly, but I thought I would post some links which may be of interest:
<a href="http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/docs/releases/2009/090518_Federal_Budget_RCOA_brief.pdf">Click here for Australian annual refugee quota 2009/2010</a>
<a >UN Global Population Factsheet 2008</a>
<a href="http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/search?page=search&docid=4a375c426&query=2008 asylum application">UNHCR factsheet 2008</a>
I have extracted some key details:
World '09: 6.8b
Developed countries '09: 1.23b
Australia '09: 21.5m
UNHCR applications for asylum: 827,000 (pending cases)
Australian intake:
Click here for annual Australian refugee quota 2009/2010
UN Global Population Factsheet 2008
UNHCR factsheet 2008
Bear that in mind as I post extracts from the sources mentioned above:
2008 Global Trends: Refugees, Asylum-seekers, Returnees, Internally Displaced and Stateless Persons
Page 12:
There are real PEOPLE fleeing to Australia and we have opportunities to help them settle here.
Yesterday, Saturday, I had a great day at an excellent training session to train volunteers who are willing to mentor a migrant or refugee settling in our town, Bathurst. The facilitators were superb and it was funded by the Federal Government. I was heartened to see so many fellow Christians among the trainee mentors.
So please find such a program near you. Get involved. Remember the saying of that Middle Eastern theologian, Paul of Tarsus, to Christians in Turkey: "Do good to all people". Yes, he did add "especially to those of the family of faith" but we can't get away from "Do good to ALL people" including refugees.
I agree that behind the numbers are people. I would add that part of caring for refugees is understanding the global extent of their plight. That means studying the '08 UN report. I applaud your weekend effort, but would ask you don't criticize some for taking the time to read a 21 page report that effects the lives of 15 million people. Accordingly, I spent considerable time digesting this report. I have started a summary...
It seems the definitive UN resource for this is the (20 page) 2008 Global Trends: Refugees, Asylum-seekers, Returnees, Internally Displaced and Stateless Persons.
The UN estimates there are 42 million people seeking "refuge" around the world. Refuge can be sought in either a) another part of ones home country (approx: 26 million 'internally displaced persons') or b) another country (approx: 15.2 million). The term "refugee" refers to those who seek refuge in another country. Of the estimated 15.2 million refugees approximately 10.5 million were under the UNHCR's responsibility at the end of 2008 (p6).
Where do these refugees come from? Afghanistan. Iraq. Zimbabwe. Eritrea. Somalia. Democratic Republic of Congo. Republic of the Congo. Ethiopia. Nigeria. Malawi. Myanmar. Bangladesh... (unfinished).
One example of something I found confronting:
That means the US invasion of Afghanistan and overthrow of the brutal Taliban has created the conditions for 5 million Afghans to return home. Ponder that in light of the following:
How does this influence Australian policy towards Afghanistan eg: troop numbers?
The UN estimates there are 42 million people seeking "refuge" around the world. Refuge can be sought in either a) another part of ones home country (approx: 26 million 'internally displaced persons') or b) another country (approx: 15.2 million). The term "refugee" refers to those who seek refuge in another country. Of the estimated 15.2 million refugees approximately 10.5 million were under the UNHCR's responsibility at the end of 2008 (p6).
WHERE ARE THEY?
By category:
80% - in less developed countries
18% - in one of the 49 least developed countries
2% - in developed countries
By region:
33% - Asia and Pacific region (75% Afghan)
22% - The Middle East and North Africa region (Primarily Iraqi)
20% - Africa (excluding North Africa)
15% - Europe
8% - The Americas region (Colombians constituting the largest number)
Where do these refugees come from? Failed states eg:
Afghanistan. Iraq. Zimbabwe. Eritrea. Somalia. Democratic Republic of Congo. Republic of the Congo. Ethiopia. Nigeria. Malawi. Myanmar. Bangladesh.
2.8m - Afghans (6.4m at peak, 5m returned home since '02): 96% sought refuge in Pakistan & Iran
1.9m - Iraqis: fled to -> 1.1m sought refuge in Syria
561,000 - Somalis (up 23% as state fails): fled to ?
419,000 - Sudanese (down 20% due to repatriation to the Christian south)
374,000 - Columbia: sought refuge in Equador (82,300)
368,000 - Democratic Republic of the Congo: fled to ?
nb: Afghanistan has been the leading country of origin of refugees for the past three decades with up to 6.4 million of its citizens having sought international protection during peak years. As of the end of 2008, there were still more than 2.8 million Afghan refugees. In other words, one out of four refugees in the world is from Afghanistan. Even though Afghan refugees were to be found in 69 asylum countries worldwide, 96 per cent of them were located in Pakistan and the Islamic Republic of Iran alone. Iraqis were the second largest group, with 1.9 million having sought refuge mainly in neighbouring countries. Afghan and Iraqi refugees account for almost half (45%) of all refugees under UNHCR’s responsibility worldwide.
The available statistical evidence demonstrates that most refugees remain in their region of origin and flee to neighbouring countries. Indeed, the major refugee-generating regions hosted on average between 75 and 91 per cent of refugees within the region. UNHCR estimates that some 1.7 million refugees (16% out of the total of 10.5 million) live outside their region of origin.
47% of refugees have sought refuge in just 5 countries:
1.8m - Pakistan (virtually all Afghan, down 250,000 due to voluntary repatriation)
1.1m - Syria (virtually all Afghans)
980,000 - Iran (virtually all Afghans)
583,000 - Germany
500,000 - Jordan
330,000 - Chad (up 12% with those fleeing Central African Republic & Sudan)
322,000 - Tanzania (peaked at 700,000 in '02; down 26% due to repatriation: 95,000 Burundis & 15,600 Congolese)
320,000 - Kenya (up 21% with 65,000 arrivals from Somalia)
AFRICA (excluding North Africa):
- 2.1 million refugees. Down 7% (8th consecutive year of decline)
Refugee reduction (due to repatriation):
- Burundi (95,400)
- South Sudan (90,100)
- Democratic Republic of Congo (54,000)
- Angola (13,100)
Refugee increase of 210,000 (due to armed conflict/human rights violations):
- People fleeing: Central African Republic, Chad, Democratic Republic of Congo, Somalia, Sudan
- People fled to neighboring countries in: Kenya (65,000), Uganda (49,500), Cameroon (25,700), Chad (17,900)
ASIA PACIFIC REGION
- 3.4 million refugees. Down 6%.
Refugee reduction (due to repatriation):
- Afghans returning from Pakistan (274,000)
1) Refugee numbers are greatest in the Asia Pacific region I had assumed it would be the African region
2) The greatest source of refugees now, and for the last three decades have been Afghans How does this influence Australian policy and resources targeted to Afghanistan?
3) Almost all refugees flee to neighboring countries and seek refuge there How does this influence the amount of aid Australia gives to countries adjacent to failed states? Especially when they are almost always less developed countries.
4) In the context of this global problem, what exactly is Australia's contribution via Government policy and tax dollars
5) In the context of this global problem, what exactly is Australia's response? The report says that Australia ranks second behind the US in the number of refugees we take in for "resettlement" at 12,000. What is the context of this contribution?
eg:
So the UNHCR assessed and presented 121,000 refugees to nation states for resettlement, and 88,000 were accepted for resettlement. This leaves 33,000 refugees the UNHCR has assessed and wants to "resettle"... maybe 11,000 families?
How many churches are in Australia?
Each Church One Family?
[url=http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/docs/releases/2009/090518_Federal_Budget_RCOA_brief.pdf]THE 2009-10 BUDGET IN BRIEF:
What it means for refugees and those requiring
humanitarian protection [/url]
$1.789b (down 3.7%) - Department of Immigration & Citizenship
$1.3b - Border & regional security (allocated over 6yrs)
$14.3m - UNHCR (Australia's core contribution) Shocked at how low this is!
$3.8b (up 5.6%) - Australia's total aid budget (almost entirely delivered by AusAID, broken down into the following:
EAST ASIA:
$1.07b (up 4.6%)
Including: Burma ($29m, up 83%)
PACIFIC:
$677m (up 12%)
PAPUA NEW GUINEA:
$414m (up 7%)
CENTRAL ASIA/MIDDLE EAST:
$225m (down 54%)
Including: Afghanistan ($89m, down 27%); Iraq ($45m, down 85%); Pakistan ($59m, up 95%)
AFRICA:
$164m (up 43%)
SOUTH ASIA:
$150m (up 34%)
Including: India ($14m, up 160%); Nepal ($16m, up 95%); Bhutan ($4.8m, up 52%); Sri-Lanka ($36m, up 33%)
Andrew, I disagree with you, but I applaud your sincerity and willingness to wrestle with the issue of 'boat people.' I think the Biblical command to love sojourners and aliens has to take priority over any elimination of black markets. Exodus 22 tells us to treat the sojourner well, not ask how he came to be in Israel...
From a legal perspective, I'd offer the following comments (not directed at anyone in particular).
1) The present system by which refugees are assessed is problematic. Here's the system in a nutshell.
At first instance claims are assessed by an official within the Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC). DIAC officials assess the claims of asylum seekers with reference to Australian law, the Refugee Convention criteria (genuine fear, etc), and policy.
These decisions can then be appealed in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) or the Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT). This is a form of review known as merits review: this means that the appellate tribunal can find that the DIAC official got the decision wrong, either because they weighed all the facts up incorrectly, or they didn't accept a fact they should have, etc. The RRT also considers Refugee Convention obligations, etc.
Often the decisions of the minister, and sometimes even RRT decisions, are grossly flawed.
I refer you to this link - it's a good example of the kinds of flaws in Refugee Review Tribunal decisions which I referred to earlier. Scroll down to just below "there are many other reasons why people remain stateless." While their referencing is admittedly not the best, I've read my share of Federal Court and High Court judgments where it's clear that the DIAC officer / RRT have been either chronically overworked, or stupid, lazy, callous, or incompetent.
(For those of you who didn't click the link, errors in RRT decisions have included getting the nationality of the person wrong, making assumptions which fly in the face of evidence presented, etc).
This is not to deride everyone who works there. I sincerely hope the reason most appalling decisions are made there is due to an overload of cases. But that can't explain all the decisions.
Unfortunately the courts do not have the authority to cure many of these decisions. Courts may engage in merits review only in the extremely limited circumstances of Wednesbury unreasonableness . They are reluctant to invoke this, and presently it's a very unclear area of law.
Unfortunately the Rudd government has done nothing (so far as I know) to expand the jurisdiction courts have to hear appeals. At least they haven't followed Howard's example - he tried to use a privative clauses to prevent any judicial review of RRT decisions whatsoever, in blatant violation of s75(v) of the Constitution. Fortunately the High Court shut him down in (Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth)
So let's all bear in mind that the assessment of claims for asylum seeker status can be very very bad. (Yes, I may have gotten carried away there).
2) "Let your yes be your yes, and your no be your no."
Australia's ratified the ICCPR, the Declaration of Human Rights, the Refugee Convention, etc. In doing so we have represented to the world that we will not punish those who come to our country in search of asylum. This is a "core promise" (I feel dirtier for typing that phrase). Detention as we practise it is punitive. Either we should 'unratify & unsign' the Conventions, or live up to the spirit of the law.
(So far as I know only the USA has "unsigned" a treaty: under GWB they unsigned the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. 'Nuf said)
Under s198C, applies to "transitory persons" who have been in Australia for 6 months. It gives such people the right to apply to the RRT for a decision about whether they are a refugee.
Who is a transitory person?
1) Someone who entered Australia at Christmas, Ashmore or Cartier Islands (+ others),
2) Who was then taken to another country or place outside Australia (or who was on HMAS Manoora from MV Tampa/the Aceng).
As s198C only applies to transitory persons who are in Australia, if the transitory persons are in Australia for 6 months, by housing asylum seekers in Indonesia the government denies them their right to have an RRT assessment of their claim.
Also - for any who are interested - Senate review (from 1999) into Australia's Refugee & Humanitarian Processes. Chapter 5, paragraph 5.57 onwards starts to outline the issues with the RRT I referred to above.
Now with these complaints evacuated, I return to my revision of Equity...
The people smuggling black market just killed another 20 people with the drownings off the Cocos Islands last night.
As a supporter of the Pacific Solution, I accept that I am accountable for the treatment of people (and children) in mandatory detention.
I assert that those who support Rudd's policy changes are accountable for the consequences of re-starting this black market... Possibly a death toll of 60 or higher since the 'compassionate' policy changes July last year (see #55 above).
I see a great need for policies of the 'wealthy west' to acknowledge that many (most?) human rights abuses happen within the framework of black markets (often in failed states... often causing the failure of a state... and the ensuing armed conflict). The diamond black markets of the Congo would be good example, as would the heroin black markets of Afghanistan.
When the wealthy west buys diamonds from the Congolese black markets it creates those markets. When it buys heroin from Afghanistan, its black markets are created...
When the wealthy west assesses applications from boat people who have had transportation services from black marketeers, it also creates those markets.
Thats my updated 'black market' perspective.
- of the 1951 Convention relating to the status of refugees
- the Convention's requirement that "As part of its obligation to protect refugees on its territory, the country of asylum is normally responsible for determining whether an asylum-seeker is a refugee or not. The responsibility is often incorporated into the national legislation of the country and is in most cases derived from the 1951 Convention (p14)"
- 90% of last years 839,000 asylum applications were made direct to nations - not UNHCR offices!
I will need some time to digest your excellent comments.
A.
As one who's not particularly keen on either, I see more red-herrings than accountability.
At some point I hope attention gets focussed on the 13,700 refugees given asylum by Australia as part of our contribution to the UNHCR 'resettlement' program... Can we do more?
Its not directly related, but your comment is echoed in a book I was reading last night, I'd like to give it a plug:
Atheist Delusions: The Christian Revolution and Its Fashionable Enemies
The author (David Bentley Hart) gives a historical synopsis of the revolution caused by the Gospel, and challenges the "Christianity is evil - just look at the Inquisition and the Crusades" account of history advocated by so many evangelical atheists.
1. USA:
Accepted (total): 76,934
Accepted (via UNHCR resettlement): 60,192
Applied directly: 121,755 (At start of '08: 82,393 & During '08: 39,362)
Assessed: 74,486
Accepted: 16,742 (Refugee: 16,742 + Complementary protection: 0)
Rejected: 28,407
Dis-continued: 29,337
2. CANADA:
Accepted (total): 18,358
Accepted (via UNHCR resettlement): 10,804
Applied directly: 72,314 (At start of '08: 37,514 & During '08: 34,800)
Assessed: 18,112
Accepted: 7,554 (Refugee: 7,554 + Complementary protection: 0)
Rejected: 6,784
Dis-continued: 3,774
3. AUSTRALIA:
Accepted (total): 12,851
Accepted (via UNHCR resettlement): 11,006
Applied directly: 8 840 (At start of '08 & 1,516 During '08: 7,324)
Assessed: 6,659
Accepted: 1,845 (Refugee: 1,845 + Complementary protection: 0)
Rejected: 4,484
Dis-continued: 330
4. FRANCE:
Accepted (total): 11,478
Accepted (via UNHCR resettlement): 37
Applied directly: 73,650 (At start of '08: 31,051 & During '08: 42,599)
Assessed: 38,089
Accepted: 11,441 (Refugee: 9,648 + Complementary protection: 1,793)
Rejected: 26,648
Dis-continued: no-data
5. SWEDEN:
Accepted (total): 11,235
Accepted (via UNHCR resettlement): 2,209
Applied directly: 30,324 (At start of '08: 27,723 & During '08: 40,490)
Assessed: 42,049
Accepted: 9,026 (Refugee: 1,930 + Complementary protection: 7,096)
Rejected: 28,411
Dis-continued: 4,612
6. ITALY:
Accepted (total): 10,019
Accepted (via UNHCR resettlement): Zero
Applied directly: 30,324 (At start of '08: no-data & During '08: 30,324)
Assessed: 21,447
Accepted: 10,019 (Refugee: 1,785 + Complementary protection: 8,234)
Rejected: 10,379
Dis-continued: 1,049
7. GERMANY:
Accepted (total): 7,853
Accepted (via UNHCR resettlement): Zero
Applied directly: 62,081 (At start of '08: 34,063 & During '08: 28,018)
Assessed: 20,817
Accepted: 7,853 (Refugee: 7,291 + Complementary protection: 562)
Rejected: 6,761
Dis-continued: 6,203
8. UNITED KINGDOM:
Accepted (total): 7,801
Accepted (via UNHCR resettlement): 722
Applied directly: 41,347 (At start of '08: 10,800 & During '08: 30,547)
Assessed: 26,573
Accepted: 7,079 (Refugee: 4,752 + Complementary protection: 2,327)
Rejected: 14,000
Dis-continued: 5,494
9. SWITZERLAND:
Accepted (total): 6,588
Accepted (via UNHCR resettlement): Zero
Applied directly: 29,081 (At start of '08: 12,475 & During '08: 16,606)
Assessed: 15,389
Accepted: 6,588 (Refugee: 2,261 + Complementary protection: 4,327)
Rejected: 4,483
Dis-continued: 4,318
10. NETHERLANDS:
Accepted (total): 6,369
Accepted (via UNHCR resettlement): 693
Applied directly: 19,239 (At start of '08: 5,840 & During '08: 13,399)
Assessed: 10,923
Accepted: 5,676 (Refugee: 515 + Complementary protection: 5,161)
Rejected: 5,247
Dis-continued: no-data
The summary above was compiled from two sources:
1. UNHCR 2008 Repor
2. Statistical tables (table 9 & table 21).
What surprised me was the following:
1. Australia ranks third behind Canada and the USA
2. Europe has a massive illegal immigrant problem - the vast majority of asylum applications are rejected (see for example France, Germany, Netherlands)
3. The refugees European countries do take tend to be "complementary protection status" not bona fide "Convention status refugees" (I do not understand the difference)
4. Each country assesses asylum seekers using their own set of laws - this issue relates to the legal issues raised by David yesterday...