(Looking at boats October 2012)
In the news this week, if you missed it (which may not be surprising if you are anything like me and between work, kids, cooking and cleaning are lucky to catch the news of the day let alone read an article) has been about ASYLUM SEEKERS, or the term used by the media BOAT PEOPLE.
At the beginning this blog I raised one of the key policies I was interested in was Australia's treatment of refugees. In my naivety, I thought that onshore detention was better than offshore. I confess I am still trying to get my head about all the issues involved with asylum seekers who come to Australia by boat. The most common sense, human feeling is to think that people who are so desperate to flee their own country to come to us via a dingy boat must need help. So, when Labour released their Refugee policy this week, and brought this to the forefront, it has provided a lot of fodder for me (honestly, maybe too much).
I haven't worked out what I think yet, but this is what I am thinking at the moment:
* Separating child from family should not be allowed, no matter how the child arrived in Australia;
* Mandatory detention seems wrong. Should this not be on a case by case basis?
* Not allowing asylum seekers to work reduces their existence even further.
* What happened to the the words in the Australia anthem that says "From those who come across the seas, we've boundless plains to share"? (Yes, I have seen the memes.)
Here are some articles that some of you might be interested. Please let me know how they make you think:
Highly informative and huge article (ie, need time to read this) http://m.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/youve-been-misled-on-boat-people-here-are-the-facts-20130718-2q5rv.html
Poignant, first hand, personal challenge point of view: http://christinemead.wordpress.com/2013/07/20/so-you-think-its-a-good-idea-to-welcome-refugees-excuse-me-while-i-burst-your-bubble/
A Christan take on things: http://markrglanville.wordpress.com/2013/07/20/australian-refugee-policy-for-dummies-1-disingenuous-rhetoric/
Slightly sad/realistic viewpoint: http://theimmigrationblog.com/2013/07/19/so-what-should-we-think-of-the-rra/#more-430
Let me know your thoughts!!
Interesting article up here on the abc:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-23/berg-on-the-positive-side-thousands-more-may-find-refuge/4837438
In 2007, the country seemed increasingly in favor of on-shore processing, and gave ALP a mandate to remove some of the actions that had occurred under Howard. The mood and rhetoric has shifted so significantly in these 6 years since, that there is now belief that this is a border control issue (which it isn't, in my opinion), as well as a sovereignty issue. The rhetoric, and public mood has shifted to a "stop the boats" mentality - which is what the new ALP policy setting does. Like it or not, they are providing what the people have asked for.
Its a complex issue to be sure. People certainly should have the right to seek asylum - but you have to ask yourself, why are they not seeking asylum in a transit country? Does Australia have an obligation to try and fill its migration quotas in some orderly way, by reuniting families, intake from UN camps and skilled migrants that helps business? Would an open door approach to asylum seeker boats not prevent other people with equal rights from moving to Australia, some with perhaps equal rights as refugees? Is it OK to allow People Smugglers the right to set the immigration agenda for Australia, ripping people off in the process and preying on the disadvantaged?
The current policy is about helping folks seek protection. This is the obligation, as I understand it under the UN charter, and the aim is to "stop the boats", which deals with an important political issue that the public perceives.
It's been said before, but Australian's are welcome to be up in arms about this policy, but need to consider what we would be willing to give up in order to settle more refugees. Higher taxes? More debt? Increased crowding in schools and hospitals? Higher rates? No maternity leave? So far, these are all areas that the goverment has been attacked on in terms of its border control and economic credentials. Surely, we can't have both.
What would you give up?
I am an Australian citizen and would give up some or can be convinced to give up all those things you mentioned above. More tax, increased crowding in schools etc - if it means we could settle more refugees then it's worth the cost. I will be proud to tell my 2 young daughters that we have had to sacrifice something, that it cost us greatly, but it meant hundreds/thousands more lives can live in Australia. I don't think Australia has come close to its limit in resettling refugees. I think the $ value or advantages each individual wants to give up in order for an additional person to have the right to live in humane conditions varies from person to person. My hope is more Australians will push/stretch themselves on whether they can give up more in order for others to have what is humane.
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comments everyone. Good questions to think through. I agree with Amanda in that I think Australians could easily give up more, me included. The reality of a first world country that provides safety, security and work would be one of the many reasons boat people are not seeking asylum in the transit countries. There is a famous line that if you have food to eat, roof over your head, clothes on your back and a bed to sleep in you are richer than 75% of the world's population. Australians cannot and should not think they are poor and cannot give up for more. It frustrates me that the public rhetoric about refugees taking our jobs, crowding schools and sucking up resources is crazy when we realise how much we have compared to the rest of the world.
ReplyDeleteThanks anonymous for your article. It was good. I am going to include it in my next set of asylum seeker post.
ReplyDelete