Refugees Why are we worrying?
#1
Posted 09 May 2011 - 09:19 AM
We have a tiny fraction of the world's refugee movements, estimated at 20 million people currently, to deal with. Italy, for example, has taken on more than our total arrivals in the last few months. Some countries in Africa and Asia have extensive permanent refugee settlements.
In both of these cases the refugees are not held in dentention centres, and have freedom of movement in the areas they are accomodated. This costs much less. It also means the refugees are treated in a much more human way than we could hope to claim at the moment.
What's wrong with us?
#2
Posted 09 May 2011 - 10:16 AM
scotto, on 09 May 2011 - 09:19 AM, said:
Indeed. Stop the boats and let the legitimate applicants (refugee and otherwise) into our country according to an agreed government policy. The current hopeless lot have no real plan, preferring instead to let people smugglers determine immigration policy. To the detriment of many.
The recent back pedalling is a bit of a hoot though (eg. as evidenced yesterday when Laurie Oakes interviewed the bumbling Swannie).
#3
Posted 09 May 2011 - 11:14 AM
icey, on 09 May 2011 - 10:16 AM, said:
Yes, I know there are all kinds of takes on this issue. Figures on international refugee movements over the past decade show that the apparent 'stopping of the boats' in past years coincided with a decline in overall refugee movements worldwide.
By the way, accepting refugees and treating them humanely IS agreed government policy - the international convention on refugees that we are a signatory to I think specifies this. Also, 70% of refugees arrive by aeroplane and live in the community while their claims are being processed as it is - with not a whisper of danger or disruption to the community. (Maybe we should move our major airports offshore to prevent this from happening in the future?)
This article sums up some of the problems within current idiot-level debate quite well:
My linkhttp://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/1843040.html
The 'stop the boats' mantra is a bit of a fantasy, in my opinion. Easy to say; less easy to be sure that it can be done.
In the meantime "people smugglers" are the new bogeyman. Perhaps some time might be better spent trying to make countries of origin [Sri Lanka, Burma, Afghanistan] into places that people don't want to run away from.
#4
Posted 09 May 2011 - 04:54 PM
scotto, on 09 May 2011 - 11:14 AM, said:
I doubt that some global trend could account for the dramatic increase in the numbers that suddenly appeared post Rudd's watering down of policy.
scotto, on 09 May 2011 - 11:14 AM, said:
Bit of a fantasy? You don't believe that the Howard government actually achieved an effectively nil number of boats? I can dredge up some stats if you really want, but more likely I have misunderstood your intent.
#5
Posted 10 May 2011 - 06:51 AM
scotto, on 09 May 2011 - 11:14 AM, said:
Whatever you think about this issue - can we just get this out of the way. The "70% of refugees arrive by aeroplane" thing (and the more common "most overstayers arrive by plane") is a red herring trotted out every time anyone discusses refugee policy. These people don't arrive as refugees, they arrive as legitimate tourists or businesspoeple, having entered on a passport and passed all relevant visa and security checks. They then make an on-shore claim for refugee status.
That's why there isn't "a whisper of danger or disruption to the community" - they are no different to a backpacker or tourist w.r.t security, criminal etc checks.
If you turn up at KL airport without a passport or a visa, and tell the guy on passport control that you plan to fly to Australia and make a claim for asylum, you aren't going to get very far.
#6
Posted 10 May 2011 - 08:53 AM
I mean, would the average voter be as upset if white Zimbabewean refugees were coming to Christmas Island in boats?

Also, I blame the media for whipping up a lot of unnecessary hysteria about this.
#7
Posted 10 May 2011 - 10:05 AM
EvanParsons, on 10 May 2011 - 08:53 AM, said:

Also, I blame the media for whipping up a lot of unnecessary hysteria about this.
Well said. I think the pollies are pushing that button, or blowing that dog whistle, as hard as they can go. It's a free kick at a non-voting segment of the population and everyone gets to feel righteous about it.
Regarding objection about the refugees arriving by plane idea, the plane arrivees are still claiming refugee status, exactly the same as the boat arrivees. Because they could get access to travel documents allowing them to fly, this does not mean they shouldn't be counted as refugees.
As for Howard 'stopping the boats', he didn't. Arrivals were much lower, as it has been shown, in line with world refugee movements. In the meantime, something like 95% of people who were sent to Nauru, for example, eventually were granted refugee status, making the whole thing an expensive PR manouvre.
Interestingly, the current deal to return BOAT arrivals to Malaysia has a precedent - Cambodian refugees were returned to Cambodia if the could love there safely while their claims were processed under the Hawke/Keating goeverments - Nick Bolkus was minister for immigration then.
#8
Posted 11 May 2011 - 08:45 PM
#9
Posted 11 May 2011 - 09:32 PM
dumbcluck, on 11 May 2011 - 08:45 PM, said:
Interesting idea. But surely it's less expensive to make sure these countries have good government and properly developed or supported to the degree that their citizens don't feel the need to run away?
#10
Posted 12 May 2011 - 08:37 AM
scotto, on 10 May 2011 - 10:05 AM, said:
So here's a graph (also posted in another thread and provided courtesy of the Dept. of Immigration & Citizenship.) depicting numbers in detention centres over twenty years.

In case you miss it, it's the last 2½ years tht's of most interest.
If you are seriously suggesting that there was a correlating wild upward swing in "world refugee movements", perhaps you could point to the (roughly) matching graph? Or is it just possible that Rudd policy could have nudged things along a bit?
#11
Posted 12 May 2011 - 09:02 AM
The previous 'Pacific Solution' was estimated to cost $1B and diverted only 46 people from coming to live in Australia. That's about... $20million each?
Worldwide refugee flows are an overall measure of the degree to which conflict is driving people from their homelands. The so-called 'pull factor' does not account for the majority of refugees - it is the push factor that causes them to leave their homes. This is the real thing we need to concentrate on.
#12
Posted 12 May 2011 - 10:55 AM
#13
Posted 12 May 2011 - 11:08 AM
Okay - who says it's impossible to make every country more like 'first world'? If we use the unlimited-growth/resource exploitation model of development this may be true, however definitely possible to lift the standard of living around the world by other means.
Also, what would conditions on the island be like? If they include decent health care and personal freedoms to wander around the island for example, there might be a lot of people from Australia, the UK and the US trying to get there. That would create a whole new problem.
This 'queue' idea is weird. If you're a refugee, there is no queue - you're just trying to get away and to a better place. If you're in danger, you don't line up at the UNHCR somewhere and go back home to wait until your number comes up. Even in 'organised' refugee camps, there is no recognisable queue and the system takes maybe 10 years to produce a result.
Finally, why the prooccupation with people smugglers? They are not the cause of the problem. For long before there was such a thing, people just bought boats or hired crews to try to take them somewhere. The people smugglers are doing what organised criminals everywhere do - they take advantage of a bad situation to make money.
#14
Posted 14 May 2011 - 05:12 PM
scotto, on 12 May 2011 - 09:02 AM, said:
The previous 'Pacific Solution' was estimated to cost $1B and diverted only 46 people from coming to live in Australia. That's about... $20million each?
Worldwide refugee flows are an overall measure of the degree to which conflict is driving people from their homelands. The so-called 'pull factor' does not account for the majority of refugees - it is the push factor that causes them to leave their homes. This is the real thing we need to concentrate on.
Of course Australian policy won't particularly effect worldwide refugee movements. Other than to Australia that is.
Less than 500 then (thanks to the ALP policy change), skyrocketing to 6500.
I'd be dividing your billion bucks by 6500 (minus 46 if you like), and then comparing the result to the per capita cost of the Gillard solution (either during the East Timor la la land policy, or the new improved ... read, inhumane, "I'm getting angry now" Malaysian one for five swap.
And given that you are quite reasonably into cost factors, what price do you put on the hundreds of lives lost in attempts to run the ocean gauntlet?
#15
Posted 17 May 2011 - 08:44 PM
IAnd Scotto...having all countries in the 'first world' is unachievable. You see there is more to being in the 'first world' than being a 'rich' country. It involves as well democratic practices...like the rule of law....real separation of powers etc. Many countries can never hope to comply with these requirements
#16
Posted 20 May 2011 - 02:52 PM
dumbcluck, on 17 May 2011 - 08:44 PM, said:
That's interesting - I would have thought the democratic practices were the most acheivable part, especially if we stop supporting dictators! For example - Sri Lanka is a brewing dictatorship and is never mentioned in Australia as such, despite being a consistent source of refugees.
#17
Posted 20 May 2011 - 02:59 PM
icey, on 14 May 2011 - 05:12 PM, said:
The Pacific Solution didn't affect arrivals in Australia - it was in place at a time of far fewer arrivals EVERYWHERE. What it affected was that it put in place the group fantasy that Australia has a refugee problem - we don't.
Do you still think $1Billion is a reasonable amount to spend? That would amount to a LOT if spent in third world countries to improve conditions and prevent refugee departures, no?
The lives lost are shocking - but the Howard government didn't seem to be worried about this, in terms of the attention it paid to SIEV X and being very backward about specifying what 'disruption efforts' meant in relation to refugee boats in Indonesia in the past.
#18
Posted 20 May 2011 - 07:39 PM
I have not come up with an answer so far....but perhaps in the future I will
#20
Posted 22 May 2011 - 06:48 PM
dumbcluck, on 20 May 2011 - 07:39 PM, said:
Natural - as apart from human beahviour? Surely our behaviour is in the realm of 'nature' - including greed, exploitation, and cruelty as well as democracy, helping and sharing.