The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Refugees - we’d like to help, but … > Comments

Refugees - we’d like to help, but … : Comments

By Guy Goodwin-Gill, published 3/2/2006

Guy Goodwin-Gill discusses the history of refugee protection and argues the need for tempering sovereign self-interest.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All
A timely reminder of the commitments that Australia has made under international conventions and treaties, to treat refugees humanely.

Unfortunately, the Howard Government has ignored these commitments in order to gain political advantage, and in doing so sending Australian politics to its lowest ebb. The use of words such as "illegals" and "queuejumpers" demonstrates the ignorance of the legal situation and the real circumstances of asylum seekers and is designed to dehumanise them.

The fact that over 80% of asylum seekers are adjudged to be genuine refugees, in fear of persecution, is rarely publicised. Why? Because then it would be impossible to justify the millions of dollars spent, and the terrible human cost, in keeping genuine refugees and their families, in harsh conditions for extended periods whilst their case is being adjudicated.

Expect the usual misinformed right wing rants in response to this article.
Posted by AMSADL, Friday, 3 February 2006 9:51:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AMSADL

The only issue I have with your post is "usual misinformed right wing rants".

Granted there are many misinformed and, true, they like to rant, however racism and contempt for refugees is not restricted to nor necessarily the province of political conservatives.

True our current fed gov is inhumane in its treatment of refugees, however it is not fair to generalise; Petro Georgio after all showed he possessed the 'right stuff'.

To Guy, thank you for the historical perspective. Australia needs reminding that it is a part of this troubled world and while we continue to involve ourselves in warfare, we are responsible towards those hurt by war.
Posted by Scout, Friday, 3 February 2006 10:55:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AMSADL
80% are genuine? So 20% are not. What does Australia do with these non-genuine? More importantly does anybody know how many are judged Genuine in what time frame? And are the majoirty that are held for longer times the non-Genuine. (i.e. That Pakistani (cum Afghan) family that now admit lying?)

Some info on this is of interest.
Also what is the best site to visit to get the list of refugee rights?
Posted by The Big Fish, Friday, 3 February 2006 11:30:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Signatories of the 1951 Convention could not have foreseen present day events when they were anxious to provide for refugees after World War 11. I would have thought that the Refugee Convention is outdated, but that is just my opinion. With the likes of WRE on the lookout, one now has to make that clear to avoid a tirade.

On reading the “General Provisions” on refugees, I noted the following descriptions who was then considered to be a refugee:

“(1) Has been considered a refugee under the Arrangements of 12 May 1926 and 30 June 1928 or under the Conventions of 28 October 1933 and 10 February 1938, the Protocol of 14 September 1939 or the Constitution of the International Refugee Organization;”

Now this may seem stupid to people versed in the law, but my question is: what were the arrangements, and how do they apply to the present situation?

I am also confused by the following:

“(2) As a result of events occurring before I January 1951 and owing to 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, or owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.”

Prior to 1951. How does that fit into the 21st Century? Again, this could be a stupid question to those in the know, but I don’t follow. The requirement is explained in B (1), still referring to victims of events PRIOR to 1951.

I read to the end for clues, but didn’t find any.

I have to pull a Pauline Hanson here:- “Please explain”, if anyone can.
Posted by Leigh, Friday, 3 February 2006 12:49:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Today is not the world of 1951. There are many opportunists simply wanting a lifestyle that is superior to that of their home country. They cannot be blamed for that but no can any country who refuses to be 'swamped' by those who are not genuine refugees.
How do you tell the true refugee from the criminal fleeing justice?Or those who just do not like the poverty of their homeland.
Much of Africa, Asia could claim asylum.How do you cope with that?
We would sink under the onslaught of third world countries if the refugee advocates had their way.
Posted by mickijo, Friday, 3 February 2006 1:39:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Its all good and well to say we have an international obligation to accept refugees. But who is prepared to take a dramatic drop in the standard of living that would be required too accomodate the vast number of legitimate refugees who would like to migrate to Australia if we strictly stuck to the letter of the law.

Lets face it, 9 out of ten of these refugees would not be able to speak even basic english and would subsquently go straight onto social security benefits. On the economic-social ladder the majority of these people would stay on the bottom rung and perpetuate poverty in thier ethnic communities in which they gather.

Many people seem to be oblivous to the fact that Australia already pays over 1/3 of there taxes to recipents of social security and that with an ageing demographic this is simply not sustainable.

It is not just financially unviable (if people wish to maintain current standards of living) but it is enviromentally negligent to promote increased numbers of people to migrate to Australia. Australia's enviroment is unable to sustain our current population let alone an increase.
Posted by wjb, Friday, 3 February 2006 4:23:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There are two facts relating to refugees that I wish the bleeding heart brigade would face up to:

1. The strongest supporters for John Howard's policy on refugees are the Labor Party's heartland. I do not know of any other political issue that has been in this category.

2. Somehow this whole refugee problem is supposed to be temporary, with the peoples of the world set to live in peace and harmony any time soon.

Get Real! The world population will rise to 10 billion in 40 years, and the tide of refugees trying to get to Australia could rise to the level that the navy uses their boats as target practice. The imminent end of the age of cheap energy will cause a tidal wave of misery, unemployment, war and famine around the world, utterly beyond our ability to ameliorate.

None of this will be of our making, and we will have little choice but to watch in horror.

Thank heavens we have a sea boundary.
Posted by plerdsus, Friday, 3 February 2006 4:34:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
We have glorious isolation, and hence the ability to controls 'floods' of human movement, which as plerdsus pointed out, will seek to come in the near future as the population explosion continues, and resources become scarce. (remember "Lot and Abraham"?)

I find the arguments advanced in favor of 'humane treatment' of assylum seekers, notably lacking on the issue of 'numbers'. i.e. how MANY assylum seekers are u prepared to accomodate ? The points suggested thus far are spurious and shallow and lacking in foresight.

There is nothing 'inhumane' about providing shelter, food and safety for those who are seeking to enter this country illegally. I emphasise ILLegaly, because people who have travelled THROUGH COUNTRIES where they can receive assylum are not.. repeat NOT assylum seekers under the UN CONVENTION, which does say something about 'nearest' port of call.

The other point which needs to be made is that when you add together the 'lets be open and let them in' to 'No discussion of limits' you are basically on page 1 of the International Socialist web site about 'open borders and destruction of nation states'.

I would much prefer that Ideological Socialism is NOT dressed up in the pathetic disguise of 'humanitarian compasssion' but is just stated to be what it is. (and also that susceptable individuals would think more b4 jumping on the bandwagon)

Its just the same old "Ur a Racist" and "Ur a Xenophobe" if you disagree about the 'Left' version of migration etc. "Your inhumane" if you want to restrict the numbers of, and set the living conditions, including detention of would be refugees.

Well, I don't have a problem with the Irian Jaya mob (who are 'my' mob... Christian) being held at Christmas Island.. gee.. I've had months of similar restriction myself during language study and orientation course.. it aint that bad ! They can use the time constructively.

I doubt it will take long to determine their status, coming from so close.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Friday, 3 February 2006 6:37:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
On ABC radio today, a story was recounted of a program of technical assistance to ameliorate the situation of an Ethiopian subsistence farmer. His land was of poor fertility with poor access to water. Life was a struggle for him and his family of ten.
The narrator noted a number of things being done to improve the farmer's lot.
But he did not go on to consider how the next generation of ten might cope when they reached maturity. It is inconceivable for that plot of land to be enhanced sufficiently for division into ten parcels for those children to carry on in heir parents' tradition of fertility. To survive and maintain that tradition, they would have to migrate. But where else in Ethiopia could they go? - throughout that country every female has an average of 5.9 children. The population increases by almost 2 million each year. If an average Ethiopian were to touch down in Australia and claim asylum, it would be heartless to send him/her back.
And so it is for too much of the world. Just how many putative refugees are there? How many would Australia be able to accommodate?
When the Nansen Passports were conceived the world population was less then 2 billion. At the time of the post-WWII refugee conventions, human numbers were less than 3 billion; and that was the commencement of the time of antibiotics. The human rabbit has more than doubled its numbers in the half century since.
In 1994 the world got together and decided that nations should shoulder the responsibility to keep their own populations in check within their own boundaries. Their continuing neglect to do so stokes the fires of social discord in the Sudan, the Middle East, and most other trouble spots.
It is a pity that Guy Goodwin's article did not hook the historical perspective of migration into the present situation.
Posted by colinsett, Friday, 3 February 2006 9:31:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aristotle once said that “the highest morality is the protection of your own people.” It is clear to me, as a former member of the disadvantaged class, that Australia is short changing it’s own poor people to support a bunch of asylum shopping “refugees” who quite clearly do not make good citizens. One only has to look at the Lebanese “problem” and the Vietnamese “problem” in Sydney, to comprehend that our refugee intake is doing nothing more than filling our jails and our dole queues, and creating other intractable social problems that were completely avoidable.

It is abundantly clear that the primary direction of “refugee” flow is from failed states to the countries of the North European Protestant people. Obviously, our culture is doing something right. But to listen to the logic of the “refugee” huggers, white culture is the personification of everything that is evil.

Instead of constantly criticizing their own people and their own culture, the “intellectuals” would be much better employed criticizing the cultures that are obviously miserable failures. Feminists in particular will always shriek at western societies for not having absolute sexual equality, but you will never hear the likes of Germaine Greer saying anything bad about the reprehensible treatment of women in Islamic societies. Which of course, is one of the prime reasons why Islamic societies are failing and generating endless “refugee” queues in the first place.

Giving endless aid to failed states has done nothing except to make these failed cultures dependent upon aid for survival. Birth control projects in Africa failed because of African cultural aversion to using condoms. The result has been an explosion in AIDS infection, which once again, the Africans demand the rest of the world to alleviate. But you will never hear "intellectuals" have a shot at African attitudes or culture.

The simplest way to prevent squabbling over Refugee Treaties is to simply abrogate them. In Australia, the welfare of Australians comes first.
Posted by redneck, Saturday, 4 February 2006 5:26:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Colinsett, you make the case well....not for offering assylum, but for population control measures and changes of culture in such places.

The 'incentive' for this may well have to be a widespread dying off of the unsustainable population. This might seem a little harsh and cold hearted, but if the actual root cause is not addressed, any such people who come to Australia, would bring that same mentality with them and repeat the problem, if not sooner..then later.

Most animals will breed well when food is abundant.. like Roos and Rabbits.. but as soon as the drought comes OR.. they simply outbreed their food supply, they die off and the cycle continues.

The point about the division of the land for the 10 children is something I can identify with very closely. I will face that with my own 3, and my wifes culture is very similar to the Ethiopian one, but at this stage there is no food shortage.

The idea that unsustainable family and cultural practices should not be discouraged by those who can see the ultimate outcome, is rather silly. If people do not get the message one way... perhaps they need to get it another ? What do they actually expect ? I mean..seriously.. do they just expect to breed and breed and breed in the same way they have always.. even though its as plain as the nose on their face that resources are limited ?

Again, we are confronted by Lot and Abraham "And Lots herdsmen quarrelled with Abrahams, over lack of pasture for their herds"...
There are only 4 possibilities..

1. move on to vacant land...
2. TAKE someone elses land, by driving them off or killing them
3. DIE out.
4. Reduce the number of offspring and cultural practices which cause the problem.

In the absence of "1" being available, the immorality of "2" and repugnance of "3", "4" seems the best.

Unfortunately, many cultures depend on large numbers of male children just to survive. So its catch22 and destined for self destruction.
When you have denuded the hills of firewood.......its gone.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Saturday, 4 February 2006 7:33:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'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 or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such fear, is unwilling to return to it.' So says the UN's guideline when trying to identify a refugee. And that wording is the Archilles' heel of the refugee issue today.

According to Australia's clerisy it's axiomatic that all on board any leaky boat on the horizon must be refugees. Saddam Hussein, guilty of no crimes at this stage, would be guaranteed refugee status if he was on one of those leaky boats. And granting him refugee status would be emblematic of the shambles that is the refugee policy.

The abstrusity of decisions made by our courts when dealing with refugee cases clouds the issue further. We granted two homosexuals asylum because they feared violence if they returned to their village in Sri Lanka. If an Australian woman fears violence in her town the best she can hope for is an AVO. To further muddy the waters Lambert Ndakaza of the Rwandan & Burundian Assoc in NSW expressed fears that Hutus guilty of genocide in Rwanda might be living in Australia. And Ahmad Shayeq Qassem, Afghanistan's First Secretary says that it is safe to return Afghanis but our high court says no. Then the Full Court of the Family Court ruled that it had jurisdiction over children in detention only to be told by the high court that it did not.

Enter the captious Dr GG-G, a research fellow and professor no less, who deigns to remind us of our objectionable sovereign self-interest. Would the good doctor think it clever if we abandoned sovereign self-interest and allowed in hordes of Palestinians and Israelis to live side by side in St Ives?

It can only work when there are rules.
Posted by Sage, Saturday, 4 February 2006 3:37:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In response to Leigh's reasonable question, the time restrictions (due to events occuring prior to 1951) and also geographic restrictions in the orginal 1951 Convention were superceded by what is known as the 1967 Protocol, which basically made the principles globally applicable.

(As the article is the first in a series, I imagine this and other more recent historical developments might come in a later piece)

Interestingly, in light of current events, Australia did not ratify that 1967 Protocol until 1973 in large part due to a desire to be able to return asylum seekers fleeing Indonesian oppression in West Papua - although at that time PNG (where almost all of them fled to) was an Australian territory whose residents had no automatic right to enter mainland Australia.

In response to The Big Fish - whether it is 20%, 1% or 50%, those who are found not to be refugees and have no other right to remain in Australia are removed (except for a small group whose country of origin won't take them back, which leads on to discussions about Statelessness, which is a different but equally difficult issue). Many of those who have been held for the longest periods end up being assessed as having a valid claim (such as the Afghan man released from Villawood last week after well over 6 years detention).
Posted by AndrewBartlett, Saturday, 4 February 2006 7:00:32 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In response to Sage, it is simply not the case that any (credible) person suggests "all on board a leaky boat must be refugees". Our system or law certainly does not take this approach, but rather assesses each person/family case individually, as it should. Your statement about Saddam is simply wrong - people suspected of even general association with war crimes can and have been excluded on this ground alone, even when they have been found to have a genuine fear of persecution.

I do agree with Sage's final statement though - "it can only work when there are rules". That's what the Refugee Convention is - a set of rules, less than perfect but at least agreed to by a majority of the world's countries. Trying to get everyone to operate by the same rules meets our sovereign self-interest and provides the best chance of more people getting a humane outcome globally. That's why some people get upset when the Australian government flagrantly breaks those rules.

As for BOAZ_David's statement that "the 'incentive' for population control measures "may well have to be a widespread dying off of the unsustainable population" - thanks for making your views clear.

I've always found if I listen to zero migration people long enough, this is the type of statement many of them come out with.

Just to be fair, how about we implement this 'widespread dying off' by random allocation - every person has a 50% chance of being executed. Sound fair to you? If you're happy to just turn your back on the world's poor until they 'die back' to an (undefined) sustainable number, then I'm sure you wouldn't complain if the people of those nations decided the burden of drastically reducing global population should be shared with the rich world. We have fewer people, but per person we do consume a lot more of the resources. Might seem "a little harsh and cold hearted" as you say, but you know, if we don't address the "root cause" of the problem .....
Posted by AndrewBartlett, Saturday, 4 February 2006 7:03:43 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Andrew Bartlett,

Thankyou for the answer, Andrew.
Posted by Leigh, Saturday, 4 February 2006 10:05:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
SMH 4/2/06 (Sydney)
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/fbi-brought-into-search-for-rahma/2006/02/04/1138958945047.html

[Throughout the ordeal, Rahma's mother, Alyaa, 29, has been pregnant with their ninth child. Her father, Hosayn, 35, has been prescribed sedatives and drugs for stomach ulcers.]

How many chilren was that ? In demographics, what will this lead to in 3 generations ?

Mr Hosayns family of 9 Children who have 9 children (Total=81) who have 9 children=729 persons.

Traditional Aussie 1.8children who have 1.8 chidren who have 1.8 children=5.8 persons...total.

Andrew,
I note with interest your selective focus on ONE of the 4 possiblities I stated when populations in a country become unsustainable. You also chose to focus on the one I described as ‘repugnant’, and you suggest that characterizes my whole position. (did you read that?).

My 4th point was to change cultural/reproductive practices ! (did you read that also ?) (e.g. CHINA-1 child policy)
I am seeing a recurring theme in your writings though. You see all human relations and situations in ‘global’ terms, rather than ethnic or national. I suppose you are in some kind of denial about how human societies in the real world actually function.

The world consists of families, tribes, races, all of which are competitors for resources.

You refer to the large amount of resources consumed by small numbers of wealthy westerners. Do you say this to support the view that those of us who ‘have’ those resources, including LAND (?) should be sharing it with those huge families like the one above and in Ethiopia with their unsustainable reproductive practices? if so, to what extent ? Self destruction ?

Presumably this view you are promoting takes into account the many MILLIONS of people in India who will soon breed themselves out of a livelihood due to lack of land etc ? and that you are quite happy for those ‘millions’ with their continued unsustainable reproductive attitudes to come to Australia and thereby completely alienate our culture and ethnic mix, to the point where we cease to exist by virtue of our 1.8 reproductive practices ?

Wake up Australia... have more chidren and strictly controlled immigration !.....or.....
Posted by BOAZ_David, Sunday, 5 February 2006 7:49:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“I've always found if I listen to zero migration people long enough, this is the type of statement many of them come out with.”

Crikey Andrew I wish you wouldn’t stoop so low as to tar everyone who is in favour zero net migration with the same brush.

What you effectively appear to be saying is that everyone who desires net zero migration is a twat and therefore everyone who has population stabilisation and sustainability at heart is a moron. Am I overextrapolating? I can’t see how I could be. I mean, obviously those in favour of net zero migration are in favour of sustainability, by and large.

What a bizarre thing for you to attribute this statement; “the incentive for population control measures may well have to be a widespread dying off of the unsustainable population”, or anything like it to the whole net zero migration mindset! And to think that I and everyone I know thought that the Democrats were basically pretty sound on sustainability issues. Wow!

The vast majority of those who want zero, net zero, or low immigration want it because they want Australia to reach a sustainable population, and thus do our bit in the fight for global sustainable population. If we stabilise ours, we can much more legitimately work towards stabilisation in other countries. If we don’t we are being duplicitous. We (population stabilisation advocates) are afraid that if we don’t stabilise population, and quickly, there will be a massive die-off. So this is just the opposite to what you attribute to net zero migration advocates.

“Just to be fair, how about we implement this 'widespread dying off' by random allocation - every person has a 50% chance of being executed”

Why are you even bothering entertaining this sort of ridiculous ‘debate’?

In the interests of perspective, I think your two posts are otherwise good. But the bad bits are really shameful.
Posted by Ludwig, Sunday, 5 February 2006 10:55:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
BOAZ_david; very good posts, except that you ruin the whole theme with your last line; “Wake up Australia... have more children and strictly controlled immigration !”

What is your thinking?

Are you in favour of population stabilisation and sustainability?

Are you afraid of current Australians or white Australians being bred out or overwhelmed by faster birthrates among non-white or immigrants?

And in keeping with this thread, how is having more babies supposed to help Australia’s assistance with refugee issues?
Posted by Ludwig, Sunday, 5 February 2006 11:06:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ludwig...

correct, most of my post was kinda off topic. I do hope you looked at the last portion of my 'dying off' post and saw my view on the overall issue.

Sustainablity. 1.8 children is not "sustainable" .... its negative and will without question result in racial disharmony if any other group becomes large.

Regarding "am I fearful of being outbred by certain groups".... A RESOUNDING YES... I think my 'breeding' stats above illustrate the potential at least. I mean.. 2 people, after 3 generations amounting to 5.8 ? until grandpa and grandma die leaving a massive total of 4.8 compared to 700+ ? The reason I raise such demographic material is that it the very same stuff found on such web sites as
http://muslim-canada.org/muslimstats.html read specially under the heading of 'demographics' down the page.

The PLO regards birth rates as a weapon against Israel.

On refugees. I've pretty much said what needed 2B said about that earlier. I thought I'd explore the idea on a more broad basis. Refugees, if welcomed without constraints or limits, would see not 10s or 100s arriving here but MILLIONS, we both know this. So, demographics are relevant. If we don't know our own situation well, how can we craft meaningful sustainable policy ?

My urge to have more children is to at least 'reach' sustainablity and to avoid the need to 'import' skilled tradespeople which, if not done carefully with regard to social/cultural/religious/political considerations might just bring our nation undone.

The relative harmony we enjoy here is only because of an overwhelming majority of UK backgrounded people, which produces a majority of population who feel by default that they have little to worry about, hence peace. Malaysia on the other hand having Chinese 35% and Malays 45% (around that) they had massive race riots.

It doesn't take much to trigger racial problems, just look at a few simple drawings at the moment.

By the way, I deliberately put an extreme position sometimes to stimulate thought. Failure to see all sides and implications due to fear of criticism is not my cuppa :)
Posted by BOAZ_David, Sunday, 5 February 2006 1:35:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ludwig

My comments were in response to BOAZ's ludicrous and offensive conjecture. My apologies if it was overly intemperate and too widely encompassing.

I am sometimes overly sensitive on this topic because I have had so many debates and arguments with people about it over the years - including people such as John Coulter in the Democrats - and far too many of them have (often quite quickly) ended up in Pauline Hanson territory.

That is not to say that people aren't entitled to hold those views, but I am not going to debate sustainability when it is just being used as a cloak for xenophobia, prejudice or worse. I realise this does not apply to all anti-immigration people, but in my experience it does seem to apply to a lot of them once you scratch the surface.

Back purely to the sustainability argument - having worked in the migration area for so long, I simply cannot see massive reductions in migration numbers being achievable, let alone socially or economically just. It is a global world and becoming more so, and population should be addressed globally. It just seems excessively selfish to me to say that (virtually) nobody else is allowed to live here, because we already consume too many resources per head.

There is already more demand than there are places in our current family migration intake. Even if humanitarian stayed as it is, and skillled/business intake dropped to zero, the family intake would still have to drop in order to enable a net zero intake.

Plus, socially and politically, it is already hard enough to get public support for refugees settling here. If there were even more of them and a huge cut in anyone else being able to settle here, the resentment would skyrocket, as would the suspicion (and possibly the reality) about bogus asylum claims.
Posted by AndrewBartlett, Sunday, 5 February 2006 9:24:14 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Not meaning to be rude, Andrew, but don't you ever feel that there is some corrrelation between the changes in AD policies since the Chip and Coulter days and your current political fortunes?
Posted by Leigh, Monday, 6 February 2006 10:38:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To all sudanese, nigerians and other African refugees,if you want to live and enjoy the rest of your life in Australia,(doesn't sound good but its the truth)reproduce with Anglo Australians .
Its seem to be the only way,blended in as best you can.Because racism isn't changing anytime soon. One kid two kids ,doesn't matter to the racist cause its not their race,they already have the stereotype of the over reproudctive Africans.Try to enjoy life.
Posted by Amel, Monday, 6 February 2006 1:58:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David

The notion that a fertility rate of 1.8 is not sustainable needs further explanation. In simple terms, a population cannot be sustained at the same level with a fertility rate below replacement level. But;

1. The age structure of the Australian population has a very significant impact on the growth rate. Births are currently a long way in excess of deaths, which means that the effective national fertility rate is well above 2, despite an individual fertility rate of 1.76. This is occurring because there is an ‘excess’ of people in their reproductive years compared to what there would be if the age structure was typical of a stable population. With the current fertility rate, and net zero immigration, our population would continue to grow for three or four decades and then would take another few decades to fall back to the current level. We could therefore say that the current birthrate will sustain the current population level for about a person’s lifetime.

2. You can’t divorce immigration from birthrate unless we go to absolute zero immigration. It is not mutually exclusive from the individual fertility rate or the age structure and therefore the effective fertility rate.

3. This whole sustainability debate is not about sustaining the same population level, it is about balancing resource consumption with supply capability, and environment with quality of life, in perpetuity. It doesn’t imply that the population itself has to remain the same.

You have put something in quotation marks attributed to me that I did not write; "am I fearful of being outbred by certain groups" Exact words only should go in quotation marks. I’m sure you meant no misrepresentation, but this has meant is that you haven’t really addressed my question.

I asked; “Are you afraid of current Australians or white Australians being bred out or overwhelmed by faster birthrates among non-whites or immigrants?”

The link you provided shows how Muslim birthrates are well in excess of those of other groups in some parts of the world. But is this a significant concern in Australia? Is it significant compared to sustainability?
Posted by Ludwig, Monday, 6 February 2006 2:58:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Andrew thanks for the explanation. I fully accept your comments on concerns about xenophobia within the anti-immigration or low immigration mindset. But in my experience, those with this motivation are in the small minority.

The Sustainable Population Australia members’ forum and public forum (PublicPopForum@yahoogroups.com) are full of comments and discussion about sustainability issues and rarely touch on issues that could be interpreted and xenophobic or prejudiced. I think this is a very good indication of the true motivation of the vast majority. Afterall, racial, ethnic and related matters are connected to population concerns in some ways and are therefore fair game for discussion.

You write; “I simply cannot see massive reductions in migration numbers being achievable…”

Why not? Bob Hawke (or was it Keating) lowered immigration very considerably. As soon as the sustainability ethic pervades our political scene, immigration will be able to be lowered very significantly very quickly.

“…let alone socially or economically just.”

I don’t understand this at all.

“It is a global world and becoming more so, and population should be addressed globally.”

Of course population growth should be addressed globally. But that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t also be addressed nationally and locally.

“It just seems excessively selfish to me to say that (virtually) nobody else is allowed to live here, because we already consume too many resources per head.”

I think this twisting the argument backwards. All sustainability advocates are concerned about both continuous pop growth and per-capita overconsumption. With the peak oil scenario just around the corner, consumption will be greatly lowered, which is all the more reason to cut immigration now.

We are starting to go over some of the same really basic ground here. But we are still not getting right to the crunch of the issue.
Posted by Ludwig, Monday, 6 February 2006 9:53:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Leigh

Don't worry about offending - as I hope I have indicated, I don't support high migration because I think it is popular. However, I doubt very much that the decline in the Democrat vote is because we moved away from a zero net migration approach. Firstly, John Coulter was the only Democrat Senator who ever supported such an apporach, and he dedicated himself to getting it adopted as poolicy (as I did to getting it removed). Secondly, he was easily the least electorally successful Democrat Leader until the last election when I relieved him of that particular label. We lost support for a lot of reasons, but it was from a high that appeared after Coulter left, and I don't think it was much to do with anti-migration issues (except perhaps for some broader anti-refugee sentiment in 2001).

Ludwig

I guess I can only say your experiences with most low-immigration advocates is quite different to mine.

Lower immigration numbers were achievable under Keating and early Howard in large part because we were in a recessionary environment, so the demand wasn't there. A big chunk of immigration numbers is, in effect, a market (unfortunately apart from the humanitarian component that low intake folk always promote, where no one has any economic incentive to 'buy')

In regards to why low immigration intake is not socially just, I am referring particularly to enforced separation of families.

In regards to your statement that I am "twisting the argument backwards", I guess it is somewhat consistent if I say that your argument seems the same to me.
Posted by AndrewBartlett, Monday, 6 February 2006 11:29:12 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Andrew Bartlett originally claimed that mass migration was of significant economic benefit to all of us, not just the folk at the top. This claim is untenable, especially since the recent Productivity Commission report. He also seems to be worried that his earlier statements that asylum claims would remain small in number and overwhelmingly genuine might not hold good, so that it is necessary to dilute the asylum seekers with large numbers of other immigrants so as to not upset the public.

Now it is "social and economic justice". First World elites have undoubtedly done terrible things in the Third World, but the Third World has also benefited immensely from our technology, especially the Green Revolution. If global population growth had stopped in the 1950s, everyone on Earth could have a decent European level quality of life. It is the Third World people themselves who decided to use the Green Revolution gains to "feed more hungry people, rather than feeding hungry people more", as Prince Philip once put it. South Korea and Taiwan show that much better decisions could have been made. These countries are now in the First World. Andrew Bartlett thinks that when you scratch one of us you find a xenophobe, but I think that when you scratch people like him you find someone who really sees Third World people as childlike little brown brothers, who have to be rescued by us, because they are too stupid, feckless and irresponsible to deal with their problems, unable to learn from their mistakes or be held morally responsible as we are held responsible for overconsumption. Without a world government the idea of addressing overpopulation globally is a joke.

Unfortunately it is the people at the bottom in Australia who will pay for Senator Bartlett's social and economic justice. According to economist Lester Thurow 1% population growth requires 12.5% of GNP to be diverted into growth infrastructure. Why, for example, do you think that mental patients and the intellectually disabled have nowhere to go but jail, when the economy is supposedly booming and the tax take is at record levels?
Posted by Divergence, Tuesday, 7 February 2006 2:17:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“In regards to why low immigration intake is not socially just, I am referring particularly to enforced separation of families.”

Andrew, I guess what you mean is that if immigration was suddenly greatly lowered, new immigrants who have understood that their families/spouses will follow may find that their loved-ones are refused entry. I share this concern. I think immigration should be lowered as quickly as possible while honouring current family-reunion commitments.

“In regards to your [Ludwig’s] statement that I am "twisting the argument backwards", I guess it is somewhat consistent if I say that your argument seems the same to me.”

Well this doesn’t help the debate at all. In what way do you think I have a twisted argument?? I explained what I meant. I completely fail to understand what you mean.

Your statement; “It just seems excessively selfish to me to say that (virtually) nobody else is allowed to live here, because we already consume too many resources per head” really does imply either a fundamental lack of understanding or of our motives or something worse; a strong disdain for those who think that sustainability takes priority.

But presumably you do support sustainability objectives to some extent. I guess you are in favour of reducing overall usage (and hence average per-capita usage) of non-renewable and potentially renewable resources. I guess you would consider a reduction in resource usage by, say 20% per person to be a really big step forward. But of course if we do manage an amazing feat like that, and the population increases by 25% then we will have gained precisely nothing. We are well and truly on track to increasing population by 25% in the relatively short term, but unless we are forced into it, we won’t reduce overall average per-capita consumption by anywhere near 20% without the most massive effort.

In other words, your beloved high immigration is just going overwhelm practically any gains we make towards sustainability by way of reduced consumption, increased efficiencies, alternative energy sources, etc. Presumably you think there is something twisted about this argument Andrew
Posted by Ludwig, Tuesday, 7 February 2006 10:18:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ludwig

I think we're getting off topic from the article, which is more about refugee protection than migration intake.

However, by way of brief response, when people aren't in Australia, they don't just disappear. They are still alive and still consuming resources. If they consume less than they would in Australia, it's usually because they are (a) poorer, or (b) living more efficiently.

Keeping them poor is not a good argument for environmental sustainability except in the crassest terms (and not a good argument for population reduction either for that matter).

Reducing our per capita consumption will help, regardless of how many people are here. Our inadequacies at doing this better should not be used as an excuse to keep the place to ourselves.

Just looking in isolation at the environmental impact of each person here, while ignoring the wider economic and social benefits that migrants can bring is just as blinkered as ignoring environmental impacts of something and only considering the dollar value.

A society with a better functioning economy is usually better placed to improve their environmental performance than one that is struggling with high poverty, unemployment, social breakdown, etc. In Australia's case, a well managed migration program with a reasonable intake helps avoid those negatives.
Posted by AndrewBartlett, Tuesday, 7 February 2006 10:43:54 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So how do you explain the excellent economic and environmental performance of Finland, for example, where net immigration per thousand people is only 23% that of Australia and there is very little population growth of any kind (CIA World Factbook)?
Posted by Divergence, Wednesday, 8 February 2006 8:47:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I don’t think we are off topic. If we can’t maintain a healthy society, then the last thing we are going to be concerned about is helping refugees. Getting to the nub of the sustainability issue is thus vitally important to Guy Goodwin-Gill’s thread.

“A society with a better functioning economy is usually better placed to improve their environmental performance than one that is struggling with high poverty, unemployment, social breakdown, etc. In Australia's case, a well managed migration program with a reasonable intake helps avoid those negatives.”

Absolutely!! We have total agreement!

So let’s stop critically pressuring our economy by way of continuously exacerbating the ratio between resource demand and supply capability. Continuous population growth is no longer of significant economic advantage when you consider the parameter that really matters – per-capita economic turnover, not total economic growth. It hasn’t been for decades in Australia.

A strong economy helps improve environmental performance. But how silly is it to strive for a strong economy by way of rapid population growth when we all know that more people means more pressure on the environment? An ever-bigger economy certainly doesn’t help our environmental performance. An ever-bigger economy does not equate to an ever-stronger economy. Among the world’s strongest, most stable and least threatened economies are the Scandinavian and western European countries that have no or low population growth. And they have been this way for a long time.

A well-managed migration program is one that is the best compromise between maintaining some refugee intake, a small intake of only the most urgently needed skills and a minimised family reunion category….and reaching a stable population. If those who cared about sustainability in Australia cared about it only, they would be pushing strongly for absolute zero immigration.

What do you say Andrew about the manner in which continuous population growth cancels out, if not completely overwhelms, even really significant per-person reductions in resource consumption and improvements in efficiency, as per my last post? How do you think this is going to affect our economy, society and ability to help refugees?
Posted by Ludwig, Wednesday, 8 February 2006 9:55:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Divergence,

Re: "According to economist Lester Thurow 1% population growth requires 12.5% of GNP to be diverted into growth infrastructure" can you pl provide a web refernce for this if you know one. I cannot find.

I recall that about 15 years ago when I looked into infrastructure costs per new immigrant it was about $70,000; I wonder what it is now?

I also wonder what Andrew has to say about this.

Andrew, in your scenario, is high immigration the best investment for $7 Billion pa of scarce resources and funds?
Posted by last word, Wednesday, 8 February 2006 11:34:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
last word, so far as the reference is concerned, I am afraid that I haven't checked the primary source, which is a bad practice. It is a book reference to Joel E. Cohen, How Many People Can the Earth Support, W.W. Norton, New York, 1995. I was put onto it by Bruce Sundquist's website, where there is a very interesting article on declining living standards due to very rapid population growth in Islamic countries as a factor in terrorism.

http://home.alltel.net/bsundquist1/terror.html

The population growth doesn't just refer to immigration. About half of Australia's population growth is natural increase.
Posted by Divergence, Wednesday, 8 February 2006 2:32:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Divergence and Andrew

using the Lester Thurow reference of 1% population growth requires 12.5% of GNP ($86 b), then the cost of a .25% population growth (100,000 pa) is $27 Billion pa.

Again, Andrew how is this justified?

Also I recommend the other link you provided Divergence.
Posted by last word, Wednesday, 8 February 2006 4:21:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy