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 > Human cargo > Comments

Human cargo : Comments

By Philippe Legrain, published 2/5/2007

Deterring people who dare to cross the world in search of a better life from heading Down Under is everything.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 8
  7. 9
  8. 10
  9. Page 11
  10. 12
  11. All
Bronwyn,

15 or even 20 thousand is OK, but I have a lot less faith in our natural barriers than you do. New Zealand and Iceland can afford to take the high moral ground, but asylum seekers have made it to Australia from Irian Jaya in dugout canoes. If Indonesia decided to be less of a good neighbour and there were no mandatory detention, I suspect that numbers would quickly escalate. There is a lot of poverty and other misery in the world.

If you look at the various environmental footprint sites you will see that it would take about 3 Earths to give everyone a modest European standard of living, even if the resources were equally distributed. That is now; the global population has a 53 year doubling time at present rates. Resource shortages are behind most refugee crises. If sufficient numbers flood in, the effect on our quality of life, our culture, and our personal freedoms will be exactly the same as if they got here through a military invasion.

Yes, we could accommodate a larger population. Just herd the bulk of the people into tiny high rise flats that are freezing cold in the winter and stifling sweatboxes in the summer. Gardens, pets, detached houses, and private cars are strictly for the elite. The people in the flats will have plenty of togetherness, since they will be able to hear all about their neighbours' arguments, sex lives, childrearing problems, and tastes in music (or the lack thereof) through thin walls and open windows. For further savings, ordinary people will be restricted to a joyless, limited vegetarian diet and one shower and change of clothes a week, with everything rationed. To keep the lid on, we will need plenty of secret police and neighbourhood monitors to ensure that no one does, says, or thinks anything remotely subversive.

It is better for the third world people to do something about overpopulation and mismanagement, with us giving them a hand up where we can, than to turn the whole world into one vast slum.
Posted by Divergence, Sunday, 13 May 2007 1:59:48 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
Rhian

“Ludwig I did answer your question.”

No you didn’t. You only said: “I don’t accept that the end justifies the means.”, which is a total avoidance of the issue.

At any rate, you only touched on one of four questions.

You’ve given a slightly more detailed answer in your last post:

“The numbers of people arriving here are determined by “supply” not “demand” conditions…”

Do you really think that the potential supply of refugees that would come here if they could, would ever be insignificant? Come on; the supply is overwhelmingly huge! If we had no border protection, ie no reason not to treat asylum seekers with open arms and the utmost hospitality, the most enormous influx would result, end of story.

Perhaps you can suggest how we could have a strong border-protection regime as well as a significantly higher standard of humane treatment for asylum seekers.

continued
Posted by Ludwig, Monday, 14 May 2007 12:34:59 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
May I suggest that your moral judgement on this issue is flawed. A true moral outlook would take into account all the factors, not just one in isolation. Other factors directly related to this issue are;

The moral responsibility to keep Australian society coherent and as free of conflict as possible. A significant ongoing number of asylum seekers cum refugees would generate considerable public objection, economic cost and threat to social cohesion, as it has done in the past. An inevitable hardening of public attitude towards asylum seekers would happen if the numbers became significant, which would no doubt translate into harsher treatment for them.

The moral obligation to not subject asylum seekers to the ordeal of getting to Australia, to be subjected to long periods of detention and then rejection or long periods of temporary visa residence and hence uncertainty if they are accepted.

The moral obligation to refugees accepted through our offshore program, which are displaced in terms of the annual quota by those accepted via the asylum seeker route.

The moral obligation to do our bit in the global humanitarian battle, which we can do in much better ways than accepting asylum seekers.

The moral obligation to curtail environmental degradation and direct this country towards sustainability, which necessitates stabilising the population.

All-considered, the best moral approach Australia can take to this issue is to boost its effort towards addressing refugee issues at their sources, double our annual offshore refugee intake and make it patently clear that asylum seekers are not welcome and will be detained for long periods if they do come, returned if they don’t meet the definition of a refugee, and given temporary residence to be returned when conditions at home are safe, if they are found to be refugees.
Posted by Ludwig, Monday, 14 May 2007 12:37:41 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
Bronwyn – you can post all the personal and particular evidence you like and regale us with tales of how Mohammad, the brave illegal immigrant, overcame the attitudes of Australians and it means absolutely nothing at all.

The reason the symbols of justice are traditionally shown with a blindfold is she is expected to be fair handed and even; regardless of how “worthy” or otherwise a particular case might be dressed up to seem., just as you dress up and selectively choose examples to suit your argument.

My statements and standards are evenly based on impersonal standards where the outcome is applied, blindly and regardless of the emotively contentious blackmail which your type of argument relies upon.

I accept there will always be “exceptions” to every rule and we have ministerial discretion, designed to be employed in those rare cases where “real exceptional circumstances” exist but applying such “discretion” consistently to all and every applicant debases the very values which are expected to be exercised.

Further, nothing you have said counters my simple claim that -

A refugee who respects our migration laws displays infinitely superior moral character and worthiness to be allotted a scarce refugee visa than some one who deliberately attempts to circumvent and flout those same migration laws, regardless of the level of emotional blackmail used to undermine the standards of law abiding behaviour expected in an orderly civil society.
Posted by Col Rouge, Tuesday, 15 May 2007 11:26:14 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
Bronwyn

“There are many policies in place now that would prevent that from happening…. We've excised islands…we’ve increased our surveillance…and we now collaborate much more closely with the Indonesian Government”

Yes! I would have thought that you would be very much against all of this. If you are in favour of it, then I’m sorry, but you’ve lost me. I mean, these measures are strongly anti-asylum-seeker entry into Australia, which has surely got to be against your basic premise of wanting to accept them with open arms and excellent hospitality.

Could you please elucidate your position on this.

“Aren’t you ever troubled by the cruelty inflicted on individuals in order for people like us who are already living very comfortably to ‘feel secure’?”

What cruelty are you talking about exactly? The acceptance of asylum seekers, followed by proper and thorough determination of their claims for asylum, while providing food, shelter and relative safety? Then the acceptance of the majority of them as refugees, in fact of anyone who is not very obviously a bogus asylum seeker or criminal? We could just refuse to take them at all.

Don’t you think our national security is rather important? Don’t you think the maintenance of a strong society with minimal conflict it is a necessary prerequisite for us to play a meaningful humanitarian role? Don’t you think Australia has every right to protect its security and minimise conflict regardless of anything else?

continued
Posted by Ludwig, Tuesday, 15 May 2007 2:33:23 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
“How many asylum seekers drown when boats are intercepted and tuned back?”

My goodness, isn’t this part of my argument, not yours? - the prevention of people launching themselves on precarious journeys in rickety boats. Let’s strive to prevent that, for goodness sake!

“How many are left living in fear and squalor in shanty conditions in Indonesia?”

I have no idea. Do you? Indonesia is a halfway house. No asylum seekers would get stranded there if none embarked on the journey to start with. There wouldn’t be anyone stranded along the way if the message was crystal clear that Australia does not want asylum seekers heading its way.

“How many are being left to rot on Nauru, Lombok and soon Christmas Island?”

None are left to “rot” and none ever have been.

“How many are refouled back to danger and death?”

Australia does its best to determine the real dangers of refoulment, and to the best of our ability does not send people back to situations of grave danger. We uphold the principle of non-refoulment.
Posted by Ludwig, Tuesday, 15 May 2007 2:34:52 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. ...
  6. 8
  7. 9
  8. 10
  9. Page 11
  10. 12
  11. All

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