"Economic migrants, i.e. those migrants who migrate due to poverty, are not considered legitimate asylum seekers according to Australian policy."

Actually, it is according to international law that economic migrants are not legitimate asylum seekers, not simply Australian policy.

I'm not entirely sure what is being advocating here. Should Australia pretend everyone who is coming here for economic opportunities is an asylum seeker? Perhaps, but then we would really have to remove every single bit of welfare and social support we offer to 'asylum seekers'. People who arrive here genuinely traumatised by the circumstances they are fleeing will be left to their own devices.

Or should we create a new category of migration, of people who are fleeing nothing but want to come here to do the terrible jobs many Australians can't be bothered doing anymore. They would presumably have to be given few rights or protections, but would simply by their presence slowly erode the working conditions at the lower end of the workforce for everyone, just like in the US.

The immigration system here isn't perfect, but it's working about as well as we could hope for. If you have something to contribute to Australia and weren't born here, you will probably be welcomed. If you have no skills or money to offer - and weren't born here, that's unfortunate, but you are one of billions and are not really Australia's problem. If you make yourself Australia's problem, you'll end up in a detention centre or on a plane back to Colombo.

I'd really like to know what people who think the borders should be flung right open think will happen. It will be an absolute mess, and those we should really be helping will be lost in the chaos.

"Actually, it is according to international law that economic migrants are not legitimate asylum seekers, not simply Australian policy."

That's not correct.

International law defines a refugee as one with "well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion."

One's economic status doesn't come into it, either as a positive or negative, and there's no source of international law that says it does.

Jardine K. Jardine - International law defines a refugee as one with "well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion."

One's economic status doesn't come into it, either as a positive or negative, and there's no source of international law that says it does.

An economic migrant who isn't subject to "well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion." would, by that definition, could **NOT** be considered legitimate. In any case, the 'sorting out' system proposed by Big Clive would quickly solve the dilemna that neither of the major political parties appear capable of resolving. No intending migrant / refugee / whatever who can afford to pay a people smuggler tens of thousands of dollars would have any trouble coughing up the $80 or whatever for a legitimate visa. Even after paying for the visa and a business class airline ticket to Australia, they would be well ahead relative to paying a conman for an extremely risky voyage in a highly suspect vessel. Note that the visa system has been tried and proven effective elsewhere, obviously too effective for non-legitimate 'refugees' & the parasites who prey on taxpayer funding.

I’m normally sympathetic to the cause of asylum seekers, but what this article describes are not refugees but opportunists looking for a better life. There’s nothing inherently wrong with that – I’m a migrant myself, and can sympathise with the motivation. But Australia has every right to set rules limiting economic migration to people expected to make a significant positive contribution to society – whether because of their assets, skills or capacity to pay for education and other services. It’s not “classism” to exclude people with no skills, education or assets from Australia; just pragmatic self- interest.

Nor do these people appear to intend making a long-term commitment to Australia. "Gehila ennam" implies they do not intend to stay here or become Australian citizens, but rather intend to return when they have accumulated enough conspicuous wealth to impress those left behind. There is no humanitarian, social or economic reason to welcome these Sinhalese migrants.

It is nothing to do with people smuggling, there is no people smuggling to Australia for the very simple reason it is a legal right to enter Australia with or without a visa and apply for refugee status.

It is now 13 years since our own courts said this"“ As has been observed in relation to other cases of this kind, the prisoners were not involved in a 'people-smuggling' exercise. There was nothing covert about either operation. They were transporting the non-citizens to Australia for presentation to Australian authorities. There was no attempt to hide from the authorities or to disguise what they had done”.

And still not one lazy bloviator or journo. bothers with facts.

And the Sri Lankans are sailing themselves so when is the smuggling bit happening?

There are at least 6 treaties and protocols we have ratified which allow for the free movement of all people across borders, we are one of the few in the world who has turned it into some major crime.

Rhian, don't be ridiculous. Everyone in Australia came here for a better life except the original convicts.

It is not a sin not wanting to die of starvation.

ONe of the problems these fisher people have can be found in the Maldives where they are slaughtering the traditional fishing base of the Sinhalese in Sri Lanka so there is nothing left to catch and they are dying.

Marilyn

I agree it’s no sin to seek a better life or to try to escape starvation. And you may be right about the plight of the Sri Lankan fishermen. But that’s not the picture the article paints, nor the basis for James’s argument. James describes Sinhalese migrants as comparatively affluent and privileged, seeking to come to Australia pursuing wealth they can show off on their return. I don’t blame them for trying, but nor do I blame Australian authorities for sending them back if they are found not to meet the criteria for admission on humanitarian or other grounds.

Cosmogirl:

It's quite true that economic migrants are not normally considered asylum seekers. Certainly that is the interpretation favoured by the Australian government. I would like to call into questions whether that is a just way of defining asylum seekers, however. That matter, of course, is beyond the scope of this particular article. I agree that it is an open question as to what that might imply economically for Australia. My tendency is to think that increased migration of this sort would be very beneficial for Australia economically, and probably culturally as well.

Rhian:

I'm not entirely sure it is fair to characterise people looking for a better life "opportunists." By that measure, aren't we all opportunists?

Regarding the ethos of gehila ennam: it doesn't necessarily imply a lack of commitment to Australia. Where one departs from and where one returns to is murky. Australia is home for many Lankans, but returning to Sri Lanka is like returning to your family home. Both places are important in their own way.

Also, I don't wish to transmit the idea that all Sinhalese who come to Australia are affluent. Many who come are not at all affluent, and those are who I focus on in this article. Wealthy Lankans do not need to make the trip on rickety boats.

Whatever a persons reason to come to Australia, there are proper systems in place that should be observed. Ant legitimate migrant will have no difficulty getting a visa & entering the country via scheduled airline services, in fact the cost involved is a mere fraction of what illegitimate boat owners charge. The fact that so many would-be immigrants choose to sneak in the back door strongly suggests they wouldn't qualify for a visa, hence they are not in fact refugees as defined by international treaties.

praxidice

I don't doubt that many of those who seek asylum using non-conventional avenues would not receive visas. However, it is not obvious that their failure to receive visas are for just reasons. As I say in the article, many Lankans do receive visas, but they are generally socially and economically privileged. Poorer Lankans don't have a chance from the outset. It's not entirely clear to me that this is a just state of affairs. Naturally, the Australian government has the power to create structures that exclude some people and not others from migration - but whether those structures are fair is a different matter altogether

James S

I don't buy your argument, none of these people is completely clueless or devoid of resources if they can afford to pay a substantial sum, reportedly well in excess of a years wage, to boat owners. They would certainly have access to a lawyer or other professional qualified to advise them how to apply for a visa. As I noted previously, once in possession of a legitimate visa, they could travel on a regular airline service at considerably less cost & with virtually no risk. The fact they choose not to avail themselves of legitimate measures proves they are intent on bucking the system.

James

As I said to Marilyn, I don’t blame Sri Lankans for trying to come here. You are right, we are all opportunistic, and I would probably try the same in their situation. In fact, I am a migrant, and came here for much the same reasons they do. The important difference is, I obtained a visa before I came because I qualified based on the government’s criteria of age, health, education and skills. I also became a citizen within 2½ years of arriving, and have never intended to return to live in my country of origin.

You said that the current system is not “fair”. But to whom should the Australian Government be “fair” – to existing Australians, who prefer migrants who will make a contribution to the economy and society and not burden the taxpayer and social security system? Or prospective migrants who arrive without proper papers, are not asylum seekers and have little to offer by way of skills or assets? As there are far more people who would like to live in Australia than we can support, some filtering system has to apply. Why should we not select on capacity to contribute, even if that does exclude the relatively poor?

I accept that we should take asylum seekers, and have argued in these forums consistently that we should treat them far more humanely than we currently do. But for other types of arrivals, different rules apply.

praxidice:

There are all sorts of reasons why it would be difficult to get a visa, notwithstanding the cost, and having a lawyer may not be especially effective, particularly in a developing country like Sri Lanka. For example, if you don't know English, and you have no particular sellable skills, no amount of money or effort will necessarily allow you to secure a visa to live in Sri Lanka.

Yes, I agree that people intend to buck the system. That is part of my argument. I am saying that they try to buck the system because they have no other choice.

Rhian:

I am not necessarily saying that the current system isn't fair, I am just questioning whether it is. I think there is an element of classism at play here: the government would prefer to have skilled people, yes, but having skilled people also requires that they be from a sufficiently privileged socio-economic background. This is a problem, and one that is not easy to resolve. I accept that, certainly.

James
sorry to sound harsh, but why is it a problem? Or rather, for whom is it a problem? I can see very good reasons why the Australian government would want to ensure that economically disadvantaged Australias get fair access to, for example, health and education services. But no reason at all why it shoud try to ensure that economically disadvantaged Singhalese get "fair" access to our migration program.

If they aren't 'proper' refugees they are illegals. As such, Australia has every right to say 'rack off hairy legs'. Sri Lanka isn't stone-age, in fact its a reasonably developed place with a thriving tourist industry, tea plantations and most of the 21st century trappings. There would be no shortage of lawyers who speak the native Tamil & Singha languages, for that matter half the population probably speaks some approximation of english anyway. There is a finite limit to how many illegals we can afford, and if the truth be known, we've we've already passed that point years ago. Note the so called 'refugees who ended up at Nauru & asked to be sent back to Sri Lanka ... quite obviously they were opportunists and no doubt the same applies to all their countrymen. There is most definitely no case for allowing anyone from Sri Lanka to lob here on a boat from Indonesia, if the can't come legitimately with a proper visa they should stay where they came from.

praxicide

The Tamils are a persecuted minority and the Sri Lankan government, military and police have an appaling human rights record. I don't doubt there are Sri Lankans at risk of harm and persecution who are entitled to claim asylum here. But those are not the people this article is about.