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.