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 > Sustaining the unsustainable > Comments

Sustaining the unsustainable : Comments

By Bruce Haigh, published 14/5/2014

Far from being on the periphery of Australian politics, the asylum seeker policy is at the centre, it is the elephant in the room.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All
Perhaps to stop rednecks dominating political motivation, refugees and their organisers could think outside the squares of conventional, predictable,formalistic deterrence of what Bruce refers to correctly as 'politicisation of the uniformed branch of Defence'.

Given the cost of several thouand dollars a head imposed by 'people smugglers', what if groups of, say, ten refugees pooled their funds, got their hands on a big enough light aircraft piloted by a fellow refugee, and flew it, one way, to some minor airport within Australia that had no air traffic control or customs.
There they could slip into the larger community (not a redneck electorate) where their presence would possibly remain unreported for a while.

Good planning by the refugees or their organisers could see this carried out, possibly a few times before Border Protection (?) was able to counter this.
Fantasy perhaps, but also possible.
Posted by Ponder, Wednesday, 14 May 2014 9:24:34 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
Ponder
LOL.

That's thinking outside the square.

Bruce
You repeatedly say that Australia's actions are illegal. What is your authority for that proposition?

Both major political parties are in this up to the neck, there is no significant difference between them, each gladly adopts the hardline policies of the other, and the whole thing is not party political in that sense.

The problem is the lack of any voice of moderation - such as my own (ahem).

On the one hand you've got the redneck solution - "Sink the boats!", "Gut-shoot 'em!" etc.

On the other hand you've got the fake moral superiority of
a) regarding the UN as the supreme arbiter of all that is moral
b) regarding "rights" as whatever politicians say they are, and
c) happily forcing the costs of the whole exercise onto the population at large.

All the royal commissions in the world will not be able to come up with a solution if Australia's adherence to the Convention itself is not questioned and critically examined.

It is the Convention that is creating this huge empire of moral dodginess and massive waste, at so much cost in real human suffering.

The reason is because the Convention gives a huge advantage to someone who applies for refugee status onshore, rather than offshore. An offshore application that satisfies the definition of refugee status can be legally rejected; an onshore application that satisfies the definition of refugee status cannot, simple as that.

That's what the entire issue is about. That's why people come by boat to try to take advantage of this fact. And that's why successive governments try to do whatever they can, no matter how much it perverts and subverts good government, to try to legally characterise boat arrivals as offshore applications - because both major parties regard withdrawing from the Convention as out of the question.

This is the real elephant in the parlour.

The government-funded industry of moral fakery is at least as culpable as the rednecks whose productive activity is paying for them all.
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Wednesday, 14 May 2014 9:57:35 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
Good post, Jardine

You are no doubt right about the Refugee Convention. This link from the UNHCR gives some idea of the numbers of refugees, internally displaced people, and stateless people around the world

http://www.unhcr.org.uk/about-us/key-facts-and-figures.html

There is no way that Australia could open its borders to everyone claiming to be (or really being) a refugee without being swamped. Nor can it do anything about the overpopulation and other forms of mismanagement in foreign countries that give rise to flows of refugees and illegal immigrants.

If we are taking people for humanitarian reasons, then a genuine refugee has a stronger case than someone who merely wants a better life, given that we can't take everyone. (Most of us would agree that it isn't open to the government of a nation state to walk over its own people to help foreigners.) Only about a third of asylum seekers who arrive by air are accepted as refugees, because they have valid travel documents (or the airline is responsible for them) and their claims can be tested.

When asylum seekers arrive by boat, they generally destroy their travel documents and tell an unverifiable story that ticks all the boxes of the Refugee Convention. The officials who test their claims are advised to give them the benefit of the doubt and don't want to risk getting it wrong and sending someone back who is later tortured or killed. It can also be impossible to deport failed asylum seekers, because we can't prove where they came from or the home country won't cooperate. The vast majority of failed asylum seekers who arrived in the UK from 1997 to 2004 are still there.

http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/9.14

It is true that total numbers of boat people are small compared to the legal immigration intake, but they had been rising sharply up to this year.

http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1314/QG/BoatArrivals

The UK got half a million asylum claims between 1997 and 2004, when they got tougher, not counting dependants who arrived later.
Posted by Divergence, Wednesday, 14 May 2014 10:57:02 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
@JKJ You have posed the same question as to the legal basis for Bruce's argument before and it has been answered before. It is insufficient to focus on the Refugee Convention. There was a subsequent protocol that Australia (after some delay) duly ratified. Unless and until Australia withdraws from the Convention (and Protocol) it is bound by its provisions. That it manifestly fails to comply with those obligations cannot be seriously disputed.

What that failure to comply does however, is point up Australia's selective notion of compliance with international law. Happy to rely on that law when it seeks to stop Japanese whaling for example; acts in complete disregard when it comes to invading other countries on behalf of its American masters (Iraq and Afghanistan to name but two),

As we saw in last night's Budget, there is a mean and vindictive streak in the current government. Scott Morrison is no more than a personification of that mean spirited vindictiveness.

Bruce, I respectfully applaud your efforts to shine light on the insanity of our foreign policy in general and refugee policy in particular.
Posted by James O'Neill, Wednesday, 14 May 2014 11:05:40 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
James O'Neill what the budget, & the boat people policy indicate is that there is a sane & intelligent streak to the current government, something that I'm afraid has evaded people like you & Bruce Haigh.

The other thing you fail to mention, is we have no requirement to re settle any asylum seeker, real or claimed. All we have to do is offer safety. That is exactly what we are doing, in the present camps.

What we should be doing is slashing our legitimate asylum seeker intake to something more manageable. I believe something like 7 times the New Zealand intake, would be a reasonable number regarding populations. That would give a little less that 5000, a number we could just perhaps manage without disadvantaging our own citizens.

If you people want to live in a disaster zone, there are plenty of them around the world for you to move to. There is no need to create a new one here in Oz to satisfy your strange cravings.
Posted by Hasbeen, Wednesday, 14 May 2014 1:11:43 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
Ponder,
Already been done.

Don't know how many times, but easy to arrange with mobile phones, etc. Just arrange for friends to pick up at an airstrip and give time and mapref.

Recall one instance where they were detected by an astute service station attendant who saw the strange people and reported it. They would have to remain underground though or get false cards, etc. if they want to be part of our society.
Posted by Banjo, Wednesday, 14 May 2014 2:00:10 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. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All

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