There’s a reason Andrew Bolt faces the “dilemma” he complains about today: he keeps publishing stuff like this absurd appeal to ignorance and xenophobia -
Asks Andy:
Precisely why must they now demand that Australia, of all these countries and more, is the only one that must take them?
Yeah! Why can’t those foreigners ask other foreigners for refuge and leave us Australians alone? Why can’t China (a major source of refugees) take them in? Why not Iran, or Afghanistan (also major sources of refugees)? Why not Indonesia, or the Philippines (who’ve just suffered major natural disasters)? We’re so far away (when you crop the map to exclude us)! Why is it ALWAYS US?!
Well, it isn’t always us. The implication that we’re the benevolent put-upon country to which everyone wants to flee is simply not true. Here’s an excerpt from the figures for refugees from Sri Lanka in 2008, according to the country to which they applied:
Australia: 1,843
Canada: 20,442
France: 18,102
Germany: 6,594
India: 73,286
Malaysia: 1,232
Switzerland: 2,464
UK: 8,725
USA: 1,615
More than ten times as many applied to Canada. Almost ten times as many to France. Almost forty times as many applied to overcrowded India. Three or four times as many applied to Germany or the UK. Even Switzerland beat us.
Now the figures I’ve been able to find for this year don’t seem to be broken down for Sri Lanka – they’re busy dealing with the many people from other countries to which Bolt thinks the Sri Lankans could be sent instead of poor put-upon Australia. But it defies common sense, given the above, to suggest that in 2009 they’re suddenly abandoning India and Canada and France to come here. And I doubt, when called on it, Bolt would even try.
In summary, the conceit that they’re all coming here, that we’re “the only one” enduring this appeal to our humanity, is simply untrue. “Check the map” indeed.
And the suggestion that we’ve done enough, that it’s not our turn, that those 255 Sri Lankans should be someone else’s problem, is monstrous. Particularly given that he knows what his readers will do with it.
42 Comments
Jeremy.
You point out how many Sri Lankans “applied” to the various countries, but fail to mention how many chose the “people smuggler” route, where they went, and what the acceptance figures were.
Get back to us when you find that.
Those figures aren’t available. But it’s clear they’re not just coming here, as Andrew suggests.
Sorry, Jeremy, but it is NOT clear.
You are comparing apples and oranges until you can prove that Australia is getting less illegals via smuggling boats than Canada, France or even Switzerland.
“Illegals”? No-one is “illegal”.
Are you seriously suggesting, in light of the global figures and the tiny fraction of Sri Lankan refugees that try to come here, that the 255 Sri Lankans in question represent a particular impost for Australia?
I’m not sure statistics on boat arrivals into Switzerland would be very forthcoming.
People who attempt to force their way into a country without using the proper channels, without authorisation and without documentation, and pay smugglers to get them here, are doing so illegally. Whether they are Sri Lankan or otherwise.
But my apologies for nounifying an adjective.
As usual pedro misses the point of the post. Andy’s post is silly: who in this country is demanding that Australia take the sri lankans, and why would andy care anyway, given they have been re-routed to Indonesia?
People who arrive in australia seeking asylum are not illegal.
“(presuming Sri Lanka is even dangerous),”
– Andrew Bolt
this man works for a newspaper yes?
As usual, Confessions, you are making zip sense.
“who in this country is demanding that Australia take the sri lankans”
Um, Jeremy?
(And once again, but not surprisingly, you make it a point to dimiinsh their worth by refusing to cap “srii lankans”.)
really, where?
WTF? i haven’t mentioned anything about numbers, not that it’s got anything to do with andy’s hysteria.
Pedro,
It is perfectly legal to come to Australia and ask for asylum, and no amount of scary words like ‘force their way into a country’ will change that.
Anyway, this is a bit of a Catch-22. If they are genuinely in danger they have to go to another country and can’t wait around for applications to be processed, but if they do then people like you say they are ‘illegals’. Nice way to dehumaise them, BTW. But I suppose if you capitalised it to Illegals it would be respectful.
Anyway, the point is the Bolt is using the ’someone else should take them’ argument, and the obvious question is, why?
Australia is entitles to an orderly and thorough immigration program decided by the government of the day. If the system is taking too long then the system needs to be fixed. But I do understand that checking an individuals background is an exercise fraught with problems. If they have no documents or references, do you just take them at their word?? How do we know someone is not a criminal on the run from the police in their own country??? The answer is we don’t and until the balance of probabilities is sorted to a satisfactory level all arrivals should be denied access to the general community.
Guilty until proven innocent, eh Baldrick?
Many asylum seekers are ‘criminals’ on the run from the police in their own country. This is what makes them asylum seekers.
Turns out there is something you can do with vicious, hateful screeds submitted to comment threads, apart from simply not publishing them: you can publish in order to condemn them.
Daniel’s comment above is both stupid and contemptible, and we reject it utterly.
I think you’ve missed the point of Daniel’s comment, Jeremy, in particular the quotation marks around ‘criminals’. His comment, as far as I can see, is a rebuttal of Baldrick’s.
Actually, now I look at it in that light, I think you might be right. Daniel’s comment is entirely reasonable and I apologise for misreading it.
Note to self: have a break between reading a Bolt comment thread and then moderating PP comments!
“Developing countries hosted 80 percent of all refugees, underscoring the disproportionate burden carried by those least able to afford it as well as the need for international support. Major refugee-hosting countries in 2008 included Pakistan (1.8 million); Syria (1.1 million); Iran (980,000); Germany (582,700), Jordan (500,400); Chad (330,500); Tanzania (321,900); and Kenya (320,600). Major countries of origin included Afghanistan (2.8 million) and Iraq (1.9 million), which together account for 45 percent of all refugees under UNHCR’s responsibility. Other countries of origin included Somalia (561,000); Sudan (419,000); Colombia, including people in refugee-like situations (374,000), and D.R. Congo (368,000).” (source: unhcr.org)
When you look at those figures, and also look at Australia’s notoriously-low contribution to overseas aid as a proportion of our GDP, then the piddling numbers involved in boat arrivals of asylum seekers are truly jaw-dropping.
Articles like Bolt’s, and the subsequent arguments that amount to the condoning of xenophobia, only reinforce our image as a nation not of “fair go” generosity, but of stubborn and uncompassionate meanness.
These people should be accepted into this country immediately and be given the chance to achieve productive lives. As with every previous wave of migrants, illegal or otherwise, the overwhelming majority of them would do so with relish and gratitude.
Attitudes of exclusion to those in dire physical and emotional suffering simply belittle and besmirch the holders of those attitudes. The day may come when the cosy luxury of the ungenerous is brutally taken away from them just as it has been for these asylum-seekers.
Sorry Jeremy, these figures can’t be true – I mean Canada, France, Germany, UK, USA?? What are these places you speak of? They’re not on Andy’s map, therefore I refuse to believe they exist.
You’re just making stuff up!
Found this which gives more detail about immigration into India. It gives an indication about those who did attempt to arrive rather than wait in camps etc. 102,000 from Sri Lanka.
Jeremy @ 16 – easier to conduct a check when you control the situation rather than once they have entered the general population. Thats why if you follow the normal proceedures, and apply in your former country (if you can) you have to wait for clearance before you can immigrate. If you choose not to get clearance (or have no means of getting a clearance) and you just rock up – you can’t expect to get straight in.
baldrick: you seem to be under the impression that asylum seekers to australia are granted immediate release into the community. At present they don’t even get detained for ‘processing’ on the mainland. I’m therefore not sure what the point of your posts are.
Where would Andrew prefer people seek asylum? North Korea?
Great piece David Marr in The Age today. What is it about people arriving on boats that’s so scary?
Yes! Baldrick is absolutely correct.
Every single wog criminal has come to this country on a leaky boat and we should drown them in the fucking sea before they get the chance to sully our pristine, crime-free and morally unblemished shores.
Let’s face it folks, if it weren’t for the tinted, floating immorals, this would be a fucking paradise.
Rugby League players only gang-rape chicks ’cause the boat people made them do it.
Boat people caused the Moran family to be the single biggest underworld family in this country.
Alan Bond, Christopher Skase, Ray Williams, Rodney Adler, Richard Pratt and all the other corporate criminals that have cost this country’s taxpayers untold millions were all leaky boat illegals.
Let’s not forget about those famous illegal immigrant murderers such as Martin Bryant, Chopper Reid, Bradley John Murdoch, Ivan Milat and Ned Kelly.
Stop the criminals in the Indian Ocean before they rape our daughters, steal our Plasma Screens and take all the other good jobs away from Aussies!!!
****
The irony of Baldricks position is that a country that was built by criminals and political refugees is now wishing to close it’s borders to criminals and political refugees!
Go figure.
Baldrick: Your said ” Thats why if you follow the normal proceedures, and apply in your former country (if you can) you have to wait for clearance before you can immigrate.”
What is it about Tamils being detained under armed guard in unsanitary camps, with not even the facilities that used to be available in Nauru or Woomera, not even able to search in the camps for their lost husbands, wives, children, that makes you believe they can proceed in an orderly fashion to the nearest Australian embassy and politely ask for asylum? Some Tamils (and other non-Sinhalese) have been in camps or dispossessed of their homes for up to many years, I gather. The civil war there started roughly 30 years ago, partly as a result of dicriminatory policies of the previous British colonial power. Thare has been a backlash of discrimination and dispossession of Tamils since independence, and though I abhor bloodshed, it seems the militant reaction might have been foreseen and guarded against. We can’t undo that now, but we might achieve something to stop refugees at the source by supporting an end to the punitive measures taken against random Tamils in what looks a lot like ethnic cleansing .. how many more times to we have to watch this?
This comment from another blog about who is deemed an *acceptable* refugee perfectly summs up the OMG BOAT PEOPLE!!1! crowd:
These are exactly what baldrick, pedro, the Libedral party and the bolt sheep want asylum seekers to demonstrate in order to be granted access to Australia. Can they imagine applying the same ’standards’ to Jews, to Vietnamese? I think not.
Marek@27 – beautifully knocked down strawmen there. You managed to cover all the supposed right wing memes. My position is for an orderly and humane immigrant program that puts the onus of proof on the applicant – after all, they are the ones coming here asking to be let in to our country. I don’t care about method of entry – it is irrelevant. The fact that some people are making assumptions about the background of the boat people in a positive light is an absurd a position as me supposedly saying that they are all criminals – you don’t know until you investigate.
Criminals and political refugees?? You can discuss your own family background all you like but my ancestors weren’t criminals!
Wasn’t one of them involved with shooting one of the King’s carrier pigeons, Baldrick? Does the name “Speckled Jim” ring a bell?
baldrick and Pedro
Given most of the so called “illegal immigrants” are the ones arriving by perfectly legal means and the small number arriving by boat are in fact asylum seekers and not in fact wishing to break the law where does this leave your arguments or indeed Andrew’s.
The “criminals”, if they indeed be that, are those arriving at our airports, being given legal access to the country then overstaying their visas.
Me, I think those going through the correct channels, that is applying for asylum either at a camp or by turning up in our waters, are much more deserving of our compassion and help. Those who overstay are by nature of what they are doing not going to be contributing as much to our society, even those who arrive unannounced but in doing so apply for refugee status are likely to remain and in the long term contribute to our society. How many times do you need to be reminded of the refugees from South East Asia and how they have added to our country.
confessions – I never said that and I would appreciate you not putting words in my mouth. My point is that all should be treated exactly the same with the exception of Australia having the obligation to ensure that people are protected from harm whilst the process is underway. This is only a “BIG” issue because of the boats in Indonesia. All visa overstayers should be treated the same – that is if you are here illegally (ie not having a valid visa) you are put on the first available flight out. My point is that at least at some point they were assessed as suitable for a visa – else they wouldn’t have got past immigration at the airports. The only thing I care about is that all potential permanent residents are screened with background checks.
Who’s to say that there are not any Tamil Tiger commanders in their ranks who have committed atrocities and the Sri Lankan government is after them for it (it was a very bloody war on both sides and conventions were often thrown out the door). My claim sounds ridiculous until you look at the context of what just happened in Sri Lanka. Either way – you need to assess ALL potential permanent residents before they disapear into the population. Race, religion, ethnic background, wealth – it’s all irrelevant to me. We put in place processes and they need to be adhered to lest we let emotion overide sound decisions. We just need to make sure those processes are based on humanitarian principles like keeping people free from threats whilst they are being assessed for assylum seeker status or otherwise.
baldrick: a current passport and valid visa are no guarrantees against threats to our country – remember 9/11? And you are still labouring under the misapprehension that asylum seekers aren’t properly screened before being allowed into the community. See my comment at 25 with regards to where people are processed – they are screened off the mainland.
This whole OMG NATIONAL SECURITY!!1! was a howard government beat up to exploit community fears over refugees after sept 11. I really do wish this country was mature enough to have a debate about immigration without facts being distorted, or thrown out the window altogether.
oh dear! It seems we’re not the “only” ones.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/10/18/2717168.htm
Hi all,
I’m new to the debate and am struggling with the ethics of both sides (since recently doing a uni course on the ethics). I’ll lay out my concerns with simply accepting the boat people here as I think this website is favourable to that idea (sorry if wrong). Apologies for the length of this post, feel free to delete it if it’s too long.
1. Australia has a finite capacity to resettle refugees (note this is of course different from hosting refugees in camps). The Refugee Council of Australia says we are already first in the world when it comes to refugees resettled per capita (11,006 of the 88,800 refugees resettled worldwide during 2008). So, given we have a finite capacity then who should we take in? I am leaning towards spending this finite humanitarian budget first on the incredibly desperate refugees living in squalid camps in faraway places who have nothing before the people who I assume must have significant resources (especially in their home country dollars) to pay the people smugglers to get them to Australia.
2. If these refugees have the resources to pay the smugglers, there’s a good likelihood they are among the ‘best and brightest’ from their country. These are specifically the kind of people their home country needs to take a stand against whatever they are fleeing, for that country to ever recover and prosper (see the recent ‘brain drain’ in Iraq). On the other hand if we have to take in as refugees anyone, it’s probably not so bad that we’re taking the best and brightest for our future prosperity..
3. The boat journey is dangerous – see the SIEVX disaster. Is it kinder for our government to actively discourage refugees from making the journey to Australia through harsher immigration policies if it means less people will take the risk of boarding a leaky boat?
Interested in your thoughts on these ideas..
It sure is, and the people who make it are aware of the danger, yet it still doesn’t deter them. What makes you believe that we can deter them by acting unethically when they wash up on our shores? According to the UN Refugee Convention (which we have signed) we have an obligation to take them in and assess their claims to be refugees.
Would it be ethical if we just blew a few of them out of the water? Think of it as being cruel to be kind.
baldrick
Who says that just because these people arrive via a boat that they aren’t going to be screened? The security furphy is just that, any terrorist who might have bad intentions isn’t going to risk a boat ride, followed by a spell in a camp all the time the govt is checking them out, they will get a tourist visa and overstay. So don’t worry your self on that one.
Richard
1 “Finite capacity to resettle refugees” says who? and 88,800 refugees resettled world wide out of how many seeking resettlement? Why do you assume those coming with people smugglers have “significant resources”? Generally the refugees band together and combine resources. Also our govt like most tend to take refugees who are going to be able to support themselves as quickly as possible, those desperate ones you wish to help are the last ones to be helped, besides once the desperate ones have been helped the ones left behind simply become the desperate ones.
2. These people are leaving their home country because they feel at risk there, to suggest they stay and take a stand is fine if it’s not your life on the line, otherwise I think they might have the right to seek safety.
3. Harsher immigration laws are not going to stop refugees, this is another myth perpetrated by the right. Howard’s policy wasn’t the only reason the number of boats slowed, a number of international factors were at play. People smugglers and those trying to escape don’t know the immigration policy of Australia, and they generally don’t care.
I’m pretty sure this year none have “washed up on our shores”, they’ve all be intercepted outside (I think??) Australia’s migration zone. The ‘washing up on shore’ factor is what refugee opponents want planted firmly in the minds of the public as fact.
Hi Zoot,
I’ll admit my only evidence is that boat people numbers were quite low during the Howard years, compared to recent times. Of course the left will say the push factor – e.g. more strife in the world – is the reason there’s more now, while the right will say the pull factor – less severe immigration policies is the reason. I think both arguments probably have some kernel of truth in them. That being the case probably some of the current influx may be deterred by the policies of the past.
Sure, we have an obligation to take them in, but I don’t think we have an obligation to treat them any differently to people in other refugee camps around the world until their claim is processed. I do by the way think that should be done as quickly as possible.
For your last question no.
Hi surlysimon
1. My statement is based on all of us paying a finite amount of taxes, and the government allocating a certain amount of that to refugee resettlement programs. It isn’t cost neutral resettling a refugee in the community ergo we have a finite capacity. You can argue that the government should spend more, but you will still have a finite number we can afford to absorb. The current capacity is 11,006 refugees per year, and of that the boat people who claim asylum get a spot first because they’re already here, and the rest go to importing refugees from camps around the world. I fully appreciate this pales into comparison with the millions in displaced camps around the world, but it is also worth noting that every citizen of Australia is already committing more of their taxes to resettling refugees than any other ‘rich’ country in the world.
I make the assumption that some of those coming with people smuggles have significant resources, based on how much it is reported is paid (for instance in this speech http://www.safecom.org.au/wilkie.htm it was $5,000) and comparing that to the average income in the country these people are coming from.
2. You’re right if it were me and I had the choice between staying in a corrupt, war-torn country and fleeing to another country I would probably leave to protect my family. We do however have to acknowledge at some stage that one of the reasons the west has developed is because our great forefathers were never faced with that choice as we came out of the dark ages – what then of these countries that are now facing the same problems of war and corruption we did back then?
3. Refer my comment to zoot above, and I’d caution against being so absolute in your statements. As soon as you do that the right will pull out a few examples of refugees that did know about the changes to immigration policy in Australia and that was the reason they came (I know I’ve heard some reports of this already in the media).
And thank’s for both your comments, I do enjoy these difficult conversations.
In case anyone isn’t reading it already, over at The Stump Andrew Bartlett is writing some great posts about asylum seeker issues.