Asylum seekers in boats are all over the news again, this time for a boat that was stopped rather than one which arrived. Philip Ruddock has provided a bit of nostalgia, talking about ten thousand people heading for Australia – exactly the same figure he was using ten years ago.
This latest boat, reportedly stopped by the Indonesian Navy at Australia’s behest, was carrying 260 asylum seekers, which is quite a large number compared to most of the boats that have arrived in Australia in the last year or so. Tellingly, all the asylum seekers are from Sri Lanka. The human rights situation in that country is at a low point at the moment, with mass internment of Tamil citizens in atrocious conditions occurring for many months. When a government kicks out the Red Cross, as the Sri Lankan government has done, you know things are not good.
The Australian government has been spending money trying to dissuade people in Sri Lank from trying to come to Australia. It would have far more effect if the Sri Lankan government could be persuaded to start respecting basic human rights – although that is obviously much easier said than done.
Meanwhile, the inflexibility of Australia’s migration laws is on display again, with some more local level ‘let them stay’ campaigns happening.
Liberal Member for Hume, Alby Schultz, has voiced support for Mr Jing Bang Zou and his wife, Mrs Litang Fan, who are currently living in the New South Wales town of Young. Mr Zou is reportedly a “world renowned apiarist”, but doesn’t have the required professionally recognised qualifications, thus making him ineligible for a permanent visa. Earlier this decade, Young was one of a number of towns in rural Australia which had trouble finding enough labour for their local meatworks, and relied heavily on refugees from Afghanistan – all of whom would have come here by boat – to keep their meatworks profitable.
Meanwhile, on Queensland’s Sunshine Coast, a family of four originally from South Africa, who run a small business in Buderim, are facing removal because they have assessed as not meeting the minimum assets requirement of their business visa. The local paper, the Sunshine Coast Daily, is going in to bat for them, with their coverage giving a strong emphasis to the unpleasantness of life in South Africa, with its “barb wire-fenced homes with security cameras, guard dogs and streets deemed too unsafe for their children.”
An opinion piece in the Daily supports the family’s cause, while at the same time highlighting some readers’ comments attacking asylum seekers. Somewhat ironically, but none the less appropriately, it ends with the following comment:
We all need to realise that Australia is built on the principle of the fair go – and that some of our best businesses have been created by immigrants, who are often more hard working than us laid back Aussies. In the end it means more jobs, not less, for all.
A good and simple principle, which I very much agree with. Hopefully we can apply it to all who seek to settle here.
8 Comments
It’s not just a matter of let them in or let them stay. We just apply the normals tests as to whether they are genuine asylum seekers. Keep the ones who are,return those who aren’t. While we are doing this we treat them with compassion and dignity and don’t allow pieces of trash like Ruddock and Sharman Andrew Bolt Akerman etc to demonize them with their hateful garbage.
I don’t know anyone who advocates an open door policy on immigration except the Institue of Public Affairs which sees it as a way of introducing slave labor to improve profits. Countries have the right to decide but they don’t have the right to behave like arseholes as the Howard Govt led by head dementor Ruddock did
Hear Hear Duratticolumn.
Most are genuine asylum seekers; what’s the alternative to risking a dangerous voyage in an unseaworthy boat? – years in a UNHCR camp with few prospects of legal migration. I understand that we don’t even have immigration officers in many of the camps to facilitate legal migration.
Andrew says:
We all need to realise that Australia is built on the principle of the fair go – and that some of our best businesses have been created by immigrants, who are often more hard working than us laid back Aussies.
As the product of immigrants it would be nice to believe this as true, however I fail to see any evidence that Anglo- Australians are less hard working than newly arrived. I can’t see how anyone can make that claim with some decent evidence.
In the end it means more jobs, not less, for all.
That’s not exactly true. If the nations capital to labor ratio falls as a result of fast paced immigration our growth potential falls so wages stagnate.
It’s also foolhardy to make these sweeping claims when there is a very active and well funded welfare state.
There have been countless claims by Australian leftists about the reasons to do with sloppy wages growth in the bottom levels ignoring that the bottom 20 million native Americans are competing with 11 million illegals.
Tee:
1. I was repeating and agreeing with a quote from the Sunshine Coast Daily, but I didn’t say it.
2. No one has mentioned “Anglo-Australians” other than you. Stop the race baiting.
3. the numbers of jobs and the levels of wages are linked, but different issues. But there is evidence that migration can have an economic stimulus effect locally – at much less cost to the taxpayer than the current government stimulus.
4. Linking claims allegedly made by whoever you choose to define as “Australian leftists” with whatever you are trying to say about native Americans and 11 million ‘illegals’ in (I presume) the USA is drawing an exceedingly long bow. It is also totally irrelevant to the above post, as nothing in it relates to illegal immigration.
Sorry Andrew but you’re the one creating a demarcation among groups. I mentioned anglos because they were the first group of settlers here. It’s not race baiting, it’s a fact and facts are something you seem to have serious issues with. If you wish to call it race baiting, go ahead, I don’ really care as it’s meaningless in this context. You have no evidence to show that recent arrivals are more hard working than earlier settlers.
There is of course evidence immigration is beneficial but only when the capital to labor ratio is keeping up. If it doesn’t then immigration is not and acts as a retardant to wages growth.
My claim about 11 million illegals adversely affecting low skilled wages is a claim that has more merit than your assertion. I guess demand and supply curves don’t apply to the labor market, hey Andrew?
And it is relevant as it shows that mass immigration can have adverse impacts on the lower skilled when your comment suggested that all immigration is good. It isn’t and you ought to withdraw the claim.
Duratticolumn: well said
Tee
I’m not sure why you find it such a problem for me to say I agree with the principle of a fair go, but it would be better if you said why you’re against this, rather than persist with race baiting and furphies based on things I haven’t said.
You can keep up with tedious petty abuse and name-calling if it gives some odd satisfaction, but it would be nice if you could at least stop saying I’ve made comments or claims which I haven’t – it really is poor form.
But you can do as you wish of course. When I was responding to your first comment, I had forgotten your past examples of ‘debate’ on these blogs, so it’s my own fault for wasting my time. I’ll go back to ignoring you now.