Australia's refugee cockup

[LuxoJr]

Apparently this issue has gotten big coverage in England, but Australians should also be pretty familiar with it.

A couple of weeks ago, the Australian Federal government refused a boatload of about 420 refugees entrance into Australia. Apparently, our Prime Minister believed that we should no longer freely allow refugees entrance into this country because of the time-consuming processes necessary to verify whether or not these people are 'real' refugees.

Therefore, the only refugees allowed into Australia should be those specifically chosen by the government. This means that refugees are considered 'illegal' if they attempt to enter Australia without being selected first.

The idea behind this decision is that these 'illegal' migrants are jumping the queue ahead of 'legal' migrants that the government itself has allowed entrance before they are shipped to Australia.

I have a few problems with this:

1. This basically allows us to turn away so called 'legitimate' refugees (ie. those who are fleeing from some sort of threat in their own country) by labelling them as criminals who have broken a law. It's like trial without representation - Australia has turned away potential refugees without even considering their situation, putting the law before human safety.

2. There's also this idea that we're letting people screw the system by coming in illegally; without ID and claiming to be a refugee.

First of all, how many people are willing to hop on a leaky boat and pay more for it than a plane ticket to their destination? And even if somebody was doing this, wouldn't you expect it to be for a good reason - like, if they were to leave legally they would get caught by a force like the Taliban for violating dictatorial laws (eg. the Taliban prevents women from leaving their homes unless accompanied by a man. When the Taliban took over with military force, 3 million females became widows; left without husbands to comply with this rule).

3. Thirdly, and most stupidly, our immigration minister has openly supported the federal government's decision because, following the recent WTC tragedy, Australia was restricting the flow of people from a country like Afghanistan that manufactures such atrocities.

Here's the idiocy in that argument: people leave countries like this to get away from regimes like the Taliban. Turning away a boatload of people because some of them could be terrorists is moronic, because terrorists can come across on planes with forged passports and documents. In fact, this is more likely, considering how organised Bin Laden's posse was and how much quicker, safer and more reliable illegal plane travel is.

I'm appalled that anybody in a position of power could be so idiotic, and I'm amazed at the racist undertones this issue has provoked. Questioning the validity of refugees because they're Afghani implies that anybody who leaves this country 'legally' or 'illegally' is a potential terrorist. Therefore, this issue can boil down to our suspicion of ALL migrants because of the countries they're from.

So we'd better be careful of those Germans - some of them were Nazis in the 40s! Watch out for those Chinese - they obviously support their government's ruthless tactics. But don't worry about Americans, even though some of them caused the worst nuclear disasters known to man, funded middle east terrorism which they're now trying to reverse, and are now prepared to sacrifice innocent lives to prove a point.

Any thoughts?

[Sydney]

I can't really add much to what you've said, LuxoJr, but I wholeheartedly agree with you. It's a shame that our country is run by stone-hearted right-wingers. The sad thing is that John Howard will probably be elected again this year.

I saw a drawing in Time Magazine the other day of John Howard in a bathtub playing with a toy boat. Tampa was written along the side of it.

[LuxoJr]

It is depressing, you're right. I was committed to supporting Labor in favour of the junk Howard has spun, but now it looks like I'll essentially be voting for the same party.

Kim Beazley was equally spineless, though. I mean, the guy actually opposes what the PM has done, but for the sake of political favour has kept his mouth shut. So we have our pick of a government run by invertebrates or rednecks. And, considering the number of people that support this decision, the chances of any Democrats in the Senate equal the chances that John Howard doesn't serve a third term.

[Sydney]

Kim Beazley certainly is a weak opposition; if a cyclone ravaged Sydney tomorrow, he would find some way to blame it on John Howard.

I'm not old enough to vote yet, but I couldn't choose between the two. Natasha's looking rather fine right now. If enough people could express their dissatisfaction with the current government by voting for the democrats, then perhaps it would open up some eyes.

It's pretty disgusting that many are being pulled into Howard's last-minute people-grovelling fiasco before he decides to pull up an election. He's won a lot of support lately, unfortunately.

[Gluk Schmuck]

i agree...

Originally posted by Sydney:
voting for the democrats

when it comes to political partys in a democracy i've always wondered how ONE can be called "democrats", are all the other partys faschists and comunists, etc...???

[LuxoJr]

Yeah - and why does America have Republican and Democrat parties when it's supposedly a democratic republic? Makes no sense.

At my work, we got into an argument about this issue. Afterwards, I thought about how cunning Howard's stance is, since so many people support his decision although most do so for completely different reasons.

I've spoken to people who range from thinking that any Afghanis should be torpedoed out of the water, to those that couldn't care less, to those that are so appalled by Australia's liberal migration laws that (real quote) 'it's so bad, we even have Asians infiltrating the government now!'

It's reds under the bed all again, in some ways. All this racist tension has suddenly been released, and it's scary once you realise how many people you thought were considerate and open-minded are in fact prejudiced assholes.

Still, it's good to know that there are still some people who oppose this sort of thing. What sort of reactions have you seen from people you know, Sydney?

[ September 30, 2001: Message edited by: LuxoJr ]

[Danny]

i've seen plenty of people even on these forums [which are generally full of nice, liberal people] who seem to think Afghanistan should be nuked, even though they don't even know for certain that Bin Laden had anything to do with it. i'm mentioning no names, but the WTC tragedy appears to have brought out the right-wingers in a lot of people...

[Cloverfield]

I'm probably going to get flamed for this, but I don't agree with those so far.

A true refugee would get up and flee his or her country without worrying about withdrawing money and stuff like that. True refugees are in the camps and have nothing to their name bar a few pieces of clothing. If these "so called" refugees really needed to get out of the country, they would not be worrying about getting their money.

Another point... why do these people tear their papers up at Indonesia so that once they do get here? They must be hiding something if they don't want to keep their identity, otherwise why hide who you are. If you have nothing to hide you have no reason to do this. One guy who was one of these "so called" refugees actually said that he couldn't return to his country as he would be thrown in jail. Why because he committed crimes. Another person who is living here illegally has been traced to have connections to Bin Laden and is suspected of being part of bombings overseas. Come on, do we really want these kinds of people here???

Don't get me wrong, I'm not racist, but I think that genuine people should be allowed here. Why should these people be allowed to jump the queue when those real refugees with no money are in the camps waiting. These queue jumpers are only taking their place.

I think it's about time we took a stand on this. We don't have jobs for people as it is, where can we find jobs for people who pay to come here and have an unknown past.

OK... I do agree that people could come into the country from anywhere (forged passport, etc). And there should be checks on this kind of thing too.

And true, some of these people are genuine. But if they are, why should they be allowed to jump the queue just because they have money. That's like supporting the rich getting tax quirks over working-class people. If they are genuine, then they should go through the same process as all the refugees in the camps, those that don't have money. You shouldn't be able to buy your way in.

I'm sure people will disagree with me, but I have my view just like you guys do. I just think genuine people should be allowed, not just anyone.

Abe Babe...

[LuxoJr]

I'd still have to disagree with this. It's not that I don't respect your opinion, but I think in this case it's logically flawed.

True refugees are in the camps and have nothing to their name bar a few pieces of clothing.

During the second world war, Jewish people were obviously forced to flee Europe; wealthy and poor alike. Hitler partially detested the Jews because many of them had 'old' money, but still persecuted them regardless of economic status.

The idea that refugees are ragged and penniless ignores the fact that people are often persecuted by non-economic factors. Imagine wealthy Christians stuck in Afghanistan during the Taliban's takeover. Are they poor? No. Are their lives in danger? Yes. Would they do anything to get the hell out without being noticed by the extremists who could execute them for their 'belief' crimes? They don't have a choice.

Another point... why do these people tear their papers up at Indonesia so that once they do get here?

If your safety depended on moving out of a country controlled by people with the capacity to kill you because of your religious beliefs, wouldn't you want to leave the country unnoticed?

Migrating the 'legal' way with papers that have your name and identity open to airport officials that consequently report you to the same group that you're trying to evade isn't really an option.

One guy who was one of these "so called" refugees actually said that he couldn't return to his country as he would be thrown in jail. Why because he committed crimes. Another person who is living here illegally has been traced to have connections to Bin Laden and is suspected of being part of bombings overseas. Come on, do we really want these kinds of people here???

So you're prepared to turn away a boatload of migrants because a few of them could be criminals? If that's necessary, then why not do the same for 'legal' migration as well? The terrorists in America got onto planes with no problems - why not just turn away every 'legal' migrant who comes in, because they, too, could be dangerous people.

I'd say a group with the power to create the recent havoc in America has the capacity to forge passports and related documents. And, if you were to lead a terrorist resistance, wouldn't you use quick, reliable, illegal flight rather than slow, leaky boats whose passengers end up in Australia detention camps for months anyway?

I'm not saying that criminals don't slip the net and come through on boats like the Tampa. But I think that it's entirely wrong to turn away potential refugees because they could be terrorists. John Howard didn't even give the Tampa's passengers a chance to prove whether they were 'genuine' refugees or not.

[Sydney]

It's odd, isn't it Gluk Schmuck? Our current government's party name is the Liberals, yet their policies are hardly so.

Luxo, the reactions I've heard are varied. A friend of mine who was born in Egypt legally migrated over here with his family a few years ago and was vehemently opposed to the Tampa docking in Australia. His argument was based on the fact that the process by which he and his family were allowed into Australia was long and tedious. He has a strong hatred for illegal immigrants who supposedly queue jump there way into Australia.

Another person I know believes we should villify anyone we see who wears a turban, and that we should have watchtowers on our coast that will automatically fire at unauthorized incoming vessels. His feelings are exaggerated, I hope, but he certainly has an intense dislike of foreigners.

The rest of my crowd are pretty much lefties who share similar views to my own.

[Danny]

One guy who was one of these "so called" refugees actually said that he couldn't return to his country as he would be thrown in jail. Come on, do we really want these kinds of people here???

you're assuming that the law he had broken was a fair one. under the taliban, women leaving their house with any skin exposed are committing a crime. would you turn them away?

True refugees are in the camps and have nothing to their name bar a few pieces of clothing.

in England, people who leave their country because of economic factors are the ones to be turned away; it is those who leave because of political factors e.g. persecution that are allowed to stay.

like Luxo, i respect your opinions, but i have to say i disagree with them.