something i wrote a while ago which sums up my thoughts
The refugee issue has raged in the past few years, with heated debate on the specifics of our immigration policy. The key point of contention is the subject of illegal immigrants and their fate. It should however be noted, that the issue is wider than this small section of the matter. Refugees enter Australia through both lawful and illegitimate means. There is however, a distinct difference with the treatment of these groups.
Australia, being a signatory to the United Nations charter, has the responsibility to take a share of international refugees. The country does fulfil this obligation. Compared to our population, Australia allows in more than its fair share of refugees through legal means. It is however the issue of illegal immigrants that is at the heart of debate.
They come the hundred in leaky boats, having paid thousand of dollars to so called “people smugglers” to get into Australia. Under the Liberal government’s ‘Pacific solution’, they are intercepted and sent to detention centres in Papua New Guinea, and Nauru. These people should not yet be referred to as refugees at this stage. They are merely ‘asylum seekers’ seeking the protection of Australia. The determination of wether they are indeed refugees is made by the United Nations on Nauru. This is the overlooked benefit of the ‘Pacific solution’. In addition to providing a deterrent to others wanting to journey to Australia, it also allows a respected third party organisation (The UN) to make the refugee determination. If they are found to be genuine refugees they are allowed to enter Australia on a Temporary Protection Visa (TPV).
Those found to be not refugees are sent back to their homelands. They are only kept in detention if they decide to appeal the status resolution through the court system. It must be noted that the majority of those held in detention in both mainland Australia and external detention centres, have been determined NOT to be refugees by the UN. They are simply pursuing the matter through the legal system. These non-refugees can leave at any time. These facts have been neglected by the machinations of the opposition parties as well as certain interest groups in order to score political and social gains against the government.
The question remains, should we allow these illegal asylum seekers who have been found not to be genuine refugees, into the public domain? In the current climate of international terrorism this would be imprudent. It would generate a gaping tear in the security measures of the country. I would concede that this is a largely overrated threat but no chances can be taken by governments when dealing with public security. Criminals as well as certain undesirables could be also present. If these people wish to enter the country and they have found to be free of persecution in their home country, they should apply for residence through the appropriate legal channels and cease the practice of queue-jumping. On the subject of women and children, the government has already made steps to release these people into foster homes in communities surrounding the facilities. On the ABC’s Enough Rope program, the Federal Minister for Immigration and Multicultural affairs, Amanda Vanstone, was interviewed and she gave the following response to a Denton question:
ANDREW DENTON: How do you justify children behind razor wire and detention?
AMANDA VANSTONE: That, I think, is a very difficult issue. No-one would like to see kids in detention. And I find it difficult because...for a number of reasons. Let's deal with the substantive ones - no-one would like to see children in detention. But if you let the children out, you can't do that without letting the parents out. So if you let the parents out... These are the people who are judged not to be refugees, incidentally, who don't accept a 'no' and are challenging it. Then you have a policy that says to people smugglers, "Look, if you come here with kids it'll be OK - you will be out in the Australian community very quickly." And I strongly believe that that's an absolute green light to people smugglers. So it's one of the situations where you don't want either but you have to have one or the other.
The government’s so called ‘hard-line’ policy on this issue has worked to effectively diminish the number of ‘boat people’ entering the country. The reality is that such a strategy has proved effective and has resulted in a scarcity of such people. The benefits of this have been immeasurable in assisting the lives of these people. Firstly it prevents them separating with their life savings to journey to this country only to be sent back. Secondly, it saves lives: These are leaky boats (many of which have sank)
On the other side of this debate, Zelman Cowen in his article in The Age says “We have an obligation, as part of the international community to behave with magnanimity”. Sure, it is all well and good to be fair to these people and we are - when they arrive legally. We as a nation cannot encourage people to come by boat. It would only be aiding the people smugglers. Most of the arguments from those opposing the policy talk of the government lacking compassion, and empathy. To show such feelings to illegal immigrants would be the government aiding a crime. The government shows much sympathy to legal refugees.
When dealing with this contentious issue, we must focus on the raw facts of the debate and not succumb to the usual spin on the issue as presented by the media. The people in the detention centres have been determined NOT to be genuine refugees by the neutrally positioned United Nations. They have breached Australian law by entering the country illegally and if reasonable action is not taken it would be an invitation to others to invade our sovereign land without our control. We take in our fair share of genuine refugees and will continue to. The government however cannot condone illegal activities.
