Opinion

Blogs

Questions of asylum

Does any reasonable Australian now see Australia's acceptance of Vietnamese boat people those decades ago as a bad decision? I doubt it. Then why did so many Australians then?

Will we one day look back, as I am now, and question why so many of us opposed the admission to Australia of people who arrived uninvited in boats?

I am ashamed that Australia stood by and watched via news cover as so many Vietnamese people drowned on their way to Australia, as so many were at great risk in seriously unseaworthy boats. It would have cost us very little to provide a safe escort for these people. Yes, I know that would have encouraged more to set out in rickety boats, but I do believe we could have done more and done it earlier than we did.

Will one day we question why we didn't do more to ensure the safe passage of the current boat people who've travelled far enough by boat to establish their determination to complete the journey or die?

Should the likelihood of their becoming fellow Australians we understand and appreciate be a factor in our answers to these questions? In other words, should their nationality, their religion, their attitude to Australia's freedoms matter?

Why do we continue to tolerate the contrivance of Christmas Island processing as a means of putting boat people out of reach of Australian law when the obvious solution is to change the law?

And won't the likelihood that the Afghani asylum seekers being treated now in Australia for burns will improve their propects of a visa by beating Australia around the head with its own legal system make such injury highly desirable for such arrivals?

Do you see boat people, still, as queue jumpers? Refugees who use the services of people smugglers as disqualified? Refugees who don't seek asylum in the first safe country they come to as economic and lifestyle refugees?

Posted By: Jeff Corbett on 28/04/2009 5:32:07 PM | Comments (42)

comments

Date: Newest first | Oldest first

jeff, come on .whats stopping millions coming here the same way,by boat. the boat people from the 70"s still havent assimilated.how long since you've been to george st ,sydney or cabramatta.or have you ever had a beer at your local with an asian person? The bikies are minor players compared to the asian syndicates,wheres the consorting laws for our 70s boat people? and before all the dogooders out the start dribling take a trip to sydney and see for yourself.I have and you wont be able to get back home quick enough.

Posted by bonnie, 28/04/2009 8:13:13 PM

only one question is relevant - are these people genuine refugees? If yes, why do we expect them to wait up to 10 years in a resettlement camp as UNHCR organises their placement? If I was a refugee I would probably also take a chance rather than try to survive 10 years as a displaced person. It is the least worst option, not queue-jumping.

Posted by ml, 28/04/2009 9:59:21 PM

I don't see how locking refugees up in gaols (detention centres) for long periods achieves anything. Surely we have the ability to work out whether they stay or not quickly. I believe most should stay, the Vietnamese refugees have intergrated well, and we should have done more to help. Whatever happens we need to get our act together fast, more are coming. It is very reasonable to say that climate change will displace at least one billion people over the next 20 years. shortages of food, water and land will put people on the move, with Australia a prime destination.

Posted by Buell, 28/04/2009 10:49:53 PM

There's a difference between agreeing to accept refugees and opening your borders to all and sundry. This isn't just an Australian problem. England have stationed officials on French soil in order to intercept refugees before they cross the channel. Boats overflowing with refugees are being bounced around the Mediterranean and other European waterways as the various countries argue where they should go. It's a complicated problem with no easy answer however I have yet to hear anyone say that Australia shouldn't accept it's fair share of refugees.

Posted by Brando, 29/04/2009 8:55:09 AM

Corbo, are you going soft in your old age or just trying to suck us in? If the former, I have a Kaftan and sandals, worry beads and incense waiting for you to pick up from my Summerhill Tip Office for your road to Damascus trip. I really expected you to lead the charge against the Left and Soppy media's use of the "Asylum Seeker" tag for Queue-jumping illegal immigrants, especially in the light of our government's recognition of Indonesia as a stable and peaceful ally. There are more than 1.5 million people on the queue in front of these people and nobody seems to give a toss about this. Imagine how p*ssed you'd be if you had been waiting patiently in line and some turkey "queue jumped" and took your spot! .... OK you've sucked me in. One scalp, before you tell us how you really feel!

Posted by Tin lizzie, 29/04/2009 9:05:38 AM

I reckon we're all a bit regretful of how some genuine refugees have been made unwelcome. It's human nature to fear the unknown, so we do tend to reject these people that [seem to] appear suddenly from troubled parts. Surely our systems are sophisticated enough to screen the real refugees from the 'economic and lifestyle' refugees? We have enough born and bred Aussies that would probably be happy to flee the economic and lifestyle hardship they experience right here, so we don't need more economic refugees, thanks very much [unless their circumstances genuinely constitute hardship]. We are going to have to get used to opening the doors more enthusiastically, though : the Bureau of Statistics figures on "dependency ratios" are a bit alarming. Dependency ratio is the number of working people compared to the number on social benefits (aged pension / unemployment / etc etc etc). We're currently at LESS THAN 5 workers to each recipient of benefits, and falling like a dart. In a few years, it will be 3 workers supporting 1 benefit recipient. 3 ways to fix this : (1) ~ have more babies (current trend is the opposite). (2) ~ cut social security (our pollies will never do that!), or (3) ~ increase migration. Obviously, increased migration is a key strategy. We do, however, need to make sure we have some influence over who gets in : productive working people, please!

Posted by Abundance, 29/04/2009 9:29:26 AM

1) The argument that they're not real refugees because they pass through other countries (such as Indonesia, Iran, Pakistan etc) is ridiculous since many people consider those countries to have oppressive regimes. 2) We are hardly being swamped by boat people. A few hundred is hardly a concern. Our biggest immigration problem are people coming here legally and then overstaying their visas. 3) The number of boat people being intercepted, processed and eventually given refugee status was roughly the same under Howard's Pacific soultion and the previous "soft option" it replaced. And, given time, will most likely be the same under the new "Soft" Rudd option. 4) Am I the only one who wonders about the Opposition's claim that the people smugglers - those vile people who once they have their money, cram these would be refugees, like sardines, into rickety vessels on the verge of sinking and don't care if they die - really watch Australia's immigration laws closely? I mean, if they don't care if these people die then surely they wouldn't care if they got boarded and turn back, would they?

Posted by Renegade79, 29/04/2009 10:01:48 AM

I don't have a problem with Australia acepting refugees, I think we have a responsibility to accept a CERTAIN NUMBER of refugees. I DO have a problem with 'boat people' - if you you take the stance that anyone who can get to Australian soil on a boat automatically has the right to claim asylum, aren't we just encouraging more boat people to arrive!?! The other thing is, if people leave their own country to excape persecution/abuse/torture, then surely their primary concern is getting to a safe country. I find it amusing that immigrants from China and the Middle East pass through 5-6 safe countries before arriving in Asustralia - surely those other safe countries also have a responsibility to take refugees!?

Posted by King Idiot, 29/04/2009 10:17:01 AM

I'm more concerned with the people who come here legally on visas and then disappear into the ether. Those numbers are far higher than the poor sods who risk their lives on these boats. These are desparate people who have lived in horrible conditions and just want a chance at a good life -to work hard and be happy. I was lucky enough to be born into a loving middle class family in a country that has given me every opportunity to do whatever I want. Yes I do believe our social security system is sucking us dry..... this is one reason why we can't afford free tertiary education. And who are most of the people on social security??? It isn't immigrants.... tends to be multi generational Aussie born and bred. We need to learn to have compassion for people born into despair and offer them some hope.

Posted by leahkf, 29/04/2009 10:54:16 AM

If somebody, anybody is willing to cross shark infested waters in a leaky boat for a chance of a better life in the best country, a freedom we take for granted, let them in.I am a proud lucky aussie who believes asylum seekers should not be held like caged animals.Where is the compassion for these people? Surely their dangerous journey in the hope of a better life, is just as worthy as being born here.

Posted by Chefdude, 29/04/2009 11:56:35 AM

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next >