For those that are new to this blog, this is the second time I’ve posted this article. The first time I kept it focused purely on the Australian situation, because at the time (way back in 2014), Australia was in a pretty unique position when it came to refugees: a completely ruthless policy of detainment and deterrence, combined with an amazing small number of refugees actually coming here.
Overseas readers back then likely were shocked by this: a deterrence policy for refugees? Illegal immigration is one thing, but refugees? How could any country have such a problem with people who, by definition, are desperate and fleeing persecution? And yet that’s exactly what Australia was doing.
Ever since the first infestation of Pauline Hanson this country suffered, governments from both sides of Australian politics have found asylum seekers arriving by boat (or ‘illegal immigrants’ or ‘boat people’ as they prefer to describe them) a useful way of winning votes. Not only do they get to appeal to the disturbingly large number of xenophobes in Australia, they also get to do so under the highly popular banners of ‘tough on crime’ and ‘national defence’:
“We will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come.”
– Prime Minister John Howard, 2001.
And so we’ve had solution after solution implemented in an effort to control the threat that aquatic refugees apparently pose our fair nation.
First we detained them and put them through rigorous screening processes to make sure they were, indeed, legitimate refugees.
Then we put them into detention camps (without charge or trial) to see if we could deter more people from coming – yeah that’s right, we attempted to put off refugees by making conditions too terrible for them to think it was worth it.
Then we implemented offshore processing, preventing refugees from even claiming asylum since they never actually touched Australian soil.
And most recently, we’ve taken the gloves off and simply declared that anyone arriving by boat will never be settled in Australia – even if their claims for asylum are found to be legitimate. When I first posted on this subject, the Australian government at the time had just handed over a boatload of Tamil refugees to the government they are seeking protection from. This is literally the equivalent of sending a boatload of Jews back to the Nazis, to discourage more Jews from fleeing here.
Since then the Syrian War has reached its horrifying crescendo and the European Migrant Crisis has occurred, with over one million people fleeing to Europe, predominantly from Syria (46.7%), Afghanistan (28.9%) and minor numbers from Iraq and northern African nations. Despite the misnaming of the crisis, nearly all of these people claim refugee status, which entitles them to legal protection in most European nations – this has placed a massive burden on these host nations and propelled the issue of refugee management into international attention. Needless to say, several nations have cast their gaze towards Australia’s iron-fisted policies with interest.
The timing is ironic given that only a few months ago reports were released of widespread and horrific physical, psychological and sexual abuse occurring in the camps Australia had established to detain asylum seekers. Yet this has not stopped either party supporting such practices, with our current Prime Minister going so far as to promote the Australia model to other nations as a way to secure their borders and create “order out of chaos”.
In other words, it has never been more important than it is right now to decide whether seeking asylum is ethical or not, and whether the Australian policy of detainment and deterrence is justifiable. On the one hand we have evidence that the policy causes enormous suffering and injustice to those seeking salvation from persecution. And on the other we have the need for a nation to control its borders, maintain its safety, and prevent financial losses.
Let’s start with the facts.
Why do we have such a problem with refugees in Australia that we find it necessary to take such hard-line action? Is it because we get so many of them?
Nope, we get substantially less than most other developed nations, and significantly less than many undeveloped ones:
Pre-European Refugee Crisis figures
Is it because the claims for asylum are fraudulent? People just trying to get into Australia for our standard of living, rather than a genuine fear for their safety?
Nope, over 95% of all boat arrivals are found to be legitimate asylum seekers – by a government that would seize on any opportunity to refuse them incidentally.
There is always the suggestion that terrorists might be sneaking in as refugees, but interestingly this has not been the case – to date there have been precisely zero incidents of refugees committing, or even being caught planning, terrorist activities, with nearly all attackers being found to be existing citizens of the nations they attack. In Australia in particular the fear of terrorism is unfounded, given no successful terrorist attack has ever been committed since 2001 nor any refugee been even vaguely implicated in such activities. And seriously, can you think of a worse way for a terrorist to try and sneak into Australia than one that requires thorough background checks on literally everyone?
There have certainly been conflicts of culture and social norms with the European Crisis, with as many as 69,000 crimes allegedly linked to refugees. Such crimes may be explicable due to culture and social differences, and it’s also important to note that alleged crimes are not the same as convictions, such figures are absolutely not excusable and host nations are right to be concerned. However while such crime is a clear case for expanded policing, do they present sufficient risk that the EU should consider ceasing taking refugees? Well first of all it’s worth noting that these crimes appear to have had very little impact on EU crime statistics as a whole. And secondly, deciding to cut off over 1 million refugees based on crimes committed by, at absolute maximum, 69,000 individuals would be punishing 93.1% of them for the actions of 6.9%. Not exactly fair, nor the overwhelming threat that many would make it out to be.
So if none of these practical issues are a problem, then why are we so opposed to asylum seekers? Well there are a few reasons worth considering:
The most common of these is they arrive illegally – turning up on the border rather than going through the legal proper process. The comparison to straight-up illegal immigration is inevitable, and a nation does have the right to control who does and does not cross its borders. It’s basically what defines it as a nation.
But this argument ignores (ignorantly or wilfully) the fact that Australia is a signatory of the UN Refugee Convention. Under this convention, participation in which is protected by our High Court until we un-sign it, seeking asylum in Australia is absolutely, definitely legal. In fact so legal is seeking asylum in Australia that the Australia government deliberately excluded several outlaying areas from our ‘migration zone’ to prevent arrivals claiming these legal rights before they could be detained.
Charity begins at home
Then you have the numerous people that argue that we should be looking after Australians first – charity begins at home. Why are we spending so much money bringing in refugees, housing them, processing them and allowing them into Australia when we still have citizens who need help?
But helping asylum seekers and domestic charity are not things we need to choose between. Why not both? In fact, you’d think that people in favour of helping the less fortunate in Australia would also be enthusiastic about helping asylum seekers too – oddly this is often not the case.
Naturally you can argue that we don’t have enough money to help Australians and foreigners, but given Australia is one of the richest nations in the world, the argument sounds a tad hollow. Not to mention that the current costs of refugees are largely due to the mandatory detention policy itself – recently found to be $10 billion over a three year period. Per person that equates to $400,000 every year to detain them offshore, compared to $12,000 per year to be processed in the community. Feel free to check my maths, but this seems to indicate to me that Australia’s current policy is wasting $9.7 billion dollars that could otherwise be spend on domestic causes.
This argument is somewhat more persuasive for the Europen Crisis given the number of people involved. 1 million refugees into Europe is a significantly larger burden than what Australia is facing, yet the costs involved with the Australian solution speak for themselves; processing and settling refugees within the community may be expensive, but it’s significantly cheaper than detention.
Queue jumpers and people smugglers
A far more persuasive argument than either cost or safety is the argument that people who arrive by boat are jumping the queue – paying huge volumes of money to people smugglers to get to Australia faster, at the expense of other refugees that can’t afford the trip. Why should these people be given preference just because they’re rich? And if they’re rich enough to buy the trip (often costing several thousand Australian dollars) then are they really refugees at all? Why don’t they just stop and settle in one of the countries they pass through to get to Australia?
On the face of it this is a pretty good point. $10,000 goes a long way in Malaysia or Indonesia – why not stop there? Doesn’t the fact these people continue on to Australia demonstrate they’re really after our quality of life, rather than safety?
This is almost certainly true, but also misses the fact that most of the nations refugees pass though before getting to Australia, such as Malaysia and Indonesia, (or Turkey and Libya for the European Crisis) are not signatories to the Refugee Convention. This means you can’t claim asylum there, meaning you’re effectively a criminal until you leave. And while $10G might last you a while, you’re going to go through it pretty fast when you can’t find work. So you sit in a slum until the authorities burn it down, die of dysentery, or can escape somewhere else.
But so what? Those are exactly the same terrible circumstances that the refugees that couldn’t afford the trip have to put up with. Why should some feel entitled to better treatment just because they have cash? Surely Australia and European nations should focus on taking more refugees directly from trouble-spots, not those who make it to our doorstep.
But hang on a sec – what’s exactly wrong with those with the means trying to get to safety faster? If a person is found to be a legitimate refugee (again, by a government that would really prefer not to), then what does it matter who they are, how much money they have or how they got here? Surely we’re not discriminating against the rich just for being rich? That’d be class warfare…
In fact, if you want to be brutally pragmatic about it all, if a legitimate refugee manages to get themselves all the way to Australia from Afghanistan or Syria to Australia, doesn’t that show initiative? More so than the people still back in the camps?
But even if you’re unconvinced by all this and still think that asylum seekers shouldn’t be allowed in Australia, and that our government has the right idea, there is still the issue of the planes.
You see, all the deterants and processing efforts I described above – the ones that can detain people without trial for several hundred days in some cases – only apply to boat arrivals. And when more than three times the number of asylum seekers arrive by plane and are not detained on arrival, you have to ask yourself what the flying fuck is going on here.
The flying fuckiness only intensifies when you consider that only 70% of asylum seekers arriving by plane are found legitimate (compared to 95% of boat arrivals), that these people are also clearly richer given they could afford a plane flight, and are also apparently safe enough to process free in the community, without even a tracking bracelet to keep tabs on them.
This one, simple fact blows this entire debate clear out the water and turns it from a plausible issue of national security/border sovereignty into a total farce. A farce that causes massive human suffering FOR ABSOLUTELY NO FUCKING REASON.
Oh wait, there is one reason:
Deeply concerned for your safety at sea
See in recent years it’s turned out that stopping the boats wasn’t about xenophobia, queue jumpers, protecting our borders or any of that – it was about the safety of the refugees! One of their boats sank you see, wrecked on rocks off Christmas Island with many of the passengers drowning tragically.
And suddenly the narrative changed. Suddenly the government was detaining, deterring and deporting asylum seekers for their own good. They can’t escape persecution here you see, because it’s unsafe! So if they do make it here safely, we should send them to other developing nations (that haven’t signed the Refugee Convention), or even hand them back to the government they were escaping, because you see, that’s safer for them.
I have only one response to this putrid, ignorant, backwards, apologist line of argument:
But, even standing here among the shattered husks of the anti-asylum arguments, this topic is not yet done. It’s all very well to point out the flaws in an opinion, but that does not necessarily justify your own. So the question must be asked: is seeking asylum ethically justified?
From a deontological perspective, most definitely – both the law and the international precedent are quite clear that allowing people to seek asylum is the Right Thing To Do. But deontological approaches are too simplistic for my taste. Better to weigh the costs, benefits and alternatives of the topic through utilitarianism.
So, do the benefits of the Refugee Convention outweigh the costs? For the moment the answer is quite clearly yes; the unjust suffering this process prevents is massive, preventing those who are persecuted from being even further persecuted, all at relatively little cost to a nation.
Certainly if the number of refugees increased too far the burden on the host nation could threaten the wellbeing of their citizens – this is a serious problem and not lightly dismissed. But Australia is currently so far from this it simply isn’t a factor.
Are there superior alternatives to the Refugee Convention? The may well be. Preventing conflict in the first place, refusing to fund or arm combatants, and, you know, not destabilising foreign nations for profit all come to mind.
But you know what isn’t a superior alternative? What Australia is doing right now. It hurts the vulnerable and puts them into danger. It costs more. And it’s utterly hypocritical given how totally fine we are with asylum seekers arriving by plane.
Worst of all it turns us into bastards. Far, far too many people not only accept the injustices our government is foisting on the world’s least fortunate, but eagerly embrace it in the name of safety, security and quelling their fears about Muslims, terrorism or whatever else is plaguing their minds at the time. And far too many people use this popularity as a justification for the brutality.
This is the sort of policy that nations look back on in shame. This is the sort of blind, incredible idiocy that makes future generations shake their heads in disbelief, and wonder how human beings could ever have been so cruel, so ignorant, so fucking stupid.
One day this blight on Australian history will end. But it will never be forgotten. And it will most definitely never be forgiven.