Rudd Assylum Seeker Policy

[Kuroyuki]

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/we-border-on-paranoia/story-e6frfhqf-1225791470717
This is a news article by the herald sun a few years ago on asylum seekers. Not sure if its entirely relevant to the debate but it does address the issue quite well in my opinion.

[Fyrefly]

I don't really like playing into debates on AN, but this popped up in my FB newsfeed and I'm guessing there might be people here interested in signing it:

https://secure.avaaz.org/en/seeking_asylum_is_a_human_right_locb/?copy

[Professor Polonsky]

You obviously have a very narrow scope of equality. Equality does not have to refer to living standards: it can refer to intangible things such as dignity, due process (ie. not detained arbitarily) and much more. Your red herring on "equality means we have to give all our money away" actually made me laugh.

When I used the International Covenant on Civil and Political Right as an example, I did so because you said Australia should not treat refugees as citizens. I used the treaty as an example because it is inarguable that specific treaty is one of the most important rights document. As Australia is a signatory to it, it should respect the content of that treaty: which demands equality (Not merelywealth, like you stated): but instead, important processes such as dignity, due process etc., should be afforded to all citizens, not just Australians, because that is what the treaty actually stipulates.

I did mention in my previous post that there are basic rights that should be afforded to persons regardless of their nationality. (I am not using "everyone" because I believe that every right has its limitations, and there is always a case in which it should not apply.) Jurisprudence on rights is usually a balancing acts between governmental interests and individual interests. See, for example, Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz.

Oh and: thank you for addressing all the examples that I used. I merely used them as examples to show how your point that Australia's only concern should be of its legal citizens was nonsense : perhaps you misunderstood my point

Your examples actually made exactly my point. All those actions were taken in what the citizenry of Australia perceived to be in its best interests and the correct action, or at least in its elected representatives' views. The Commonwealth acted to carry out its citizens' wills. That's the idea of sovereignty.

And I never said refugee status should be granted to all. You seem to have that perception. Yes - I absolutely agree with you that "Refugee status needs to be reserved to the cases of very serious and systematic abuses of human rights": what is that to say that this is not so with the current situation? Yes - there may be some so called "economic refugees" (people who only want a better life) but Australia's current intake is mostly genuine refugees, as per a threshold set by the Department of Immigration & Citizenship (~90% arrivals are granted refugee status). My advice to you is: look at the bigger picture, by providing asylum to X amount of genuine refugees (which inevitably will contain 'economic refugees'), the greater good is served. We have a moral duty to do so.

I'm surprised at your comment that economic refugees are "people who only want a better life". I'd imagine that all refugees, genuine or not, are in search of a better life.

The question is in what cases an obligation lies to accord them a better life, and shelter them from whatever they are escaping from. I don't view political violence, a high incidence rate of rape or war as sufficient for refugee status. You're free to disagree with me, but wherever you set your standards, they need to be clear.

[Drunk]

I don't view political violence, a high incidence rate of rape or war as sufficient for refugee status.

what do you think is sufficient then?

[vox nihili]

what do you think is sufficient then?

Presumably refugee needs to be written on the package. He seems to think they're an item for trade.

[thushan]

Going to play Devil's Advocate here:

We need to differentiate between persecution and poverty. Refugees are considered so if they are in danger of persecution, not poverty. So, Australia's only obligation for asylum seekers are to make sure they are safe from persecution. Australia has no obligation to account for any states of poverty. So, sending asylum seekers to PNG to be processed and settlement there fulfils this obligation. They are not in their own country, they are safe from the persecution that they were fleeing. Yes, the conditions in PNG may not be entirely great, but that's a state of poverty, not persecution. Hence, the lower standard of living in PNG is not a reason to allow for settling of refugees in Australia. However, this assumes that asylum seekers are afforded at least basic (absolute basic) living conditions and are not persecuted there while they are being processed.

The next question is - what is stopping us from settling them in Australia should they be found to be refugees? A few things need to be considered. Can Australia's budget account for them? Is there a system that is seriously short of funds that the money used to provide welfare for the refugees could instead help fund - like the health care system? In short, they are a burden on the country (shit this sounds horrible ) - it is not their fault, but that's the hard truth. But how much of a burden are they? One would have to consider exactly how much money is being spent on refugees.

Why Australia over PNG? Assuming the refugees are treated humanely in PNG, in both Australia and PNG they would be free from persecution, and the aim of the refugee program has been fulfilled. The difference is that Australia is a developed country with a high standard of living. If this is the difference, and the refugees are settled in Australia over PNG, then the refugees are effectively economic migrants too. Economic migrants should come to Australia by other means (such as a skilled migration program).

[vox nihili]

Going to play Devil's Advocate here:

We need to differentiate between persecution and poverty. Refugees are considered so if they are in danger of persecution, not poverty. So, Australia's only obligation for asylum seekers are to make sure they are safe from persecution. Australia has no obligation to account for any states of poverty. So, sending asylum seekers to PNG to be processed and settlement there fulfils this obligation. They are not in their own country, they are safe from the persecution that they were fleeing. Yes, the conditions in PNG may not be entirely great, but that's a state of poverty, not persecution. Hence, the lower standard of living in PNG is not a reason to allow for settling of refugees in Australia. However, this assumes that asylum seekers are afforded at least basic (absolute basic) living conditions and are not persecuted there while they are being processed.

The next question is - what is stopping us from settling them in Australia should they be found to be refugees? A few things need to be considered. Can Australia's budget account for them? Is there a system that is seriously short of funds that the money used to provide welfare for the refugees could instead help fund - like the health care system? However, one would then have to consider exactly how much money is being spent on refugees. In short, they are a burden on the country (shit this sounds horrible ) - it is not their fault, but that's the hard truth.

Why Australia over PNG? Assuming the refugees are treated humanely in PNG, in both Australia and PNG they would be free from persecution, and the aim of the refugee program has been fulfilled. The difference is that Australia is a developed country with a high standard of living. If this is the difference, and the refugees are settled in Australia over PNG, then the refugees are effectively economic migrants too. Economic migrants should come to Australia by other means (such as a skilled migration program).

You make some very good points. I'm not as confident as you are about the legality of the PNG solution. As the law stands, we're technically not allowed to turn anyone away who tries to access the country, so it is still illegal, but it does go a little further than the LNP policy in actually giving some sort of solution.

I don't think that refugees are as big a burden on this country than we pretend. As is often the case, we look for "sexy" issues rather than those that actually matter in terms of quantifiable burden. Given the position we are in, we are pretty hopeless in comparison to other nations refugees wise.

To be honest, I do agree with most of what you've said. It's reasoned logic really and fact, so there's not too much arguing to that! It's just some of those facts that we could perhaps change, and the technicalities of the international law I guess.

[Russ]

The next question is - what is stopping us from settling them in Australia should they be found to be refugees? A few things need to be considered. Can Australia's budget account for them? Is there a system that is seriously short of funds that the money used to provide welfare for the refugees could instead help fund - like the health care system? In short, they are a burden on the country (shit this sounds horrible ) - it is not their fault, but that's the hard truth. But how much of a burden are they? One would have to consider exactly how much money is being spent on refugees.

http://rightnow.org.au/topics/asylum-seekers/the-economic-cost-of-our-asylum-seeker-policy/

[Professor Polonsky]

But it is far too superficial for you to conclude, through stating one case,  that the jurisprudence on rights is a balancing act between state and individual. In broad  legal reasoning, the "state" is usually not even considered. When looking at legal reasoning on "rights", the names Jeremy Bentham and John Rawls come to mind in most people's minds. Bentham said that when considering "rights" of individuals, one must take into account individuals' sentience (ability to feel), thereby proposing utilitarianism (greatest good). Are we really considering the sentience of asylum seekers by incarcerating into cells (put bluntly, arbitary detention) in the excuse of deterrence and "processing"? Are we really serving the "greatest good": how are we even negatively affected by asylum seekers on a daily basis? Please don't give me bullsht about the economy, national security, setting a dangerous precedent etc, when the most boat arrivals each month in Australia's history has been at most ~4,000. Think about the number of immigrants overstaying their visa and using all our resources. Think about the criminals who choose to commit a stupid crime and be sent to jail, whilst taxpayers fork out $277 each day to keep them in prison. Seriously. Look at the bigger picture.

On the other hand, Rawls proposed the two principles of justice - most relevant to this "rant" is the veil of ignorance: Rawls postulated that the state/authority should consider what it is like to live in another person's shoe: thereby the "veil of ignorance" (ie. person X, before being born into this world does not know who and where they would end up - whether Africa or Antartica). therefore a logical and neutral person would choose to give equal rights to everyone because that would give them a decent set of opportunities in life (ie. they don't want to gamble with their life). In my opinion, Rawl's veil of ignorance is the single most important theory in rights-jurisprudence because it assumes that individuals like yourself, are only selfish in not granting people equal rights because you are already in a higher position and is selfish enough not to want to give up what you have.

Don't get me wrong: I am not saying everyone needs to be equal (ie. giving away all our wealth as foreign aid), but we should do our very best to increase welfare for these boat people. This does not mean allowing millions of people to come into Australia by boat, like you suggested could happen  - that would be extremely problematic.

While I appreciate your philosophical insight into this discussion, I question its relevance.

Firstly, let's get this out of the way -- rights jurisprudence is, and always have been, about balancing the needs of the state with that of the individual. While my primary experience has been with American Constitutional issues, I can guarantee you that this is the case virtually everywhere. Every single guaranteed by law is subject to limitations if there is a strong enough governmental interest opposing it. Even laws discriminating on the basis of race can be enacted - see strict scrutiny. Before you go on yelling "but this is American and they are AWFUL PEOPLE", I would suggest checking European Court of Human Rights jurisprudence on the matter as well. And as an aside, Equal Protection rights in the US are probably one of the strongest (if not the strongest) in the world.

While your personally characterisation of me as "one of them" is indeed touching, you then go on to contradict yourself. Either we afford those people full equality under the law with Australian citizens (as your globalised version of the veil of ignorance would suggest), or we do not. If we do not, then a line must be drawn somewhere.

But in any case, we agree that some legal rights do apply to those who arrive unauthorised by boat. If you think that I would not afford them their legal rights, feel free to point out where those deficiencies occur.

However, Rudd's PNG solution certainly is not justifiable to stop the issue. A domestic problem can never be solved overseas: considering PNG already has refugees coming into Australia (look up Refugee Review Tribunal statistics), this is certainly a policy set to fail and a desperate government showing its true colours mere months before an election.

A legislature has the legal right to enact a stupid law. While this law strikes me as uncommonly silly, it is not my role as a member of the judiciary to strike it down for being so.

Whether or not the PNG plan is good public policy in order to achieve its stated goals is up to debate. Its stated goals, however, are legitimate ones; and the way in which it carries out those goals is also acceptable.

" I don't view political violence, a high incidence rate of rape or war as sufficient for refugee status"

Seriously, had you said that at the outset, I wouldn't have bothered responding at all. You really have little humanity in you.

I prefer to see myself as a pragmatic idealist, but thank you for your very kind assessment of my character based on one viewpoint on a specific issue which I had put forward.



------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I'd like to pose a question here. What is the purpose of granting asylum? In what cases should it be granted? The main issue here seems to be my inability to differentiate between most "refugees" and a generic person who lives in a developing country.

The three cases which I have stated I see as insufficient in themselves to constitute grounds for refugee status - political violence, high incidence of rape, and war - exist in well over half the countries in the world. Take the issue of high incidence of rape or other public safety issues. If we do see this as sufficient grounds for refugee standing, then virtually all African nationals (including those of the developed South Africa) are legitimate refugees.

If we look at political oppression and/or violence, then the entire population of the People's Republic of China are legitimate refugees.

And if we look at war... I think you know where I am going with this by now.

If anyone can point to me narrower grounds to differentiate between someone who was simply unlucky enough to be born in the wrong country and a legitimate refugee, I would be happy to hear about it.

[Mao]

And I never said refugee status should be granted to all. You seem to have that perception. Yes - I absolutely agree with you that "Refugee status needs to be reserved to the cases of very serious and systematic abuses of human rights": what is that to say that this is not so with the current situation? Yes - there may be some so called "economic refugees" (people who only want a better life) but Australia's current intake is mostly genuine refugees, as per a threshold set by the Department of Immigration & Citizenship (~90% arrivals are granted refugee status). My advice to you is: look at the bigger picture, by providing asylum to X amount of genuine refugees (which inevitably will contain 'economic refugees'), the greater good is served. We have a moral duty to do so.

I don't understand why we have a moral duty to do so.

If we signed a treaty that says we must take in X number of asylum seekers, then so be it, I accept that a country ought to be credible. But you argue from a moral ground. Why must we have a moral burden to do so?

"I don't view political violence, a high incidence rate of rape or war as sufficient for refugee status"

Seriously, had you said that at the outset, I wouldn't have bothered responding at all. You really have little humanity in you. 

Is having humanity (and I assume by extension, compassion and empathy) necessarily virtuous? I am not convinced that humanity is a quality we all ought to strive towards. My interpretation of survival of the fittest is that it requires a selfish and opportunistic mindset. Why must we then celebrate this notion of "humanity"?

[Russ]

Is having humanity (and I assume by extension, compassion and empathy) necessarily virtuous? I am not convinced that humanity is a quality we all ought to strive towards. My interpretation of survival of the fittest is that it requires a selfish and opportunistic mindset. Why must we then celebrate this notion of "humanity"?

Who is John Galt?

[nubs]

Going to play Devil's Advocate here:

We need to differentiate between persecution and poverty. Refugees are considered so if they are in danger of persecution, not poverty. So, Australia's only obligation for asylum seekers are to make sure they are safe from persecution. Australia has no obligation to account for any states of poverty. So, sending asylum seekers to PNG to be processed and settlement there fulfils this obligation. They are not in their own country, they are safe from the persecution that they were fleeing. Yes, the conditions in PNG may not be entirely great, but that's a state of poverty, not persecution.

Homosexuality and Transsexuality are both illegal in PNG. Anyone caught taking part in homosexual activities can face imprisonment of up to 14 years.
There will be some people who will continue to be persecuted in PNG.

are there any other people who were refugees on this board whose country they came from was bad and had the sorts of things that ninwa talked about in her post, that get really upset at asylum seekers who dont go through the proper motions at refugee camps and just get on the boat?
all this asylum seeker stuff makes people in my community/family angry because instead of waiting in the camp for years and doing everything properly the asylum seekers get on a boat.
here in australia people can argue "thats so insensitive" but seriously in countries with lots of people leaving you have the people that go to refugee camps and put up with the shit for ages then get through properly, and then you have the families that choose to get on the boats instead which in some cases can shortcut the process by a year.

The whole process isn't as orderly as people believe it to be, there certainly aren't any 'queues' at refugee camps, and it's not like people are processed on a 'first come first serve' basis.
A lot of the refugees coming by boat have no other way of getting to Australia despite being actual asylum seekers. Contrary to what Bob Carr believes, that 90% of 'boat people' are economic refugees (a claim that has no empirical data to back it up), the UNHCR identifies a significant amount of people coming by boat to be genuine refugees.

A lot of these people, despite the legitimacy of their refugee status, are unable to get to Australia through legitimate means. They're there in Indonesia, where they aren't allowed to work or take up residence. So they obviously can't stay in Indonesia, going back to their own country is not an option, so they decide to spend upwards of a hundred thousand dollars and risk their lives trying to get to Australia by boat. In some cases this is the only option they have. Coming on a plane through legitimate means would almost always be the preferred route, but for some asylum seekers it just isn't possible.

For whatever reason, through little to no fault of their own, there are genuine asylum seekers in Indonesia who are unable to attain visas or come to Australia through proper channels. PM Rudd's new policy is basically making it so that these particular refugees are basically ignored, which is what I think is causing some of the uproar.

(Please note that I am very new to this issue, so I could be way off on this)

[Mao]

Who is John Galt?

I will stop the motor of the world.

[Professor Polonsky]

I'm all for compassion and empathy, but everything has its limitations.

Who is John Galt?

[Professor Polonsky]

The travel advisory to Papua New Guinea recommends exercising a high degree of caution, similar to the one for Brazil, (which hosts a lot of refugees) South Africa, or Israel.

This is a level below Egypt and North Korea's recommendations.


Assuming refugees are going to be resettled in PNG, and that is unethical, the question arises of why you are preferencing the needs of refugees who have settled in PNG over the preferences of PNGers. Why isn't it suitable for asylum seekers to live there (it would certainly be a large improvement), but it is okay for the local population?