How to stop the boats
Greg Clancy.The sole decision in the Federal Government’s treatment of unauthorised boat arrivals has been not to make a decision. The inaction of both the Rudd and Gillard governments in the boat arrival problem has been accompanied by media coverage which may only be described as naïve or supportive of the Federal Government’s neglect.
The effect of this combination of weak government and compliant media is to leave the population largely ignorant not only on how the people smuggling industry operates, but also to provide a veil of doubt as to what options the government has to deal with the problem.
To begin to understand Australia’s position in dealing with the problem, three questions need to be examined:
Who are the people making the voyage to Australia?
What is working to inhibit reasonable action to halt the people smuggling operations?
What is a solution to the problem that is credible, long-sighted and in Australia’s interests?
However there is something even more fundamental to ask:
Is there really a problem with the boats?
Listening to numerous “expert” commentaries, one may regularly hear that the boats do not provide a problem at all.
“Oh, it’s only four or five thousand a year, nothing to worry about” has been a theme commentary for several years. I view this response as a deliberate avoidance of the facts. Of course there is a problem, and these numbers will grow out of proportion when families are gradually brought to Australia to join the boat arrivals, as per the promises of the people smugglers.
The very public message being dispatched throughout Asia by the Federal Government is simple: get on a boat, arrive in Australia, call yourself a refugee, have a good story and you are in. This is dangerous and has established an unworkable precedent.
The “numbers” argument fails again when the question is asked: “Five thousand this year, what if 10,000 appear next year? What if 20,000 arrive? These are not unrealistic estimates.
The Government’s avoidance of a decision on the boat arrivals has also created a vacuum of responsibility in the event of civil disturbances in our region. Given the present situation, any suggestion of human rights abuse could trigger the option of heading to Australia, one way or another, and creating a problem or, rather, a series of problems that the Government will be unprepared for and society unable to absorb.
There is a problem with the boats, and it is extremely serious. The media generally has chosen to ignore it. The problem is not limited to characters in Southeast Asia arranging boatloads of people destined for Australia. There is an industry of thousands, many operating from within Australia, functioning to exploit those who can pay, and to use these same people for criminal purposes. People smuggling and crime within Australia bear a high correlation, but this will not be officially recognised.
Who are the arrivals?
A doctrine in law is that all people are innocent until proven guilty. A similar popular presumption is applied to boat arrivals. All claimants to refugee status are deemed, but not classified, as refugees until proven otherwise. The reality is quite different.
What can be confidently stated is that the large majority of those arriving by boat in Australia and claiming refugee status are economic migrants – with a good story. The “story” is refined by the people smuggler to ensure immigration officials are presented with enough difficulty to be unable to prove it to be incorrect. Many of those claiming to be refugees have, in all likelihood, experienced a tough time, but this is not the basis of a refugee claim. The fact that the big majority of economic migrants are determined to be refugees demonstrates how fragile the legal barriers are against the criminal gangs who make a mockery of Australia’s sovereignty and national security.
The politics of self-interest
Why is the Federal Government unable to stop the boats?
This is a reasonable question for which there is no apparent, let alone comprehendable, answer. The government talks of Australia’s “international obligations” and little else is mentioned. Let us be very clear on this point. Neither Australia nor any other country is obliged to accept illegal arrivals into the community. Should a claim for refugee status be lodged on arrival, this should be heard, but it may be considered only in conjunction with the principle that all countries have the right to have secure borders.
What is the Federal Government frightened of that permits the problem to continue in the absence of sensible and balanced discussion?
The Rudd Government displayed little serious interest in stopping the boats. Remember the humiliating experience of our prime minister pleading for assistance in resolving the Oceanic Viking affair?
What of Julia Gillard? Why is the Gillard Government also seemingly incapable of making a decision on the boat arrivals? Why does it maintain the impotence of its predecessor? The answer is: political weakness – more concerned about political considerations than resolving a serious and conflicting national problem.
Now the unhealthy relationship between people smuggling and the policy of multiculturalism becomes clear. A tough decision on boat arrivals will not enure the prime minister to multicultural politics.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel and British Prime Minister David Cameron have both recently conceded that multiculturalism in their nations has failed. It has been a dismal failure in Australia, however Julia Gillard now has plans to promote the policy.
Significantly, there is the attitude of our near neighbours. Southeast Asian political commentators quietly express disbelief at the apparent ineptitude of the Federal Government. Asian cultural values embrace a simple view of the boat arrival problem. If the Australians are so stupid as to allow this type of activity to continue, they deserve what they get. If Australia wishes to acquire and hold a genuine respect from our trading partners to the north, we should demonstrate policies of fairness but also have a line in the sand. Currently, no such line exists in the illegal boat arrivals and all Australians are paying a price – one way or another.
How to stop the boats
With each boat arrival, Australia’s security and sovereignty considerations take another step backwards. However, stopping the boats is not a simple matter. Returning boats and their passengers would raise a variety of complications and, realistically, would be unworkable. The answer is to remove from the entire people smuggling equation the basic motivation – i.e. to obtain refugee status and gain permanent entry to Australia, to be followed by family members later. This is the main objective and by removing the motivation the flow will stop.
This is how it would work.
The Federal Government announces in the Parliament that any unauthorised boat arrival, commencing that day, will be treated precisely as others have in the past – with two exceptions. Should passengers claim refugee status, this process will be undertaken, not by Australian immigration officials, but by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). In the event of a successful claim, the country of destination for that refugee will be determined by consultation between Australian and UNHCR officials – but it will not be Australia. The cost of removing both successful and unsuccessful refugee claimants will be supported by the Australian government.
Where possible, the UNHCR is avoided by asylum seekers. The likelihood of a successful refugee claim is considerably higher in Australia than one examined by UNHCR. This alone will be a strong incentive not to pay a large sum of money and to undertake a risky journey. Knowing that residency in Australia will not be achieved in this manner will be the decisive factor in stopping the boats. The incentive disappears and Australia re-asserts a measure of international credibility.
The overseas refugee industry involved in boat movements to Australia will collapse. Political correctness will ensure that a significant slice of the Australian media will oppose the decision or remain silent. Several leaders of minority groups can be expected to raise strong objections. The Greens, predictably, will scream the loudest.
Greg Clancy is the author of The People Smugglers and The Conspiracies of Multiculturalism.
What Marylin and the like seem blissfully ignorant about are the folllowing facts: A right to claim asylum does not include the implied right to be granted asylum.
And to be granted asylum does not imply the right to be granted permanent residency in the country of your choice. It simply means protection from being subjected to inhumane treatment in your home country. Full stop.
To fly in on a perfectly legal tourist visa and then, while you erstwhile visa is still valid to claim asylum is the correct and acceptable way. It is cheaper and less risky than feeding the illegal people smuggler triades. Only problem is you are not advised to toss out your passpoort and other paperwork to substantiate your refugee claim. And this is where the “doing the right thing” becomes – shall we say – inconvenient for “refugees” with a spot or two on their CV.
I can understand the protagonists of the refugee industry have an interest in protecting their souces of income and moral self-gratification. But there is a point when we need to consider there are many other worthy recipients of public funding; be this in underfunded aged care, non-existing facilities for the younger and young adults in need of high-care facilities, homeless youth and families being sent over the financial cliff by out-of-control living expenses.
There are only so many wellfare cheats and moralising, self-serving professional do-gooders any society can sustain. Time to get real.
I’m more inclined to believe the Catholic vote has more to do with it than given credit for.
With spokesperson’s from the Bishops Conference and the pulpit as a platform and Human Right advocates of the same persuasion it’s a pretty powerful combination.
Some where I recall reading the Papal preference are for catholics countries as well.
Why havn’t the people of Australia (or any other Western nation)ever been asked what they want regarding asylum seekers,islam,multiculturism and our degenerating way of life? Do our ‘leaders’ remember us,the voters and taxpayers? I want the right to say no….and so do 80% of Australians. We can’t babysit the world. To much of our taxes are wasted on these people,money that should be for us. I want whats best for future generations of Australians.If that makes me racist……then I guess I’m racist. Earth to Julia-the Australian government is there to serve…….the australian people.
Sorry John, Julia is not listening. There is a significant danger here. Go back six months and find out what the world’s political scientists were predicting for north Africa – more of the same. Now look at how wrong they were. There are limits on everything, including how governments treat the people they are obliged to respect.
As for open discussions on the subjects you mentioned, forget it. Multiculturalism, for example, was put together in Australia by a handful of public servants and [a Labor] Immigration minister. Do we really expect Julia Gillard to do what the German Chancellor did and concede that multiculturalism has failed in her country? Don’t hold your breath.
“Southeast Asian political commentators quietly express disbelief at the apparent ineptitude of the Federal Government.”
This is exactly what Asia thinks of us. They think the white man has lost his mind. And they are right. Until we get our own Anglocentric political party, border security and immigration will continue to run out of control. Without identity politics, open-border politics fills the vacuum.
Ok so here we are again, now I for one am against the arrivals of boat people, asylum seekers, or refugees. Call me what you want I dont care what anyones personal opinion of me is. I do however as a tax payer have the right to state my opinion because at the end of the day its not the “Governments” money that pays for them its the taxpayers. People like me who work 40+ hours a week to support my family and pay my mortgage. I really dont care about anyone else unless its my family or friends so I dont believe I should have to pay for something I dont want.
I do however suggest this, how about everyone who is supportive of these arrivals, start to pay for it. I mean everyone who wants the taxpayers to pay for these people. why dont you people forfeit 20-30% of you paycheck and set it aside in a “pay for boat people fund” I am sure there will be loads of people who will be willing to forfeit a substantial sum of their paycheck because its for a “good cause” I dont believe its fair to pay for something that you dont want, or dont need for that matter. Most people who support taxpayers putting these people up in resort style hotels wound not pony up the cash for it.
How about this scenario. The child says “Mom Dad are we going to California this year to finally see mickey mouse at Disney Land?” Parents reply: “No sweet heart we decided to donate all that vacation money set aside to help out the asylum seekers”
Greg.
i have both books.
very interesting information.
certain government departments treat us like mushrooms.
they keep us in the dark and feed us bull dust.
So true Steven. Consider how Australia is dividing, acknowledge the social problems screaming out for people to be brought together for sensible discussion. Look at the government’s response – silence.
How some people can’t recognize an economic refugee is beyond me.
The federal government certainly has lost control of our borders, via Labor’s misplaced compassion. I can’t wait to vote the incompetent bleeding hearts out.
Craig,
Labour has no real intentions of doing anything about the boat people. To them its nothing but a way to beef up their voting base. Think about it you come to Australia, Labour Government gives you everything “via taxpayer money” you will not be expected to contribute to society as you will defiantly be eligible to receive centerlink payments forever. Eventually you gain Citizenship who are you going to vote for? your kids when they get old enough? I dont think it will be for any political party who is serious about securing the borders.
Craig, you can see the problems, now project ahead. Put a few basic human factors together. It’s frightening, but I still believe its not too late.
I’m alarmed at the increasing number of a asylum seekrs arriving by boat. I agree that it is questionable about how many of them are bona fide asylum seekers.
I’ve heard statistics that there are 20 million displaced people in the world. So what is going to happen to these people, are they all going to be absorbed by the West?
Articles like this are important, we need an alternative view point. I’ve purchased the book Multicultural Conspiracies; I may not agree with it once I read it, but I’m just glad to have another viewpoint out there.
I’ve heard statistics that there are 20 million displaced people in the world. So what is going to happen to these people, are they all going to be absorbed by the West?
Maybe these people should unite and solve their problems. Why is it my duty to pay for them. As a tax payer I pay for them its not governments money its taxpayers. Yes their countries of origin are bad, some would say beyond help. I however believe it was the people who stuffed up their countries and if they want it fixed, if they want a better life unite and do something about it. The West is not a dumping ground for the rest of the worlds problems.
Mel, you have an open mind about this, and that’s refreshing. If you agree with the book, fine. If you disagree, you sound like the type who would carry it further. Make contact, I am always pleased to discuss what I have written.
Greg
How do we make contact? I couldn’t find an email address for you on the site.
greg.clancy.2@bigpond.com.au
Greg Clancy, you have dreamed up a false reality about refugees and the ways and means they try to get to Australia. Consider the solid fact that most refugees arriving by boat (a life-threatening journey that no “economic migrant” would have to consider) are from Afghanistan, Iraq, Sudan, Sri Lanka. Countries that are irrefutably going through significant upheaval, violence and displacement. You think they haven’t a right to try to escape this horror?
The idea that refugees simply make up a “good story refined by the people smugglers” is totally ignorant and fabricated. Who did you hear this from? …
And as for the idea that people “avoid the UNHCR” … Refugees are desperate for the help of international agencies, have you looked into how difficult it is to get a refugee visa in Afghanistan? No obviously you haven’t. The refugee agency isn’t even in Kabul! It’s in Pakistan because the situation in Afghanistan is too dangerous.
“The refugee industry” – that’s more cynical than the people smuggling trade itself.
For goodness sake they are people! Human beings. If you thought about that a little harder you would be ashamed of how un-human, incorrect and cynical this piece of opinion is.
Jay, please do not suggest that I am not aware, nor conscious of the groups you mention. I find that offensive. It is clear you are completely ignorant of the facts in the people smuggling business.
Your “good story” reference demonstrates how little you know. Even the ABC talked about it in a Four Corners program last year. Look it up, but something tells me you won’t bother.
Greg Clancy
“You think they haven’t a right to try to escape this horror?”
They should not run from their problems, they should confront them and solve them. When they come here they bring with them their problems that will one day eventually become our problems.
Why have we become so xenophobic of late? We used to scour the world to bring in masses of migrants. The first illegal immigrants were Captain Cook and his crew. What right did the British have to invade Australia about 240 years ago.
Gregory, I understand your thinking, but you are about 200 years late. The world was very different back then and we cannot apply 21st century morals to 18th century behaviour. This is part of our problem – too many people living outside the real world.
And it is not generally the UNHCR that assesses refugee claims, it is signatory nations.
It is not people smuggling, we have not sent one person to jail for people smuggling.
People do not avoid the UNHCR, most don’t know anything about it but just in case you would like facts – we cannot treat people differently because they come the last part of their journey by sea.
Now stop whinging.
Marilyn, I am not whinging, I am calmy stating facts that do not fit well with with people who choose not to ask the crucial questions. This is not a social problem with black and white outcomes. There is a lot involved here and a great deal of it is not very nice.
Greg Clancy
Crap, you are writing complete and utter crap.
There is nothing remotely complicated except by moron governments … who don’t bother to learn the law.
Everyone has the right to seek asylum from persecution in other countries without being punished for how they arrive or not having papers.
That is all there is.
May I suggest you pony up some cash and pay for them, because I for one dont!
Please Marilyn, don’t be so tough on me. The UN refugee convention designed to resolve refugee issues from World War II continues to this day attempting to provide an effective conduit to a totally different range of problems. You talk about the law, but it is not effective because the crooks are making the decisions, and not governments. Look around Marilyn, take in the big picture. It is not pretty.
Well you are about as ignorant and wrong as you can be.
The law states that anyone can arrive and claim asylum, it is not the boat people who are the liars it is those who fly.
As there is no legal way to stop any person travelling to any country … .
Sorry Marilyn, I have spent 15 years on this, and I have the contacts. You picked the wrong guy to call ignorant and wrong.
Greg Clancy
15 years you reckon? And you still don’t know the law?
The refugee convention is part of domestic law, full stop.
And it is not legal to stop anyone coming here and it never has been.
So do tell us what you have put 15 years into, it certainly is not the law.
Marilyn, my mistake, its 16 years, not 15. How time flies. Do you really believe that the criminal gangs and corrupt officials operating the people smuggling rackets have any interest in your references to the law? This is real world stuff Marilyn and its a long way from UN conferences and cups of tea.
Agree with this article. I’ve been waiting for the minority groups in favour of illegal immigration to state how many they would allow into the country. While they refuse to answer this, I’m keen to hear solutions to this worsening problem.
Phew, thanks Christine. On one side we have vague notions of politically correct claims to humanity and on the other simple facts on international crime and corruption, which, by the way have also crossed the border. Let’s not talk about that, it will be upsetting to many.
Greg Clancy
Yes Christine, the numbers. You don’t hear the numbers because when a figure is mentioned the argument falls apart.
This is a very poorly informed piece, full of speculation, guesswork and straw-man tactics. Your ’solution’, to pre-determine that Australia will be taking no refugees or assylum seekers at all even if they are assessed to be a genuine is not only inhumane, it is also illegal. I hope your books are better researched than this lousy article!
Hey Mike, heard of the three monkeys? You know, see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil – you know what I mean. It is really sad when I receive responses like this. But Mike you are not alone. When an unpalatable problem stares at us, it is often just easier to stick our three monkeys hat on and walk the other way.
Greg Clancy
Greg,I agree with you totally.We need more people like yourself to put the truth out there.
Thanks John, but “putting the truth out there” is remarkedly difficult in our supposed democracy. The incentive is to discover the real level of effort required to penetrate the silence barrier.